كليدواژه :
خلق و يادگيري دانش ملي , توليد ناخالص داخلي , هوش ملي , تكنيك دلفي , تحليل عاملي اكتشافي و تأييدي
چكيده فارسي :
پيشينه و اهداف: رشد اقتصادي يك كشور وابسته به عوامل متعددي است كه در اين ميان نقش دانش در آن غير قابل انكار مي‌نمايد. مطالعات بسياري نشان داده است كه توليد ناخالص داخلي كشورها در اغلب موارد تحت تأثير زيرساخت‌هاي دانشي يك كشور ميباشد. اقتصاد دانش محور اقتصادي است كه مستقيماً بر اساس توليد، توزيع و مصرف دانش شكل گرفته باشد و سرمايهگذاري در دانش و صنايع دانش پايه مورد توجه خاص قرار گيرد. در اين اقتصاد كه سهم قابل توجهي از توليد ناخالص داخلي از فعاليتهاي مبتني بر دانش و دانشآفرين است، دانش بيش از عوامل سنتي نظير كار و سرمايه موجب توليد ميشود و ارزش بسياري از شركتهاي نرم افزاري و فناوري زيستي، ناشي از سرمايه هاي غير فيزيكي يعني دانش و امتيازات علمي آنها است. بر اين اساس، خلق دانش يك سلاح ضروري در دنياي امروز بوده و بدون يك فرآيند مستمر خلق دانش هر جامعه اي محكوم به تباهي ميباشد. خلق و يادگيري دانش، ايجاد دانش جديد يا جايگزيني و بهسازي دانش موجود از طريق روابط اجتماعي و همكاري‌هاي سازماني است و ايجاد و بهره‌برداري از دانش، سهم عمده‌اي در ايجاد ثروت در اقتصاد دانش‌محور دارد. مسئله اينجاست كه تاكنون به موضوع خلق و يادگيري دانش در سطح ملي پرداخته نشده است.
روش و مواد: با استفاده از روش كيفي-كمي ابتدا با تكيه بر تكنيك اكتشافي دلفي به شناسايي و تبيين فرايندهاي خلق و يادگيري دانش ملي پرداخته شد. سپس با استفاده از تحليل عاملي اكتشافي و تأييدي مقدار آماره تي بين ابعاد شناسايي شده و متغير خلق و يادگيري دانش ملي معنادار و بزرگتر از 96/1 بهدست آمده و مورد تأييد قرار گرفتند.
يافته‌ها: همچنين با تحقيق پيمايشي و استفاده از پرسشنامه، تأثير فرايند خلق و يادگيري دانش ملي بر توليد ناخالص داخلي با در نظر گرفتن نقش واسطه‌اي هوش ملي با استفاده از آمون سوبل سنجيده و مشخص شد كه با ورود متغير ميانجيگر هوش ملي، بتاي استاندارد براي رابطه بين خلق و يادگيري دانش ملي و توليد ناخالص داخلي از 80/0 به 18/0 كاهش يافته اما معني‌دار ميباشد.
نتيجه‌گيري: بنابراين، نقش متغير هوش ملي، ميانجي‌گري جزئي است يعني با حفظ تآثير رابطهي متغير اصلي خلق و يادگيري دانش ملي، اثر واسطه‌اي هوش ملي نيز بر توليد ناخالص داخلي تأثيرگذار است. اين پژوهش محدوديت‌هايي نيز به همراه داشت. يكي از اين محدوديت‌ها تفكر كليشه‌‌اي در خصوص فرايند خلق دانش بود. در اين پژوهش تنها از يكي از ابعاد مديريت دانش يعني "خلق دانش" استفاده شد. در حالي كه مي‌توان براي ارتقاء عملكرد ملي به جاي اين كه تنها به خلق دانش در سطح ملي بينديشيم به كليه فرايندهاي چرخه مديريت دانش در جامعه توجه داشته باشيم. بر اين اساس پيشنهاد ميشود ساير محققين ابعاد ديگر چرخه مديريت دانش را نيز در نظر گرفته و يك گام فراتر روند.
چكيده لاتين :
Background and Objectives: The economic growth of a country depends on several factors, among which the role of knowledge is undeniable. Many studies have shown that countries' GDP is often affected by the country's knowledge infrastructure. A knowledge-based economy is an economy that is directly based on the production, distribution and consumption of knowledge, and investment in knowledge and knowledge-based industries is given special attention. In this economy, where a significant share of GDP is from knowledge-based and knowledge-creating activities, knowledge generates more production than traditional factors such as labor and capital, and the value of many software and biotechnology companies arises from non-physical capitals, i.e. their knowledge and scientific privileges. Accordingly, knowledge creation is an essential weapon in today's world and without a continuous process of knowledge creation, any society is doomed to destruction. Knowledge creation and learning is the creation of new knowledge, or the replacement and improvement of the existing knowledge through social relations and organizational partnerships. The creation and application of knowledge has a major role in increasing wealth in a knowledge-based economy. The problem is that knowledge creation and learning has not been investigated at the national level yet.
Methods: By applying qualitative-quantitative methods, based on Delphi technique, the procedure of identifying and explaining the processes of national knowledge creation and learning has been discussed first. Then by using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, a significant t-value of more than 1.96, between the identified dimensions and the variable national knowledge creation and learning, was obtained that was acceptable.
Findings: Additionally, the impact of the process of national knowledge creation and learning on GDP was measured through conducting a survey and using a questionnaire, while taking the mediating role of national intelligence into account by using Sobel test. It was found that by including the mediating variable of national intelligence, the standardized beta for the relationship between national knowledge creation and learning, and gross domestic product was reduced from 0.80 to 0.18, but it is significant.
Conclusion: Therefore, the variable national intelligence plays the role of a partial mediator; in other words, while the impact of national knowledge creation and learning, as the main variable, is maintained, the mediating role of national intelligence also affects GDP. This research had some limitations. One of these limitations was the stereotyped thinking about the process of knowledge creation. In this study, only one dimension of knowledge management, namely ‘knowledge creation’ was used. While we can pay attention to all the processes of the knowledge management cycle in society, instead of just thinking about the creation of knowledge at the national level, in order to promote national performance. Based on this, it is suggested that other researchers consider other dimensions of the knowledge management cycle and go one step further. Researchers can also examine the existing challenges and potential barriers to the national knowledge creation process or the requirements for knowledge creation at the national level. Alternatively, researchers can study international knowledge creation processes by considering cultural differences and provide solutions to increase the likelihood of knowledge creation globally. It is suggested that future researchers make a comparative study of the national knowledge creation model with other models of measuring intellectual capital in the world and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each model and prioritize these models based on their applicability in similar countries. It is also suggested that researchers use fuzzy logic theory to make relative measurements of each of the constructs of the national knowledge creation process and conduct field and academic research in this regard. As another suggestion, researchers can conduct this research on a specific industry and compare its results with the results of this study.
