پایش اکوسیستم کارآفرینی در مدارس ایران

نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی (کمی)

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت آموزشی(پژوهش محور) ، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تنکابن، تنکابن، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، واحد تنکابن، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تنکابن، ایران

چکیده

روش پژوهش حاضر، توصیفی از نوع همبستگی بود. جامعه­ی پژوهش کلیه­ی صاحب‌نظران حوزه کارآفرینی کشور بودند. با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند تعداد 100 تن بر اساس دامنه­ی فعالیت و نظریه‌پردازی در عرصه‌های مختلف کارآفرینی  به‌عنوان نمونه­ی نهایی انتخاب‌شده بودند. ابزار مورداستفاده در این پژوهش یک مقیاس بازسازی‌شده است. پایایی این مقیاس به ‌کمک روش بازآزمایی و آلفای کرونباخ و روایی آن با بهره‌گیری از تحلیل عاملی انجام شد. پنج عامل اصلی به‌عنوان معرف اکوسیستم کارآفرینی در مدارس ایران بازنمایی شدند. همچنین ضریب پایایی همسانی درونی برای هر یک از عوامل و کل پرسشنامه در حد مناسب برآورد شد در بازسازی مقیاس و بومی‌سازی آن، مؤلفه‌های اکوسیستم کارآفرینی در مدارس ایران مشخص گردید. همچنین بر اساس این مؤلفه‌ها، پنج عامل اصلی تعیین شد. درنهایت یک مقیاس 55 سؤالی برای پایش اکوسیستم کارآفرینی در مدارس ایران طراحی گردید. هنجاریابی مذکور نشان داد که عامل مدیر متعهد به توسعه کارآفرینی در مدرسه از اهمیت بالایی برخوردار است. همچنین عامل‌های ساختار سازمانی، تعهد همه گروه‌های ذینفع مدرسه، فردی سازی برنامه‌های مدرسه و فرهنگ شبکه‌ای نیز در شکل‌دهی اکوسیستم کار‌آفرینی مدرسه، مؤثرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Monitoring the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Iranian Schools

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hanif HajiAghaee 1
  • Ali Khalkhali 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate (Research Based), Department of Educational Management, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University Tonekabon, Iran
2 Department of Educational Management, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon Branch
چکیده [English]

