The Third Mission of University Beyond Technology Transfer: A Critique of Economic Approaches in Agricultural College's Engagement with Society in Iran

Authors

1 PhD Student in 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 Extension 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

Abstract

Over the past two decades, in addition to traditional teaching and research missions, a third mission has been defined for universities, known as the University's business interaction with the community or the University of Entrepreneurs. However, an entrepreneurial university can lead to a relative improvement in the financial situation of universities, and may also lead to an increase in regional or national economic performance; but university entrepreneur are not the last change in the university. in fact, the university's third mission differs significantly by focusing on economics and conventional technology transfer methods and its usual definition desperately needs serious criticism and scrutiny. In fact, there is no single definition of the third or third generation mission of the university, because each country is unique in terms of its institutional set and economic and social contexts, and therefore the prerequisites for the third mission are unique. Based on the situation of agricultural development in Iran and the prevailing environmental conditions, the third mission of agricultural colleges is different from its conventional definition or technology transfer and focus on economic development. This analytical- review article, with a critical perspective, has been written with the aim of clarifying the difference between the third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the university-industry approach and also while paying attention to farmers and Emphasizing the need to change the Triple Helix of industry, government and academia; By presenting a model, it proposes new dimensions of the university's third mission beyond economics in agricultural colleges.

Keywords

References

  1. اتاق بازرگانی صنایع، معادن و کشاورزی استان تهران. 1399. شاخص نوآوری جهانی 2020. قابل‌ دسترس:https://iranfuturistic.mcls.go v.ir/icm-content/media/article.
  2.  احسانی، و.، اعظمی، م.، نجفی، س و سهیلی، ف. 1397. اثربخشی رشد فزآینده پژوهش‌های کشاورزی ایران بر شاخص‌های توسعه کشاورزی کشور. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی، ‌7(2): 292-316.
  3. افقه، س.، آهنگری، ع و پورلاهیجی، ح. 1399. برآورد شاخص توسعه انسانی استان‌های ایران و بررسی تأثیر آن بر رشد اقتصادی با استفاده از منطق فازی. فصلنامه‌ی اقتصاد مقداری، ‌17 (2):121-89.
  4. باقرنژاد،‌ ج. 1395. شناسایی و تحلیل مشکلات سیستمی در نظام نوآوری ایران. نوآوری و ارزش‌آفرینی،‌ 5‌ (10): 24-1.
  5. ثمری، ع.، یمنی دوزی سرخابی، م.، صالحی عمران، ا و گرایی نژاد، غ. 1396. دانشگاه‌های دولتی ایران «توسعه دانشگاهی» بررسی و شناسایی عوامل مؤثر در فرآیند. فصلنامه مطالعات برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی، 2 (4): 100-67 .
  6. حسن بیگی، ا. 1390. مدیریت راهبردی. سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی و دانشگاه عالی دفاع ملی. تهران
  7. خبرگزاری تسنیم. 1399. چشم‌انداز ۱۴ شاخص کلان اقتصاد ایران در سال آینده. قابل ‌دسترس: https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news
  8. خبرگزاری جمهوری اسلامی. 1399. سهم 8 درصدی بخش کشاورزی از تولید ناخالص داخلی کشور. قابل‌دسترس: https://www.irna.ir/news/  
  9. زلالی، ن و خسروی­پور، ب. 1394. تنگناها و چالش‌های اشتغال دانش‌آموختگان کشاورزی از دیدگاه مدیران اجرایی. پژوهش مدیریت آموزش کشاورزی، 2 (33): 88-73.
  10. سبحانی،‌ ح و جلالی، ا. 1397. سنجش آگاهی و رفتار زیست‌محیطی روستاییان (مطالعه موردی: دهستان زنگلانو). برنامه‌ریزی فضایی، 8 (1): 50-29.
  11. سلطانی­نژاد، س.، کزاری، ا و سلطانی نژاد،‌ ن. 1395. عارضه‌یابی عملکرد شرکت‌های قطعه‌سازی کوچک و متوسط. مدیریت تولید و عملیات، 7 (1):120-103.
  12. شریف‌زاده ا و عبداله­زاده غ. 1390. بررسی رضایت دانشجویان کشاورزی از کیفیت آموزشی. پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی. 17 (3): 51-74

13. شریف‌زاده، م.، عبداله­زاده، غ.، اکبری، م و دهکردی، ع. 1395. کارآفرینی و پایداری به‌سوی کارآفرینی پایدار. انتشارات سازمان جهاد دانشگاهی دانشگاه تهران. تهران

  1. صالحی،‌ ص و پازوکی نژاد،‌ ز. 1393. تحلیل عوامل اجتماعی مؤثر بر نگرش و عملکرد زیست‌محیطی دانشجویان. جامعه‌شناسی کاربردی، 25 (3): 88-71.

15. عادل، ش. 1396. بررسی وضعیت مؤلفه‌های دانشگاه نسل سوم در دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی از دیدگـاه اعضای هیات‌علمی پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ تهران.

