A Model to Identify the Impact of Components of Higher Education Management on University-Industry Interaction in Tehran City

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences, 2(10) October 2013, Pages: 766-774

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences www.tijournals.com

ISSN 2306-7276

* Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]

A Model to Identify the Impact of Components of Higher Education Management on University-Industry Interaction in Tehran City Mehdi Noursina *1, Hamid Reza Arasteh 2, Nader Gholi Ghourchian 3

1 Department of Higher Education Administration, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. 2 Faculty Member, Department of Higher Education Administration,, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran. 3 Prof., Department of Higher Education Administration, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Higher Education University-Industry Interaction Management Tehran City

This paper aims to identify the impact of components of higher education management on university-industry interaction and presenting a model in this field. This research, in terms of objective, is an applied study and in terms of time, is cross sectional. Data and information is related to the year 2012.with a survey methodology, the population consists of two groups of large industries and universities of Tehran. The first group includes public universities, Islamic Azad University, University of Applied Science and Payam Nour University Which is a total number of 141. The second group is large industries in Tehran including industries that are likely to have a cooperative relationship with the University whose number is equal to 63 factories and industrial enterprises. In this study in order to gather information, triangulation method was used. Using triangulation of data collection methods, three method of library (reading books, theses, articles and related content available on the internet) to collect secondary data in order to develop theoretical and research literature, and Questionnaire and interview methods to collect primary data. In order to assess the reliability of the survey tools used in this study, Cronbach's alpha was used. Cronbach's alpha calculating for all variables were greater than 0.7 and therefore is acceptable. The variables studied in this research were include social and cultural, structural, administrative, educational and financial components and were prioritized in both groups of industry and university. The first priority of universities is social and cultural components, but in industries it is administrative component.

© 2013 Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

1. Introduction Today, tendency of universities towards industry-required trained manpower as well as the applied, academic researches is more revealed. Establishing interaction between university and industry and then, Commercialization and application of science in society is important. Vacuum is sensed in Intermediary institutions such as Developments of innovation and technology development organizations [11]. The globalization, formation of various unions among communities, development of domestic and foreign markets, and particularly the weakened financial support of the government for universities are of the causes through which universities are inclined to challenges of customers, trades and market demands [24;26; 28]. Therefore, universities undergo training for business deals and lead their intellectual property towards economic values [5]. The university authorities believe that the higher education goes through a new cycle of life called silent revolution. Also, regard it as academic capitalism, an academic rationality in higher education being resulted from new economics of knowledge [16]. A study on stages of development of Iran's higher education demonstrates the commencement of a business tendency, interaction between universities and industries through joint projects, the establishment of joint offices of universities and industries, the offices of technology transfer, nascent and spin-off companies established by preliminary universities, and practical training given to other organizations for which an intuition is received. The formation of industry-communicated councils and higher council of university and industry indicate that Iran's higher education regards the industry as its first customer and attempts to satisfy its demands [1]. At the conferences bringing together the liaison officers of universities and industries, it is explicitly acknowledged that universities should be ranked in accordance with the degree of their bond with industries and with commercialization of research findings. In addition, the transformation of the intermediate management into senior management in liaison offices, emphasis on development of commercial culture in universities, and the further consideration of commercially-potential projects indicate an official, wide-ranged commencement of this trend in Iran [10].

A Model to Identify the Impact of Components of Higher Education Management on University-Industry Interaction in Tehran City Internat ional Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences , 2(10) October 2013

767

Other countries, similarly, make their best endeavors in order to create a close interaction between universities and industries. These attempts, according to experts in economy, acquire a particular significance as the most crucial cause for industrialization of developed countries which is accomplished first by employment of competent, educated persons and then by a close interaction between universities and industries (19). In other words, as the university is an academic institution of research and the industry an economic one, no success is achieved in each of these institutions unless they encourage a mutual cooperation [15]. Iran universities discuss an applied function of research findings, according to the place held and the purposes served in the Fourth Document of Social, Economic Development Program, and purposes served by Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. But, any accomplishment in this regard requires the related operating, success-achieved conditions to be known [11]. The present study, therefore, is an attempt at offering an effective model of determining components that affect the interaction between universities and industries, by which the gap between them may be bridged. The findings may help the university authorities to implement more effective strategies especially as regards the management of higher education.

