بازشناسی چالش های فراروی تجاری سازی پژوهشهای مدیریت آموزشی با ارائه نظریه زمینهای

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترا مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 استادیار دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

3 استادیار دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

4 استاد دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

این پژوهش با رویکردی تفسیر گرایانه سعی دارد چالشهای فراروی تجاری سازی پژوهشهای مدیریت آموزشی را از دید پژوهشگران این حوزه شناسایی کند. رویکرد پژوهشی بکاربرد شده از نوع روش شناسی کیفی میباشد و روش مردم نگاری برای انجام عملیات پژوهش بکار رفته است. دادههای این پژوهش با استفاده از روش مشاهده مشارکتی و مصاحبه باز و عمیق جمع آوری شده و سپس با استفاده از روش مثلثسازی ترکیب شدهاند. روش نمونهگیری بکار رفته در این پژوهش از نوع روش نمونهگیری کیفی- نظری است و با استفاده از شاخص اشباع نظری تعداد 9 نفر از پژوهشگران حوزه مدیریت آموزشی به عنوان نمونه جامعه پژوهش مورد مصاحبه قرار گرفتند. نگرش و دیدگاه آنها نسبت چالشها و مشکلات فراروی تجاری سازی پژوهشهای مدیریت آموزشی نظریه » مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. برای تجزیه و تحلیل دادهها و نتیجه گیری از یافتههای پژوهش از استفاده شده است و به بیان دیگر، در این پژوهش به جای آزمون نظریه و تایید یا رد آن « زمینهای به ارائه نظریه به صورت محدود پرداخته میشود. یافتههای اصلی این پژوهش با استفاده از نظریه زمینهای شامل موضوعهایی همچون: ناتوانمندی علمی، سیاستگذاری، ناتوان میلی پژوهشگر، بد انگاری تجاریسازی و ماهیت پژوهشها میباشد که میتوان تمامی مقولات را زیر مقوله در این نظریه زمینهای « مقوله هسته » قرار داد. به بیان دیگر، ناتوانمندی علمی « ناتوانمندی علمی » میباشد. با استفاده از این موضوعها مدل پارادایمی ارائه شده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Recognition of Challenges Facing the Commercialization Research in Educational Administration through Presenting a Grounded Theory

نویسندگان [English]

  • B Mahmoodpor 1
  • H Rahimiyan 2
  • A Abaspor 3
  • A Delavar 4
چکیده [English]

This study with a sociological interpretation approach set out with the aim of taking researchers' viewpoint on the challenges in relation to commercialization of research in Educational Administration. The qualitative research methodology was adopted and the ethnographical approach, specifically, was used in the course of study. Participatory observation and open and deep interviewing techniques together with triangulation techniques were used to gather the data. Using theoretical saturation index, nine researchers in the field of Educational Administration participated in the study. The participants were interviewed and their attitudes and perspectives on challenges in relation to commercialization and its dimensions and various aspects were studied. To analyze data and concluding the research findings, "Grounded theory" was used. In the present study, testing hypotheses was not exercised. Rather, the study came up with the theory on a limited basis. The main findings of this study included categories such as Scientific disability, Policy, Researcher’s uninterestedness, Negligence, Research structure, and categories which can be categorized under the category of "Scientific disability ". In other words Scientific disability in this Grounded theory is the "Core Category". Using these categories, a paradigmatic model was presented.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Commercialization
  • Educational Administration
  • Grounded theory
  • Scientific Disability
  • Paradigmatic Model
Abbasi, B. Gholipour, A. Delavar, A. ( 2009). A Qualitative Research
about the Effect of Commercialization Approach on the Traditional
Academic Values ,Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2 (2) :63-
76(in Persian).
URLhttp://www.nrisp.ac.ir/jstp/browse.php?a_code=A-10-28-
103&slc_lang=fa&sid=1
Alaghband, A. (2010), Educational Administration Preparations (Sixth
Edition) Ravan Publications (in Persian).
Azizi, N. (2008); examining the challenges and shortcomings of
academic graduation in field of humanities reflection on university
students, Higher Education Quarterly, Year 1 No. 2, pp: 1-29(in Persian).
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R. and Sobrero, M. (2006); Institutional changes
and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian
universities, patenting activities between 1965 and 2002, Research Policy,
Vol.35, pp: 518- 32.
Bazargan, A. (2009); An introduction to qualitative research and mixed
method: different approache in the Behavioral Sciences, Tehran, Didar
publisher (in Persian). 
 
