بیان ماهیت و ارایه مدل استقرار ناحیه نوآوری: پژوهشی فراترکیب با استفاده از متن کاوی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت آموزش عالی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار رشته آموزش عالی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

4 استادیار گروه سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، پژوهشکده مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

نواحی نوآوری به عنوان ماهیت های ایجادکننده و اشاعه دهنده زیست بوم نوآوری در سال های اخیر بسیار مورد توجه دانشگاهیان، پژوهشگران، سیاست گذاران و کسب وکارها قرارگرفته اند. این پژوهش قصد دارد تا با نگاهی عمیق به زیرساخت های ایجاد کننده نواحی نوآوری، درک کاملی از رویکردهای اصلی ایجادکننده آنان، ماهیت و خط سیر زمانی توسعه و درنهایت مدل استقرار آنان بپردازد. به دلیل ماهیت چندرشته ای و چند بعدی ادبیات پیشین، این پژوهش از روش فراترکیب استفاده می نماید. حجم زیاد مطالب و نیاز به دقت کافی، ما را برآن داشت تا از روش نوین داده کاوی نیز برای استخراج گویه ها و بررسی بسامدتکرار آن ها در منابع استفاده نماییم. یافته های این پژوهش در گام نخست، شاخص های مورد نیاز برای ایجاد زیست بوم نوآوری منتج به ناحیه و در گام دوم، مفهوم، ماهیت، پاردایم های ایجادی و توسعه ای و در نهایت مدل استقرار ناحیه نوآوری بر اساس پارادایم های بالادستی را آشکار می سازد. دستاوردهای این پژوهش برای علم ورزان، سیاست گذاران و افراد اجرایی فعال در حوزه های آموزش عالی، کسب وکار و فناوری از آن جهت مهم است که نقش، جایگاه، زنجیره ارزش و زیرساخت های تمامی عناصر را در کنار هم و در یک نظام یکپارچه به تصویر می کشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Defining the concept and providing a model for the implementation of innovation districts: A meta-synthesis analysis using text-mining

نویسندگان [English]

