شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی عوامل موثر بر تاسیس و راه‌اندازی دانشگاه سازمانی
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه منابع انسانی تحول آفرین
مریم ادیب زاده
1
(عضو هیات علمی واحد تهران شمال)
حسین مهدی رکن آبادی
2
(دانشجو)
الهام حامدی
3
(دانشجو)
کلید واژه: تاسیس, راه‌اندازی, دانشگاه سازمانی ,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: تاسیس و راه‌اندازی یک دانشگاه سازمانی با عواملی مرتبط بوده که می تواند در تسریع و افزایش بهره‌وری سازمان‌های زیرمجموعه دانشگاه تاثیرگذار باشند. پژوهش حاضر به منظور شناسایی و اولویت‌بندی عوامل موثر بر تاسیس و راه‌اندازی دانشگاه سازمانی در دانشگاه افسری و تربیت پلیس امام حسن مجتبی(ع) انجام شد. روش بررسی: این تحقیق به لحاظ هدف کاربردي و ازنظر ماهيت از نوع پژوهش‌هاي کتابخانه‌اي و روش کيفي بود. از نظرات 15 خبره در حوزه موضوع تا اشباع نظری استفاده شد. همچنین از فرايند تحليل سلسله مراتبي به رتبه بندي عوامل احصا شده پرداخته شد. یافته‌ها: عوامل مؤثر در قالب 318 مضمون اوليه شناسایی گردید. در مرحله اول، سه عامل آموزشي، پژوهشي ، سرمايه انساني و ٢٧ زيرعامل و در مرحله دوم طبق نظر خبرگان، دو عامل ساختاري -مديريتي و زمينه اي و ١٨ زيرعامل ديگر اضافه شد و نهایتاً به 5 عامل و ٤٥ زيرعامل نهايي شدند. وجود چشم‌انداز و برنامه سرآمدي نظام آموزش دانشگاه در رتبه اول اهميت قرار گرفت و بعد از آن وجود نظام جامع پژوهش و فناوري بر اساس اسناد بالادستي در رتبه دوم و وجود شبکه علمي هم افزاي ملي و فراملي در رتبه سوم قرار گرفتند. نتیجه‌گیری: تمامی مولفه‌های مکشوفه به طور مستقیم در میزان جذب دانشجو تاثیرگذار بوده که باید به عنوان عوامل اصلی در تاسیس و راه‌اندازی دانشگاه سازمانی مورد توجه قرار گیرند.
Background and purpose: The establishment and launch of an organizational university is related to factors that can be effective in accelerating and increasing the productivity of the university's affiliated organizations. The present research was conducted in order to identify and prioritize the factors affecting the establishment and launch of an organizational university in the Imam Hassan Mojtabi (AS) Officer and Police Training University. Research method: This research was in terms of practical purpose and in terms of nature, it was library research and qualitative method. The opinions of 15 experts in the subject area were used until theoretical saturation. Also, from the process of hierarchical analysis, the ranking of the calculated factors was discussed. Findings: Effective factors were identified in the form of 318 primary themes. In the first stage, three factors of education, research, human capital and 27 sub-factors were added, and in the second stage, according to the opinion of the experts, two structural-managerial and background factors and 18 other sub-factors were added and finally they were 5 factors and 45 sub-factors. The existence of the vision and excellence program of the university education system was ranked first in importance, followed by the existence of a comprehensive research and technology system based on upstream documents in the second rank, and the existence of a national and transnational synergistic scientific network was ranked in the third rank. Conclusion: All the revealed components have a direct impact on the student recruitment rate, which should be considered as the main factors in the establishment and operation of an organizational university.
1. Agnieszka, K.T. (2021). The New Progression Model of Entrepreneurial Education—Guideline for the Development of an Entrepreneurial University with a Sustainability Approach. Sustainability. 13(20): 11243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011243.
2. Ayman Mohammed, M. & Khaled Youssef, M. (2016). An Approach for Promoting Urban and Architectural Potentials for Supporting Knowledge Economy, Case Study: Brisbane. Urban Planning and Architecture Design for Sustainable Development. 216 (2): 20-29.
3. Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. & Campbell, D.F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J. Innov. Entrep. 1(1): 1-12 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version].
4. Chang, D.L., Sabatini-Marques, J. & Da Costa, E. (2018). Knowledge based, smart and sustainable cities: a provocation for a conceptual framework. Journal of Open Innovation. 4 (5): 1-17.