Purpose: The employability of outcomes of education system was a huge challenge to engage the community. It was important that the huge number of people who are exposed to education annually can earn money from these trainings. But over time, the saturation of forces flooded the market and the overcrowded community of unemployed professionals. Different solutions were presented. However, this did not include such success because these solutions did not increase the number of existing businesses. Value Creation was the nascent solution that was used to changing the way. Entrepreneurship with the creation of new businesses has so contributed to the prosperity of employment, with many hopes created. Although entrepreneurship and its development are usually considered to be micro-businesses, they are deeply tied to the development of macroeconomics. This paradigm shift in the definition of the sources of production and the creation of wealth has spawned a new literature. In the meantime, educational systems, such as formal public education, higher education, and even informal education systems, are urgently needed to understand structural change and nature through understanding this paradigm shift. The structure of entrepreneurial schools has been conceptualized by understanding the widespread paradigmatic changes in the creation of wealth created by the creation of the film and the retrieval of the role and contribution of educational systems in this evolution. In general, it seems that, in the current context, transforming entrepreneurial theories into effective practice, it is inevitable to take advantage of these theories, especially in the establishment of school systems. The authors of this paper believe that the establishment of an entrepreneurship ecosystem in schools is the core of the development of entrepreneurial schools. By understanding this necessity, they have attempted to design a pragmatic scale to measure entrepreneurship ecosystems for Iranian schools. Considering the above mentioned points, the following questions are being examined: What are the components of the scale of monitoring of entrepreneurship ecosystems? What factors are saturated with? And how does the system of scoring and interpreting the scale of school ecosystem monitoring? The authors of this paper claim that the design and deployment of an entrepreneurial school is the establishment of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. At the same time, due to the vital importance of establishing an appropriate ecosystem for schools that are planning to become entrepreneurial schools, it is imperative that they regularly monitor the status of their entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, studies show that suitable tools for this work are not available to managers and decision makers. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe the process of constructing and native scale normalization for monitoring the Iranian-Iranian school of entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Method: The research reported in this article was a descriptive correlation. The present article seeks to standardize a scale for monitoring the specific entrepreneurship ecosystem of Iranian schools. The tool used in this study is a scale adapted and rebuilt. For this purpose, the tests were first translated into Persian and the necessary changes were made. Some words and phrases in Farsi were liquefied and corrected. Then, in line with recent changes in the field of entrepreneurship, especially with regard to the structure of Iranian schools, a number of new propositions were developed and added to this tool and finally a 77-point scale was prepared. The propositions of this scale range from one to three to measure the indices of entrepreneurship ecosystems in schools. The research community was all experts in the field of entrepreneurship in the country. Using a targeted sampling method, 100 tons were selected based on the range of activities and theorizing in various entrepreneurship fields as the final sample. The reliability of this scale was investigated using Cronbach's alpha test and its validity using factor analysis.
Results: The factor analysis model was used to analyze the data obtained from the participants' response to the school-based entrepreneurship ecosystem scale scorecard statements. The findings described five main factors as representing the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Iranian schools. Based on the matrix derived from the Varimax rotation, a set of propositions that were co-associated with a factor, formed a factor, and according to the theoretical foundations of the first factor, "Establishment of the leadership of the school committed to the development of entrepreneurship", the factor The second is titled "Establishment of Entrepreneurial Development Organizational Structure," a third factor entitled "The Comprehensive and Practical Commitment of All School Beneficiaries to Entrepreneurship Development", the fourth factor titled "Individualization of All Entrepreneurial School Programs" and the Fifth Part The title "The development of a network of culture for creating creative entrepreneurship at school" was named. Also, the internal consistency coefficient for each of the factors and the total questionnaire was estimated to be appropriate. The 52-item score scoring procedure for school entrepreneurship ecosystems is done by assigning scores (3, 2, and 1) for options (very effective, somewhat effective, and low-impact). The high score shows high impact and low score indicating the ineffectiveness of creating, deploying and continuing the entrepreneurship ecosystem in schools. The maximum score in this test is 156. The scale of school enrollment ecosystems that was designed and conducted in this research, in the initial scoring, only presents raw data, and without a doubt, paying attention only to the raw scores of the test, in terms of interpretation and comparison, is usually faced with a serious rationale of rationality. Therefore, normalization operations were performed.
Conclusion: The design and validation scale in this research has the capabilities needed to monitor the entrepreneurship ecosystem in Iranian schools. Also, the components of this scale can be used to establish an entrepreneurial school. These factors are theoretically and experimentally consistent with the findings of other researchers. The first component, "Establishment of the School Leadership Leader, committed to the development of entrepreneurship," explains the 859.24 percent of the changes in the monitoring of the entrepreneurship ecosystem. This factor shows managers' willingness to facilitate and promote entrepreneurial projects at school. The second component, "Establishment of the temporary organizational structure of entrepreneurship developer", explains 736.7 percent of the changes in the monitoring of entrepreneurship ecosystems. This factor explains that, when organizational structure has lower layers, intra-organizational entrepreneurship becomes more evident. The third component, "Developing the Comprehensive Commitment of All School Beneficiaries to Entrepreneurship Development", includes 936.5 percent of the changes in the monitoring of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. It is important that all school stakeholders, such as management, teachers, employees, parents and, of course, students, understand entrepreneurship and commit to developing it. The fourth component, "Integrated Individualization of All Entrepreneurship-based School Programs", includes 503.4 percent of its monitoring of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. New and innovative products need their own new programs. The fifth component is the component of the "Development of Network Culture for Creativity and Entrepreneurship at School", which explains 4 00/8 percent of the changes in the monitoring of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. Networking has a tremendous impact on the advancement of business creation and is of interest to all entrepreneurs and companies active in this field.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "Entrepreneurial School"
  • "Entrepreneurship Ecosystem"
  • "Entrepreneurship Education"
  • "Employability"

Acs, Z.J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.

Allen, M.J., & Yen, M. (2011). An Introduction to Measuring Theories (Psychometric). (Delavar, Ali). Tehran: Samt. (in Persian).