Biemans, W.G. and Harmsen, H. (1995); Overcoming the development,
journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, vol.1,no.2,pp:7-
25.
Boustany, D., Mohammad Pour, A. (2010) Reconstructional means on
boy sexual orientation than girls (provide an Grounded Theory), Journal of
Strategic Studies weman (Book of weman), Year 11, No. 44, pp:15(in
Persian).
Bozeman, B. (2000); Technology transfer and public policy: a review of
research and theory, Research Policy, Vol.29 (4-5), pp: 627-55.
Charmaz, K. (2008); Grounded Theory as an Emergent Method, hand
book of emergent method, Edited by Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy and
Patricia Leavy, New York, Division of Guilford publication.
Cohen,L.; Manion, L.; and Morrison, K. (2007); Research Methods in
Education, (6ed), Routledge.
Creswell,W.j. (2007); qualitative inquiry and research design,sage
publications.
Danaifard, H., and Alwani, S. M. and Adalazar, (2007); Qualitative
research methodology in management: a comprehensive approach, Tehran,
Saffar publisher (in Persian).
Debackere, K., Veugelers, R.,ý. (2005); The role of academic
technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links,
Research Policy, Vol. 34, pp: 321-342.
Downie, J. (2006); the Power of Money: Commercialization of Research
Conducted in Public Institutions, Journal of Otago Law Review, Vol 11 No
2, pp: 305-324.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003); Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of
the entrepreneurial university, Research Policy, Vol.32, pp: 109–21.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000); the dynamics of innovation:
from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–
industry government relations, Research Policy, Vol.29, pp: 109–23.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Regina, B. and Terra, C.
(2000); The future of the university and the university of the future:
evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy,
Vol.29 ,pp: 313–30.
Fakoor, B. (2005); commercialization of research results, rahyaft
journal,N: 24, pp: 53-58(in Persian).
Gall, M. Burke, W. Gall, J. (2007); Qualitative and quantitative research
methods in educational sciences and psychology, Nasr, AR et al, Volume II,
Tehran, Samt publisher(in Persian).
Given,Lisa M. (2008); The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Method, SAGE Publications. 
 
Hooman, Heidar A. (2006); hand book of Qualitative Research, Tehran,
Samt publisher (in Persian).
Howells, J, McKinlay, C. (1999); Commercialization of University
Research in Europe, Expert Panel on the Commercialization of University
Research of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Ontario,
Canada,
Jacob, M, Lundqvist M, Hellsmark, H. (2003); Entrepreneurial
transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers
University of Technology, Research Policy, Vol.32, pp: 1555- 1568.
kutinalahti, P. (2005); University approaching market: intertwining
scientific and entrepreneurial goal, VTT: No 589. Pp: 1-170.
Landry, R. Amara,ý N. Rherrad, I.ý. (2006); Why are some university
researchers more likely to create spinoffs than others? Evidence from
Canadian universities, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1599-1615.
Mohammad Pour, A., Iman, M. T. (2008); Reconstructional means about
the consequences of economic changes in Iran's Kurdistan region Orman
beds: provide an Grounded Theory, Social Welfare Quarterly, Year VII N:
28(in Persian).
Mok, K. (2005); Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of
government and higher education governance in Hong Kong, Research
Policy, Vol.34 : 537-54.
Nagy J and Robb A. (2007); Can universities be good corporate
citizens?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, in press.
O’LEARY, Z. (2004).The essential guide to doing research, SAGE
Publications.
Paya, A. (2006); the future of Human Sciences in Iran , Methodology of
Social Science and Humanities, Year: XII, No. 47(in Persian).
Paya, A. (2007); two essays about culture, technology and ethics,
Tehran, Institute for Social and Cultural Studies(in Persian).
Paya, A. (2008); Critical considerations about the two concept of
religious science and indigenous knowledge, the Second Congress of
Human Sciences, Tehran, Institute of Humanities (in Persian).
Pourezzat A. A., Nadirkhanlou, S., Gholipour, A. ( 2010);
Representating Barriers to Academic Entrepreneurship and Knowledge
Commercialization at University of Tehran ,Journal of Science and
Technology Policy, 2 (4) :65-77(in Persian).
URL http://www.nrisp.ac.ir/jstp/browse.php?a_code=A-10-28-
61&slc_lang=fa&sid=1
Ridenour Carolyn S. and Newman I. (2008); Mixed Methods Research,
Southern Illinois University Press Carbondale.
 
Scott, D. and Marlene M. (2006); Key Ideas in Educational Research,
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A. N. (2003);
Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the
effectiveness of university–industry collaboration, Journal of High
Technology Management Research, vol:14, pp:111–33.
Straus, A and Corbin, J. (2008), “Basics of Qualitative Research:
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory”, Third
Edition, Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Zhouying, JIN. (2005) "Global Technological Change; From Hard
Technology to Soft
Technology", Translated by Kelvin W. Willoughby, Bristol, UK.