S.BadowskaSecondly, tested researchers rarely drew ideas for their studies from business anddidn’t treat companies as potential partners for run mutual cooperation. Scientists werefocused on basic research but most companies expected solving their real problemswhich concerned implementation work (Badowska, 2010). Generally Pomeranian academicstaff got their inspiration to carry out their research work basing on science as aphenomenon in itself. It is worth noticing that conferences, seminars and scientificmeetings, which Polish scientists take regularly part in, are usually devoted to theoreticaldiscussion and literature studies - there are rarely case discussions. The limitednumbers of answers concerned the business suggests strongly that Pomeranian researchershave got narrow knowledge about business problems to be solved. This isrelevant to the outcome of the previous question. Respondents pointed quite rarely thatthey used to do the implementation work. The role of this kind of work is to find asolution for real industrial problems, which seems to be quite uninteresting to study orto be involved in for Pomeranian academic staff.Thirdly, Pomeranian – but probably most of Polish scientists – have limited experiencein being employees of any company. It could have led to the lack of scientists’understanding of business functioning. In such a terms researchers had not got an occasionto understand how business had been run, how and why the enterprise had existedon the markets, what procedures and principles had been applied in companies. Formost of researchers the inner functioning of business is still terra incognita. Most ofPolish scientists start their professional careers just after graduating from universities.The majority of them haven’t got any employment agreements, some of them havenever been in any company at all during their careers. It influences the lack of commonlanguage with business and understanding its perspective. Scientists pointed that companieshadn’t understood them but also the same researchers highlighted that their scientificoffer had been too poor for implementing on the market. They hadn’t beenaware of real technological needs. Most the barriers are results of research policy atuniversities and R&D institutions. Commonly, Polish scientists are not evaluated bybusiness approach, but mainly by conducting research and number of publications andcollected points in the process of research work. Most of universities do not expect thattheir academic staff will spend their professional work for solving business and industryproblems. Themes of research are usually selected by researchers basing on theindividual interests of academics, rarely come directly from industry. This is the reasonfor limited ability to adapt the solutions to business and research offer has no chancefor success. A gap between both sides is so huge that scientists feel that companies donot understand how their organizations just function and companies are confident thatscience is out of real life. Business perspective is focused on timing and efficiency, theacademic one is much more orientated to research per se.Summarizing, there was observed a huge gap between academia and business especiallyin the terms of expectations. Scientists are convinced that the outcomes of theirwork have limited ability to adapt solutions to business in the aspect of product innova-127
Science and business cooperation on innovation evidence from Pomeraniation. The scientific research offer is not attractive enough for business partners and hasno chance for success on the market. Academics feel that business completely doesn’tunderstand university and R&D institutions.Having in mind the above conclusions, a few implications can be suggested: scientistsshould be more focused on companies’ needs. Scientists should spend more timein companies inside - not only as external experts, but also as employees which mayhelp them to understand the functioning of business. Research subjects should be discussedwith business more often to verify the necessity and reasonableness of conductingapplied studies in the aspect of new knowledge for business. There is a strong needto create a platform of communication which will help both sides to be in permanentcontact and support the academia to fulfill its “third mission” more actively. This implicationshould be implemented by national policy makers as well as university onesto support science in being more open for economical and social development.7. References:1. Badowska, S. (2012). Źródła i inspiracje wprowadzania innowacji produktowych, Zarządzaniei Finanse vol.10 nr 2 cz. 2 (2012), 5-252. Conway, G. & Waage, J. (2010). Science and Innovation for Development. London: UKCollaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS).3. Cooke, Ph.(2002). Knowledge Economies: Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage.London: Routledge.4. Datta S.and Saad M. (2001).University and innovation systems: the case of India, Scienceand Public Policy, 38(1), February 2011, 7–175. Edquist, C. (2001). The systems of innovation approach and innovation policy: An accountof the state of the art. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, held 12–15 June2001, Aalborg, Denmark6. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the <strong>entrepreneurial</strong>university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.7. Etzkowitz, H and Dzisah J. (2008). Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 653–666.8. Etzkowitz, H and Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systemand Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university– industry–government relations. ResearchPolicy, 29(2), 109–123.9. Etzkowitz, H, A. Webster, C. Gebhardt and B. R. C. Terra (2000). The future of the universityand the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to <strong>entrepreneurial</strong> paradigm.Research Policy,29(2), 313–330.10. Freeman, C. (1995). The national system of innovation in historical perspective. CambridgeJournal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.11. Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems - complementarilyand economic growth. Research Policy, 31(2), 191–211.12. Furman, J. L., M. E. Porter and S. Stern (2002). The determinants of national innovativecapacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.128
- Page 2 and 3:
VIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGEDENMARKCREATI
- Page 4:
Table of contentIntroduction . . .
- Page 7 and 8:
the reader toward better perception
- Page 9 and 10:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 11 and 12:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 13 and 14:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 15 and 16:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 17 and 18:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 19 and 20:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 21 and 22:
Enhancing the Global Classroom for
- Page 23 and 24:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 25 and 26:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 27 and 28:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 29 and 30:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 31 and 32:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 33 and 34:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 35 and 36:
Methodology of enterpreneurship tea
- Page 38 and 39:
CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSETCHA
- Page 40 and 41:
A. Ziółkowski, K.Ziółkowskidedi
- Page 42 and 43:
A. Ziółkowski, K.ZiółkowskiThe
- Page 44 and 45:
A. Ziółkowski, K.ZiółkowskiFig.
- Page 46 and 47:
A. Ziółkowski, K.ZiółkowskiFig
- Page 48:
9. ReferencesA. Ziółkowski, K.Zi
- Page 51 and 52:
Design of a learning process for SM
- Page 53 and 54:
Design of a learning process for SM
- Page 55 and 56:
Design of a learning process for SM
- Page 57 and 58:
Design of a learning process for SM
- Page 59 and 60:
Design of a learning process for SM
- Page 62 and 63:
CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSETCHA
- Page 64 and 65:
T. KurbanowOERs are Massive Open On
- Page 66 and 67:
T. Kurbanowdictionaries, word lists
- Page 68 and 69:
T. KurbanowDoctor's Degree (28%). 5
- Page 70 and 71:
T. KurbanowFig. 3. Categorization o
- Page 72 and 73:
T. KurbanowThe next question was re
- Page 74 and 75:
T. KurbanowFig. 8. Services and sof
- Page 76 and 77:
T. Kurbanownation may rest in the v
- Page 78 and 79: T. Kurbanow2. Britt A.M., & Gabrys
- Page 80 and 81: CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSETCHA
- Page 82 and 83: V. Marcinovátime, tomorrow each pe
- Page 84 and 85: V. MarcinováIt is difficult to qua
- Page 86 and 87: V. Marcinovádevelopment. It is evi
- Page 88 and 89: V. Marcinováincreases the rate of
- Page 90 and 91: V. Marcinovámaking perspective. Hu
- Page 92 and 93: CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSETCHA
- Page 94 and 95: J. Czerna-Grygielate an organizatio
- Page 96 and 97: J. Czerna-GrygielMillward Brown SMG
- Page 98 and 99: J. Czerna-GrygielEducation continui
- Page 100 and 101: J. Czerna-Grygielis the implementat
- Page 102 and 103: J. Czerna-GrygielResearch conducted
- Page 104 and 105: CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSETCHA
- Page 106 and 107: H. KrukOther principles connected w
- Page 108 and 109: H. Kruk2014/2015 while some for pre
- Page 110 and 111: H. Krukin programmes in economics f
- Page 112 and 113: H. Krukplaces”, “Fuel and energ
- Page 114 and 115: H. Krukuniversities of technology a
- Page 116 and 117: CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL MINDSETCHA
- Page 118 and 119: S.BadowskaWith this approach, resea
- Page 120 and 121: 4. Results and discussionS.Badowska
- Page 122 and 123: S.Badowskaown professional interest
- Page 124 and 125: S.BadowskaAn academics’ propensit
- Page 126 and 127: S.Badowskaacademic staff will spend
- Page 130 and 131: S.Badowska13. Kruss G. (2012). Reco
- Page 132 and 133: AbstractsAbstractsChapter 1. Bryan
- Page 134 and 135: Abstractstransfer a certain body of
- Page 136 and 137: Abstractsinclude courses concerning