Fikir Geliştirme Laboratuvarı: Şeffaf, Güvenilir ve Disiplinlerarası Bir Model

Year 2023, , 135 - 150, 30.04.2023

Savaş Takan , Duygu Ergün Takan

https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.1184672

Abstract

Disiplinlerarası çalışmalarda öğrenme ve uygulama döngüsü oldukça önemlidir. Teknoloji transfer ofisleri ve teknokentler, tam da bu öğrenme ve uygulama döngüsünü sağlamak için hayata geçirilmiş organizasyonel yapılardır. Ancak teknoloji transfer ofisleri ve teknokentler, fikir üretiminden ziyade, üretilmiş fikirlerin uygulama alanları olarak hayata geçirilmiştir. Dolayısıyla teknoloji transfer ofisleri ve teknokentlerin bir ön basamağı olarak düşünülebilecek, fikir üretimine ve geliştirilmesine odaklanan bir mekanizmaya ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. Toplumsal ihtiyaçlar ve sorunların çözümüne yönelik yenilikçi fikirlerin üretilmesinde akademisyenler, öğrenciler, sektörel aktörler ve toplum birbirlerinden kopuk olduğundan, sistematik bir zeminde bir araya gelememektedir. Bu durum, yenilikçi fikirlerin rassal, bireysel ve yetersiz bir şekilde geliştirilmesine, fikirlerin korunamamasına ve dolayısıyla zaman ve maaliyet kayıplarına neden olmaktadır. Çalışmamızda, söz konusu problemlerin çözümüne yönelik, yenilikçi fikirlerin üretilmesi, takibi ve korunmasına odaklanarak akademisyenleri, öğrencileri ve çeşitli sektörel, toplumsal aktörleri bir araya getiren, fikrin üretildiği andan projeye dönüştürülmesi sürecinde tüm bu unsurların disiplinlerarası şekilde çalışabileceği yeni bir fikir laboratuvarı modeli önerilmiştir. Önerdiğimiz model, fikirlerin korunumu, tartışılması ve takibine yönelik şeffaflığın sağlanabilmesi amacıyla, blok zincirinin veri yapısından esinlenilerek geliştirdiğimiz ve Etiket adını verdiğimiz yeni bir veri yapısı üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Geliştirdiğimiz veri yapısı sayesinde, fikirlerin korunması, geliştirilmesi ve takibinin yanı sıra mantıksal ilişkilerin yaratılabildiği güvenilir bir tartışma ortamı elde edilmiştir.

Keywords

disiplinlerarası çalışmalar, bilişim iletişimi, blok zinciri, üniversite eğitim modeli

Supporting Institution

Destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır.

AnkaLab: Interdisciplinary Idea Development Laboratory

Abstract

References

• L. Apostel, “Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development”, Paris Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, France,1972.
• S. Veine vd., “Reflection as a core student learning activity in higher education - Insights from nearly two decades of academic development,” International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 147–161, 2020.
• B. Stuart, “After the darkest hour... Integrity and engagement in the development of university research.” The University Research System. The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists, Editor: Wittrock, B. & Elzinga, A., Escocolmo, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1985.
• B. Vienni Baptista, F. Vasen, and J. C. Villa Soto, “Interdisciplinary Centers in Latin American Universities: The Challenges of Institutionalization,” Higher Education Policy, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 461–483, 2019.
• P. Weingart and B. Padberg, University Experiments in Interdisciplinarity: Obstacles and Opportunities. Transcript Verlag, 2014.
• R. J. Lawrence, “Interdisciplinary science: A coming of age,” NYAS Sciences Magazine, 18, 2016.
• M. M. Hynes and W. J. Hynes, “If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 867–883, 2018.
• D. A. Garvin, A. C. Edmondson, and F. Gino, “Is yours a learning organization?” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 109–16, 134, 2008.
• O. de Pablos Patricia and M. D. Lytras, “Competencies and human resource management: implications for organizational competitive advantage,” Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 48–55, 2008.
• H. M. Chen and W. Y. Chang, “The essence of the competence concept: Adopting an organization’s sustained competitive advantage viewpoint,” Journal of Management & Organization, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 677–699, 2010.
• K. G. Lewis, “Pathways toward improving teaching and learning in higher education: International context and background,” New Dir. Teach. Learn., vol. 2010, no. 122, pp. 13–23, 2010.
• A. Sohel-Uz-Zaman and U. Anjalin, “Knowledge innovative organization: The effect of constant organization renewal,” Journal of Service Science and Management, 2(04), 384, 2009.
• T. Lockwood and T. Walton, Corporate Creativity: Developing an Innovative Organization. Simon and Schuster, 2010.
• R. Wang, “Evolutionary game of knowledge sharing in master-apprentice pattern of innovative organization,” International Journal of Innovation Science, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 436–453, 2019.
• D. Cruz-Amarán, M. Guerrero, and A. D. Hernández-Ruiz, “Changing Times at Cuban Universities: Looking into the Transition towards a Social, Entrepreneurial and Innovative Organization,” Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 2536, 2020.
• G. A. Olcay and M. Bulu, “Technoparks and technology transfer offices as drivers of an innovation economy: Lessons from İstanbul’s innovation spaces”, Journal of Urban Technology, 2016.
• İ. Durak, H. M. Arslan, and Y. Özdemir, “Application of AHP–TOPSIS methods in technopark selection of technology companies: Turkish case,” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(10), 1109-1123, 2022.
• A. M. Soares, J. L. Kovaleski, S. Gaia, and D. M. de G. Chiroli, “Building Sustainable Development through Technology Transfer Offices: An Approach Based on Levels of Maturity,” Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 1795, 2020.
• L. Winks, N. Green, and S. Dyer, “Nurturing innovation and creativity in educational practice: principles for supporting faculty peer learning through campus design,” Higher Education, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 119–135, 2020.
• M. Değerli, ve M. Tolon, “Teknoloji transfer ofisleri için kritik başarı faktörleri,” Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 197-220, 2016.
• P. Serdyukov, “Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?” Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4-33, 2017.
• K. Lindvig, C. Lyall, and L. R. Meagher, “Creating interdisciplinary education within monodisciplinary structures: the art of managing interstitiality,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 347–360, 2019.
• M. Groulx, N. Nowak, K. Levy, and A. Booth, “Community needs and interests in university–community partnerships for sustainable development,” Int. J. Sustainability Higher Educ., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 274–290, 2020.
• S. N. Barringer, E. Leahey, and K. Salazar, “What Catalyzes Research Universities to Commit to Interdisciplinary Research?”, Res. High. Educ., vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 679–705, 2020.
• M. Cavallone, M. V. Ciasullo, J. Douglas, and R. Palumbo, “Framing higher education quality from a business perspective: Setting the conditions for value co-creation,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1099–1111, 2021.
• V. J. Miller, E. R. Murphy, C. Cronley, N. L. Fields, and C. Keaton, “Student experiences engaging in interdisciplinary research collaborations: A case study for social work education,” J. Soc. Work Educ., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 750–766, 2019.
• K. Jæger, “New-Style Higher Education: Disciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in the EHEA Qualifications Framework,” Higher Education Policy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 155–174, 2021.
• R. Belwal, S. Belwal, A. B. Sufian, and A. Al Badi, “Project-based learning (PBL): Outcomes of students’ engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman,”, 10.1108/et-01-2020-0006.
• T. A. Björklund, T. Keipi, S. Celik, and K. Ekman, “Learning across silos: Design factories as hubs for co-creation,” European Journal of Education, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 552–565, 2019.
• G. Kligyte, A. Buck, B. Le Hunte, S. Ulis, A. McGregor, and B. Wilson, “Re-imagining transdisciplinary education work through liminality: Creative third space in liminal times,” Aust Educ Res, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 617–634, 2022.
• R. Brandenburg, J. Smith, A. Higgins, and J. Courvisanos, “The genesis, development and implementation of an interdisciplinary university Cross-School Research Group,” Aust Educ Res, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 489–510, 2022.
• L. B. Bertel, M. Winther, H. W. Routhe, and A. Kolmos, “Framing and facilitating complex problem-solving competences in interdisciplinary megaprojects: an institutional strategy to educate for sustainable development,” Int. J. Sustainability Higher Educ., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1173–1191, 2022.
• P.-S. Seow, G. Pan, and G. Koh, “Examining an experiential learning approach to prepare students for the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) work environment,” The International Journal of Management Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 62–76, 2019.
• J. Hannon, C. Hocking, K. Legge, and A. Lugg, “Sustaining interdisciplinary education: Developing boundary crossing governance,” Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1424–1438, 2018.
• B. Rienties and Y. Héliot, “Enhancing (in)formal learning ties in interdisciplinary management courses: a quasi-experimental social network study,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 437–451, 2018.
• S.-I. Minato, Binary Decision Diagrams and Applications for VLSI CAD. Springer, US, 2011