الزامات توسعه اکوسیستم کارآفرینی دانشگاه بنیان در ایران

نویسنده

دانشیار گروه اقتصاد آموزش‌ عالی و بررسی‌های نیروی ‌انسانی، مؤسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی

چکیده

تحلیل‌های صورت گرفته از اقتصاد دانش ایران حکایت از آن دارند که مهم­ترین نقطه ضعف اقتصاد ایران شکل نگرفتن فرایند‌های نوآوری و کارآفرینی نوآورانه برای بهره­برداری از دانش و فناوری جدید است. این فرایندها اصولاً در چارچوب اکوسیستم­های کارآفرینی دانشگاه­بنیان شکل می‌گیرند که در اقتصاد ایران جایگاه شایسته­ای ندارند و حتی شناخته شده هم نیستند. بنابراین، هدف مطالعه حاضر بررسی الزامات توسعه اکوسیستم کارآفرینی دانشگاه­بنیان در ایران بوده و برای این منظور از روش «مدلسازی ساختاری تفسیری» استفاده شده است. براساس این روش، ابتدا با بررسی ادبیات موضوع و نظرخواهی از کارشناسان ذی‌صلاح و مدیران و سیاستگذاران ذی­ربط، الزامات توسعه اکوسیستم یادشده استخراج و سپس، داده­های مورد نیاز برای تحلیل رابطه بین الزامات از طریق تکمیل پرسشنامه ماتریسی ( با 20 نفر از کارشناسان و 10 نفر از مدیران) کسب شد. یافته­های پژوهش نشان می­دهد که توسعه اکوسیستم کارآفرینی دانشگاه­بنیان در ایران نیازمند توسعه 15 مؤلفه این اکوسیستم و چهار مؤلفه مربوط به زیست‌بوم آن است؛ فقط توسعه چهار مؤلفه از مؤلفه‌های اکوسیستم (تولید دانش فناورانه، توسعه سرمایه انسانی نوآورانه، پرورش دانشکاران کارآفرینی و ایجاد فرایندهای نوآوری و کارآفرینی دانش­بنیان) در اختیار دانشگاه‌ها هستند. توسعه مؤلفه‌های مربوط به زیست­بوم (اقتصاد باز و رقابتی، جامعه باز، فرهنگ دانش و حکومتداری خوب) که در توسعه اکوسیستم نقش بنیادی دارند، فقط در اختیار حکومت و دولت هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Development requirements of university –based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems in Iran

نویسنده [English]

  • Yaghoub Entezari

Associate Professor, Department of Economics of Higher Education and Manpower, Institute for Research & Planning in Higher Education

چکیده [English]

