Girişimci Üniversite’nin Kavramsal Çerçevesi

Abstract

Yüzyıllardır işsizlik küresel boyutta mücadele edilen bir problemdir. 21. Yüzyılda küreselleşme ve teknolojinin hızlı gelişimiyle birlikte birçok sektörde insan emeğinin değeri azalmaktadır. İşsizlikle başa çıkabilmek ve istihdam gücünü küresel düzeyde arttırabilmek için yenilik odaklı girişimler ve girişimciler önem teşkil etmektedir. Bu yüzden de, sadece eğitim ve öğretim veya araştırma faaliyeti gerçekleştirmeye yönelik üniversite kurgulamasına yönelik değişim ihtiyacı doğmuştur. Triple Helix modelinde yer alan Üniversite-Sanayi ve Devlet ilişkisinin yeniden tanımlanmasını sağlayan “Girişimci Üniversite Modeli” de bu ihtiyaç doğrultusunda geliştirilmiştir. Bir derleme ve politika araştırması olan bu çalışmanın amacı, girişimci üniversiteye yönelik kavramsal tanımlama bilgilerini ve girişimci üniversite olabilmek için sahip olunması gereken yeterlilikleri dört farklı kıtadaki gelişmeleri dikkate alarak sunmaktır. Bu araştırma kapsamında bazı teorik bulgular ve politik yönelimler paylaşılmaktadır. Bunlardan ilki, girişimci üniversitelerin yükseköğretim evrimsel süreci içerisinde en son aşamada yer almasıdır. Ayrıca, girişimci üniversite modelinin temelini oluşturan üniversite-sanayi-devlet ilişkisindeki yapının da değişme evriminde olduğu bulgusu araştırma sonucunda keşfedilmiştir. Çalışma, “Girişimci Üniversite Modeli ”ne yönelik kavramsal ve gelişim sürecini irdeleyen az sayıda çalışma arasında yerini almaktadır. 

Keywords

• Girişimci Üniversite Modeli,Triple Helix,Yükseköğretim

The Conceptual Framework of the Entrepreneurial University

Abstract

Unemployment has been a significant problem for centuries. The value of human labor has been decreasing in many sectors due to globalization and technological developments taking place in the 21st century. Innovation-oriented initiatives and entrepreneurs have gained increasing importance for dealing with unemployment and increasing human power on a global scale. Thus, a need for making changes to the university design in which the main focus is on teaching and research has emerged. “The entrepreneurial university model”, which is featured in the Triple Helix Model and helps redefine university-industry and state relationships has been created as a response to this need. The purpose of this review study is to present fundamental information about the conceptual framework of the entrepreneurial university and properties that universities need to have in order to be labeled as an entrepreneurial university. This study, which is one of the few studies that examine the conceptual and developmental features of the entrepreneurial university model, provides readers with a review on the evolution of university-industry-state relationship and insights into several theoretical issues and political orientations. 

Keywords

• The entrepreneurial university model,Triple helix model,Higher education

References

1. Abbasi, E., Arasteh, F., & Najarian, M. (2016). A Study of the Characteristics of University of Entrepreneur using Structural Equation Modeling. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN 2356-5926, 1353-1366.
2. Abbasi, E., Arasteh, F., & Najarian, M. (2016). A Study of the Characteristics of University of Entrepreneur using Structural Equation Modeling. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies (IJHCS) ISSN 2356-5926, 1353-1366.
3. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17-40.
4. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17-40.
5. Amaral, M., & da Silva Filho, S. M. (2008). An Entrepreneurship University under Open Innovation and Triple Helix Influences–The design of a technology transfer model and the search for a useful and sustainable innovation framework for universities in underdeveloped and developing countries: A Brazilian Study. Program adı: Proceedings of 19th ISPIM Conference, Tours.
6. Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: a review of the literature. Research evaluation, 15(3), 197-207.
7. Borges, C., & Jacques Filion, L. (2013). Spin-off process and the development of academic entrepreneur’s social capital. Journal of technology management & innovation, 8(1), 21-34.
8. Casas, R., De Gortari, R., & Santos, M. J. (2000). The building of knowledge spaces in Mexico: a regional approach to networking. Research Policy, 29(2), 225-241.

