Dspace, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Not a member yet
2327 research outputs found
Sort by
მიგარიას კირქვული მასივის კარსტი და მღვიმეები = Karst and Caves of Migaria Limestone Massif
No full textვახუშტი ბაგრატიონის სახელობის გეოგრაფიის ინსტიტუტი
GALAKTION TABIDZE’S “TOMORROW SHOULD LOOK AFTER ITSELF” (INTERTEXTUAL RELATIONS. PROBLEM OF DATING)
No full textივანე ჯავახიშვილის დაბადებიდან 146-ე წლისთავისადმი მიძღვნილი სამეცნიერო კონფერენციაThis paper presents analysis of Galaktion Tabidze’s known verse − „Tomorrow
will look after itself“. There exists a twofold opinion on the source
of inspiration of this work: according to the established viewpoint the verse
„Tomorrow will look after itself“ was created under the impression obtained
from Aleksandre Chavchavadze’s untitled verse („…ghimilman kari lalisa“).
According to the diff erent view the lines from the Gospel of Matthew must
have fulfilled the function of creative impulse to Galaktion.
To my mind the identity of the metre and refrain of both poets’ works
really create the ground to consider A. Chavchavadze’s untitled verse to be
the basic intertext of Galaktion’s verse. However, against the background of
identity of the formal elements the essential difference of a plot between
these two poetic works is also clearly observed. From the viewpoint of the
plot Galaktion’s verse obviously resonates with the Holy Letter. It is due to
this that while discussing „Tomorrow will look after itself“ we should bear
in mind not only A. Chavchavadze’s untitled verse but the message of the
New Testament. Without taking into consideration both of them it is impossible
to analyze this work.
Unlike intertextual relations of Galaktion’s verse the problem of its
dating has never become the object of dispute among scholars. The work
was first published in 1927. Its autograph with indication of the date is not
available. Despite this, it is considered to be written in 1916. Long interval
between the writing of the verse and publication gives rise to doubt. It is
not clear why the poet published the verse created in 1916 only eleven
years later.
There exist several editions more or less different from the text of the
„Tomorrow will look after itself“ that is known to readers. The study of the
autograph testifies to the fact that each version of the verse belongs to the
twenties-thirties or even later period.
For dating of Galaktion’s work of particular importance is one version
of less known „Tomorrow will look after itself“. At the Georgian State Museum
of Theatre, Music, Cinema and Choreography there is kept an album
in which interesting edition of Galaktion’s verse is placed. This extemporization
dedicated to Cecilia Kalandadze is of special attention because
there is poet’s inscription of a concrete date – 28 January, 1925. Compared
with the rest versions this extemporization manifests more closeness with the body text. Just like „Tomorrow will look after itself“ it consists of three
quatrains and each line is fulfilled by unchanged refrain. Such similarity
allows us to suppose that when the poet wrote extemporization, at that
time the edition known to the readers of „Tomorrow will look after itself“
had already been created.
A.Chavchavadze’s untitled verse is one of the few literary works that
made a great impact on Galaktion. The phrase „Tomorrow will look after
itself“ is oftentimes found in his diaries. One part of these records has no
date and the others are dated by thirties-forties. This fact indicates that
through the line of A.Chavchavadze’s verse Galaktion got interested not in
the 1910s but far later.
With account of the peculiarities of Galaktion’s records and verse editions
we may suppose that „Tomorrow will look after itself“ was written not
in 1916 but in the twenties, more precisely at the end of 1924 or beginning
of 1925
სადღეგრძელოს ფსიქო-კულტურული პატერნები კავკასიაში და დისკუსია სუფრის ტრადიციის ფესვებზე
No full textწყაროებში არ არის სადღეგრძელოთა სისტემის ხსენება მე-19 საუკუნემდე, ამიტომ კავკასიური და ქართული სუფრა „გამოგონილ“ ტრადიციად უნდა ჩაითვალოს და რუსული სუფრის გაქართულებად (Ram H., 2018). აუთენტური ქართული სუფრა კი ხასიათდება როგორც რიტუალიზირებული, არაცივილიზებული და უკულტურო სმის ორგია საფავიდური სპარსეთის მსგავსად, რომელიც „კულტურული“ და სულიერებით დატვირთული ხდება მხოლოდ რუსული ლიტერატურიდან გადმოღებული თემატური სადღეგრძელოების შემოღების შემდეგ სტალინური ტოტალიტარიზმის ზეგავლენით (Manning P., 2012,2017). მსოფლიო არაფორმალურობის ენციკლოპედიაში სადღეგრძელოსთვის თანამედროვე საქართველოში ცალკე სტატიაა მიძღვნილი და ხასიათდება როგორც დომინირების ინსტიტუტი, რომელიც კარგავს მნიშვნელობას ჩრდილოვანი ეკონომიკის დაკნინების გამო (Muelfried, 2018).