The analysis of Iran's knowledge economy suggests that the main weakness of the Iranian economy is the lack of processes of innovation and innovative entrepreneurship for the exploitation of new knowledge and technology. These processes fundamentally formed in the knowledge-based entrepreneurship ecosystems that did not developed in Iran economy and has not even known. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to analyze development requirements of university–based entrepreneurship ecosystem in Iran. For this purpose, interpretative structural modeling was used. The use of this method requires identifying the components of the ecosystem based on the literature of the subject and the consideration of the relevant experts and relevant managers and policy makers to explain the relationship between them. Then, the required data needed to analyze the relationship between the requirements were obtained by completing the matrix questionnaire through survey with 20 experts and 10 managers. The research findings indicated that the development of university–based entrepreneurship ecosystem in Iran requires the development of 15 components of this ecosystem and 4 components related to its ecology. Only the development of four components of ecosystem including, the production of technological knowledge and innovative human capital, and the development of entrepreneurship knowledge workers, the creation of knowledge-based entrepreneurship processes are available at the universities. Developing components of the ecology of ecosystems including, open and competitive economy, open society, knowledge culture, and good governance that play a fundamental role in the development of the ecosystem, are only available to the government.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Entrepreneurship University
  • Knowledge-based Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
  • University- Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystem
  • Interpretative Structural Modeling
1. Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2016). Global entrepreneurship and development index 2016. Springer International Publishing AG.
2. Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2017). Global entrepreneurship and development index 2017. Springer International Publishing AG.
3. Acs, Z. J., & Varga, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change. Small Business Economics, 24 (3), 323-334.
4. Al-Mubaraki H.M. et al. (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship powerful tools for a modern knowledge-based economy. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London.
5. Alvarez, C., Urbano, D., Corduras, A., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2011). Enviromental conditions and entreprenurial activity: A regional comparison in Spain. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(1), 120-140.
6. Anderson, A.R., & Miller, C.J. (2003). Class matters: Human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 17-36.
7. Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics Journal, 24 (3), 233-247.
8. Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3-8.
9. Audretsch, D.B., & Link, A.N. (2017). Universities and the entrepreneurial Northampton. MA: Edward Edgar Publishing.
10. Becker-Blease, J., & Sohl, J. (2007). Do women-owned businesses have equal access to Angel Capital? Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 503-521.
11. Begley, T.M., & Tan, W.L. (2001).The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship: A comparison between East Asian and anglo-saxon countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 537-553.
12. Bowen H. & De Clercq D. (2008). Institutional Context and the Allocation of Entrepreneurial Effort, Journal of International Business Studies 39(4):768-768.
13. Bowen, D., & Hisrich, R. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 393-407.
14. Brockhaus, R., & Nord, W. (1979). An exploration of the factors affecting the entrepreneurial decision: Personal characteristics vs. environmental conditions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 364-368.
15. Caloghirou, Y.D., Protogerou, A., & Tsakanikas, A. (2014). Exploring knowledge- intensive entrepreneurship in high- tech and low- tech manufacturing sectors: Differences and similarities. In Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. and Schwinge, I. (Edited). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in low-tech industries. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK.
16. Chrisman, J., & McMullan, W. (2000). A preliminary assessment of outsider assistance as a knowledge resource: The long-term impact of new venture counseling. Entrepreneurship. Theory & Practice, Spring, 37-53.
17. Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Pergamon, Oxford.
18. Colombo, M., Mustar, P., Wright M. 2010a. Dynamics of science-based entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer 35(1), 1-15.
19. Cunningham, J.A., & O’Kane, C. (2017). Technology-based nascent entrepreneurship: Implications for economic policymaking. Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Dahlstrand, A., & Jacobsson, S. (2003). Universities and technology-based entrepreneurship in the Gothenburg region. Local Economy, 18(1), 80-90.
21. Dantas et al. (2018). National culture, societal values, and type of economy: Are they relevant to explain entrepreneurial activity? In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Social Dynamics in a Globalized World Edited by Luísa Cagica Carvalho, Published in the United States of America by IGI Global.
22. Duricova, V., et al. (2014). University-based Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Regional specifics in Eastern and Western Europe. Fifth Central European Conference in Regional Science – CERS.
23. Entezari, Y. (2015). Building knowledge-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Case of Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1206 -1215.
24. Entezari, Y. (2018). Innovative entrepreneurship ecosystem: General patterns and its lessons for Iran. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 11(1), Serial Number 39, 21-40.
25. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). The entrepreneurial university and the emergence of democratic corporatism’. pp. 141-52 in Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy edited by Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (2002).
26. Fetters et al. (2010). The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Global practices. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK.
27. Georgea, G., & Prabhub, G.N. (2003). Developmental financial institutions as technology policy instruments: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Research Policy, 32, 89-108.
28. Graham, R. (2014). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from emerging world leaders. MIT Skoltech initiative.
