Analysis of Innovation Management in Higher Educational Institutions Based on Perceptions Formed among the Teaching Personnel

The workforce’s competency defines the efficiency of production in the country and, therefore, the welfare of the population. Higher education institutions play a considerable role in this as they prepare the workforce for the organizations in the country. Designing a high-quality workforce requires universities to keep up with the new technologies and innovations in higher education. Thus, managing innovation is the highest priority for higher education institutions. The present article aims to investigate the perceptions developed among the teaching personnel of higher education institutions, which will serve as an evaluator of innovation management efficiency. The research method has been adapted to fit the research problem and goals. The limitations of the research are that it is limited to several universities located in one city and may not fully reflect the situation in other cities. To fulfill this aim, an expert interview has been prepared, which assesses the perception and attitude towards innovations and innovation management efficiency. The analysis incorporated answers of 20 respondents employed at higher education institutions. The expert interview answers have been categorized and synthesized to reveal the hidden patterns and prepare practical recommendations for policymakers and future researchers. The analysis findings are that the teaching personnel has sufficient knowledge of the innovations in the educational sphere. Moreover, they are willing to engage in innovative processes by creating or using existing solutions. However, the study reveals funding-related issues and a necessity to adjust the university remuneration and internal policy to motivate greater engagement in innovation management.

1. Dong, P., & Tu, C. C. (2021). Research on the Impact of University Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education on University Students’ Entrepreneurship Willingness Based on Virtual Reality Technology. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/97307055

2. Döringer, S. (2021). ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(3), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.17667777

3. Gupta, A. (2009). A Study of metrics and measures to measure innovation at firm level & at national level. Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine, Paris.

4. Hausman, N. (2022). University innovation and local economic growth. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 104(4), 718-735. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01027

5. De las Heras-Rosas, C., & Herrera, J. (2021). Research trends in open innovation and the role of the university. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010029

6. Jain, N. (2021). Survey versus interviews: Comparing data collection tools for exploratory research. The Qualitative Report, 26(2), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.44922

7. Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: what is new, how new, and new to whom?. European Journal of innovation management, 4(1), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060110365547

8. Kirdasinova, К. A., Turmakhanbetova, S., Shayakhmetova, S. T., Mukhamedzhanova, A. G., & Nurmukhametov, N. N. (2016). Innovative development of the education system in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

9. Mukhiyayeva, D. M. (2017). Investment and innovation in the Republic of Kazakhstan. World scientific expanse, 353-358.

10. Rajiani, I., & Ismail, N. (2019). Management Innovation in Balancing Technology Innovation to Harness Universities Performance in the Era of Community 4.0. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2019.19.1.244

11. Rhéaume, L., & Gardoni, M. (2016). Strategymaking for innovation management and the development of corporate universities. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 10(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-015-0291-2

12. Richtnér, A., Brattström, A., Frishammar, J., Björk, J., & Magnusson, M. (2017). Creating better innovation measurement practices. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 45.

13. Sadyrova, M., Yusupov, K., & Imanbekova, B. (2021). Innovation processes in Kazakhstan: development factors. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-021-00183-3

14. Schumpeter, J. A. (2002). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen & Unwin.

15. Stone, A., Rose, S., Lal, B., & Shipp, S. (2008). Measuring innovation and intangibles: A business perspective. Institute for Defense Analysis, Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, 31, 277-280.

16. Tejedor, S., Cervi, L., Pérez-Escoda, A., Tusa, F., & Parola, A. (2021). Higher Education Response in the Time of Coronavirus: Perceptions of Teachers and Students, and Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, And Complexity, 7(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010043

17. Theeranattapong, T., Pickernell, D., & Simms, C. (2021). Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(6), 2017-2050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09837-y

18. Uvaleyeva, Z., Mukhiyayeva, D., Baranova, I., Valieva, M., & Kopylova, O. (2019). Positioning of post-soviet universities in international ratings: case of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(6), 1-15.

19. Von Soest, C. (2022). Why Do We Speak to Experts? Reviving the Strength of the Expert Interview Method. Perspectives On Politics, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1017/s15375927220011166