دانشگاه‌ها چگونه می‌توانند با جامعه در تعامل باشند؟ در جست‌وجوی رویکرد جدید دانشگاه‌ها به مأموریت سوم در ایران

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری رشته ی آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده اقتصاد و توسعه، ‌پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

2 استاد گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده اقتصاد و توسعه، ‌پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

3 استاد گروه مدیریت و توسعه کشاورزی، دانشکده اقتصاد و توسعه،‌ پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

4 استادیار گروه ترویح و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشکده اقتصاد و توسعه، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی،‌ دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

توافق گسترده‌ای نسبت به نقش دانشگاه در جامعه در پاسخ به چالش‌های اقتصادی و اجتماعی،‌ پرورش شهروندان روشنفکر و مولد و درگیر در مشارکت از طریق ماموریت سوم وجود دارد؛ اما هیچ تعریف منحصربه‌فردی از مفهوم تعامل دانشگاهی وجود ندارد و ماموریت سوم دانشگاه فاقد یک تصویر مشخص است. این مقاله با دیدگاهی انتقادی و با روش مروری- تحلیلی، پنج رویکرد تعامل دانشگاه با جامعه شامل کارخانه دانش، تعامل با صنعت،‌ کارآفرینی فناورانه، کارآفرینی اجتماعی، رویکرد پایدار و تعامل سیستمیک را بررسی نموده و این رویکردها بر اساس نه عامل اعم از فلسفه، اهداف، جهت گیری، ذینفعان، عوامل تاثیرگذار، دلالت سیاسی، رویکرد به نوآوری، چارچوب زمانی و کانال های ارتباطی مورد مقایسه قرار گرفته اند. هدف از این فرایند شفاف ساختن تفاوت رویکردهای تعامل دانشگاه با جامعه؛ ارائه تصویری از تعامل دانشگاهی و مبرهن ساختن شناخت و تبیین رویکرد مناسب به مأموریت سوم در دانشگاه‌ها با توجه به شرایط محیطی در ایران بود. نتایج نشان داد که مأموریت سوم دانشگاه یک مأموریت در حال تحول است که با تعریف معمول آن و تمرکز اقتصادی و شیوه‌های انتقال فناوری تفاوت دارد. انتخاب رویکرد تعامل در هر دانشگاه یک موضوع پیچیده است که رهایی از این پیچیدگی و به دست آوردن تصویری واضح از تعامل دانشگاه با جامعه منوط به شفاف ساختن پنج موضوع ابهام ‌برانگیز اعم از قصد یا هدف از تعامل، درک یا تصور تعامل،‌ تاریخ توسعه دانشگاه، ‌ساختار دانشگاه و معنای تعامل از دیدگاه ذینفعان تعامل است

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

How Can Universities Engage with Society? Searching for a New Approach to Universities' Third Mission in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • hoda izadi 1
  • mahamood hossieni 2
  • ali asadi 3
  • Amir Alambaigi 4
1 PhD Student of Agricultural Education, Department of Economics and Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran
2 Professor of Agricultural Extension and Education, Department of Economics and Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran
3 Professor of Agricultural Management and Development, Department of Economics and Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran
4 Assistant Professor of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

There is a widespread consensus regarding the role and function of the universities in society concerning the ways of their response to economic and social challenges and fostering intellectual, productive and engaged citizens in participation through the third mission; however, it seems that there is not a single agreed upon definition and clear picture of the concept of academic engagement and the third mission of the university. Using an analytical review method, this article with a critical perspective, examines five approaches of university engagement with society, namely: knowledge factory, interaction with industry, technological entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, sustainability approach and systemic interaction. These approaches were compared based on nine factors, including: philosophy, goals, orientation, beneficiaries, influencing factors, political Context, innovation approach, time framework and communication channels. The purpose of this process was: to clarify the differences existing among the five approaches to the university engagement with society; to provide a broad perspective of university engagement and understand the nature and characteristic features of the appropriate approaches to the third mission in universities based on the Iranian environmental/contextual situation. The results indicated that the third mission of the university is an evolving mission that differs from its conventional definition and economic focus and technology transfer methods. Choosing the appropriate approach of interaction in a given university is a complex issue, which requires solving this complexity and obtaining a clear picture of the university's interaction with society that depends on clarifying five complicated issues of: the intention or purpose of the interaction, understanding or imagining the interaction, historical development of the university ,the organizational structure of the university and the meaning of interaction from the perspective of stakeholders

