بازشناسی چالش های فراروی تجاری سازی پژوهشهای مدیریت آموزشی با ارائه نظریه زمینهای

محورهای موضوعی : آموزش و پرورش

بختیار محمودپور ¹ , حمید رحیمیان ² , عباس عباس پور ³ , علی دلاور ⁴

1 - دانشجوی دکترا مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
2 - استادیار دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
3 - استادیار دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
4 - استاد دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/09/08 تاریخ پذیرش : 1394/09/08 تاریخ انتشار : 1391/07/01

کلید واژه: مدیریت آموزشی, جاریسازی, نظریه زمینهای, ناتوانمندی علمی, مدل پارادایمی,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش با رویکردی تفسیر گرایانه سعی دارد چالشهای فراروی تجاری سازی پژوهشهای مدیریت آموزشی را از دید پژوهشگران این حوزه شناسایی کند. رویکرد پژوهشی بکاربرد شده از نوع روش شناسی کیفی میباشد و روش مردم نگاری برای انجام عملیات پژوهش بکار رفته است. دادههای این پژوهش با استفاده از روش مشاهده مشارکتی و مصاحبه باز و عمیق جمع آوری شده و سپس با استفاده از روش مثلثسازی ترکیب شدهاند. روش نمونهگیری بکار رفته در این پژوهش از نوع روش نمونهگیری کیفی- نظری است و با استفاده از شاخص اشباع نظری تعداد 9 نفر از پژوهشگران حوزه مدیریت آموزشی به عنوان نمونه جامعه پژوهش مورد مصاحبه قرار گرفتند. نگرش و دیدگاه آنها نسبت چالشها و مشکلات فراروی تجاری سازی پژوهشهای مدیریت آموزشی نظریه » مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. برای تجزیه و تحلیل دادهها و نتیجه گیری از یافتههای پژوهش از استفاده شده است و به بیان دیگر، در این پژوهش به جای آزمون نظریه و تایید یا رد آن « زمینهای به ارائه نظریه به صورت محدود پرداخته میشود. یافتههای اصلی این پژوهش با استفاده از نظریه زمینهای شامل موضوعهایی همچون: ناتوانمندی علمی، سیاستگذاری، ناتوان میلی پژوهشگر، بد انگاری تجاریسازی و ماهیت پژوهشها میباشد که میتوان تمامی مقولات را زیر مقوله در این نظریه زمینهای « مقوله هسته » قرار داد. به بیان دیگر، ناتوانمندی علمی « ناتوانمندی علمی » میباشد. با استفاده از این موضوعها مدل پارادایمی ارائه شده است.  

چکیده انگلیسی:

This study with a sociological interpretation approach set out with the aim of taking researchers' viewpoint on the challenges in relation to commercialization of research in Educational Administration. The qualitative research methodology was adopted and the ethnographical approach, specifically, was used in the course of study. Participatory observation and open and deep interviewing techniques together with triangulation techniques were used to gather the data. Using theoretical saturation index, nine researchers in the field of Educational Administration participated in the study. The participants were interviewed and their attitudes and perspectives on challenges in relation to commercialization and its dimensions and various aspects were studied. To analyze data and concluding the research findings, "Grounded theory" was used. In the present study, testing hypotheses was not exercised. Rather, the study came up with the theory on a limited basis. The main findings of this study included categories such as Scientific disability, Policy, Researcher’s uninterestedness, Negligence, Research structure, and categories which can be categorized under the category of "Scientific disability ". In other words Scientific disability in this Grounded theory is the "Core Category". Using these categories, a paradigmatic model was presented.

منابع و مأخذ:

Abbasi, B. Gholipour, A. Delavar, A. ( 2009). A Qualitative Research

about the Effect of Commercialization Approach on the Traditional

Academic Values ,Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2 (2) :63-

76(in Persian).

URLhttp://www.nrisp.ac.ir/jstp/browse.php?a_code=A-10-28-

103&slc_lang=fa&sid=1

Alaghband, A. (2010), Educational Administration Preparations (Sixth

Edition) Ravan Publications (in Persian).

Azizi, N. (2008); examining the challenges and shortcomings of

academic graduation in field of humanities reflection on university

students, Higher Education Quarterly, Year 1 No. 2, pp: 1-29(in Persian).

Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R. and Sobrero, M. (2006); Institutional changes

and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian

universities, patenting activities between 1965 and 2002, Research Policy,

Vol.35, pp: 518- 32.

Bazargan, A. (2009); An introduction to qualitative research and mixed

method: different approache in the Behavioral Sciences, Tehran, Didar

publisher (in Persian). 

 

Biemans, W.G. and Harmsen, H. (1995); Overcoming the development,

journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, vol.1,no.2,pp:7-

25.

