نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار. گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی. دانشگاه پیام نور، ایران.

2 استاد گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

هدف: هدف این تحقیق شناسایی ساختار فکری دانش در حوزۀ تجاری­سازی دانش و معرفی حوزه­های پژوهشی زیرمجموعۀ آن است.
روش­ شناسی: این تحقیق که از نوع کاربردی است که با استفاده از روش‌های رایج در مطالعات علم سنجی از قبیل فن تحلیل هم­واژگانی و همچنین روش تحلیل شبکه­ انجام شده است. جامعۀ این تحقیق شامل 110464 واژۀ به کار گرفته شده در 38876 رکورد نمایه شده در پایگاه وب­اوساینس می­باشد.
یافته ­ها: یافته­های تحقیق نشان داد که از نظر فراوانی، کلیدواژه­های «انتقال دانش»، «انتقال فناوری»، و «نوآوری»، و از نظر هم رخدادی زوج­های کلیدواژه­ای «مدیریت دانش و انتقال دانش»، «نوآوری و انتقال فناوری»، و «نوآوری و انتقال دانش» بیشترین فراوانی را در مطالعات صورت گرفته در حوزه تجاری­سازی دانش داشته­اند. یافته­های مربوط به خوشه­بندی سلسله مراتبی نیز منجر به شکل­گیری یازده خوشه در حوزه تجاری­سازی دانش گردید. این خوشه­ها عبارتند از: «مدیریت دانش»، «دانش»، «انتقال فناوری»، «بازاریابی»، «بازاریابی محصولات»، «تجاری­سازی فناوری»، «تبادل دانش»، «نوآوری»، «توسعه پایدار»، «مجوز ثبت اختراع» و«تجاری­سازی». بیشترین فراوانی به دست آمده در بخش هم­واژگانی به ترتیب مربوط است به «مدیریت دانش و انتقال دانش»، «نوآوری و انتقال فناوری» و «نوآوری و انتقال دانش».
نتیجه ­گیری: علاوه بر مؤلفه­های مورد کاربرد در راهبرد جستجو از قبیل: «انتقال دانش»، «انتقال فناوری»، «نوآوری»، «تجاری­سازی» و «پتنت»، موضوعات و مباحث دیگر از قبیل:  «ارتباط دانش و صنعت»، «مدیریت دانش»، «حقوق مالکیت معنوی»، «تحقیق و توسعه»، و «کارآفرینی» در پژوهش­های این حوزه شناخته شد. هم­واژگانی موجود بین واژه­های «نوآوری، انتقال فناوری و انتقال دانش» نشان دهنده رابطه بین تولید دانش در بخش دانشگاهی و انتقال آن به بخش صنعت، و تولید محصولات و همچنین کارآفرینی است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Mapping Intellectual Structure of Commercialization of Knowledge Research: Using Co-Word Analysis and Science Visualization

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Biranvand 1
  • Ahmad Shabani 2
  • Asefeh Asemi 3
  • Mozafar cheshmaeh Sohrabi 3

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Iran

2 Department of Information Sciences and knowledge Studies, Faculty of Education and Psychology ,Isfahan university, Isfahan, Iran