  1. علیزاده،‌ ر. 1397. تأثیر دانشگاه نسل سوم بر توسعه صنعت، تأملی بر سیاست‌های علمی دولت. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. موسسه آموزش عالی پرندک.
  2. فراستخواه، م. 1389. دانشگاه و آموزش عالی منظره‌های جهانی و مسئله‌های ایرانی. چاپ اول، نشر نی. تهران.
  3. فراستخواه، م. 1396. گاه و بی گاهی دانشگاه در ایران. مباحثی نو و انتقادی در باب دانشگاه پژوهش. مطالعات علم و آموزش عالی، چاپ اول، نشر آگاه.‌ تهران.
  4. فریدی، م. 1396. ارائه مدلی برای سنجش آمادگی مؤسسات آموزش عالی برای تبدیل‌شدن به دانشگاه نسل سوم. پایان‌نامه دکتری، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی،‌ دانشگاه ارومیه.
  5. فیوضات، ا و تسلیمی، ‌ر. 1386. بررسی جامعه شناختی رابطه دانشگاه و صنعت در ایران امروز. پژوهشنامه علوم انسانی، 5 (53): 288-267.
  6. مرکز آمار ایران. 1394. نتایج تفضیلی سرشماری عمومی کشاورزی کل کشور. چاپ اول، چاپخانه مرکز آمار ایران. تهران.

22. مظفری، ف.، خورشید، پ.، لقمان، ش و بوداقی، ع. 1390. بررسی نقش و جایگاه میان‌رشته‌ای در رابطه دانشگاه و صنعت. مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 4 (1): 39-25.

23. میرزایی رایینی، ز. 1396. تبیین ویژگی‌های دانشگاه نسل سوم و میزان دستیابی دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان به آن. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی.

24. نادری،‌ ا. 1381. الگوهای چند سطحی و ارزیابی ناهمسانی و کارایی بودجه بین دانشگاه‌های منتخب. سمینار ارائه نتایج طرح نیازسنجی نیروی استانی متخصص. موسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی. تهران. 21 و 22 خرداد.