  • amir asgari 1
  • ali khorsandi taskoh 2
  • saeed ghiasi nodooshan 2
  • seyed soroush ghazinoori 3
  • Mohammad Sadegh Khayyatian Yazdi 4
1 Ph.D Student of Higher Education Management, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Higher Education Management, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Industrial Management Department, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Science and Technology Policy, Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Innovation districts as creators and disseminators of the innovation ecosystems have been highly regarded by academics, researchers, policymakers, and businesses in recent years. This study aimed to fully understand the main approaches that create innovation districts, the concept and development timeline, and finally, an implementing model by an in-depth look at the infrastructures. Due to the multidisciplinary and multidimensional nature of the previous literature, this study used the meta-synthesis method. The need for sufficient accuracy, besides the voluminous contents of previous research, led us to use the new data mining method to extract items and check their frequency of use in the resources. In the first step, the findings reveal the indicators needed to create an innovation ecosystem. In the second step, the findings reveal the concept, nature, and development paradigms. Finally, the finding provides the innovation districts' implementing model based on upstream paradigms in the third one. The findings are essential for scientists, policymakers, and executives active in the fields of higher education, business, and technology because they reveal the roles, positions, value chains, and infrastructures of all required elements together in an integrated system to shape an innovation ecosystem.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation District
  • innovation ecosystem
  • Technology policy
  • Higher education
  • innovation management
[1] Yigitcanlar T, Lӧnnqvist A. Benchmarking knowledge-based urban development performance: Results from the international comparison of Helsinki. Cities. Elsevier; 2013; 31: 357-369.
[2] Florida R. The new urban crisis: How our cities are increasing inequality, deepening segregation, and failing the middle class-and what we can do about it. Basic Books; 2017.
[3] Opp SM, Saunders KL. Pillar talk: local sustainability initiatives and policies in the United States—finding evidence of the “three E’s”: economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Affairs Review. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2013; 49 (5): 678-717.
[4] Dalmarco G, Hulsink W, Zawislak PA. New perspectives on university-industry relations: an analysis of the knowledge flow within two sectors and two countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Taylor & Francis; 2019; 1-13.
[5] Edquist C. Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development. Sabinet; 2010; 2 (3): 14-45.
[6] Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DF. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of innovation and entrepreneurship. SpringerOpen; 2012; 1 (1): 1-12.
[7] Esmaeilpoorarabi N, Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Guaralda M. How can an enhanced community engagement with innovation districts be established? Evidence from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Cities. Elsevier; 2020; 96:102430.
[8] Yigitcanlar T, Adu-McVie R, Erol I. How can contemporary innovation districts be classified? A systematic review of the literature. Land Use Policy. Elsevier; 2020; 95:104595.
[9] Wu X, Li D, Jin Y, Chen Y. Research on Economic Forecast of High-Tech Park Based on Combination Model. 5th International Conference on Economics, Management, Law and Education (EMLE 2019). 2019; 220-225.
[10] Nikina A, Piqué J, Miquel J. Areas of innovation in a global world: Concept and practice. IASP Campanillas; 2016.
[11] Nieth L, Benneworth P. Challenges of knowledge combination in strategic regional innovation processes-the Creative Science Park in Aveiro. European Planning Studies. Taylor & Francis; 2019; 1-19.
[12] Kummitha RKR, Crutzen N. Smart cities and the citizen-driven internet of things: A qualitative inquiry into an emerging smart city. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Elsevier; 2019; 140: 44-53.
[13] Blakely EJ, Hu RW. Crafting Innovative Places for Australia’s Knowledge Economy. Springer; 2019.
[14] Esmaeilpoorarabi N, Yigitcanlar T, Guaralda M. Place quality in innovation clusters: An empirical analysis of global best practices from Singapore, Helsinki, New York, and Sydney. Cities. Elsevier; 2018; 74: 156-168.
[15] Cosgrave E, Arbuthnot K, Tryfonas T. Living labs, innovation districts and information marketplaces: A systems approach for smart cities. Procedia Computer Science. Elsevier; 2013; 16: 668-677.
[16] Cooke P, Asheim B, Boschma R, Martin R, Schwartz D, T_dtling F. Handbook of regional innovation and growth. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011.
[17] Carrillo FJ, Yigitcanlar T, Garc’ia B, Lӧnnqvist A. Knowledge and the city: Concepts, applications and trends of knowledge-based urban development. Routledge; 2014.
[18] Edvardsson IR, Yigitcanlar T, Pancholi S. Knowledge city research and practice under the microscope: a review of empirical findings. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. Taylor & Francis; 2016; 14 (4): 537-564.
[19] Zuti B, Lukovics M. „Fourth Generation” Universities and Regional Development. Stünings Medien; 2015.
[20] Dijkstra L, Poelman H, Veneri P. The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area. OECD; 2019.
[21] Bittencourt BA, Zen AC, Schmidt V, Wegner D. The orchestration process for emergence of clusters of innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018.
[22] Ind N, Iglesias O, Markovic S. The co-creation continuum: From tactical market research tool to strategic collaborative innovation method. Journal of Brand Management. Springer; 2017; 24 (4): 310-321.
[23] Carayannis EG, Campbell DF. Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3: Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix. Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. Springer; 2019; 17-30.
[24] Almeida A, Figueiredo A, Rui Silva M. From concept to policy: Building Regional Innovation Systems in follower regions. European Planning Studies. Taylor & Francis; 2011; 19 (7): 1331-1356.
[25] Pancholi S, Yigitcanlar T, Guaralda M. Attributes of successful place-making in knowledge and innovation spaces: evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina knowledge precinct. Journal of Urban Design. Taylor & Francis; 2018; 23 (5): 693–711.
[26] Naghizadeh R, Elahi S, Manteghi M, Ghazinoory S, Ranga M. Through the magnifying glass: an analysis of regional innovation models based on co-word and meta-synthesis methods. Quality & Quantity. Springer; 2015; 49 (6): 2481-2505.
[27] Esmaeilpoorarabi N, Yigitcanlar T, Guaralda M, Kamruzzaman M. Evaluating place quality in innovation districts: A Delphic hierarchy process approach. Land use policy. Elsevier; 2018; 76: 471-486.
[28] Esmaeilpoorarabi N, Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Guaralda M. Conceptual frameworks of innovation district place quality: An opinion paper. Land Use Policy. Elsevier; 2020; 90:104166.
[29] Hoon C. Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2013; 16 (4): 522-526.
[30] Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV-positive women. Research in nursing & health. Wiley Online Library; 2003; 26 (2): 153-170.
[31] Pancholi S, Yigitcanlar T, Guaralda M. Societal integration that matters: place making experience of Macquarie Park Innovation District, Sydney. City, Culture and Society. Elsevier; 2018; 13: 13-21.
[32] Battaglia A, Tremblay D-G. 22@ and the Innovation District in Barcelona and Montreal: a process of clustering development between urban regeneration and economic competitiveness. Urban Studies Research. Hindawi; 2011.
[33] Yigitcanlar T, Han H, Kamruzzaman M, Ioppolo G, Sabatini-Marques J. The making of smart cities: Are Songdo, Masdar, Amsterdam, San Francisco and Brisbane the best we could build? Land Use Policy. Elsevier; 2019; 88:104187.
[34] Bontje M, Musterd S. Creative industries, creative class and competitiveness: Expert opinions critically appraised. Geoforum. Elsevier; 2009; 40 (5): 843-852.
[35] Bogoviz AV, Shvakov EE, Tretyakova OG, Zakharov MY, Abramov AN. Globalization of Education in the Conditions of Formation of the Global Knowledge Economy: Regularities and Tendencies. Growth Poles of the Global Economy: Emergence, Changes and Future Perspectives. Springer; 2020; 993–1000.
[36] Breznitz SM, Feldman MP. The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer. Springer; 2012; 37 (2): 139-157.
[37] Brown R, Mason C. Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics. Springer; 2017; 49 (1): 11–30.
[38] Carayannis EG, Campbell DF. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: a proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD). IGI Global; 2010; 1 (1): 41-69.
[39] Adner R. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard business review. 2006; 84 (4): 98.
[40] Jafar A, Akbari M, Davari A. The Effective Factors on the Formation of Innovation Clusters: The Case of Sharif Innovation District.
[41] Greco I, Cresta A. A smart planning for smart city: the concept of smart city as an opportunity to re-think the planning models of the contemporary city. International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. 2015; 563-576.
[42] Abdalla W, Renukappa S, Suresh S, Al-Janabi R. Challenges for managing smart cities initiatives: an empirical study. 2019 3rd International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities (ICSGSC). 2019; 7-10.
[43] Rabiee M, Rajabifard A. Smart sustainable cities for all: A socio-spatial approach.
[44] McCann P, Ortega-Argilés R. Smart specialisation, entrepreneurship and SMEs: issues and challenges for a results-oriented EU regional policy. Small Business Economics. Springer; 2016; 46 (4): 537-552.
[45] Vanolo A. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban studies. Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England; 2014; 51 (5): 883-898.
[46] Sӧderstrӧm O, Paasche T, Klauser F. Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City. Taylor & Francis; 2014; 18 (3): 307-320.