5. Chankseliani, M., Qoraboyev, I. & Gimranova, D. (2021. (Higher education contributing to local, national, and global development: New empirical and conceptual insights. 81: 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
6. Elenaa, C. (2015). The Making of Knowledge Cities in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance. 32: 534- 541.
7. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovatio: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy. 29: 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A. & Gebhardt, C. )2000(. Terra, B.R.C. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res. Policy. 29: 313–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
9. Evers, G. (2019). The impact of the establishment of a university in a peripheral region on the local labour market for graduates. Regional Studies. Regional Science. 6(1): 319-330.
10. Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. In A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education; Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK; pp. 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Grilo, I. & Irigoyen, J.M. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the EU: To Wish and not to be. Small Bus. Econ. 26: 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Hansen, H.F. (2014). Organization of evidence-based knowledge production: Evidence hierarchies and evidence typologies. Scandinavia Journals of Public Health. 42 (13): 11- 17.
13. Hu, R., Wang, Y., Bin, P. & Ye, Y. (2018). Marta Peris-Ortiz, Jaime Alonso Gómez, José, M. Merigó-Lindahl, Carlos Rueda-Armengot (eds.): Entrepreneurial universities: Exploring the academic and innovative dimensions of entrepreneurship in higher education. High. Educ. 76: 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
14. Khosrow Pour, M. (2017). Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology. Fourth Edition. Hershey. PA. Information Science Reference [In Persian].
15. Kim, P.H., Aldrich, H.E. & Keister, L.A. (2006). Access Denied: The Impact of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on Entrepreneurial Entryin the United States. Small Bus. Econ.27: 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Kuratko, D.F. & Hoskinson, S. (2016). Innovative pathways for university entrepreneurship in the 21st century. High. Educ. 74: 1117–1120 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in Education: What, Why, When, How; OECD: Paris, France [Google Scholar].
18. Lombardi, R., Massaro, M., Dumay, J. & Nappo, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial universities and strategy: the case of the University of Bari. Management Decision. 57(12): 3387-3405. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2018-0690.
19. Man, T.W., Lau, T. & Chan, K. (2002). The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. J. Bus. Ventur. 17: 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
20. Mars, M.M., Rios-Aguilar, C. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined: Significance and implications for the scholarship of higher education. High. Educ. 59: 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Mazzucato, M. (2021). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths (an excerpt). J. Econ., 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Mohammadi, Y., Monavvarifard, F., Salehi, L., Movahedi, R., Karimi, S. & Liobikienė G. (2023). Explaining the Sustainability of Universities through the Contribution of Students’ Pro-Environmental Behavior and the Management System. Sustainability. 15(2):1562 [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021562
23. Rasmussen, A. & Nybye, N. (2013). Entrepreneurship Education: Progression Model; The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship—Young Enterprise: Odense, Denmark, Available online: https://eng.ffe-ye.dk/media/785762/progression-model-en.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2020).
24. Ratten, V. & Thukral, E. (2020). Sport Entrepreneurship Education. In Sport Entrepreneurship. Emerald Publishing Limited: Bentley, UK. pp. 151–160. [Google Scholar]
25. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D. & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Ind. Corp. Chang. 16: 691–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Sam, C. & Van Der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. High. 68(6): 891–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
27. Shepherd, D.A. & DeTienne, D.R. (2005). Prior Knowledge, Potential Financial Reward, and Opportunity Identification. Entrep. Theory Pr. 29: 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Taherkhani, K., Kooshamoghaddam, A. & Alizadeh Majd, A. (2022). Presenting a model for university managers' entrepreneurial behaviours by adopting an entrepreneurial university approach, Published Online: June 1, pp 233-256 [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.1504/EMJM.2022.123915
29. Van Wennekers, A., Thurik, R. & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent Entrepreneurship and the Level of Economic Development. Small Bus. Econ. 24: 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
30. Yigitcanlar, T. (2014). Position Paper: Benchmarking the Performance of Global and Emerging Knowledge Cities. Expert Systems with Applications. 41 (10): 4680-4690.
31. Zack, M.H. (2003). What is a Knowledge-Based Organization?. Organizational Learning & Knowledge. 5th International Conference. 1-7.
32. Zamani, N.; Mohammadi, M. (2018). Entrepreneurial learning as experienced by agricultural graduate entrepreneurs. High. Educ. 76: 301–316 [In Persian]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].