2. Previous research

2.1 .Theoretical Studies In U.S. ,Commercial bond between the university and the business world during civil wars and after it, Showed a trend of increasing. Yale Report in 1828 was Evidence for this claim .According to this report ,After that America's higher education was questioned about traditional curriculum, The trend towards the development of practical purposes in the curriculum was developed [18;24]. The emergence of the research university model in Germany is a new form of academic rationality .As the result,in a course of time, many of such laboratories were set up in known universities such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Michigan. Such attempts formed the first close business bond with industry as the first partner of universities in U.S. and Europe [21]. The history of commercialization of research findings in Iran which is formed in terms of interaction between universities and the institutions being unrelated to university can be grouped under the following periods [1]: (1) the period from the first-established university to 1961, within which a number of informal interaction occurred but did not satisfy the demands of industrial units, (2) the period from 1961 to 1982, within which new universities were established in Tehran and other big cities and students required urgently to gain information from industrial units, and (3) the period from 1982 up to now, within which CulturalRevolution Council was formed and a number of university-industry interaction offices were administered in Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, industry-related ministries and universities. 2.2. Background Studies Grady (2002), in his PhD dissertation, pointed out that the interaction between universities and industries for the commercialization of research findings leads to cultural clash and resistance of some researches against the market. His study population consisted of the researches of medical colleges in Western Canada. A combination of ANOVA and CHEW tests were utilized in order to put them under different groups on the basis of the studied department. The findings of his study, being recorded on the basis of Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analyses, suggested that personal reasons create the most impact upon the cultural clash and the tendency of researchers towards the commercialization of their research findings. Furthermore, the impact of environmental components as the narrower focus of attention than personal components is required to be taken into serious consideration.

Kutinalahti (2005) suggested that universities in the new millennium stimulated their activities in a finance-valued environment, on the basis of which he studied the personal, college-related and university-related impact of business activities (teaching courses for which the tuition fees are received, the conducting joint researches between universities and industries and offering academic counseling) on freedom for conducting research. 92 percent of respondents considered freedom on the choice of research topic, the methodology of research and release of research findings as the most crucial requirements. Moreover,they regarded decrease in research time and change of research topic as the most important consequence of the commercialization of research findings. They were not concerned with the personal impact, yet they were beset by the systematic consequence of the commercialization on research-conducting freedom in universities and colleges. Jahed (2011), in his Ph.D dissertation on management, examined the reasons making impact on the commercialization of research findings in higher education, proposing a model for following the trend of commercialization. The findings demonstrated that personal reasons including self-efficacy and the need for power exert the most impact on the commercialization of research findings. The findings of factor analysis and assessment of the model revealed that his three-factor model was the most appropriate. Also, there was significant correlation between the major components of the commercialization (personal reasons as well as internal and external affairs of organizations). Noori (2010), in her MA thesis ,studied the relationship between the effective components, the effective measures for and a standard model on the commercialization of the research findings in Iranian Company of Eize. The analysis of questionnaires given to the commercialization-related experts and managers of this company through inferential statistics showed that a conceptual, strategy-dependent, operational model can be utilized for the commercialization of the research findings.

3. Research Questions H1. What model can be presented according to components of higher education management to promote cooperation between

universities and industries? H2. 2. What is the degree of appropriateness of the model?

Mehdi Noursina et al. International Journal of Economy, Management and Soci al Sci ences , 2(10) October 2013

768

4. Methodology This paper aims to identify the impact of components of higher education management on university-industry interaction and presenting a model in this field. This research, in terms of objective, is an applied study and in terms of time, is cross sectional. Data and information is related to the year 2012.with a survey methodology, the population consists of two groups, large industries and universities of Tehran .The following steps were, also, taken. First, it was attempted to form two groups. The first group includes public universities (25), Islamic Azad University (19 branches), University of Applied Science (79 branches) and Payam Nour University (18 branches) Which is a total number of 141. The second group is large industries in Tehran including industries that are likely to have a cooperative relationship with the University whose number is equal to 63 factories and industrial enterprises. The sample is divided into a first group and a second group: First group: according to Background documents and research in universities, include: 8 public universities ( Tehran University, Industrial University of Amir Kabir(or Polytechnics), Industrial University of Sharif, University of Shahid Beheshti, University of Science and Industry, Industrial University of K.N.Toosi, University of Tarbiat Modarres and University of Allameh Tabatabai), 5 Islamic Azad universities (Science and Research Branch, North, South and Central branches), 5 universities of applied science (Food Industry branch, Training and Industrial Research branch, Education and Research branch of Ministry of Industries and Mines, central branch of University of Industries and Mines, and Industrial Research branch) and finnaly, 3 Payam Nour universities (South , East and West branches). Second group: included 63 factories and industrial companies. They, in accordance witha number of filed documents, were regarded highly probable institutes in close cooperation with universities. Questionnaires were sent to 33 units in person and 30 units by post. Table 1 shows the details.

