Investigating the status of Entrepreneurial University indicators in Islamic Azad University (Case study of Tehran)

Leila Seyedmousavi; Fatemeh Hamidifar; Mehdi Shariatmadari; Parsto Khosravi; Baharak Shirzad kebriya

doi:10.61838/kman.jayps.2.1.14

Authors

Leila Seyedmousavi Phd student of Educational Management Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7330-9269
Fatemeh Hamidifar Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9388-0267
Mehdi Shariatmadari Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Management, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2373-8385
Parsto Khosravi Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Management and Higher Education, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8210-9066
Baharak Shirzad kebriya Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Management and Higher Education, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6472-7848

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.jayps.2.1.14

Keywords:

Entrepreneurial University, Structural, Environmental, Process, Behavioral, Developmental.

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the status of entrepreneurial university indicators in Islamic Azad University as a case study in Tehran. This research is applied in terms of purpose and quantitative in terms of method. The statistical population of the study includes faculty members of Islamic Azad University, Tehran Branch, among whom 283 were selected by random sampling according to Cochran's formula. In order to collect quantitative data, the researchers developed a researcher-made questionnaire based on theoretical and experimental studies. The "content validity" method was used to evaluate the validity of the questionnaire and also Cronbach's alpha was used to assess its reliability. To judge the desirability of the levels of each of the entrepreneurial university indicators of the faculty members of the Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Standard Spectrum Assessment of Bazargan et al has been used. The results showed that the general situation of entrepreneurial university indicators in the University of Tehran is relatively favorable. Based on the one-sample t-test, the tendency of the presented answers tends to be less than average. Therefore, Islamic Azad University has the characteristics of an entrepreneurial university at a low level. According to the results obtained from Friedman rank test, among the dimensions of the entrepreneurial university, the environmental-contextual dimension has the most and the process dimension has the least impact on the development of the Islamic Azad University as an entrepreneurial university. Therefore, due to the great importance of entrepreneurship in development of countries and higher education systems, it is suggested that, like other universities in developed countries, the existence of an entrepreneurship center with a scientific and coherent structure be considered in the evaluation process of Islamic Azad Universities and also, its activity should be monitored as one of the evaluation criteria of the university.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

هاشمی مطلق، شقایق؛ اصالنخانی، محمدعلی؛ و صفانیا، علی‌محمد. (۱۳۹۲). اثر محیط ادراک‌شده و حمایت اجتماعی بر مشارکت در فعالیت بدنی اوقات فراغت کارکنان منطقه سیزده دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. رویکردهای نوین در مدیریت ورزشی، ۲(۶)، ۱۳–۲۹.

مسعودی، حمید؛ و اصغرپور ماسوله، احمدرضا. (۱۳۹۲). بررسی جامعه‌شناختی عوامل مؤثر بر تمایل به ورزش در سازمان، مورد مطالعه: شرکت برق منطقه‌ای خراسان رضوی. پژوهشنامه مدیریت ورزشی و رفتار حرکتی، ۱۰(۲۶)، ۱۱–۲۲.

Beard, J. G., & Ragheb, M. G. (1980). Measuring leisure satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 20–33.

Blasche, G. W., Arlinghaus, A., & Dorner, T. E. (2014). Leisure opportunities and fatigue in employees: A large cross-sectional study. Leisure Sciences, 36(3), 235–250.

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, J. H., & Grzywacz, J. G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 131–164.

Duerden, M. D., Courtright, S. H., & Widmer, M. A. (2018). Why people play at work: A theoretical examination of leisure-at-work. Leisure Sciences, 40(6), 634–648.

Florida, R. (2014). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Liang, Y. W., & Liou, Y. C. (2021). Relationships between social support and satisfaction—moderating role of facilitation. Leisure Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2021.1948597

Liang, Y. W. (2018). Conceptualization and measurement of work–leisure facilitation. Journal of Leisure Research, 49(2), 109–132.

Liang, Y. W. (2019). Consequences of work–leisure facilitation from tour leaders’/guides’ perspectives: Self-efficacy and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 1–24.

Lin, J. H., Wong, J. Y., & Ho, C. H. (2013). Promoting frontline employees' quality of life: Leisure benefit systems and work-to-leisure conflicts. Tourism Management, 36, 178–187.

McGillivray, D. (2005). Governing working bodies through leisure. Leisure Sciences, 27(4), 315–330.

Rojek, C. (2010). The Labour of Leisure: The Culture of Free Time. London, UK: Sage.

Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2002). Work-leisure relations: Leisure orientation and the meaning of work. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 178–203.

Sylvester, C. (1999). The Western idea of work and leisure: Traditions, transformations, and the future. Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century, 17–33.

Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2007). Work–family facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 63–76.