Identifying Indicators of Change Management in Medical Education With a Focus on Third-Generation Universities
,
Abstract
Transforming universities into third-generation universities is a prerequisite for future development. Therefore, awareness of the factors, structures, and practices that exist in higher education institutions and affect the potential emergence of entrepreneurship enables managers to plan to achieve specific results. It seems that the first step in managing this change is to identify the indicators that medical education and medical universities should have in the future. This study was conducted with the aim of identifying the indicators necessary to manage the change in medical education, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, on the path to transition to third-generation universities. This study was conducted using a qualitative method and the two-stage Delphi method was used to conduct the research. The research tool was a questionnaire derived from literature on the concepts and components of third-generation universities, which was conducted with the participation of 15 key informants from Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences regarding the research topic in 1403. The results showed that the university's support index for staff and student exchanges between the university and industry and organizations outside the university scored the highest with a score of 52, followed by entrepreneurship as a major part of the university's strategy with a score of 50, and internationalization as an important part of the university's entrepreneurial strategy with a score of 30. The lowest score was obtained. Medical universities are forced to move towards third-generation universities for their survival, and in this direction, it is necessary to change their functions and structures, therefore, awareness of activities and changes in this direction is necessary and essential, both to change and improve the structure and in order to improve performance. It should be noted that creating entrepreneurial universities is not easy and "entrepreneurship and innovation" is complex, chaotic and lacks any linear concept. Universities can start working based on their conditions by changing several indicators and move in this direction and continue until the indicators are fully established.
2. Nameni A. Explaining the characteristics of the University transition period from the second generation to the third generation Case study: One of Engineering Universities in the country. J Manag Plann Educ Syst 2019;12:47-68.
3. Schmitz A, Teza P, Dandolini GA, de Souza JA. Universities as knowledge intensive business services–a systematic literature review and a case study of a research group. Int J Eng Innov Technol 2014;3:40-7.
4. Muller E, Doloreux D. What we should know about knowledge-intensive business services. Technol Soc 2009;31:64-72.
5. Schmenner RW. How can service businesses survive and prosper. Sloan Manage Rev 1986;27:21-32.
6. Wissema JG. Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009.
7. McCalman J, Siebert S, Paton RA. Change management: A guide to effective implementation. London: Sage Publications; 2015.
8. Nabipour I. The fifth generation university: based on the quintuple helix of Carayannis and Campbell. Iran South Med J 2020;23:165-94.
9. Taghipour A, Hasanmoradi N. The proper pattern of creating an entrepreneurial university. Econ Manag Res 2006;18:31-40.
10. Mir JS. Entrepreneurial Universities of Medical Sciences: Solutions and Challenges. 2019.
11. Amiresmaili MR, Saberi SH, Barkhordari F. Evaluation of the Kerman University of Medical Sciences Based on the Characteristics of Entrepreneurial Universities. 2018.
12. Abedi Kamal ad-Din EH, Miri Anvar, Moghadam Khareghani M. Toward the 3 generation university. 2nd ed. Tehran: Moaseseh Amozeshi Talifi Ershadan; 2018.
13. R S. A framework for the emergence of entrepreneurship and innovation in education. In: New industries and the VET system conference proceedings; 2001.
14. Fadaie G, Nakhoda M. Developing Change Management Model for Iranian Academic Libraries: Delphi Study. Res Inf Sci Public Libr 2010;16:145-68.
15. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984;74:979-83.
16. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008-15.
17. Riggs WE. The Delphi technique: An experimental evaluation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1983;23:89-94.
18. Etzkowitz H, Dzisah J, Clouser M. Shaping the entrepreneurial university: Two experiments and a proposal for innovation in higher education. Ind High Educ 2022;36:3-12.
19. Chryssou CE. University–industry interactions in the Sultanate of Oman: Challenges and opportunities. Ind High Educ 2020;34:342-57.
20. Khaki S. Challenges facing Iran’s universities until the realization of the entrepreneurial [Internet]. 2016.
21. Habibi-Rezaei M, Siahmansouri Y. The Substantiation of Entrepreneurship Universities through Activities of University Incubators. Sci Cultiv 2012;3:43-9.
22. Ghardashi F, Yaghoubi M, Bahadori M, Teymourzadeh E. Innovation capability in medical sciences universities: A qualitative study of Iran. J Educ Health Promot 2019;8:16.