29. Grilo, I., & Thurik, A.R. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the old and the new Europe. In: E. Santarelli (Ed.). Entrepreneurship, Growth and Innovation. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 75-103.
30. Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 119-145.
31. Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 207–231.
32. Hirschsohn, P. (2008).Regulating the animal spirits of entrepreneurs? Skills development in South African small and medium enterprises'. International Small Business Journal, 26, 181-206.
33. Hornaday, J., & Bunker, C. (1970). The nature of the Entrepreneur. Personnel Psychology, 23(1), 47-54.
34. Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). I think I can, I think I can Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502-527.
35. Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (2000). Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(4), 674-692.
36. Lee, S., & Wong, H.PK. (2004).An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 7-28.
37. Levie, J. (2007). Immigration, in-migration, ethnicity and entrepreneurship in the United Kingdom. Small Business Economics, 28(2-3), 143-169.
38. Lundstrom, A., & Stevenson, L. (2001). Entrepreneurship policy for the future, Stockholm: Swedish foundation for small business research.
39. Lundstrom, A., & Stevenson, L. (2002). On the road to entrepreneurship policy, Stockholm: Swedish foundation for small business research.
40. Lynskey, M.J. (2004). Knowledge, finance and human capital: The role of social institutional variables on entrepreneurship in Japan. Industry and Innovation, 11(4), 373-405.
41. Marcolongo, M. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship: How to bring your scientific discovery to a successful commercial product. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
42. McAnaney, P. (2015). Innovation that Matters: How city networks drive civic entrepreneurship. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Chamber of Commerce May 15.
43. McQuaid, R.W. (2002). Entrepreneurship and ICT industries: Support from regional and local policies’. Regional Studies, 36(8), 909-919.
44. Miners, I.A., & Young, J.E. (1995). University-based entrepreneurship programs as vehicles for state-level economic development: A case study. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 4(2).
45. Minniti, M., Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone else's shoes: Gender and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics Journal, 28 (2–3), 223-239.
46. Mueller, S.L., & Thomas, A.S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurship potential: A nine-country study of locus control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51-75.
47. Olsson, O. (2000). Knowledge as a set in idea space: An epistemological view on growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 253-276.
48. Olsson, O., & Frey, B.S. (2002). Entrepreneurship as recombinant growth. Small Business Economics, 19, 69-80.
49. Omerzel, G.D., & Irena, K. (2013). The influence of personal and environmental factors on entrepreneurs’ performance. Kybernetes, 42(6), 906-927.
50. Petrakis, P. (2005). Risk perception, risk propensity and entrepreneurial behaviour: The Greek case. Journal of American Academy of Business, 7(1), 233-242.
51. Pool, S., & Van Itallie, M. (2013). Learning from Boston: Implications for Baltimore from Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems of Baltimore and Boston. Abell Foundation. Retrieved from: www.abell.org.
52. Rice, M.P., Fetters, M.L., & Greene, P.G. (2014). University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: A global study of six educational institutions’. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18(5/6), 481-501.
53. Rocha, H., & Sternberg, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship: The role of clusters, theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics 24(3), 267-292.
54. Rodríguez, A., & Hardy, D. (2014). Technology and industrial parks in emerging countries. Panacea or Pipedream? Springer Cham Heidelberg New York.
55. Roper, S., & Scott, J. (2009). Perceived financial barriers and the start-up decision: An econometric analysis of gender differences using GEM data. International Small Business Journal, 27 (2), 149-171.
56. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
57. Roure, J.B., & Keeley, R. (1990). Predictors of success in new technology based ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 201-220.
58. Salaran, M.M., & Maritz, A. (2009). Entrepreneurial environment and research performance in knowledge-based institutions. J. Int Entrep, 7, 261-280.
59. Sánchez-Escobedo et al. (2014). Gender analysis of entrepreneurial intentions as a function of economic development across three groups of countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10 (4), 747-765.
60. Scheiner, Ch.W. (2009). Fundamental determinants of entrepreneurial behavior. GABLER RESEARCH.
61. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469.
62. Shane, S. (2001).Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205-220.
63. Simmons, Sh. A., & Hornsby, J.S. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship: A stage based model in Academic entrepreneurship: creating an entrepreneurship ecosystem. Edited by Corbett et al. (2014). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
64. Stephen, F. H., Urbano, D., & van Hemmen, S. (2005). The impact of institutions on entrepreneurial activity. Managerial & Decision Economics, 26(7), 413-419. DOI 10.1002/mde.1254.
65. Stephen, F., Urbano, D., & van Hemmen, S. (2009). The responsiveness of entrepreneurs to working time regulations. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 259-276. DOI 10.1007/s11187-007-9096-4.
66. Thomas, A.S., & Mueller, S.L. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 287-301.
67. Thomas, B. (2013). Technology-based entrepreneurship. Download free eBooks at Bookboon.
68. Thorp, H., & Goldstein, B. (2010). Engines of innovation: The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century. The University of North Carolina press Chapel Hill.
69. Uhlaner, L.M., & Thurik, A.R. (2007). Post-materialism: A cultural factor influencing total entrepreneurial activity across nations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2), 161-185.
70. Van Stel, A., Storey, D.J., & Thurik, R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2-3), 171-186. DOI 10.1007/ s11187-006-9014-1.
71. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147-175.
72. Voicu-Dorobantu, R. (2014). A conceptual approach to entrepreneurial ecosystems and applied algorithms. In: Advances in applied and pure mathematics. Retrieved from www.rei.ase.ro.
73. Wennekers, S., Wennekers, A.v., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24 (3), 293-309.
74. World Economic Forum (2017). Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018.
75. Yiyuan, M., & Zhilong, G. (2007). Entrepreneurial opportunities, capacities and entrepreneurial environments evidence from Chinese GEM data. Chinese Management Studies, 1(4), 216-224.