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Third Mission
  • Community
  • Engagement Approach
  • University

مراجع

1)       Buss, A. Systems theory, generation theory, and the university: Some predictions. Higher Education. 1975; 4(4):429–445
2)       Newman B. J. H. The idea of a university, US: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: 2016
3)       MacGregor, S.P., Marques-Gou, P. and Simon-Villar, A. Gauging readiness for the quadruple helix: a study of 16 european organizations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2010;1(3): 173-190.
4)       Saltmarsh, J. Hartley, M and Clayton, P. Democratic engagement white paper. New England: Resource Center for Higher Education. (2009 july 20). Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/274
5)       Azar, Kh and Zaker Salehi, Gh. Criticism and evaluation of the idea of community-based university in Iran: the viewpoint of scientific experts. Journal of Educational Measurement & Evaluation Studies.2020 9( 28):233-272.
6)       Piasek, R and Vaughan, M. The crisis of Polish higher education. Higher Education. 1987; 16(4):53–62.
7)       Mok, K and Neubauer,D. Higher education governance in crisis: a critical reflection on the massification of higher education, graduate employment and social mobility. Journal of Education and Work. 2016; 29 (1):1-12
8)       Rege Colet, N. From content-centred to learning-centred approaches: shifting educational paradigm in higher education. Journal of Educational Administration and History.2017;49 (1): 72-86.
9)       Sutton, k and DeSantis, J. Beyond change blindness: embracing the technology revolution in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2016; 54(3) 3:223-228
10)   Bozeman,B. Rimes, H and Youtie j. The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy.2015; 44(1): 34-49.
11)   Krcmarova, J. The third mission of higher education institutions: conceptual framework and application in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Higher Education.2010; 1(4): 315-331.
12)   Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C. Higher education and its communities: interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education. 2008; 56(3): 303-324.
13)   Vorley, T and Nelles, J. Building entrepreneurial architectures: a conceptual interpretation of the third mission. Policy Futures in Education. 2009; 7(3):284-296.
14)   Kerr, C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge:  Harvard University Press:2001
15)   Clark, B. Sustaining changes in universities: continuities in case studies and concepts. UK: Open University Press:2004.
16)   Delanty, G. Challenging knowledge: the university in the knowledge society. Buckingham: Open University Press:2001
17)   Williams, R and Cochrane A. Universities, regions and social disadvantage. in: benneworth, paul ed.university engagement with socially excluded communities. First Edition, Dordrecht: Springer: 2013.
18)   Wissema, J.G. Towards the third generation university. UK:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited:2009
19)   Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio C and Geuna, A. Universities in the New Knowledge Landscape: Tensions, Challenges, Change an Introduction. Minerva.2010;48(1):1–4.
20)   Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., and Kraines, S. B. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy. 2014;41 (2): 151-179.
21)   Göransson, B. Maharajh, R and Schmoch, U. New activities of universities in transfer and extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy. 2009; 36(2): 157–164.
22)   Benneworth, P. The engaged university in practice?. First Edition,, Dordrecht: Springer: 2013
23)   D’Este, P., Tang, P.,Mahdi, Surya.,Neely, A and Sa ́nchez-Barrioluengo, M. The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable? Cientometrics.2013; 95(2): 481–502
24)   Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A. and Duran, X. Measuring third stream Activities: Final, Report of the Russell Group of Universities, Science and Technology Policy Research Unity: University of Sussex: 2002
25)   Mejlgaard, N and Ryan, T. Patterns of third mission engagement among scientists and engineers. Research Evaluation.2017; 26(4): 326–336