Table 1. Number of Questionnaires

Groups Numbers Numbers of given and or sent questionnaires

Number of received, and suitable for questionnaires

Universities Questionnaires given in person 21 universities 105 (5 questionnaires for each university) 96 Questionnaires given in person 33 units 165 (5 questionnaires for each unit) 96 Industries Postal questionnaires 30 units 90 (3 questionnaires for each unit) 28

Total 360 220 In this study in order to gather information, triangulation method was used. This method is essentially a way to validate the quality and efforts to achieve a convergent information [6]. Using triangulation of data collection methods, three method of library (reading books, theses, articles and related content available on the internet) to collect secondary data in order to develop theoretical and research literature, and Questionnaire and interview methods to collect primary data. The result of the semi-structured interview was used for making the survey tool (questionnaire). The questions according to five-choice Likert scale were made from very low (1) to very much (5). A number of semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to confirm the validity of questionnaires. The interviewed persons were as follows:

(1) Five professors of management, (2) Five professors of industry-related fields, and; (3) Two professors of statistics.

5. Examined components A number of components were recognized according to previous studies [9; 1;12; 2; 7; 3], but here they are categorized and are covered in more organized way:

Structural component Cultural and social component Educational component administrative component Financial component

The reliability of questionnaires was assessed by Cronbach's Alpha which are seen in table 2. This method, to estimate the reliability as internal consistency of measurement scale, is common more than other methods [9].

Table 2. Cronbach's Alpha

Components Cronbach's Alpha 1 Structural component 0.736 2 Cultural and social component 0.921 3 Educational component 0.922 4 Administrative component 0.789 5 Financial component 0.881


769

6. Results and discussion 6.1 .Testing first question According to The standard estimate of the factor analysis in the university (Figure 1) and industry (Figure 2) ,first the components of the overall higher education management which are extracted from the University of and industry can be presented in Figure 3 and then its Conceptual model can be presented as in figure 4.

Figure 1. Standard estimate of the factor analysis in the university


770

Figure 2. standard estimate of the factor analysis in industry


771

Figure 3. the overall shape of Higher Education Management components affecting the relationship between university and industry Figure 4 illustrates the final model of the present study, being resulted from components making impact on the interaction between universities and industries. All five components (structural, cultural and social, educational, administrative, and financial components) in universities and industrial units made impact on enhancing interaction. However, some distinction lay in the degree of their impact, indicating that the examined universities and industries attached different significance to the focused components. For instance, the impact of structural component was .92 in universities and .71 in industrial units. This conceptual model displays the effective components as well, each with a different degree of impact in universities and industries. For example, awarding educational and researching scholarship as the only component of the financial component was viewed differently by university and industry .The impact of the components in these communities can be summarized as follows:(1) the cultural, social component 100% in universities and %99 in industrial units, (2) the structural component %92 in universities and 71% in industrial units, (3) the administrative component 82% in universities and 100% in industrial units, (4) the educational component 43% in universities and 92% in industrial units, and (5) the financial component 32% in universities and 34% in industrial units. 6.2. Testing second question 6.2.1. Fitness tests of model The purpose of model fitting is that to what extent a model has consistency and agreement with the relevant data. There are a broad set of fitness criteria and indices that can be used to measure fitness of model. A fitness index depending on the method of estimation, the complexity of the model, assumptions of normality or a combination of of the above conditions, acts differently [13]

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI): the relative amount of variance and covariance is measured together. GFI ranges between 0 and 1 and is desirable to be equal to .9 or higher.

Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI): the mean square is substituted with the total square in denominator and numerator (GFI-1). It ranges between 0 and 1 and is desirable to be equal to .9 or higher.

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): In good models, it is equal to or lesser than .05. The models in which RMSEA is .1 are considered weak-fitted. The more this index is near to 0, the more the model is fitted.

Normed-fit Index (NFI): This index, being susceptible to the sample size, is not strongly suggested for the small size of samples. As indicated by Bentler (1990), the NFI values equal to or greater than .9 (as compared with zero models) is considered appropriate for measuring theoretical model fit. The value of .8 is also suggested by other scholars.

Comparative Fit Index (CFI): The fit of the mode is measured by a comparison of a so-called independent model in which there is no relation between the variables with the respective proposed model. The values greater than .90 is regarded a criterion for the model fit.

Chi-Square (x2): It is very affected by the sample size so far as the large size of sample increases x2 value .This increase is not considered a false model.