9. Clark, Burton. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Pergamon.
10. De Castro, E. A., Rodrigues, C., Esteves, C., & da Rosa Pires, A. (2000). The triple helix model as a motor for the creative use of telematics. Research Policy, 29(2), 193-203.
11. Dinya, L. (2014). The potential role of the entrepreneurship education of universities in the promotion of entrepreneurship.
12. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). The European entrepreneurial university: an alternative to the US model. Industry and higher Education, 17(5), 325-335.
13. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research policy, 29(2), 313-330.
14. Gagnidze, I. (2016). "The Impact of Entrepreneurial Universities on the Innovative Development of Economy". III International scientific and practical conference "Strategic Imperatives of Modern Management“, KNEY, Kiev, (2016), pp. 186- 192.
15. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32.
16. Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28
17. Gartner, W. B. (2008). Variations in entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 31(4), 351.
18. Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Carter, N. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2004). Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
19. Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.
20. Giesecke, S. (2000). The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany. Research policy, 29(2), 205-223.
21. Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research policy, 29(2), 273-278.
22. Günay, D. (2018). Türkiye’de Lisansüstü Eğitim ve Lisansüstü Eğitime Felsefi Bir Bakış. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 71-88.
23. Hornaday, J. A., & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs 1. Personnel psychology, 24(2), 141-153.
24. Huang-Saad, A., Fay, J., & Sheridan, L. (2017). Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-CorpsTM. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1466-1486.
25. Hurber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing process and the literature. Organization Science, 1(2), 88-115.
26. Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Doubleday, New York.
27. Jofre, S., & Andersen, P. D. (2009). A Triple Helix approach to the future Innovation Flagship of Europe: Exploring the strategic deployment of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. In Proceedings of the Triple Helix VII 7th Biennial International Conference on.
28. Johannisson, B., Ramírez-Pasillas, M., & Karlsson, G. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of local inter-firm networks: a leverage for business creation. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 14(4), 297-315.
29. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher education, 56(3), 303-324.
30. Kobayashi, S. (2000). Applying audition systems from the performing arts to R&D funding mechanisms: quality control in collaboration among the academic, public, and private sectors in Japan. Research Policy, 29(2), 181-192.
31. Krieger, N. (2001). Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. International journal of epidemiology, 30(4), 668-677.
32. Langford, C. H., & Langford, M. W. (2000). The evolution of rules for access to megascience research environments viewed from Canadian experience. Research Policy, 29(2), 169-179.
33. Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship & regional development, 15(1), 1-26.
34. Lefebvre, P., Pallez, F., & Fixari, D. (2009). Competitiveness clusters and new approaches to public research: uncertainties in the development of the Triple Helix in France. Colloque International Regional Competitiveness Clusters and Economic Development-HEC Management School.
35. Leibfried, S. (2002). Towards a European welfare state? Içinde New perspectives on the welfare state in Europe (ss. 128-151). Routledge.
36. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Research policy, 29(2), 243-255.
37. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of u.s. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106-1112.
38. Mets, T. (2009). Creating business model for commercialization of university research. Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai, 2009, nr. 51, p. 83-94.
39. Mets, T. (2010). Entrepreneurial business model for classical research university. Engineering Economics, 66(1).
40. Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher education in Europe, 33(2-3), 259-271.
41. Morris, N. (2000). Vial bodies: conflicting interests in the move to new institutional relationships in biological medicines research and regulation. Research Policy, 29(2), 149-167.
42. Mortensen, D. T., & Pissarides, C. A. (1994). Job creation and job destruction in the theory of unemployment. The review of economic studies, 61(3), 397-415.
43. Nejad, B. A., Abbaszadeh, M. M. S., & Djavani, M. (2011). Entrepreneur Learning Organization: A Functional Concept for Universities. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 10(1), 120-129.
44. Nemilentsev, M., Christiansen, P., Storm-Henningsen, P., Lund, S., Tereschenko, S., & Tereshkina, T. (2016). Development and Facilitation of Innovative Pedagogy in the Nordic-Russian Context (Collaboration of Higher Education Institutions With Enterprises) (ss.77-92).
45. Mikkeli.Nowak, M. J., & Grantham, C. E. (2000). The virtual incubator: managing human capital in the software industry. Research Policy, 29(2), 125-134.
46. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The academy of management annals, 2(1), 433-474.
47. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1-16.
48. Paul D. Reynolds, Michiael Hay, & Michael Camp S. (1999). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 1999 Executive Reports. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
49. Postigo, S., & Tamburini, M. (2003). University Entrepreneurship Education in Argentina: A decade of analysis. International Council for Small Business, Belfast, Northern Ireland, June.
50. Reyes, C. N. (2016). Framing the entrepreneurial university: the case of the National University of Singapore. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 8(2), 134-161.
51. Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of advertising research, 28(1), 11-31.
52. Roberts, E. B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology: Lessons from MIT and beyond. Oxford University Press.
53. Rothblatt, Sheldon, and Wittrock, Bjorn, eds. (1993). The European and American University Since 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Sábato, J., & Botana, N. (1968). Science and Technology in the Future Development of Latin America. Paper presented to The World Order Models Conference.
55. Schumpeter, J. A. (2017). Essays: on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles and the evolution of capitalism. Routledge.
56. Sedaitis, J. (2000). Technology transfer in transitional economies: a test of market, state and organizational models. Research Policy, 29(2), 135-147.
57. Sidhu, R., Ho, K.-C., & Yeoh, B. (2011). Emerging education hubs: The case of Singapore. Higher Education, 61(1), 23-40.
58. Sutz, J. (2000). The university–industry–government relations in Latin America. Research policy, 29(2), 279-290.
59. Walker, K. (2012). The technopreneurship process: Academic entrepreneur university spin-offs. RIThink, 2, 11-22.
60. Yao, W., Zou, X., Etzkowitz, H., & Weng, M. (2015). Sub Theme: Entrepreneurial University and Triple Helix's Development The Role of Entrepreneurial University in Regional Inclusive Innovation System: Evidence from China.
61. Yoon, J. (2015). The evolution of South Korea’s innovation system: moving towards the triple helix model? Scientometrics, 104(1), 265-293.