استقرار ناحیه نوآوری با هدف توسعه منطقه‌ای در رهیافت لنگرگاهی دانشگاه نسل چهارم

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزش عالی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران

2 استادیار دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران

10.22034/jstp.2020.12.3.1241

چکیده

در سال‌های اخیر، نواحی نوآوری به عنوان محرک‌های اصلی توسعه منطقه‌ای، با توسعه زیادی همراه بوده‌اند. در چنین بافتاری، استقرار ناحیه نوآوری با محوریت دانشگاه، در بهترین فرم ساختاری، رفتاری و عملکردی خود که توانایی پاسخگویی به نیازهای ناحیه نوآوری با هدف توسعه منطقه‌ای را داشته باشد، به نگاهی چندجانبه، تعاملی و دقیق به اجزا و عناصر و شیوه‌های طراحی نیاز دارد. این مقاله سعی دارد تا نگرشی ریزبینانه را در خصوص فرایندهای شکل‌گیری ناحیه نوآوری با محوریت موسسه لنگرگاهی (دانشگاه) فراهم آورد. در این پژوهش 680 منبع در مرحله اول و 162 منبع در مرحله پایانی، در یک فرایند چهار مرحله‌ای مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. روش پژوهشی مورد استفاده از نوع مرور نظام­مند و با در نظرگرفتن نگاه جهانی، ابعاد و افق‌های مختلف در یک مطالعه بین‌رشته‌ای است. نتایج پژوهش بیان می‌دارد که به منظور استقرار ناحیه نوآوری با هدف توسعه منطقه‌ای در رهیافت مدل لنگرگاهی دانشگاه نسل چهارم، 5 لایه مختلف زیر متصور می‌شود. 1- نهادی: هاله لنگرگاهی نسل چهارمی (شتابدهی و تسهیلگری)، 2-لایه اجتماعی-جامعه مبتنی بر فرهنگ، نوآوری و داده های باز 3- لایه زیرساختی و شهری 4- لایه جغرافیایی ناحیه نوآوری 5- موسسه لنگرگاهی (دانشگاه نسل چهارمی). این پژوهش همچنین به گسترده شدن افق دید پژوهشگران و متولیان اجرایی بوم‌سازگان نوآوری، مطالعات شهری، تجاری و دانشگاهی کمک می‌کند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Implementing an Innovation District with the Aim of Regional Development under the Anchor Approach Using the Fourth Generation University

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Asgari 1
  • Ali Korsandi 2
  • Saeed Ghiyasi 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Educational Administration & Planning, Faculty of Psychology & Education, Allameh Tabataba’i University (ATU)
2 Assistant Professor, Allameh Tabataba’i University (ATU)
چکیده [English]

The deployment of innovation districts as a key driver for the design and implementation of regional development are widening, the university at its best structural, behavioral and functional form that could respond to the needs of innovation district to enhance regional development requires a comprehensive insight about elements, interactions, and behavioral design in the form of the fourth-generation university. This type of university interacts widely with all role players inside and outside of the area. This paper aims to provide an insight into the shaping process of the fourth-generation university in the innovation district. Based on reviewing 680 articles in the first step and finally 162 articles in the fourth step in a four-step screening approach, the methodological approach of the study utilizes a systematic review of the related literature and considers different global looks, dimensions, and multidisciplinary visions to make final results. The results reveal that in order to enhance regional development through innovation districts, the innovation district under anchor approach with the fourth-generation university must have five layers: (1) Institutional layer - fourth-generation anchorage aura (facilitation and acceleration)- (2) Social layer - based on the culture of innovation, media and open data – (3) Infrastructure and urban layer – (4) Geographical boundary layer of innovation district (5) Anchor Institute (University in Fourth Generation). This study also expands our information about the requirements, shaping process, and interaction of elements in the innovation ecosystem. This study finding prepare an overall insight for Business, Urban, HEIs, and Economy policymakers.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Regional Development
  • Innovation District
  • Fourth Generation University
  • Anchor Institute
[1] Fayolle, A. & Redford, D. T. (2014). Handbook on the entrepreneurial university. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[2] Han, H. & Hawken, S. (2018). Introduction: Innovation and identity in next-generation smart cities. City, Culture and Society, 12, 1–4.

[3] Yigitcanlar, T. & Lӧnnqvist, A. (2013). Benchmarking knowledge-based urban development performance: Results from the international comparison of Helsinki. Cities, 31, 357–369.

[4] Russo, A. P., van den Berg, L. & Lavanga, M. (2007). Toward a sustainable relationship between city and university: a stakeholdership approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 199–216.

[5] Sarimin, M. & Yigitcanlar, T. (2012). Towards a comprehensive and integrated knowledge-based urban development model: status quo and directions. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 3(2), 175–192.