Boustany, D., Mohammad Pour, A. (2010) Reconstructional means on

boy sexual orientation than girls (provide an Grounded Theory), Journal of

Strategic Studies weman (Book of weman), Year 11, No. 44, pp:15(in

Persian).

Bozeman, B. (2000); Technology transfer and public policy: a review of

research and theory, Research Policy, Vol.29 (4-5), pp: 627-55.

Charmaz, K. (2008); Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method, hand

book of emergent method, Edited by Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy and

Patricia Leavy, New York, Division of Guilford publication.

Cohen,L.; Manion, L.; and Morrison, K. (2007); Research Methods in

Education, (6ed), Routledge.

Creswell,W.j. (2007); qualitative inquiry and research design,sage

publications.

Danaifard, H., and Alwani, S. M. and Adalazar, (2007); Qualitative

research methodology in management: a comprehensive approach, Tehran,

Saffar publisher (in Persian).

Debackere, K., Veugelers, R.,ý. (2005); The role of academic

technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links,

Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp: 321-342.

Downie, J. (2006); the Power of Money: Commercialization of Research

Conducted in Public Institutions, Journal of Otago Law Review, Vol 11 No

2, pp: 305-324.

Etzkowitz, H. (2003); Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of

the entrepreneurial university, Research Policy, Vol.32, pp: 109–21.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000); the dynamics of innovation:

from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–

industry government relations, Research Policy, Vol.29, pp: 109–23.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Regina, B. and Terra, C.

(2000); The future of the university and the university of the future:

evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy,

Vol.29 ,pp: 313–30.

Fakoor, B. (2005); commercialization of research results, rahyaft

journal,N: 24, pp: 53-58(in Persian).

Gall, M. Burke, W. Gall, J. (2007); Qualitative and quantitative research

methods in educational sciences and psychology, Nasr, AR et al, Volume II,

Tehran, Samt publisher(in Persian).

Given,Lisa M. (2008); The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research

Method, SAGE Publications. 

 

Hooman, Heidar A. (2006); hand book of Qualitative Research, Tehran,

Samt publisher (in Persian).

Howells, J, McKinlay, C. (1999); Commercialization of University

Research in Europe, Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University

Research of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Ontario,

Canada,

Jacob, M, Lundqvist M, Hellsmark, H. (2003); Entrepreneurial

transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers

University of Technology, Research Policy, Vol.32, pp: 1555- 1568.

kutinalahti, P. (2005); University approaching market: intertwining

scientific and entrepreneurial goal, VTT: No 589. Pp: 1-170.

Landry, R. Amara,ý N. Rherrad, I.ý. (2006); Why are some university

researchers more likely to create spinoffs than others? Evidence from

Canadian universities, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1599-1615.

Mohammad Pour, A., Iman, M. T. (2008); Reconstructional means about

the consequences of economic changes in Iran's Kurdistan region Orman

beds: provide an Grounded Theory, Social Welfare Quarterly, Year VII N:

28(in Persian).

Mok, K. (2005); Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of

government and higher education governance in Hong Kong, Research

Policy, Vol.34 : 537-54.

Nagy J and Robb A. (2007); Can universities be good corporate

citizens?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, in press.

O’LEARY, Z. (2004).The essential guide to doing research, SAGE

Publications.

Paya, A. (2006); the future of Human Sciences in Iran , Methodology of

Social Science and Humanities, Year: XII, No. 47(in Persian).

Paya, A. (2007); two essays about culture, technology and ethics,

Tehran, Institute for Social and Cultural Studies(in Persian).

Paya, A. (2008); Critical considerations about the two concept of

religious science and indigenous knowledge, the Second Congress of

Human Sciences, Tehran, Institute of Humanities (in Persian).

Pourezzat A. A., Nadirkhanlou, S., Gholipour, A. ( 2010);

Representating Barriers to Academic Entrepreneurship and Knowledge

Commercialization at University of Tehran ,Journal of Science and

Technology Policy, 2 (4) :65-77(in Persian).

URL http://www.nrisp.ac.ir/jstp/browse.php?a_code=A-10-28-

61&slc_lang=fa&sid=1

Ridenour Carolyn S. and Newman I. (2008); Mixed Methods Research,

Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale.

 

Scott, D. and Marlene M. (2006); Key Ideas in Educational Research,

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A. N. (2003);

Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the

effectiveness of university–industry collaboration, Journal of High

Technology Management Research, vol:14, pp:111–33.

Straus, A and Corbin, J. (2008), “Basics of Qualitative Research:

Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory”, Third

Edition, Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Zhouying, JIN. (2005) "Global Technological Change; From Hard

Technology to Soft

Technology", Translated by Kelvin W. Willoughby, Bristol, UK.