26)   Brockliss, L. Gown and town: the university and the city in Europe, 1200–2000. Minerva. 2000; 38(2): 147-170.
27)   Lehmann,M., Christensen,  P., Thrane, M and Herreborg J. University engagement and regional sustainability initiatives: some Danish experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2009; 17 (12): 1067–1074.
28)   Youtie, J and Shapira, P. Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy. 2008; 37(8):  1188–1204.
29)   Geiger, R. L and Sa´, C. Tapping the riches of science: universities and the promise of economic growth. US: Harvard University Press:2008
30)   Meyer-Krahmer,  F and Schmoch, U. Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy.1998; 27(8): 835–851.
31)   Cockburn, I and Henderson, R. Public–private interaction in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Industrial Economics, 1999,93(23):12725–12730
32)   Karam khani, Z., Sakehi Imran, I., Hashemi, S and Mehralizadeh, Y. Analysis of barriers to the professional counseling approach in Iranian universities with emphasis on educational planning (Persian). Journal of Educational Planning Studies.2018; 14(7):28-59
33)   Drucker, J and Goldstein, H. Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: a review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review,2007, 30(1): 20-46.
34)   Malakoti, S.,  Naseripur, M and Nemati, L. Criticism or violation of the country's research past (Persian). Rahyaft. 2019; 28(70):21-35.
35)   Ashrafi, M and Abbasi, M. Strategy of government in research. First Edition. Tehran: Higher Education Research and Planning Institute:2016
36)   Ranga, M and Etzkowitz, H.Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Higher Education.2013;27(2): 237–262..
37)   BagheriNejad,  J. Identification and analysis of systemic problems in the Iranian innovation system, (Persian).  Innovation and value creation. 2017;5(10):1-24
38)   Howells, J. Nedeva, M and Georghiou, L. Industry-academic links in the UK. Manchester:University of Manchester: 1998.  Institutions. http://www.e3mproject.eu/docs/Green%20paper-p.pdf.
39)   Mozaffari, F. Khorshid, P, Loghman, Sh and Budaghi, A. Investigating the role and Interdisciplinary position of the relationship between university and industry (Persian). Interdisciplinary Studies In The Humanities.2012; 4(1):25-39.
40)   Fayuzat, A and Taslimi, R. Sociological study of the relationship between university and industry in Iran today(Persian). Journal of Humanities.2008; 5 (53): 288-267.
41)   Faraskhah, M. University and higher education World views and Iranian issues (Persian). First Edition, Tehran:  Nay Publishing: 2011.
42)   Tsinghua University ( 2020April 19( . Available at: https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/Admissions/Continuing_Education1/Overview.htm
43)   Leydesdorff, L. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?.  Journal of the Knowledge Economy.2012; 3 (1): 25-35.
44)   Gunasekara, C. Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. Journal of Technology Transfer.2006; 31(1): 101–111.
45)   Shekari, A and Zavari, M. The most important challenges facing research: lack of budget or research culture of the country. Paper presented at: National Conference on Research and Technology Management, Tehran ‌, Imam Sadegh University, 4-8 March 2010, ‌ Imam Sadegh University, Tehran ‌,Iran.
46)   Soltaninejad, S. Kazari, A. and Soltaninejad, ‌ N. Finding the performance problem of small and medium parts manufacturing companies (Persian). Production and Operations Management.2017;7(1):120-103.
47)   Gholami, Z., Arasteh, H., Navehibrahim,H and zeinabadi, H. Designing the research performance model of universities with the approach of helping the industry(Persian).  Journal of Strategic Studies in Public Policy. 2018; (8)27:231-256.
48)   Siegel, D. S. and Phan. P. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Immplicatons for entrepreneurship, innovation: in advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and Economic Growth. Elsevier Science. 2005; 16(5): 1-38.
49)   Clark, B. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways of transformation. UK: Emerald Publishing Limited: 1998.