23. Etzkowitz H. The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Ind High Educ 2016;30:83-97.
24. Clark BR. On higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008.
25. OECD. HEInnovate: How innovative is your higher education institution. 2016.
26. Yazdani S, MF, Dehnavi H. Designing and Presenting A Pattern Of Transition Towards Entrepreneurial And Innovative Universities Of Medical Sciences In The Islamic Republic of Iran With An Emphasis On Innovation Of Knowledge Services. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences School; 2023.
27. Gibb A. Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework. Ann Innov Entrep 2012;3:16742.
28. Shaw E, O’loughlin A, McFadzean E. Corporate entrepreneurship and innovation part 2: a role‐and process‐based approach. Eur J Innov Manag 2005;8:393-408.
29. Zhou C. Emergence of the entrepreneurial university in evolution of the triple helix: The case of Northeastern University in China. J Technol Manag China 2008;3:109-26.
30. Kitagawa F, Wigren C. From basic research to innovation: entrepreneurial intermediaries for research commercialization at Swedish ‘strong research environments’. CIRCLE Pap 2010;2.
31. Marx M, Hsu DH. Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Res Policy 2015;44:1815-26.
32. Jafari M, Azari N, Enayati T. The effect of research-based higher education system on entrepreneurship with the mediating role of knowledge commercialization Universities to provide models. J Educ Plann Stud 2020;9:229-45.
33. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy 2000;29:109-23.
34. Davodi MR, YNS. Identifying and prioritizing the components of knowledge commercialization in creating a third generation university with a data foundation approach (Case study: Qom Islamic Azad University). Mod Manag Eng 2022.
35. S S. Investigating the Impact of Environmental Factors on the Creation and Development of University Growth Centers: A New Approach to Entrepreneurial University and the Relationship between Industry and University. Ind Univ 2010;3:45-56.
36. Schulte P. The entrepreneurial university: a strategy for institutional development. High Educ Eur 2004;29:187-91.
37. Moghadasi J, Keikavoosi AM, Keikavoosi AL. Factors Affecting the Transformation of Medical Sciences Universities into Entrepreneurial Universities in Iranian Higher Education System. 2016.
38. Berbegal-Mirabent J, Gil-Doménech D, Ribeiro-Soriano DE. Fostering university-industry collaborations through university teaching. Knowl Manag Res Pract 2020;18:263-75.
39. della Volpe M. Entrepreneurial university and business education: Towards a network model. Int J Bus Manag 2018;13:13-27.
40. Fielden J. Global trends in university governance. Educ Work Pap Ser 2008;9:278200-1099079877269.
41. Aqatabar Roudbari J, Agha Mirzaei T, Barimani K, Yousefi Saeedabadi R. The Study of Academic Independence Gap Based on University Experts (The Case of Babol University of Medical Sciences and Noushirvani Technical University). Educ Strateg Med Sci 2017;10:334-44.
42. Etzkowitz H. The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. Int J Technol Global 2004;1:64-77.
43. Katsikas S. The university in the third millennium: which reforms are needed. Paris: OECD; 2008.
44. Mobarki MH, Ziyae B, Rezvani M, Tajpour M. Conceptual model of internationalization of the Entrepreneurial University with an interpretive structural modeling approach. J Res Manag Teach Mar Sci 2021;8:186-209.
45. Faridi M, SAM, Hasany M, GHalavandy H, Sobhaninezhad M. Designing a model for readiness assessment of higher education institutions to become a third generation university, a case study. Teach Learn Res 2020;15:23-41.
46. Malekinia E, Malekinia Z, Feizi S. Survey on imperative strategies for Iranian’s higher education system in globalization age. Q J Macro Strateg Policies 2018;6:518-45.
47. Paine L. Alternative Framing of Teacher Education: A Challenge for Teacher Education in an Age of Globalization. Qual Teach Educ Learn Theory Pract 2017:85-98.
48. Dadgaran N, Bagheri M, Ahmadi A. Identification of the dimensions and components of medical education system enhancement at international level using delphi analysis. Res Med Educ 2020;12:52-61.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 64 No 3 (2026) | |
| Section | Original Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/acta.v64i3.21539 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Change management Third generation university Entrepreneurial university | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