  1. یمنی دوزی سرخابی،‌ م. 1394. برنامه‌ریزی توسعه دانشگاهی نظریه‌ها و تجربه‌ها. ‌انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.‌ چاپ اول.
    1. Albulescu, V., Litra, M. and Neagu, C. 2014. The “third mission” of universities and some implications. Journal Scientific Bulletin, 76(2): 301-311.
    2. Atchoarena, D. and Gasperini, L. 2003. Education for rural development: towards new policy responses. Food and Agriculture Organization. Italy.
    3. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H. and Youtie, j. 2015. The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44(1): 34-49.
    4. Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. 2009. Mode 3 and quadruple helix: toward a 21century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46 (3 & 4): 201–234.
    5. Chrisman, J., Hynes, T. and Fraser, S. 1995. Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4): 267-281.
    6. Clark, B. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways of transformation. Emerald Publishing Limited. England
    7. Cooperation Chancellor of Aarhus university.2020. Collaboration. Available: https://international.au.dk/about/collaboration/ (retrievedJuly 2020)
    8. Davies, J.L. 1987. The entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 77(1): 22-41
    9. E3M-Project. 2012. Green Paper-Fostering and Measuring ‘Third Mission’ in Higher Education Institutions. available: http://www. e3mproject.eu/docs/Green%20paper-p.pdf.
    10. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national system and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry- government. Research Policy, 29(2):109-123.
    11. Etzkowitz, H. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university- industry linkages. Research policy, 27(8): 823-833.
    12. Etzkowitz, H. 2002. MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. Routledge. London.
    13. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. Terra, B. and Cantisano, R. 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. Falsafi, P. and Shahpasand, M. 2014. Towards Innovative Extension Services in National Agricultural Innovation System in Iran. Workshop on Innovative Extension Services to Agricultural Productivity Manila. Philippines.
    15. Fieldhouse, R. 1996.  A history of modern British adult education. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. London.
    16. Geiger, R.L. and Sa, C.M. 2008. Tapping the Riches of Science: Universities and the Promise of Economic Growth. Harvard University Press. United States
    17. Gibb, A. 2005. Towards the Entrepreneurial University. National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE). available at: https://ncee.org.uk/wp-content/uploads
    18. Goddard, J. B and Chatterton, P. 2003. The response of universities to regional needs. European Journal of Education, 35(4): 85-101
    19. Göransson, B., Maharajh, R. and Schmoch, U. 2009. New Activities of Universities in Transfer and Extension: Multiple Requirements and Manifold Solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36(2): 157-164.
    20. Guerrero, M. and Urbano, D. 2010. The development of an entrepreneurial university. The journal of technology transfer, 37(1): 2-5.
    21. Gunasekara, C. 2006.  Reframing the role of Universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1):101-111.
    22. Hoseini, M. 1991. Faculty development needs and preferred developmental strategies as perceived by faculty members of Iranian agricultural colleges. Unpublished PHD Dissertation, Cornell University Press.
    23. Howells, J., Nedeva, M. and Georghiou, L. 1998. Industry-academic links in the UK. University of Manchester. Manchester.
    24. Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H. 2003. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9):1555-1569.
    25. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J and Salerno, G. 2008. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56 (3): 303-324.
    26. Krcmarova, Correspondencekrcmarova@csvs.cz
      J. 2010. The third mission of higher education institutions: conceptual framework and application in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(4): 315-331.
    27. Leydesdorff, L. 2001.  Knowledge-based innovation systems and the model of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Conference of New Economic Windows: New Paradigms for the New Millennium. Salerno. Italy. September 2001
    28. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The triple helix, quadruple helix and an n-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy?”. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1): 25-35.
    29. Littig, B. and Griesly, E. 2005. Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Journal of Sustainable Development 8(2):21-65.
    30. McBeth. C.H. 2018. Social innovations in higher education. The Emergence and Evolution of Social Impact Centers. Available at: https://repository. upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI10829090.
    31. Massey, D., Quintas, P. and Wield, D. 1992. High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society Science and Space. Routledge. England
    32. Mejlgaard, N. and Ryan, T. 2017. Patterns of third mission engagement among scientists and engineers. Research Evaluation, 26(4): 326-336.
    33. Molas-Gallart, J. and Castro-Martínez, E. 2007. Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4): 321–330
    34. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A. and Duran, X. 2002. Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell group of universities. SPRU, University of Sussex. UK
    35. Montesinos, P., Carot, J., Martinez, J. and Mora, F. 2008. Third mission ranking for world class universities: beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2): 259-271.
    36. Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. 2013. Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Higher Education. 27: 237–262.
    37. Rezaei-Moghaddam, K. and Izadi, H. 2019. Entrepreneurship in small agricultural quick-impact enterprises in Iran: development of an index, effective factors and obstacles. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. 9(1): 1-21.
    38. Rinaldi, C., Cavicchi, A., Spigarelli, F., Lacchè, L. and Rubens, A. 2017. Universities and smart specialization strategy: from third mission to sustainable development co-creation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3): 22-23.
    39. Robinson, F. and Hudson, R. 2013. Can universities really effectively engage with socially excluded communities. In: Benneworth, P. University Engagement with Socially Excluded Communities, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. Netherlands
    40. Rothaermel, F., Agung, S. and Jiang, L.2007. University entrepreneurship: ataxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4): 691-791.
    41. Sa, C. 2008. Tapping the riches of science: universities and the promise of economic growth. Harvard university press. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.
    42. Salamzadeh, A. Salamzadeh, Y. and Daraei, M. 2011. Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial university: a study in Iranian context with an IPOO model. Global Business and Management Research, 3(1):187-191.
    43. Saltmarsh, J. Hartley, M. and Clayton, P. 2009. Democratic engagement white paper. New England Resource Center for Higher Education. at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241832066.
    44. Sam, C. and Sijde, P. 2014. Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6):891-908.
    45. Samiee, S. and Rezaei-Moghaddam, K. 2015. The proposed alternative model to predict adoption of innovations: The case of no-till technology in Iran. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 16(3): 270-279.
    46. Sampson, A. 1962. Anatomy of Britain. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Hodder and Stoughton. United Kingdom.
    47. Schulte, P. 2004. The entrepreneurial university: A strategy for institutional development. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2):187-191.
    48. Siegel, D.S., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. 2007. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (4): 489-504.
    49. Smythe, B. 2014. An historian’s critique of sustainability. Journal of Current Cultural Research, 6(5): 913-929.
    50. Trachtenberg, S.J. 1999. The New Entrepreneurial University. George Washington University Publications. Washington, D.C.
    51. Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K., Doll, C., Kraines, S. and Kharrazi, A. 2014. Beyond the third mission: exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2): 151-179.
    52. Vargiu, A. 2014. Indicators for the evaluation of public engagement of higher education institutions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(3):562-584.
    53. Vorley, T. and Nelles, J. 2009. Building entrepreneurial architectures: a conceptual interpretation of the third mission. Policy Futures in Education. 7(3): 284-296.
    54. Wedgwood, M. 2003. Making engagement work in practice. In the idea of engagement: universities in society,
      ed. S. Bjarnsson and P. Coldstream. Association of Commonwealth Universities. London.
    55. Wissema, J.G. 2009. Towards the third-generation university. First Edition, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. UK.
    56. Woolgar, L. 2007. New institutional policies for university–industry links in Japan. Research Policy, 36(8): 1261-1274.
    57. World Bank. 2007. How universities promote economic growth. Washington, Available at https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/6631 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
    58. Yazdanpanah, M. Feyzabad, F.R., Forouzani, M. Mohammadzadeh, S. and Burton, R.J. 2015. Predicting farmers’ water conservation goals and behavior in Iran: A test of social cognitive theory. Land Use Policy, 47(3): 401-407.
    59. Zhou, C. and Peng, X. 2008. The entrepreneurial university in china: nonlinear paths. Science and Public Policy, 35(9): 637-646.
Journal of Studies in Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Agricultural Development
Volume 6, Issue 4 - Serial Number 24
February 2019
Pages 39-56

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics