Innovatics of higher education as a tool of innovation management in the sphere of higher education and science

At the same time, academic or university entrepreneurship was noted as one of the main motivators and engines of innovation in the sphere of higher education and science.

Summarizing the results of a comprehensive study of the phenomenon of academic (university) entrepreneurship authors noted that entrepreneurial institutions of higher education implement their activities in higher education in the current market laws of the economic system, interacting with internal forces of society (with response to its challenges and inquiries) under the influence of globalization pressure of the world community. The authors argue that innovations in the field of higher education and science must link to lead to innovative changes. It is reasonable to consider HEI's innovative activity in the higher education system as an economic category related to the capitalization and commercialization of intellectual products - knowledge, technology, educational and scientific services, etc.

Innovations in higher education and science can lead to innovative change. These can be innovations of the following types (Fig. 5): economic and market; technological; organizational; structural and pedagogical; educational and pedagogical. Most of them are either directly or indirectly initiated by academic capitalism.

Fig. 5. Types of innovations in the higher education system that can lead to innovative changes

The authors determined that “Innovations of economic and market type (Fig. 6) united novations caused by the scientific, technical, industrial, and economic development of society and the spread of market economic relations in all areas of socio-economic activity of mankind, the commercialization of educational and scientific and technical activities of HEI and all higher education (innovations of economic and industrial development, depending on market requirements).''" [3] (Romanovskii, 2012).

Fig. 6. Innovations of economic and market type in higher education

Economic and market innovations include such innovations that allow to reduce the budget funding for higher education and science to obtain the necessary resources not only for survival but also for the prosperity of HEI. They are:

New forms and types of financing of education and crediting of educational services, educational institutions of various types, statutory (including - educational, R&D, technological and cultural) activity of educational institutions; diversification of funding sources; formation of various funds, grants, endowment institute, etc.

Commercialization of educational results (contract forms of education, educational, consulting, expert, and other services), scientific and scientific-technical activities (R&D, transfer of technology) HEI, obtaining additional financial income from extracurricular activities (lease of property, organization of mass activities for local and regional communities, etc.).

Participation of HEI in innovative socio-economic local, regional and national development, opening of new directions of business activity, enterprises, and spheres of industry.

Close cooperation with industry and business: joint implementation of R&D, targeted training, opening and supporting joint ventures, joint participation in joint-stock companies.

Active participation of HEI in business development; education, training and preparation of entrepreneurs of different types and leaders for industry and social sphere; developing and lobbying the necessary regulations for the development and support of entrepreneurship; promoting the competitiveness of the country's industrial and economic potential.

Development of academic (university) entrepreneurship - commercialization of R&D results, receipt of financial income from licensing and patent activities, as well as shareholder dividendsfrom the activities of startup (spin-off and spin-out) companies.

Active participation of HEI in competition with other HEIs, improvement of own image, quality of educational and scientific services, access to foreign educational markets, wide internationalization of educational and scientific activity, use of international educational standards, etc.

Note that innovations in economic and industrial development, dependent on market requirements, are the most painful, debatable, and unacceptable for a significant number of educators and scientists. The intrusion of market mechanisms into the academic sphere contradicts in many respects the notion of “pure science and education”, which are independent of financial interventions and financial pressure. However, it is also clear that in the context of total commercialization of all spheres of human life, global financial crises, and the constant reduction of funding for science and education (and especially higher education), the question of “to be or not to be” really faces a significant number of HEIs and research institutions, and also a large number of educators and scientists in all countries of the world. In those countries where education and science are supported, the necessary conditions have already been created for their civilized alternative financial support.

It is necessary to stress that university innovations are the result of the development of academic capitalism and studies mainly both its market innovation processes spreading to the sphere of higher education and their impact on the socio-economic sphere of society.

Conclusions and recommendations

Higher education is associated with all spheres of human life because literate and trained people are needed for life. Thus, the innovation of higher education is one of the most interdisciplinary scientific and applied areas in the system of the diverse knowledge of mankind. Innovative activity in the field of higher education and science leads to serious innovative transformations both in the entire field of higher education and science and in its subjects - universities, research institutes, and related organizations and institutions.

Innovation activities, initiated and directed by academic capitalism in the field of higher education and science, are primarily aimed at commercializing the results and expanding the economic activity of universities and research institutes, and only with a focus on social and socio-humanitarian problems of society. The state initiatives in the field of innovative management of higher education and science in each country are designed to strengthen the social, non-profit component of innovation in this area. Further expedient research in the field of innovation in higher education is the study of the “human factor” during the period of innovation, namely: innovation policy, innovation relations, and innovation culture of subjects of higher education and science. The study of innovation in this area can be interesting and useful for a wide range of researchers since this area includes all higher educational institutions, scientific institutions, and organizations, as well as legal entities involved in the educational and scientific sphere. It should be noted that the problems of innovation policy, innovation relations, and innovation culture of universities and research organizations that find themselves in the conditions of academic capitalism require careful further research. And the formation of a corporate innovative culture of employees of all levels of higher education and science in the conditions of academic capitalism can be decisive in the implementation of the necessary innovative changes.

Literature

1. Ezell, S. The Bayh-Dole Act's Vital Importance to the U.S. Life-Sciences Innovation System. // Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (IFIF), 2019, March 4.

2. Romanovskii, А. Types and features of the innovations in the system of higher education // The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal, 2012, vol. 4, pp. 43-57

3. Romanovskyi, O., Romanovska, Yu. Higher educational innovatics as the newest interdisciplinaryvdirecton of higher school and higher education science // Interdisciplinary Studies of Complex Systems, vol. 17(2020), pp. 83-101

4. Slaughter, S., Leslie, L. Academic capitalism. Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MA, 1997. - 276 p.

5. HackettDE.DJ.D Science as a vocation in 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science // Journal of Higher Education, 1990, vol. 61(3), pp. 241-77.

6. LeslieDL., OaxacaDR., Rhoades G. Technology Transfer and Academic Capitalism. // AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, 2001, pp. 261-277.

7. Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credits, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, 1934. - 255 p.

8. Fagerberg, J. A Guide to Schumpeter, 2008, рр. 20-22.

9. Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge, 1976. - 437 p.

10. Mensch, G. Stalemate in technology: innovations overcome the depression. - Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Pub. Co., 1979. - 241 p.

11. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation // Management Decision, 2009, vol. 47(8): 1323-1339.

12. Edison, H., Ali, N.B., Torkar, R. Towards innovation measurement in the software industry // Journal of Systems and Software, 2014, vol. 86(5), pp. 1390-1407

13. Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press, 2003. - 576 p.

14. Drucker, P. The Discipline of Innovation // Harvard Business Review. August 2002.

15. The Quest For Innovation. A Global Study of Innovation Management 20062016. American Management Association, 2006. - 86 p.

16. Chen, J., Viardot, E., Brem, A. Innovation and innovation management. The Routledge Companion To Innovation Management, Routledge, 2019, pp. 3-36.

17. Bouwer, L. Capabilities-Driven Innovation Management Framework:

18. Crossing the Innovator's Chasm // Conference: International Association for Management of Technology 2015. Cape Town, South Africa.

19. Driven Innovation Management Framework Crossing the Innovator's Chasm

20. Bouwer, L. The Innovation Management Theory Evolution Map (Working Paper). Innovation Management Research Institute (IMRI), 7 April 7, 2017.

21. Damanpour, F. Organizational Innovation: Theory, Research, and Direction. Rutgers University, USA, EdgarOnline Business Collections, 2020.

Research and Direction

1. Etzkowitz, H. Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University- Industry-Government Relations // Social Science Information, 2003, vol. 42(3), pp. 293337.

