Pathology of Innovation Capabilities creation in Iranian University Management (Case: Islamic Azad University)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• NADER Barzegar ¹
• Nadergholi ghorchian ²
• ali Taghipur zahir ²

¹ Educational management, faculty member, tehran, iran

² Educational Management, Management and Economics, Research Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The present studys aim is to indentify the challenge and damage of innovation capacities creation in Iranian university management based on Islamic Azad University. The research method is applied in terms of the applied (qualitative-quantitative) data, and in terms of the nature and method of the implementation of the foundation and a cross-sectional survey. The studys statistical population in qualitative part were University experts that 17 of them is selected as samples and participated in the interview process. The statistical population quantity part were 248 persons in position of managers, research and technology assistant, educational assistant ,faculty heads and prominent academic staffs that the emphasis was on different management attitude and expert of higher education in Islamic Azad universities branch. Based on Morgan's table, 212 people were selected as sample size and distributed randomly among the questionnaires,that finally, 197 questionnaires were returned.The designed questionnaire consisted of 2 dimensions, 9 components and 106 indicators, which were arranged in the form of a two-way Likert spectrum. In order to determine the reliability and validity of the qualitative part of Delphi technique, in the quantitative stage for determining the validity, formal validity were used and Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the credibility of the questionnaire. The data analysis method is used in the qualitative section of the encoding technique and in the quantitative section, besides the descriptive statistics,exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory, and one-sample t-test and two correlated groups,have been used.
The results are as follows:The appropriate for innovation capacity creation in university management has 2 dimensions, 8 components and 106 indicators (including hard dimension with three components of organization and organizational structure(35 indicators), organizational processes (3 indicators),resources and equipment(4 indicators) and soft dimension with 5 components of organizational culture(12 indicators), human capital management (18 indicators), leadership and strategic management of knowledge (14 indicators), education and promotion of science (9 indicators), research and technology (11 indicators). The situation of both hard and soft dimensions of creativity of innovation capacity and their components is lower than theoretical average, and in general, the situation is lower than the average and expected level.

Keywords

• Innovation
• Creation of Innovation Capacity
• Academic Management

20.1001.1.20086369.1398.10.37.13.7

---

References

• Barbieri, J. C. and Teixeira A. C. (2016). Sixth generation innovation model: description of a success model, journal of Innovation, In Press.
• Brennan, John, Broek, Simon, Durazzi, Niccolo, Kamphuis, Bregtje, Ranga, Marina and Ryan, Steve. (2014). Study on innovation in higher education: final report. European Commission Directorate for Education and Training Study on Innovation in Higher Education, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 9789279350818.
• Bouncken, R. B. and Fredrich, V. (2016). Business model innovation in alliances: Successful configurations Journal of Business Research, 65(5): 3621–3651.
• Briggs, C. L. (2007). Curriculum collaboration: A key to continuous program renewal. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 676-711.
• Gourchian, Naderogholi and Jamshidi Evanaki, Mina. (2004). A Model for the Workload of Faculty Members, Tehran, Metacognitive Andisheh Publications.
• Gourchian, Naderogholi. (2008). Universities as a Model for Sustainable Development: A New Paradigm. Encyclopedia of Higher Education. P. 230
• Carayanis, E.G., & Campbel, D.F.J. (2012). Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, London: Prayer Publisher, London.
• Crişana, A& Enacheb, R. (2011). Designing customer oriented courses and curricula in higher education. A possible model. Teachers for the Knowledge Society. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 11, Pp. 235–239. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.
• Cornell University. (2017). Global Innovation Index, Innovation Feeding the World. INSEAD, WIPO. Tenth Edition.
• Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2006). Groups: Process and practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
• Douglas, A. & Douglas, J. (2006). Campus Spies? Using Mystery Students to Evaluate University Performance. Educational Research, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 111-119.
• Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a Culture of Change; San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Haghighat, Atieh. (2013). Provide a model for prioritizing factors affecting open innovation using Dietal method. Technology Growth. 13. 51.
• Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Läpplea, A. Renwickb, J. Cullinanc and Thorned, F. (2016). What drives innovation in the agricultural sector. A spatial analysis of knowledge spillovers, 66: 632–661.
• Lopez, I. G.(2005). Building Universities of Quality: An Analysis of the Views of University Students Concerning their Academic Training. Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 30, No. 3-4, pp. 321-334.
• Marques, C. and Ferreia, J. (2009). SME innovative Capacity, Competitive Advantage and Performance in a Traditional Industrial Region of Portugal. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 4(4), 53-68.
•  Mirkamali, Seyed Mohammad, Khorshidi, Abbas. (2013). Methods of Creating Creativity in the Educational System. Tehran: Eustaver.
• Mozafari, Mehdi Malekmohammadi, Mehrdad. (2015). Evaluating the effective factors in the process of supplying technology innovations with an interpretive structural modeling approach. Second International Conference on Management and Information Technology. August 7, 2016.
• Nunn, G. M. (2008). The perceived leadership skills needed to improve the effectiveness of charge nurses: A Grounded Theory Study. Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
• Norman, Rudhumbu. (2015). Enablers OF and Barriers to  Successful Curriculum in Higher Education: A Litierature Review, International Journal of Education Learning and Development, Vol.3, No.1, pp.12-26.
• Rosser, V. J., Johnsrud, L. K., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Academic deans and directors: Assessing their effectiveness from individual and institutional perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1): 1–25.
• Scott and Bruce. (2014). The role of gratification ‎opportunities in determining media preference.
• Timmons & Timmons. )2015(. Theory and Research in Mass Communication: ‎Contexts and Consequences .
• Thomas Kenneth. W & Velthouse, Betty, A .( 2014). “Cognitive Elemens of Empowerment: An Integrative Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation” Academy of  Management  Review. Vol 15. No.4 pp: 666-68.
• Turani, Haidar. Aghaii, amir, Molaii nejad, Azam. (2013). Obstacles to supporting innovations and providing the appropriate model for the establishment of the innovation system in education. Educational innovations. 16. 63.
• Walravea, B. and Ravenb, R. (2016). Modelling the dynamics of technological innovation systems, In Press.
• Yamani, Mohammad. (2008). New Approaches and Perspectives in Higher Education, Tehran, Research Institute of Cultural and Social Studies.