بسط مفهوم شایستگی کارآفرینان فناور با رویکردی تفسیری؛ یک پژوهش پدیدارشناسانه

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیأت‌علمی دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکترای کارآفرینی فناورانه، دانشگاه تهران

3 عضو هیت علمی دانشکده کارآفرینی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

مطالعه شایستگی کارآفرینان فناور به عنوان قلب کسب‏وکارهای فناورانه، یکی از حوزه‏های پژوهشی اصلی در قلمروی کارآفرینی فناورانه است. با این حال، این مطالعات عمدتاً با رویکردی منطقی انجام گرفته به طوری که ضمن در نظر گرفتن کارآفرین و کار به شکل موجودیت‌هایی مستقل، فهرست‌هایی ساده‌سازی‌شده از شایستگی‌ها ارائه شده که تناسب چندانی با ماهیت نامعین و نااطمینانی بالا در فرآیند کارآفرینی فناورانه نداشته است. این مقاله بر آن است تا با بکارگیری رویکرد تفسیری به عنوان رویکردی بدیل، فهم موجود از شایستگی کارآفرینان فناور را توسعه ببخشد. بدین منظور، در چارچوب روش پدیدارشناسی با 19 کارآفرین فناور فعال کشور در بخش‌های مختلف فناوری مصاحبه شده است. تحلیل استقرایی داده‌ها حاکی است که شایستگی در تجربه زیسته کارآفرینان فناور، مقوله‌ای است بروز‌یابنده (نه پیشینی)، نسبی (نه مطلق)، کلی (نه مجموعی از اجزاء غیرمرتبط) و وابسته به نحوه ادراک کارآفرینان فناور از معنای کارآفرینی فناورانه. یافته‌های این پژوهش برای کارآفرینان فناور (از طریق تشریح مفهوم توسعه شایستگی)، فعالان حوزه آموزش (با ارائه راهکارهای نوین آموزشی همچون یادگیری حین عمل و مبتنی بر ارتقاء ادراک نقش) و مدیران مراکزی همچون شتاب‌دهنده‌ها و صندوق‌های سرمایه‌گذاری خطرپذیر (از طریق بهبود روش‌های شناسایی و هدایت افراد مستعد به منظور کارآفرینی فناورانه) کاربرد دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Extending the Concept of Technology Entrepreneurs’ Competence by an Interpretive Approach; a Phenomenological Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Jahangir Yadollahi Farsi 1
  • Mohammad sadegh baradaran 2
  • Seyed Reza Hejazi 3
  • Morteza Akbari 3
1 - Associate Professor, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor Faculty of Entrepreneurship University of Tehran Iran
چکیده [English]

The study of the competence of technology entrepreneurs as the heart of technological business is one of the main areas of research in the field of technological entrepreneurship. However, in the dominant rationalistic view in this studies, technology entrepreneurs’ competence is seen as constituted by a specific set of components used in performing particularly given functions. In the present study, phenomenology is proposed and explored as an interpretive methodology alternative to this view, which is more compatible with technology entrepreneurship. Findings showed that the nature of the competence required for technology entrepreneurship is emergent, holistic, and relational. Also, the findings of this study suggest that technology entrepreneurs’ way of conceiving the entrepreneurship specifies which competence’s components they develop and what meaning these components take. Our research provides technology entrepreneurs with an understanding of competence when creating and development of their businesses. Moreover, education services, identification of technology entrepreneurs in accelerators, and venture capital and business angels’ investment can be enhanced based on information gathered in this study.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Technology Entrepreneur
  • Phenomenology
  • Competence
  • Interpretive Approach
  • Technological Business
[1] Runge, W. (2014). Technology Entrepreneurship: A Treatise on Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship for and in Technology Ventures (Vol. 2). KIT Scientific Publishing.

[2] Jones-Evans, D. (1995). A typology of technology-based entrepreneurs a model based on previous occupational background. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 1(1), 26-47.

[3] Rojas, F., & Huergo, E. (2016). Characteristics of entrepreneurs and public support for NTBFs. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 363-382.

[4] Phan, P. H., & Der Foo, M. (2004). Technological entrepreneurship in emerging regions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 1-5.

[5] Roberts, E. B., & Wainer, H. A. (1966). Some characteristics of technical entrepreneurs. M.I.T.

[6] Ferreira, J. J., Ferreira, F. A., Fernandes, C. I., Jalali, M. S., Raposo, M. L., & Marques, C. S. (2016). What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 713-733.