50)   Salamzadeh, A. Salamzadeh, Y and Daraei, M.  Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial university: astudy in iranin context with an ipoo model. Global Bussiness and Management Research.2011; 3(1):187-191
51)   Zhou,c and Peng, X. The entrepreneurial university in china: nonlinear paths. Sciance and public policy. 2008; 35(9): 637-646.
52)   Guerrero,M and Urbano, D. The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of technology transfer.2010; 37(1):2-5.
53)   Yusuf, S and Kaoru, N. How universities promote economic growth. Directions in Development; Human Development. Washington: World Bank:2007
54)   Azagra -Caro  .M.,  Archontakis, F.,  Gutiérrez, A and  Fernández, I. Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of R & D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy.2006; 35(1):37-55
55)   Agrawal, A. University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2001;3(4):285-302
56)   Sa, C. 2008. Tapping the riches of science: universities and the promise of economic growth. Harvard university press. cambridge, massachusetts london, England.
57)   Massey, D. Quintas, P and Wield, D. High tech fantasies: science parks in society, Science and Space, Routledge, 1992
58)   Davoodi, E. Investigating barriers to the development of agricultural technologies in science and technology parks of Tehran University (Persian). Science and Technology Policy.2012; 4(2):1-10.
59)   Cooperation Chancellor of Aarhus university. Collaboration. (2020). [2020December16]. Available: https://international.au.dk/about/collaboration/
60)   Bagheri, B., Mohammadi, M., Norouzi, K and Ahmad Abadi, J. Discover and prioritize the dimensions and components affecting the structure of the entrepreneurial university: A proposal for success in the tasks of the third generation of universities(Persian). Journal of Technology growth.2017;13(52):8-13
61)   Abedi, B., Baradaran, M., Khosravi Pour, B., Yaghoubi, J and Yazdanpanah, M. Identify obstacles to establishing an entrepreneurs University of Agriculture and Natural Resources using grounded theory(Persian). Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education Research.2017;10(1):41-52.
62)   Rezaei, B and  Pajouhan,  A. Capabilities and obstacles facing Razi University to become an entrepreneurial university(Persian).  Journal of Science and Technology Policy. 2019; 11(1):15-32
63)   Mair, J and Noboa, E. Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. In: Mair, J., Robinson, J and  Hockerts, K , Social entrepreneurship,   Basingstoke:  Palgrave-Macmillan;2006
64)   Fowler A. NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?. Third World Quarteriy . 2006; 21(4): 637-654
65)   Alvord, S. H., L. D. Brown, C. W. Letts.  Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study.  Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2004; 40(3):  260–282.
66)   Maliki, R., Choghakhor, Y.,Yilagh Choghakhor, H and Ahmadi, M. Investigating the characteristics of social entrepreneurship in government organizations. Journal of Welfare Planning and Social Development.2015; 7(25):41-62.
67)   Nicholls, A. social entrepreneurship new models of sustainable social change. first edition. USA: Oxford University press;2006
68)   Ghroneh, d. Academic capitalism and social entrepreneurship: two approaches to the entrepreneurial university(persian).  National Congress of Higher Education of Iran. 16 April 2016, Tehran, Iran.
69)   Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., and Ray, S. Social entrepreneurship: Creating value in the context of institutional complexity. Journal of Business Research. 2018; 86(3): 245-258
70)   Newbert, SL. Building Theory in Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 2014; 5(3): 239-242
71)   Forouharfar A., Rowshan S and Salarzehi H. an Epistemological critique of social entrepreneurship definitions. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. 2018; 8(11): 40-2.
72)   Shapiro, R. Social entrepreneurship: A fundamental game changer. (2013 January 7). Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ skollworldforum/2013/01/07/social-entrepreneurship-a-fundamental-game-changer/#76a3b1c5553f. Accessed 25 Dec. 2017