Aminpoor, H., & Zare, H. (2014). Investigating the Psychometric Properties of Hardness Test and Studying Its Differences among Students with Academic and Non-Academic Education, First Scientific Conference on Educational Sciences and Psychology of Social and Cultural Dangers, Tehran, Iran. https://www.civilica.com/Paper-PSCONF01-PSCONF01_630.html.

Askun, B., & Yildirim, N. (2011). Insights on entrepreneurship education in public universities, in Turkey: Creating entrepreneurs or not? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 663e676.

Bayarçelik, E.B., & Özşahin, M. (2014). How Entrepreneurial climate effects firm performance? Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150(2014), 823–833.

Bergmann, H., Geissler, M., Hundt, C., & Grave, B. (2018). The climate for entrepreneurship at higher education institutions. Research Policy, 47(4), 700-716.

Bhorat, H. (2006). Unemployment in South Africa descriptors and determinants. Presentation to the commission on growth and development. Washington D.C.: World Bank. Retrieved from http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/worldb2009/Bhorat_Haroon.pdf.

Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B., & Fleming, P. (2007), “Enterprise education programs in secondary

Bremner, P. A. M., (2018). The gap between degree outcomes and employability skills: using scholarly enquiry to aid in future teaching practice.

Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M. (2017). Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a regional cross-section growth regression approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 31-54.

Creswell, John W., & Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (Kiamanesh, A. & Saraei, Javid.), Tehran: Aeej. (in Persian).

Davari, A., Sefidbari, L., & Baghersad, V. (2017). The factors of the Iranian entrepreneurship ecosystem based on the Isenberg model. Entrepreneurship Development. 10, 1, 100-120. (in Persian).

Dees, J. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.redalmarza.com/ing/pdf/ The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. pdf.

Delavar, A., & Zahrakar, K. (2010). Measurement in psychology, counseling and education. Tehran: Arasbaran. (in Persian).

Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Feldman, M., Francis, J., & Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies, 39(1), 129–141.

Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489e525.

Frank, A. I. (2007), “Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: a missing element of planning education”, Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 635-48.

Ghambarali, R., Agahi, H., Beygi, A. M., and Zarafshani, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy: A New Paradigm for Entrepreneurship Development. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Agriculture. 1, 3, 21-38. (in Persian).

Goodale, J. C., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Operations management and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating effect of operations control on the antecedents of corporate entrepreneurial activity in relation to innovation performance. Journal of operations management, 29(1-2), 116-127.

Gupta, A., & Srivastava, N. (2013). An Exploratory Study of Factors Affecting Intrapreneurship. International Journal of Innovative Reaserch and Development, 2(8).

Harte, V., & Stewart, J. (2012). Develop. evaluate. embed. Sustain: enterprise education for keeps. Education ‏ Training, 54(4), 330e339.

Harvey, L. (1999). Employability audit toolkit. Birmingham, Centre for Research into Quality.

Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and measuring employability. Quality in higher education, 7(2), 97-109.

Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers' perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of business Venturing, 17(3), 253-273.

Hornsby, J., Kuratko, D., Shepherd, D., & Bott, J. (2009). ‘Managers' corporate entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position’ Journal of Business Venturing, vol.24.no.3, pp. 236-247. [Online] Available from: http://jenniferbott.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/JBV-2009.pdf

Hwang, V.W., & Horowitt, G. (2012). The rainforest: The secret to building the next Silicon Valley. Los Altos, CA: Regenwald.

Ireland, R.D., Kuratko, D.F. & Morris, M.H., (2006). A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: Innovation at all levels: Part I. Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (1), 10–17.

Isenberg, D. (2011). Introducing the entrepreneurship ecosystem: Four defining characteristics. Forbes, May, 25.

Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution? Harvard business review, 88(6), 40-50.

Júnior, E. I., Autio, E., Morini, C., Prado Gimenez, F. A., & Avancci Dionisio, E. (2016). Analysis of the Brazilian Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Desenvolvimento em Questão, 14(37).

Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & McMullen, J. S. (2011, January). Corporate entrepreneurship with a purpose: Exploring the antecedents to social business. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp. 1-6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Kuratko, D., Hornsby, J., & Covin, J. (2014). ‘Diagnosing a firm's internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship’ Business Horizons, vol.57 no.1, pp. 37-47. [Online] Available from: http://www.firstorm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/03Diagnosing-a-firm%E2%80%99 sinternal -environment.pdf.

Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., & Hornsby, J.S. (1990). Developing an entrepreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment. Strategic Management Journal, 11(Special Issue): 49-58.

Martinkute, T., & Skandarioon, K. (2013). Work Processes and Entrepreneurial Climate Teamwork & Individual work. Msc thesis, Department of Business Administration. Lund University.

McGlone, C. (2014). Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Investigation into Factors which Contribute to Entrepreneurial Activities within the Financial Services Industry (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation Submitted to the National College of Ireland. Retrieved from http:/www. trap. ncirl. ie/1751/1/catherinemcglone. pdf).

McQuaid, R. W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban studies, 42(2), 197-219.

Miller, D.J., Fern, M.J., & Cardinal, L.B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 307–326.

Pahang, N., Mahdion, R., & Yariqoli, B. (2017). Investigating the Quality of Schools and Identifying Related Affecting Factors: A Mixed Method Research. Journal of School Administration, 5(1), 173-193. (in Persian).

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921e958.

Rafiee, H., Alipoor, H., & Javadi, S.M.H. (2012). Making and verifying the affiliation questionnaire. Journal of Social Research. 5(17), 13-19.

Ranjbar, H., Haghdoost, A., Salsali, M., Khoshdel, A., Soleymanit, M.A., & and Bahrami, N. (2012). Sampling in qualitative research: A Guide for beginning. annals of military and health sciences research.10, 3, 238-250. (in Persian).

Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2013). Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: classroom practices. Education+ training, 55(2), 204-216.

Ruskovaara, E., Pihkala, T., Seikkula-Leino, J., & Järvinen, M. R. (2015). Broadening the resource base for entrepreneurship education through teachers' networking activities. Teaching and Teacher Education47, 62-70.

Sennott, S., Loman, S., Park, K. L., Pérez, L. F., Kennedy, M. J., Romig, J., & Rodgers, W. J. (2015). Comprehensive Individualized Curriculum and Instructional Design. Portland State University Library.

Seyf, A. (2013). New Educational Psychology (Psychology of learning and education). Tehran: Dowran. (in Persian).

Shakeri siyah Kamari, Sh., Yarmohammadzadeh, P., & Yariqoli, B. (2018). Identify the entrepreneurial teacher's mentality about factors related to the promotion of entrepreneurship culture in schools. Journal of School Administration, 6(2), 243-263. (in Persian).

Sharifi, H. (2000). Principles of Psychometrics and Psychosis. Tehran: Roshd. (in Persian).

Simon, D. J. (2013). Sistematizando experiencias sobre educaci_on en emprendimiento en escuelas de nivel Primaria. Revista Mexicana de Investigaci_on Educativa, 18(56), 159e190.

Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49-72.

Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 151-168.

Spigel, B., & Stam, E. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J.

Spigel, B. (2015). The Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems,. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice.

Stam, E. (2014). The Dutch Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. Available at:https://www.researchgate. net/ publication/ 272247666_The_Dutch_Entrepreneurial_Ecosystem.

Stam, F. C., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. USE Discussion paper series, 16(13).

Terzaroli, C. (2018). THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN A CHANGING WORLD: WHY EMPLOYABILITY MATTERS. Vanna Boffo Monica Fedeli, 447.

Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2004). Points of view entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140e149.

Toghraee, M., Mirvahedi, S., Hashemi, S., & Mohamadi, R. (2018). Towards the Operational Model of the Entrepreneurial School. The First National Conference on Entrepreneurial Schools, Isfahan.

Van de Wiele, Z. (2017). Entrepraneurial Ecosystems. Master’s Dissertation, Faculty of economic, Gent University.

Van Wyk, R., & Adonisi, M. (2011).  An eight-factor solution for the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument. African Journal of Business Management Vol.5 (8), pp. 3047-3055.

Villiers-Scheepers, M. J. (2011). Motivating entrepreneurs: the relevance of rewards. Industry and higher education, 25(4), 249-263.

World Economic Forum. (2017). The Global Human Capital Report: Preparing People for the Future of Work. Geneva. ISBN 978-1-944835-10-1.

Zahra, S. A., & O'Neill, H. M. (1998), Charting the landscape of global competition: Reflections on emerging organizational challenges and their implications for senior executives, The Academy of Management Executive.12(4), 13-23.