[7] Evers, N., Cunningham, J., & Hoholm, T. (2014). Technology entrepreneurship: bringing innovation to the marketplace. Macmillan International Higher Education.

[8] Brinckmann, J. (2008). Competence of top management teams and success of new technology-based firms. Gabler.

[9] Berglund, H. (2015). Between cognition and discourse: phenomenology and the study of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(3), 472-488.

[10] Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: an interpretative approach. Academy of management journal, 43(1), 9-25.

[11] Yitshaki, R., & Kropp, F. (2016). Entrepreneurial passions and identities in different contexts: a comparison between high-tech and social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(3-4), 206-233.

[12] Jones, R., & Parry, S. (2011). Business support for new technology-based firms: A study of entrepreneurs in north Wales. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(6), 645-662.

[13] Hayton, J. C., & McEvoy, G. M. (2006). Guest editors' note. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 291-294.

[14] McHenry, J. (2002). The role and management of learning from experience in an entrepreneurial context. In Entrepreneurial Learning (pp. 94-114). Routledge.

[15] Wainer, H. A. & Rubin, I. M. (1969). Motivation of research and development entrepreneurs: Determinants of company success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(3p1), 178-184.

[16] Tajeddini, K., & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Entrepreneurial characteristics in Switzerland and the UK: A comparative study of techno-entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1-25.

[17] Yang, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, H., & Niu, F. (2015). Escalation bias among technology entrepreneurs: the moderating effects of motivation and mental budgeting. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management27(6), 693-708.

[18] Autio, E. and Kauranen, I. (1994). Technologist-entrepreneurs versus non-entrepreneurial technologists: Analysis of motivational triggering factors. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 6(4), 315-328.

[19] Knight, R. M. (1989). Technological innovation in Canada: A comparison of independent entrepreneurs and corporate innovators. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(4), 281-288.

[20] Gemmell, R. M., Boland, R. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). The socio-cognitive dynamics of entrepreneurial ideation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1053-1073.

[21] Umesh, U. N., Jessup, L., & Huynh, M. Q. (2007). [Getting ideas to market] Current issues faced by technology entrepreneurs. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 60-66.

[22] Samson, K. J., & Gurdon, M. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: a special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63-71.

[23] Marvel, M. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2007). Technology entrepreneurs' human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31(6), 807-828.

[24] Marvel, M. R., & Droege, S. (2010). Prior tacit knowledge and first-year sales: Learning from technology entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(1), 32-44.

[25] Roberts, E. B. (1989). The personality and motivations of technological entrepreneurs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6(1), 5-23.

[26] Sanchez, A. M., & Perez, O. U. (1998). Entrepreneurship networks and high technology firms: The case of Aragon. Technovation, 18(5), 335-345.

[27] Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications Ltd.

[28] Nazarzadeh, Z. M., Pourkarimi, J., Abili, K., & Zakersalehi, G. (2016). Presenting a pattern for faculty members’ competency in the international engagements: A phenomenological study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 8(3), 25-38. {In Persian}.

[29] Boudlaei, H., Khanbashi, M., & Farahani, Gh. (2012). Phenomenological Study about Competencies of Social Entrepreneurs. Journal of Public Administration Perspective, 4(3), 139-165. {In Persian}.

[30] Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press.

[31] Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.

[32] Berglund, H. (2007). Researching entrepreneurship as lived experience. Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship, 3, 75-93.

[33] Julien, H. (2008). Content analysis. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, 2, 120-122.

[34] Cacciotti, G., Hayton, J. C., Mitchell, J. R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2016). A reconceptualization of fear of failure in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(3), 302-325.

[35] Refai, D., Klapper, R. G., & Thompson, J. (2015). A holistic social constructionist perspective to enterprise education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(3), 316-337.

[36] Garrone, P., Grilli, L., & Mrkajic, B. (2018). Human capital of entrepreneurial teams in nascent high-tech sectors: a comparison between Cleantech and Internet. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(1), 84-97.

[37] Waseem, D., Biggemann, S., & Garry, T. (2018). Value co-creation: The role of actor competence. Industrial Marketing Management, 70, 5-12.

[38] Buang, N. A., Halim, L., & Mohd Meerah, T. S. (2009). Understanding the thinking of scientists entrepreneurs: Implications for science education in Malaysia. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(2), 3-11.

[39] Baum, J. A., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of business venturing, 19(3), 411-436.

[40] Cope, J. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship through phenomenological inquiry: Philosophical and methodological issues. International Small Business Journal, 23(2), 163-189.