73)   Sontag Padilla, L.M, Staplefoote, L., Gonzalez Morganti, K. Financial Sustainability for Nonprofit Organizations, This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. CA: RAND Corporation:
74)   Saketi, P., and Saeedi, A. The challenges of usage performance indices in performance base budgeting for universities (Persian). Paper presented at: Third International Performance Base Budgeting Conference, 2009 june 17, Tehran, Iran
75)   Estermann, T and Pruvot, E. B.  Financially sustainable universities ii, european universities diversifying income streams. Brussels: EUA;2011
76)   Yongfan, X. The Study on University Financial Management under Knowledge Economy. Physics Procedia. 2012; 33(2): 1914 –1919
77)   Hassan Beigi, A. Strategic management. first edition, Tehran: Center for Research and Development of Humanities and Higher National Defense University;2012
78)   Malekinia, E., Bazargan, A., Vaezi, M and Ahmadian, M. Identify and prioritize the components of a sustainable university.  Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 2015;20(3):1-26
79)   Cole, L.  Assessing sustainability on canadian university campuses: development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. Master’s Thesis. Columbia: Royal Roads University; 2003.
80)   Beatley, T and Manning, K. The ecology of place: Planning for environment, economy and community. Washington: Island Press;1998
81)   Lélé, S. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development.1991;19(6):607-621.
82)   Diana, N. Clashing Perspectives On Sustainable Development, Studies in Business and Economics. 2019;14(1):181-1990.
83)   Redclift, M. R. Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. UK: Routledge: 1987
84)   Solow R. An almost practical step toward sustainability. Resources Policy. 1993;19(3):162-172
85)   Andrews, R. N. (1997). National environmental policies: The United States. In: M. Jaenicke, and H. J. Weidner ed. National environmental policies: A comparative study of capacity building.New York: Springer Verlag:1997
86)   Berke, P. R., and Conroy, M. Are we planning for sustainable development?, Journal of the American Planning Association. 2000; 66(1): 21–33.
87)   Jacobs, M. Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: a response to beckerman. Environmental Values. 1995; 4(1): 57-68.
88)   Smythe, K. An historian’s critique of sustainability.  Journal of Current Cultural Research.2014; 6(5):913–929
89)    Holden, E., Linnerud, K., Banister, D. Sustainable development: our common future revisited. Global Environmental Change. 2014; 26(1):130-139.
90)   Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., Wright, T. Sustainable development: a bird’s eye view. Sustainability.2011; 3(10):1637-1661.
91)   Uyarra, E. Conceptualizing the Regional Roles of Universities, Implications and Contradictions. European Planning Studies. 2010; 18(8):1226-1246
92)   Arbo, P. and Benneworth, P. Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: a literature review, OECD Education Working Paper, (9):2007.
93)   Goddard, J. Re-Inventing the Civic University. London: NESTA;2009.
94)   Pinheiro, R., P. Benneworth, and Jones, A. Universities and regional development: a critical assessment of tensions and contradictions. UK: Routledge;2012
95)   Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M and Benneworth,P. Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university's structural configuration on third mission performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019; 141(3): 206-218.
96)   May, T. and Perry, B. Cities, knowledge and universities: Transformations in the image of the intangible. Social Epistemology. 2006: 20(3):259–282.
97)  Harkavy, I. Engaging urban universities as anchor institutions for health equity. American Journal of Public Health.2016; 106(12):2155–2157
98)   Zaker Salehi, Gh. Iranian university (introduction to the sociology of higher education) (persian)]. Second Edition. Tehran: Kavir:2015 .
99)   Yamani Dozi Sorkhabi, M. Academic development planning theories and experiences (Persian). First Edition.Theran: Shahid Beheshti University Publications; 2015

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار