Innovation Ecosystems and Universities
During the last decades the number of universities extending their initial education and teaching missions towards the triple helix and knowledge triangle paradigms, e.g. knowledge and technology transfer and innovation has increased substantially. In line with this evolution the term ‘entrepreneurial university’ became increasingly popular however until recently there is hardly a common understanding of ‘entrepreneurial universities’. The main perception of ‘entrepreneurial universities’ rests with a visible and measurable contribution of universities to innovation and entrepreneurship in a broader sense. Although this perception is plausible and convincing it raises many open questions which mainly point to university governance models. The innovation and entrepreneurial university paradigm requires a holistic view on university governance approaches which include the full set of universities missions and respective management routines. In this respect it’s of utmost importance that universities keep a “healthy balance” between their missions. This statement is frequently used in many instances yet thus far there is no clear indication what a “healthy balance” implies. The chapter provides first indications about entrepreneurial university governance and respective management approaches.
The role of universities has undergone dramatic changes. Universities no longer only host knowledge, but are now required to develop it further and to contribute to economic growth and support for e.g. companies to strengthen their competitiveness. This is of particular importance for the Russian Federation, where the last 20 years saw the dismantlement of the innovation system of the Soviet Union and ever since has been struggling to close the gap to the innovation-driven economies of Western Europe. When the Russian Federation shifted towards a market economy in the 1990s, economists, sociologists, political scientists and/or management staff educated in modern principles of management were in short supply. To alleviate the situation, the State University - the Higher School of Economics - was founded November 27, 1992 by the Russian Federation Government Decree No 736 to educate future leading professionals in the field of economics and social sciences. Currently HSE is the largest research-led institutions in the field of social and economic sciences in Eastern Europe. Spread over Four Russian cities - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Perm. Of particular interest is the Innovation Infrastructure Development Program which puts great emphasize on commercialization of research results and entrepreneurial thinking.
This proceeding volume contains selected contributions from the participants of the IV International Young Researchers Conference: Physics, Technologies and Innovation (PTI-2017) held from May 15 to 19, 2017 in Ekaterinburg, Russia. The conference continued the tradition of annual meetings in the general area of modern science and innovative technology. This, fourth, conference was organized and held by the Institute of Physics and Technology of the Ural Federal University, one of the largest educational institutions in Russia. The primary aim of the conference was providing the opportunity for younger researchers (of graduate and postgraduate level) to meet and discuss the results of their studies, and to present their work in front of a panel of national and international experts. To encourage graduate and postgraduate students to attend and make the meeting as accessible as possible, the conference this year, same as previously, was totally free of charge for all the participants.
This is a book about the “how to” of one of the most important aspects of diaspora engagement — leveraging countries’ talent abroad to support development at home. The understanding that the diaspora (emigrants and their descendants who retain ties to their countries of origin or ancestry) can be a critical partner for development has emerged fairly recently, due in large part to the experience of two new global powers — China and India — whose rise to prominence owes much to the contributions of their talent abroad. In the amazingly short span of about 15 years, the importance of the diaspora to development has evolved from a novel and somewhat heretical hypothesis to conventional wisdom. Now it is commonly acknowledged that diasporas can be important, but the path of developing policies and programs to help realize the promise of diasporas has been fraught with frustration and disappointment. Diaspora contributions seem to come spontaneously rather than as a result of policy interventions; they are a matter of serendipity. By focusing on policy interventions that effectively promote diaspora contributions, the book fills an important gap in the literature.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation
Following a suggestion of Warren Weaver, we extend the Shannon model of communication piecemeal into a complex systems model in which communication is differentiated both vertically and horizontally. This model enables us to bridge the divide between Niklas Luhmann’s theory of the self-organization of meaning in communications and empirical research using information theory. First, we distinguish between communication relations and correlations among patterns of relations. The correlations span a vector space in which relations are positioned and can be provided with meaning. Second, positions provide reflexive perspectives. Whereas the different meanings are integrated locally, each instantiation opens global perspectives—“horizons of meaning”—along eigenvectors of the communication matrix. These next-order codifications of meaning can be expected to generate mutual redundancies when interacting in instantiations. Increases in redundancy indicate new options and can be measured as local reduction of prevailing uncertainty (in bits). The systemic generation of new options can be considered as a hallmark of the knowledge-based economy.
The concept of entrepreneurial university and role of culture in its formation is analyzed. The understanding of academic entrepreneurial culture, as culture integrating the academic and entrepreneurial values is offered. The article reveals that methods for diagnosis organizational culture in enterprises are not suitable for an assessment of university culture. The suggestions are made for development an adequate technique for the diagnosis organizational culture of entrepreneurial university.
This article analyses the concept of entrepreneurial university and the role of culture in its formation. Theproblem of appropriate diagnostic method is being risen. The article discusses the findings of organizational culture assessmentby means ofdiagnostic methodof R.Goffee and G. Jones in the two universitiesof Nizhny Novgorod. The way ofdevelopment of congruent method of the university organizational culture diagnosis is being offered.