Creating Entrepreneurial Universities
Creating Entrepreneurial Universities
复制标题
创建创业型大学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Henry. Wasser
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Henry. Wasser
现在和未来的大学最常用的词是创业，企业和创新。这本由一位领先的比较高等教育分析家撰写的及时的著作选择了最直率和最全面的措辞。事实上，在巴黎举行的经合组织/IMHE 2000年两年一度的会议上，创业型大学的主题、著作和作者占据了主导地位。然而，这本组织简洁、文笔明快的书最终令人失望。五个案例研究不是传统大学转变为创业型大学，而是专业的技术机构（特温特、斯特拉斯克莱德、查尔默斯、约恩苏，但有一个例外，沃里克虽然被认为是标准，但从一开始就被认为是为了商业化筹集资金）。因此，变革的组织途径这一副标题并不像人们所预期的那样，指的是改革老大学这一极其困难的任务，而是指升级研究所这一比较容易的使命。克拉克通过两次实地考察，对每一家虚拟企业机构进行了采访，收集了相关信息，采访了众多的变革推动者，主要是行政人员、经理、教职员工，以及学生和客户群体。他积累了大量的文献资料，这些资料是在该机构宣传自己的过程中大量产生的。幸运的是，对于克拉克的任务来说，很大一部分小册子和研究报告都是英文的，大量证据来自对关键人物的采访。作者写道，他的方法是从实践到理论进行归纳，而不是更习惯的从理论到实践，相信这种自下而上的方法从分析的经验中得出更准确的解释。当然，来自利益相关者的轶事证据可能会受到他们在已完成的变革中的领导作用的影响。然而，克拉克坚持认为，他的举动使他的散文成为广义概念和制度个性之间的有效妥协。克拉克抨击学术界主导学院结构，认为他们有责任减缓创新机构的齿轮，这些机构正在应对新的资金来源，发展更强硬的管理主义以及在当地和更广泛的社区中创业的挑战。他写道，这些VE机构的需要和现实是一种支持行政/管理领导的合议形式，以及院长的不同职能。然而，年轻的分析家强调，高等教育的最大挑战是为新兴的知识经济提供新类型的技能和不同类型的工人。他们断言，重要的知识种类现在正在产生，而不是由科学家、技术专家或工业家，而是由“符号分析师”产生的，这些人用符号、概念、理论、模型和数据劳动，这些符号、概念、理论、模型和数据是由其他人在不同的地方产生的，并将它们构造成新的组合。知识型产业与知识型产业是有区别的，高等教育的大众化为知识型产业的产生奠定了基础。在旧大学创造和发展知识的地方，新大学将不得不培养知识工作者的骨干，他们的主要技能和创造力可能与生产新知识的联系较少，而与其他人收集的知识有关。
The most utilized words for current and future universities are entrepreneurial, enterprise and innovative. This timely work by one of the leading comparative higher education analysts selects the bluntest and most comprehensive wording. Indeed the theme of entrepreneurial universities, book and author, dominated the biannual OECD/IMHE Year 2000 conference in Paris. Yet this succinctly organized and sprightly written book is ultimately disappointing. The ve case studies are not traditional universities transformed into entrepreneurial universities but rather professional, technological institutes (Twente, Strathclyde, Chalmers, Joensu with one exception, Warwick which while conceived as standard was from the beginning created to raise much of its funding commercially). Thus the subtitle of organizational pathways of transformation does not refer as might be expected to the immensely dif cult task of reforming older universities but to the easier mission of upgrading institutes. Clark gathered relevant information from two site visits to each of the ve institutions for interviews with numerous change agents, mainly administrators, managers, faculty and to a lesser degree students and the customer community. He accumulated much documentary material proli cally produced during the process of the institution publicizing itself. Fortunately for Clark’s task a substantial portion of the brochures and studies was in English with a great deal of evidence derived from interviews with key players. The author writes that his method was to proceed inductively from practice to theory instead of as is more customary from theory to practice, believing that this bottom-up approach from analyzed experience results in a more accurate account. Of course, anecdotal evidence from stakeholders may be in uenced by their leadership role in the accomplished changes. Clark, however, maintains that his move permits his prose to be an effective compromise between generalized concepts and institutional individuality. Attacking academics dominating collegial structures, Clark holds them responsible for slowing the gears of the innovative institutions that are responding to the challenge of nding new sources of funding, of developing harder managerialism and of being entrepreneurial in the local and broader communities. The need, he writes, and the reality for these ve institutions has been for a form of collegiality that supports administrative/managerial leadership and a different function for the dean. However younger analysts emphasize that higher education’s greatest challenge is to provide new types of skills, different kinds of workers for the emerging knowledge economies. They assert that important kinds of knowledge are now being produced, not so much by scientists or technologists or industrialists as by “symbolic analysts,” people who labor with the symbols, concepts, theories, models and data produced by others in various locations and con gure them into new combinations. While distinction is between knowledge-based and knowledge industries, the massi cation of higher education has created the base from which knowledge industries emerge. Where the old university created and developed knowledge, the new university will have to train cadres of knowledge workers whose principal skills and creativity may be associated less with producing new knowledge than with con guring knowledge gathered by others.