Document Type : Original Article


Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran


BACKGROUND: Universities are changing from government organizations into third generation. The
aims of this study were to identify the dimensions and components of a third‑generation university
and assessment of the status quo of Iran University of Medical Sciences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was mixed method. In the qualitative phase, participants
consisted of experts of academic management and scholars in third‑generation universities. The
dimensions and components of a third‑generation university were identified by content analysis.
A questionnaire was prepared according to dimensions and components with Cronbach’s alpha of
0.86. In the quantitative phase, participants consisted of managers and experts of Iran University
of Medical Sciences; they completed the questionnaire to assess the status quo of Iran University.
Data analysis was performed by Colaizzi’s and SPSS software.
RESULTS: Third generation of universities of medical sciences has 2 dimensions and 17 components.
Software dimension consists of course content, attitude, vision and mission of the university,
organizational culture, instructors, students, employees, academic management and leadership,
international approach, and social accountability components. Hardware dimension consists of
organizational structure, academic infrastructures, knowledge commercialization, and communication
with the government, education system, university environment, and university independence
components. Status in Iran University of Medical Sciences in hardware dimension was 2.53, and in
software dimension, it was 2.96.
CONCLUSION: Universities are required to respond to the changes in community. Therefore,
universities need to change their structures, goals, approaches, perspectives, and intra‑organizational
and extra‑organizational communications to be able to move toward a university which is entrepreneur,
skill teaching, wealth generating.


1. Urban B. Influence of the institutional environment on
entrepreneurial intentions in an emerging economy. Int J Entrep
Innov 2013;14:179‑91.
2. ArranzN, UbiernaF, ArroyabeMF, PerezC, Fernandez de ArroyabeJ.
The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university
students’ entrepreneurial intention and competences. Stud High
Educ 2017;42:1979‑2008.
3. Cillo V, Caggiano V, D’Emilia C. Wellbeing and intrapreneurial
university. International Journal of Developmental and
Educational Psychology, No1. 2015:2:129‑135
4. Sperrer M, Müller C, Soos J. The concept of the entrepreneurial
university applied to universities of technology in Austria:
Already reality or a vision of the future? Technol Innovation
Manag Rev 2016;6:37‑44.
5. Wissema JG. Towards the third generation university; managing
the university in transition. Cheltenham: 1st ed. Edward Elgar
Publishing; 2009. p. 69-98. doi: 10.4337/9781848446182.
6. Gibb A. Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial
university development: Towards the building of a strategic
framework. Ann Innov Entrep 2012;3:142‑16716742.
7. Etzkowitz H. The entrepreneurial university: Vision and metrics.
Ind High Educ 2016;30:83‑97.
8. Ejubovic A, Meloyan A, Tinaj S, Kutlaca D, Marusic B,
Davey T, et al. State of Montenegro University Business Cooperation Report (University Perspective): December
2019. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this
publication at:
9. Khalil BM, Mehdi M, Javad AA. Discovering and Prioritizing
the Dimensions and Components Affecting the Structure of the
Entrepreneurial University: A Proposal for Success in the Tasks
of the Third Generation of Universities. N.52. Technology Growth
Quarterly; 2017. P. 13 IRAN. DOI : 10.7508/jstpi. 2017.04.002
10. Aranha EA, Garcia NA. Dimensions of a metamodel of an
entrepreneurial university. Afr J Bus Manag 2014;8:336‑49.
11. Guerrero M, Urbano D. The development of an entrepreneurial
university. J Technol Transf 2012;37:43‑74.
12. Mehdi MF. Macro‑analysis of entrepreneurial university in the
framework of the three‑pronged model and study of the success
factors of this university. Approach 201 3;N. 54. p: 35‑54.
13. Taghipour A, Hasanmoradi N. The proper pattern of creating an
entrepreneurial university. Econ Manag Res 2006;18:31‑40.
14. Maresch D, Harms R, Kailer N, Wimmer‑Wurm B. The impact
of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention
of students in science and engineering versus business studies
university programs. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2016;104:172‑9.
15. Ghorbani A, Sohrabi Z, Yazdani S, Azandehi S. Structural
requirements of the third‑generation university: The case of
medical sciences universities in Iran. Adv Med Educ Pract
16. Amiresmaili M, Saberi H, Barkhordari F. Identifying the effective
factors on the transition to the third‑generation university:
A qualitative study. J Educ Health Promot 2019;8:235.
17. Zamanian N, Cherabin M, Naseri NS, Zendedel A. Designing
the model of influential factors to transform Mashhad University
of Medical Sciences into a third generation university using a
qualitative approach. Future Med Educ J 2019;9:34‑41.
18. Ramezani Gobad, Salimi Jamal. Identification of the components
of knowledge management and their implementation: A case
study of University of Kurdistan. Knowledge Studies, Volume
2, Issue 5, Winter 2016, Pages 1‑24. Doi: 10.22054/JKS.2016.2695
19. Reza M. The position of skill training in third generation
universities. Learn Skills 2015;4:103‑17.
20. Nowruzi Kbkma H, Hamidreza M, Reza P, Mohammad N.
Extraction of dimensions and networking of structural
components of entrepreneur university: An interdisciplinary
approach. Manag Islamic Univ 2014;3:155‑72.
21. Behzadi N, Razavi SM, Hosseini SR. Designing a conceptual
model for an entrepreneurial university; using corporate
entrepreneurship approach. J Entrep Dev 2014;7:697‑713.