2. le Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations

3. Etzkowitz, H. The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York & London, 2008. - 164 p.

4. Etzkowitz, H. Is Silicon Valley a global model or unique anomaly? // Industry and Higher Education, 2019, vol. 33(2), pp. 83-95.

5. Viale, R., Etzkowitz, H. The Capitalization of Knowledge. A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. - 368 p.

6. Dzisah, J., Etzkowitz, H. The Age of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Universities, Science and Societies. Leiden-Boston, Brill, 2012. - 360 p.

7. Cadorin, E., Klofsten, M., Albahari, A., Etzkowitz, H. Science Parks and the Attraction of Talents: Activities and Challenges // Triple Helix Journal, September 2019, pp.: 1-33.

8. Clark, B.R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformations. Pergamon-Elsevier Science, Oxford, 1998. - 180 p.

9. Clark, B.R. Collegial Entrepreneurialism in Proactive Universities: Lessons from Europe // Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 2000, vol. 32(1), pp. 10-19.

10. Clark, B.R. Sustaining Change in Universities. Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, McGraw-Hill, England, 2004. - 232 p.

11. Haddawy, P., Igel, B. Fostering Innovation in Higher Education, 2006.

12. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy.

13. Markets, State and Higher Education. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. - 384 p.

14. Altbach, F. The complex roles of universities in the period of globalization.” // Higher Education in the World 3, 2008, pp. 5-14.

15. Blass, E., & Hayward, P. Innovation in higher education; will there be a role for “the academe/university” in 2025? // European Journal of Futures Research, 2014, vol. 2(1), 9 p.

16. Swanger, D. Innovation in Higher Education: Can Colleges Really Change? Fulton-Montgomery Community College, NY, 2016. - 58 p.

17. OECD Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016. -150 p.

18. Serdyukov, P. Innovation in education: what works, what doesn't, and what to do about it? // Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 2017, vol. 10(1), pp. 4-33.

19. McCowan, T. Higher education, unbundling, and the end of the university as we know it // Oxford Review of Education, vol. 43, is. 6, pp. 733-748, July, 2017.

20. Jakovljevic, M. A model for innovation in higher education // South African Journal of Higher Education, 2018, vol. 32(4), pp. 109-131.

21. Branch, J., Horsted, A., Nygaard, C. New Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Learning in Higher Education series). Libri Publishing, 2018. - 480 p.

22. Jessop, B. On academic capitalism // Critical Policy Studies, 2018, vol. 12(1), pp. 104-109

23. Somers, P., Davis, C., Fry, J., Jasinski L., Lee, E. Academic capitalism and the entrepreneurial university: some perspectives from the Americas // Rotero, Joa?oba, 2018, vol. 43, n. 1, pp. 21-42, jan./abr. 2018.

24. Mьnch, R. Academic Capitalism. Oxford University Press, 2020. Published online: 09 May 2016 & 30 April 2020.

25. Teixeira, P.N., Shin, J.C. The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, 2020.

26. Muftahu, M., Jamil, H. Sustainable knowledge flow and innovation in higher education: the implementation of change management in universities // International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2021, vol. 15(2).

27. Stoten, D.W. Educating for future complexities in management - a vision for the future MBA // Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 2021, vol. 4(2), 153-179.

28. Mazzioni, S., Magro, C.B.D., Picolo, J.D., Johann, G.B. The Power of Innovation on Performance and Socio-Environmental Sustainability // International

29. Mayhew, M.J, Selznick, B., Zhang, L., Barnes, A., Mangia, S. Teaching Innovation Capacities in Undergraduate Leadership Courses: The Influence of a ShortTerm Pedagogical Intervention // The Journal of Higher Education, 2021.

30. Tan, S.Y. Reflective learning? Understanding the student perspective in higher education // Educational Research, 2021, vol. 63(2).

31. Bower, J.L., & Christensen, C.M. Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave // Harvard Business Review, 1995, January-February.

32. Henderson, R M., Clark, K.B. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms // Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, vol. 35(1), p. 9.

33. Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management - an exploratory literature review // R&D Management. 2012, Vol. 42(2), pp. 180-192.

34. Blok, V., Lemmens, P. The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation. Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches and Applications. Chapter 2. Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 19-35.

35. sible Innovation Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Tr ansformation of the Concept of Innovation

References

1. Ezell, S. (2019), “The Bayh-Dole Act's Vital Importance to the U.S. Life- Sciences Innovation System”, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (IFIF), March 4

2. Romanovskii, А. (2012), “Types and features of the innovations in the system of higher education”, The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal, vol. 4, pp. 43-57

3. Romanovskyi, O. and Romanovska, Yu. (2020), “Higher educational innovatics as the newest interdisciplinaryvdirecton of higher school and higher education science”, Interdisciplinary Studies of Complex Systems, vol. 17(2020), pp. 83-101, available at: (PDF) Higher education innovatics as the newest interdisciplinary direction of higher school and higher education science (researchgate.net) (Accessed 27 Aug 2022).

4. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997), Academic capitalism. Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MA, USA

5. Hackett E. J. (1990), “Science as a vocation in 1990s: The changing organizational culture of academic science”, Journal of Higher Education, vol. 61(3), pp. 241-77

6. Leslie L., Oaxaca R. and Rhoades G. (2001), “Technology Transfer and Academic Capitalism”, AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, pp. 261-277

7. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credits, Interest, and the Business Cycle, Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, USA

8. Fagerberg, J. (2008), “A Guide to Schumpeter”

9. Schumpeter, J.A. (1976), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge

10. Mensch, G. (1979), Stalemate in technology: innovations overcome the depression, Ballinger Pub. Co., Cambridge, USA

11. Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. and Sambrook, S. (2009), “Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation”, Management Decision,vol. 47(8), pp. 13231339

12. Edison, H., Ali, N.B. and Torkar, R. (2014), “Towards innovation measurement in the software industry”, Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 86(5), pp. 1390-1407

13. Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, USA

14. Drucker, P. (2002), “The Discipline of Innovation”, Harvard Business Review

15. The Quest For Innovation (2006), A Global Study of Innovation Management 2006-2016, American Management Association, New York, USA

16. Chen, J., Viardot, E. and Brem, A. (2019), Innovation and innovation management, The Routledge Companion To Innovation Management, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 3-36

17. Bouwer, L. (2015), “Capabilities-Driven Innovation Management Framework: Crossing the Innovator's Chasm”, Conference: International Association for Management of Technology 2015, Cape Town, South Africa

18. Bouwer, L. (2017), “The Innovation Management Theory Evolution Map”, Working Paper. Innovation Management Research Institute (IMRI), 7 April

19. Damanpour, F. (2020), “Organizational Innovation: Theory, Research, and Direction”, Rutgers University, USA, EdgarOnline Business Collections

20. Research and Direction (Accessed 20 Aug 2022).

21. Etzkowitz, H. (2003), “Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations”, Social Science Information, vol. 42(3), pp. 293-337

22. le Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations (Accessed 22 Aug 2022).

23. Etzkowitz, H. (2008), The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York & London,

24. Etzkowitz, H. (2019), “Is Silicon Valley a global model or unique anomaly? ”, Jndustry and Higher Education, vol. 33(2), pp. 83-95

25. Viale, R. and Etzkowitz, H. (2010), The Capitalization of Knowledge. A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK

26. Dzisah, J. and Etzkowitz, H. (2012), The Age of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Universities, Science and Societies, Brill, Leiden-Boston

27. The dynamics of universities, knowledge and society.pdf (Accessed 22 Aug 2022).

28. Cadorin, E., Klofsten, M., Albahari, A. and Etzkowitz, H. (2019), “Science Parks and the Attraction of Talents: Activities and Challenges”, Triple Helix Journal, September 2019, pp. 1-33

29. Clark, B.R. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformations, Pergamon-Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK

30. Clark, B.R. (2000), “Collegial Entrepreneurialism in Proactive Universities: Lessons from Europe”, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 32(1), pp. 10-19.