[6] Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S. & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.

[7] Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schrӧder, A. & Zirngiebl, M. (2018). Atlas of social innovation-New practices for a better future. TU Dortmund University, Dortmund.

[8] Iammarino, S. (2005). An evolutionary integrated view of regional systems of innovation: concepts, measures and historical perspectives. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 497–519.

[9]           Miremadi, S. I. (2019). National Innovation System and Its Role in Improving Science, Technology and Innovation Policies. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(2). {In Persian}

[10] Blakely, E. J., and Hu, R. W., 2019, Crafting Innovative Places for Australia’s Knowledge Economy, Springer.

[11] Edvardsson, I. R., Yigitcanlar, T. & Pancholi, S. (2016). Knowledge city research and practice under the microscope: a review of empirical findings. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(4), 537–564.

[12] Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M. & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Evaluating place quality in innovation districts: A Delphic hierarchy process approach. Land Use Policy, 76, 471–486.

[13] Jafar, A., Akbari, M., & Davari, A. (2020). The Effective Factors on the Formation of Innovation Clusters: The Case of Sharif Innovation District. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 12(1), 1-14. {In Persian}.

[14] Loi, M. & Di Guardo, M. C. (2015). A Start-Up Generation Approach For Teaching Entrepreneurship: An Overview Of Affective Learning Results. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(04), 1550027.

[15] Rialti, R., Pellegrini, M. M., Caputo, A. & Dabi’c, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial education and internationalisation of firms in transition economies: a conceptual framework from the case of Croatia. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 13(2-3), 290–313.

[16] Nikina, A., Piqué, J. & Miquel, J. (2016). Areas of innovation in a global world: Concept and practice. IASP Campanillas.

[17]         Nieth, L. & Benneworth, P. (2019). Challenges of knowledge combination in strategic regional innovation processes-the Creative Science Park in Aveiro. European Planning Studies, 1–19.

[18]         Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T. & Guaralda, M. (2018). Attributes of successful place- making in knowledge and innovation spaces: evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina knowledge precinct. Journal of Urban Design, 23(5), 693–711.

[19] Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H. & Veneri, P. (2019). The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area.

[20] Bittencourt, B. A., Zen, A. C., Schmidt, V. & Wegner, D. (2018). The orchestration process for emergence of clusters of innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management.

[21] Popkova, E. G., Popova, E. V. & Sergi, B. S. (2018). Clusters and innovational networks toward sustainable growth. In Exploring the Future of Russia’s Economy and Markets. Emerald Publishing Limited.

[22] Ind, N., Iglesias, O. & Markovic, S. (2017). The co-creation continuum: From tactical market research tool to strategic collaborative innovation method. Journal of Brand Management, 24(4), 310–321.

[23] Laursen, K. & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

[24]         Afuah, A. & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375.

[25]         Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F., Meissner, D. & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.

[26]         Bogoviz, A. V., Shvakov, E. E., Tretyakova, O. G., Zakharov, M. Y. & Abramov, A. N. (2020). Globalization of Education in the Conditions of Formation of the Global Knowledge Economy: Regularities and Tendencies. In Growth Poles of the Global Economy: Emergence, Changes and Future Perspectives (pp. 993–1000). Springer.

[27]         Peters, M. A. & others. (2010). Three forms of the knowledge economy: Learning, creativity and openness. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 5(4), 63–92.

[28]         Pino, R. M. & Ortega, A. M. (2018). Regional innovation systems: Systematic literature review and recommendations for future research. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1463606.

[29]         Adams, D. & Tiesdell, S. (2012). Shaping places: urban planning, design and development. Routledge.

[30]         Arafeh, L. (2016). An entrepreneurial key competencies’ model. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 26.

[31] Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108.

[32] Boulton, G. & Lucas, C. (2011). What are universities for? Chinese Science Bulletin, 56(23), 2506–2517.

[33] Breznitz, S. M. & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139–157.

[34]         Trippl, M., Sinozic, T. & Lawton Smith, H. (2015). The role of universities in regional development: conceptual models and policy institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1722–1740.

[35] Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., Magro, E., Wilson, J. R. & Sotarauta, M. (2017). Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning.

[36]         Bask, A. & Rajahonka, M. (2017). The role of environmental sustainability in the freight transport mode choice. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.

[37]         Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M. & Guaralda, M. (2020). How can an enhanced community engagement with innovation districts be established? Evidence from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Cities, 96, 102430.

[38]         Lukovics, M. & Zuti, B. (2013). Successful universities towards the improvement of regional competitiveness:“ Fourth Generation” universities.

[39]         Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[40]         Edquist, C. (2010). Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2(3), 14–45.