3 Associate Professor in Department of Knowledge and Information Science, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: Knowledge commercialization is a trend that a university can transfer the results of own members' research to the market to make capital. The point to be taken into account in this process is to identify and prioritize the factors contributing to the process of knowledge commercialization. It must be noted that identifying influential factors allows managers and decision makers to make decisions and determine commercialization policies. Accordingly, this research tries to identify and prioritize the factors affecting the commercialization of research results. Identifying the factors influencing the knowledge commercialization allows researchers and scholars to detect the possible barriers and anticipate removing them.
Methodology: This research used qualitative approach and confirmatory factor analysis method to identify the items influencing knowledge commercialization in previous researches through library studies, then using Delphi method, it sought the opinions of knowledge commercialization experts about the identified factors in the University of Isfahan. The samples consisted of 262 faculty members and graduated students of Isfahan University in the academic year of 2018-19 who have commercialized the results of their research or planned to commercialize but failed and also were familiar with the process of knowledge commercialization. In this research, descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation were run to calculate the opinions of experts on the indicators of knowledge commercialization. Furthermore, Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) was used to determine the degree of unity in experts' opinions. Also, to prioritize the factors, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used.
Findings: Among the three factors under study, background factors with a weight of 0.456, content factors with a weight of 0.339, and structural factors with a weight of 0.226 ranked the first to third priorities, respectively as the factors affecting knowledge commercialization. Applying fuzzy AHP, the sub-criteria for each of the main factors were compared as a pair. Defuzzyfication results of structural sub-criteria show that the "financial and information resources" with a weight of 0.359, "hard capabilities, processes, technology, and capabilities" with a weight of 0.343, and the "networking strategic links" with a weight of 0.298 were ranked first to third, respectively. Moreover, Defuzzyfication results of the content sub-criteria show that "knowledge base and research quality" with the weight of 0.507, "soft capabilities; human and marketing skills" with a weight of 0.301, and "internal management of the organization" with the weight of 0.192 were ranked first to third, respectively. Identifying the ultimate priority of indicators affecting the knowledge commercialization with the help of pairwise comparison showed that among the indicators related to the sub-criteria of financial and information resources, the index of "providing the required financial resources" with a weight of 0.577 is the most important one. Among the indicators of strategic links, the index of "establishing strategic relations between the university and industry" with a weight of 0.564 is in the first priority. Also, of the five indicators related to the sub-criterion of hard capabilities, the index of "creating a center / institution of commercialization" with a weight of 0.245 is the first priority. Among the four indicators of internal management, the index of "strengthening and promoting the culture of commercialization at universities" with a weight of 0.307 is the first priority. Furthermore, a pair comparison of the innovative infrastructure sub-criteria revealed that the "communication infrastructure" index with a weight of 0.429 is the first priority. The fuzzy values related to the sub-criteria of the political and legal environment confirm that the index of "commercial support laws and regulations" with a weight of 0.548 is the first priority. Among the four indicators related to the sub-criteria of "technical, economic and market environment", the index of "market needs and demand for research results" is in the first priority.
Discussion: One of the obstacles to knowledge commercialization at the University of Isfahan is the lack of communication infrastructure to organize the results of academic research and provide it to related industries for exploitation. Lack of knowledge about academic researchers and the needs of the industrial sector as well as inability to communicate effectively with the industrial sector are the factors that lead to a failure in the knowledge commercialization. Obviously, the connection between university and industry will be effective in conveying the results of academic research. On the other hand, lack of information network for registering ideas, patent and research results in the Deputy of Research and communication with industry at the University of Isfahan has caused the owners of ideas and inventors to face a bulk of obstacles to transfer research results or register their ideas. The lack of supportive policies in the field of intellectual property ownership is also of the concerns in this respect. Because the lack of guarantee in the protection of intellectual property rights lead to the transfer of academic research results through the bases other than the academic ones and the role of universities in this regard be overlooked. Given the existence and occurrence of such problems, it seems necessary to design and use the information system for registering and transferring inventions by considering the laws of intellectual property owners at the University of Isfahan.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Knowledge Commercialization
  • innovation
  • Entrepreneurial
  • knowledge transfer
  • Technology transfer. Knowledge management
An, X. Y., & Wu, Q. Q. (2011). Co-word analysis of the trends in stem cells field based on subject heading weighting. Scientometrics, 88(1), 133-144.
Callon, M., Courtial, J., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155-205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Chang, Y.-W., Huang, M.-H., & Lin, C.-W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071-2087.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1762-8
Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13), 1206-1223.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1998)49:133.0.CO;2-F
De Looze, M.-A., & Lemarie, J. (1997). Corpus relevance through co-word analysis: An application to plant proteints. Scientometrics, 39(3), 267-280.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458530
Ding, Y., & Chowdhury, G. G. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information processing & management, 37(6), 817-842. Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Ding, Y.,
Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information processing & management, 37(6), 817-842.&btnG=
Haghighi, S., & Khasseh, A. (2016). Mapping Intellectual Structure of Rural Geography Research: Using Co-Word Analysis and Science Visualization. Geography, 14(50), 213-240. Retrieved from
https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=522883
Hu, C.-P., Hu, J.-M., Deng, S.-L., & Liu, Y. (2013). A co-word analysis of library and information science in China. Scientometrics, 97(2), 369–382. Retrieved from http://ubicomp.oulu.fi/files/scientometrics13.pdf
Law, J., Bauin, S., Courtial, J., & Whittaker, J. (1988). Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics, 14(3-4), 251-264.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020078
Lee, B., & Jeong, Y.-I. (2008). Mapping Korea’s national R&D domain of robot technology by using the co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 77(1), 3-19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1819-4
Lee, P.-C., & Su, H.-N. (2010). Investigating the structure of regional innovation system research through keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Innovation, 12(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.1.26
Liu, G.-Y., Hu, J.-M., & Wang, H.-L. (2012). A co-word analysis of digital library field in China. Scientometrics, 91(1), 203-217.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0586-4
Melcer, E., Nguyen, T.-H. D., Chen, Z., Canossa, A., El-Nasr, M. S., & Isbister, K. (2015). Games research today: Analyzing the academic landscape 2000-2014. network, 17, 20. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Melcer/publication/278678569_Games_Research_Today_Analyzing_the_Academic_Landscape_2000-2014/links/558323b108aefa35fe30b668.pdf
Noyons, E., & van Raan, A. (1994). Bibliometric cartography of scientific and technological developments of an R & D field. Scientometrics, 30(1), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017220
Qiu, J.-P., Dong, K., & Yu, H.-Q. (2014). Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1345-1360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1315-6
Sedighi, M., & Jalalimanesh, A. (2017). Mapping research trends in the field of knowledge management. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 19(1). Retrieved from
https://ajba.um.edu.my/index.php/MJLIS/article/view/1812
Sohaili, F., Shaban, A., & Khase, A. (2016). Intellectual Structure of Knowledge in Information Behavior:  A Co-Word Analysis. Human Information Interaction, 2(4), 21-36. Retrieved from
https://hii.khu.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=2446&sid=1&slc_lang=en
Vaughan, L., Yang, R., & Tang, J. (2012). Web co‐word analysis for business intelligence in the Chinese environment. Aslib Proceedings, 64(6), 653-667. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531211281788
Wang, X. D., Liu, J. J., & Sheng, F. S. (2014). Analysis Of Hotspots In The Field Of Domestic Knowledge Discovery Based On Co-Word Analysis Method. Cybernetics and Information Technologies, 14(5), 145–158.
https://doi.org/10.2478/cait-2014-0051
Xie, P. (2015). Study of International Anticancer Research Trends via Co-word and Document Co-citation Visualization Analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1689-0
Xie, S., Zhang, J., & Ho, Y.-S. (2008). Assessment of world aerosol research trends by bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 77(1), 113-130.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1928-0
Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2014). The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23027