31. Clark, B.R. (2004), Sustaining Change in Universities. Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, McGraw-Hill, England

32. Haddawy, P. and Igel, B. (2006), “Fostering Innovation in Higher Education”,

33. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2009), Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Markets, State and Higher Education, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA, Available at: Slaughter Sheila and Rhoades Gary 2004 Academi c Capitalism and the New Economy Markets State and Higher Education Baltimore MD The Johns (Accessed 28 Aug 2022).

34. Altbach, F. (2008), “The complex roles of universities in the period of globalization”, Higher Education in the World 3, pp. 5-14 in the period of globalization/stats (Accessed 10 Aug 2022).

35. Blass, E. and Hayward, P. (2014), “Innovation in higher education; will there be a role for “the academe/university” in 2025?”, European Journal of Futures Research, vol. 2(1), 9 p.

36. ll there be a role for the academeuniversity in 2025 (Accessed 10 Aug 2022).

37. Swanger, D. (2016), Innovation in Higher Education: Can Colleges Really Change?, Fulton-Montgomery Community College, NY, USA

38. OECD (2016), Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, France

39. Serdyukov, P. (2017), “Innovation in education: what works, what doesn't, and what to do about it?”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, vol. 10(1), pp. 4-33.

40. McCowan, T. (2017), “Higher education, unbundling, and the end of the university as we know it”, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 43, is. 6, pp. 733-748.

41. Jakovljevic, M. (2018), “A model for innovation in higher education”, South African Journal of Higher Education, vol. 32(4), pp. 109-131

42. Branch, J., Horsted, A. and Nygaard, C. (2018), New Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Learning in Higher Education series), Libri Publishing, Faringdon, UK

43. Jessop, B. (2018), “On academic capitalism”, Critical Policy Studies, vol. 12(1), pp. 104-109.

44. Somers, P., Davis, C., Fry, J., Jasinski L. and Lee, E. (2018), “Academic capitalism and the entrepreneurial university: some perspectives from the Americas”, Rotero, Joa?oba, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 21-42

45. Mьnch, R. (2020), Academic Capitalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford. UK, Published online

46. Teixeira, P.N. and Shin, J.C. (2020), The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Springer Nature, Switzerland.

47. Muftahu, M. and Jamil, H. (2021), “Sustainable knowledge flow and innovation in higher education: the implementation of change management in universities”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, vol. 15(2)

48. Stoten, D.W. (2021), “Educating for future complexities in management - a vision for the future MBA”, Innovative Practice in Higher Education, vol. 4(2), 153-179

49. Mazzioni, S., Magro, C.B.D., Picolo, J.D. and Johann, G.B. (2021), “The Power of Innovation on Performance and Socio-Environmental Sustainability”, International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, vol. 9(5), pp. 515-533

50. Mayhew, M.J, Selznick, B., Zhang, L., Barnes, A. and Mangia, S. (2021), “Teaching Innovation Capacities in Undergraduate Leadership Courses: The Influence of a Short-Term Pedagogical Intervention”, The Journal of Higher Education

51. Tan, S.Y. (2021), “Reflective learning? Understanding the student perspective in higher education”, Educational Research, vol. 63(2).

52. Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995), “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”,_Harvard Business Review (January-February)

53. Henderson, R M. and Clark, K.B. (1990), “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration ofExisting Product Technologies and the Failure ofEstablished Firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35(1), p. 9.

54. Schiederig, T., Tietze, F. and Herstatt, C. (2012), “Green innovation in technology and innovation management - an exploratory literature review”, R&D Management, Vol. 42(2), pp. 180-192.

55. Blok, V. and Lemmens, P. (2015), “The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation”, Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches and Applications, Chapter 2, Springer International Publishing, pp. 19-35,

56. The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation (Accessed 12 Aug 2022).

Размещено на Allbest.ru