In order to examine the conceptual model in Table 3, six common indexes with an acceptable value of each index proposed in previous research were used.

Table3: fix indexes of research model

The suggested value Statistics of Measurement model of University

Statistics of Measurement model of industry Fit Index

<5 2.76 2.88 X2/df <0.06 (Joreskong and Sorbom, 1996) 0.076 0.077 RMSEA

>0.90 (Fornel and Larcker, 1981) 0.89 0.88 NFI >0.90 (Joreskong and Sorbom, 1996) 0.90 0.89 CFI

>0.90 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) 0.92 0.90 GFI >0.80 (Etezadi-Amoli and Farhoomand, 1996) 0.90 0.88 AGFI

University Industry Educational

Cultural and Social

Structural

Administrative

Financial

Financial

Administrative

Cultural and Social

Structural

Educational Interaction


772

Figure 4. A Conceptual Model for Components of Higher Education Management

0.23 University The significance of higher research centers

0.82 Industry

S2

0.60 University By-laws 0.54 Industry S3

0.82 University Founding Knowledge-based companies 0.74 Industry S5

0.81 University The age of students and craftsmen 0.75 Industry C1

0.79 University Students' and Craftsmen's sense of dignity for economic products 0.83 Industry C2

0.34 University Fostering the commerce-inclined culture in universities and the knowledge-based culture in industrial units

0.23 Industry C3

0.37 University Broadcast of Cultural fosterage, scientific promotion & industrial stimulation

0.33 Industry C7

0.25 University Globalization 0.34 Industry C9

0.43 University Improving the mutual understanding 0.91 Industry E1

0.64 University Developing applied, training programs for encouraging cooperation 0.86 Industry E4

0.32 University Numbers of patent-filed articles published by researchers 0.48 Industry E5

0.57 University Determining research priorities 0.46 Industry E10

0.76 University operating the promoting system of faculties by taking industrial researches into more careful consideration 0.61 Industry

E11

0.73 University Offering industrial training courses 0.42 Industry

E12

0.67 University Participation of experts in industry in educational research activities of universities

0.44 Industry E13

0.78 University Training industrial managers in universities 0.76 Industry

0.81 University Risk management for conflict of interests 0.64 Industry

M2

0.56 University Adopting Intellectual or spiritual capital for inventors 0.67 Industry M4

0.85 University Awarding educational, researching scholarship 0.21 Industry F6

University-Industry Interaction

Structural components

Educational components

Cultural and Social components

Financial component

Administrative components


773

7. Conclusion In today's developed world, the traditional universities are transformed into flexible, society-oriented, and industrial-based institutions because their activities are not stimulated unless they satisfy the demands of industrial units and unless they make their findings applied. The present study proposed a comprehensive model for detecting the impact of components of higher education management on interaction between universities and industry in Tehran and examined the model fit. The variables studied in this research were include social and cultural, structural, administrative, educational and financial components and were prioritized in both groups of industry and university. The first priority of universities is social and cultural components, but in industries it is administrative component. Financial component in both communities is the last priority. Furthermore, a number of subgroups formed for each component were given different priorities in universities and industrial units. For instance, Age of students and craftsmen has the highest rank in the social and cultural components(81%); establishing Knowledge-based companies in universities and industry in the structural components are top rated (82%); Risk management of conflicts of interest and industry is of primary importance in the administrative components(81%) and in the educational components, reforming Promotion system of the faculty to give more value to industrial research activitiesis more important (76%).also, in financial components, Providing scholarships and sponsering from industry To the University and vice versa, is of great importance(85%). The findings of this research is consistent with the findings of Domino (2006), Kutinalahti (2005), Todorvic (2004), Grady (2002), Bagherinejhad (2008), and Jahed (2011). Domino in his study has referred to financial factors influencing the market-oriented higher education. Kutinalahti studied the effect of the interaction between the market and the university. His Findings in some financial factors are consistent with our research. Todorvic In his study on entrepreneurial orientation investigates the incidence of market-oriented activities in universities. Grady in his PhD dissertation, pointed out that the interaction between universities and industries for the commercialization of research findings leads to cultural clash and resistance of some researches against the market. This paper was, as well, in agreement with Bagherinejad (2008) emphasizing, in his general study that a particular mechanism exists in the interaction between university community and industrial community. A similar consistency lay with Jahed's findings, indicating that environmental components (internal as well as external) are of significance in commercialization of research findings in industries and markets.

References [1] Abbasi, B. (2009). TheImpact of Commercialization on Value System of University Community: Development of a Good Model. PhD Dissertation

on Management of Higher Education. Iran: Azad University of Tehran Science and Research Branch. [2] Arasteh, H. (2004). Interaction between University Community & Industrial Community.The Journal of Research & Curriculum of Higher

Education10(3), pp. 52-92. [3] Awbery, S.M. (2006).Making the "Invisible Hand" Visible: The Case for Dialogue about Academic Capitalism.Retrieved in June 15, 2013 from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED469338. [4] BagheriNejad, J. (2008). Interaction between University Community &industry for Development of Technology in Iran: Mechanism & proposal.

The Journal of Technology & Science Policy1(1), pp. 1-13. [5] Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246. [6] Danaeefard, H. (2004). Knowledge-Based Economy & Institutional Integrity of University Community. Iran: Roshd Publishing Company. [7] Decter, M., Bennet, D.J &Leseure, M.(2007). University to business technology transfer- UK and U.S. comparison.The Journal of

Technovation27(3), pp145-155. [8] Delavar, A. (2004). Theoretical & Scientific Principles of Research in Human and Social Sciences.Iran: Roshd Publishing Company. [9] Denison, E.F (2005). Why Growth Rates Differ.U.S.: The Brookings Institution. [10] Domino and et al. (2006). Higher education marketing concerns: factor influence student’s choice of colleges. The Journal ofBusiness ReviewVol 6,

pp. 101-111. [11] fakoor, B. (2006). Effective Conditions for Commercialization of Research Findings in Universities.The Journal of Rahyaft 40 (2). [12] Feldman, K.S (2007). The commercialization of public higher education: Balancing academic, fiscal and market values.PhD dissertation on

EducationalLeadership.Mexico: university of New Mexico. [13] Grady, K.O (2002).Influence of personal and environmental factors academic medical researcher decision to commercialize the results of their

research.PhD Dissertation on philosophy. Canada: University of west Canada [14] Hashemidaran, H. &GhaedMohammadi, M. (2007).Significant of Interaction between Universities & Industrial Units for Higher Education Reform

in Third Millennium.In conference of higher education in third millennium (p.2). Iran: Institution of Young Researchers of Roodehen Azad University.

[15] Jahed, H. (2011). Effective Components on Commercialization of Higher Education Findings & A model for showing Correlation between Them: A study of Azad University of Tehran Science and Research. PhD Dissertation on Management of Higher Education. Iran: Azad University of Tehran Science and Research.

[16] Kalantari, Kh. (2009). Data Analysis in Social, Economic Researches. Iran: Farhange Saba Publication. [17] Konecny, E. (1995). Universities & Industrial Research. (M. Shafiee, 2009). Iran: Industrial University of Amir Kabir. [18] Kutinalahti, p. (2005).University approaching market: intertwinig scientific and entrepreneurial goal VTT publication.PhD dissertation on

Educational leadership. Australia: university of Australia. [19] .Noori, S. (2010).Effective Components of Commercialization: A study of Eize Iran Company.MA Thesis on Technology Management. Iran:

Department of Management and Economy of Azad University of Science and Research. [20] Plewa, C. &Quester, P. (2005).Marketing Orientation in University-Industry linkages.The Journal of Business Administration,Vol. 34, pp. 3-21. [21] Powers, J.B. (2000). Academic entrepreneurship in higher education: institutional effects on performance of university technology transfer.PhD

Dissertation on philosophy.U.S.: Indiana University.


774

[22] Richardson C.R et al. (1998). Higher education governance: balancing institutional and market influence.U.S.: National center for public policy and higher education. Pp. 1-26.

[23] Shafiee, M. (2006). Interaction between University Community & Industrial Community: A Murky Past &A Bright Future. Iran: Industrial University of Amir Kabir.

[24] Sharifee, H.P &Sharifee, N. (2004).Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Iran: Sokhan Publishing Company. [25] Sharghi, A. (2004). International Relations & Scientific Promotion.In Encyclopedia of Higher Education. Iran: Institution of Great Persian

Encyclopedia. [26] Taghavinia, K. (2011). A study of Inventors' Regard to Commercialization of Inventions.MA Thesis on Entrepreneurship Management.Iran:

Management Department of Tehran University. [27] Todorvic, Z.W. (2004). The entrepreneurial orientation of university department and to the incidence of commercial activity.PhD thesis on

philosophy in management sciences.Canada: University of waterloo. [28] Willmott, H. (1995). Administrative TheAcademics: Commodification and Control in Development of University Education in UK.Human

Relations, 48(9). pp. 2-8.

Documents

A Model to Identify the Impact of Components of Higher Education Management on University-Industry Interaction in Tehran City