ნაშრომის მიზანს წარმოადგენს მიმოიხილოს არსებული წყაროები, რათა გაანალიზებულ იქნეს ქართულ სუფრაზე ალკოჰოლის მიღების ეთნოფსიქოლოგიური თავისებურებანი. ნაჩვენებია, რომ სუფრა მე-16 საუკუნიდან ხასიათდება, როგორც მრავალი სადღგრძელოს შემცველი კომპლექსური გამოკვეთილად რელიგიური ხასიათის ცერემონია გალობის თანხლებით.
მაშრომში ასევე გამახვილებულია ყურადღება, რომ დისკუსიის წამომწყებთა მიერ თავიდანვე დასახული იქნა ქართული სუფრის როგორც დემოკრატიის დამაბრკოლებლის კრიტიკის ამოცანა და აქცენტი სუფრის რელიგიური კონტექსტის უგულებელყოფაზე იქნა მიმართული.
სადღეგრძელოს რელიგიური კომპონენტის სიძლიერე დასტურდება საქართველოს მთიანეთში არსებული მუხლმოდრეკით სმის ტრადიციაში, ასევე თანამედროვე ადიღელ ჩერქეზებში სადღეგრძელოს შესმის თავისებურებებით.
ნაშრომში ანთროპოლოგიური ანალიზის საფუძველზე ასევე ნაჩვენებია განსხვავება ალკოჰოლის მიღების ორ ტიპოლოგიურად განსხვავებულ კულტურას შორის- ერთის მხრივ „ღვინის“, „სველ“ კულტურას, რომელშიც სმა მისაღებია დათრობის გარეშე(საქართველო) და მეორის მხრივ „მშრალ“ „შემაგრებული“ სასმელების კულტურას (რუსეთი) შორის, სადაც დალევისას დათრობა მისაღებია.
სადღეგრძელოს რიტუალის აღწერილობები ადასტურებს სუფრის ტრადიციის ქრისტიანული სულიერებით დატვირთულობას საქართველოსა და კავკასიაში. სუფრის ტრადიციის კრიტიკა, რომლის მიხედვით მე-19 საუკუნის რუსული იმპერიული ზეგავლენა წამყვანია კავკასიური სუფრის როგორც კულტურის ფენომენიის ჩამოყალიბებაში, მეტყველებს ამ მიდგომის იდეოლოგიურ საფუძველზე
THE ARABIC INVARIANT OF POSTMODERNISM
No full textThere weren’t any social-economic, political or historical factors
in the Arab World causing postmodernism. Like other esthetic trends
before, it was “brought from the West”. But it wasn’t established in the
Arabic environment mechanically. Arab Postmodernism had its native
context. It’s true that after the epoch of modernism Europe lost the
function of the “etalon”. And yet even in postmodern times Arabs had
to catch up with the West.
Western postmodern works of art mostly were free of social or
political engagements, but Arab culture in the condition of authoritarian
regimes couldn’t free from these issues. If freedom of the expression doesn’t exist in society, the protest must be expressed by intellectuals.
Since the beginning of the 60s* new Arab generation protested against
modernist trends dominated in 50s, and there appeared a new wave of
modernization and westernization as well.
In Arabic culture, as in the quite different space from the Western
world, the invariant of postmodernism was created. Arab postmodern
literary pieces contained characteristics of postmodern texts as mixture
of different genres, using of traditional forms and signs (but not in an
ironic context), anarchical structure, intertextuality, reminiscences,
skepticism, hyperspace with ruined borders of time etc., and at the same
time they contained some characteristics of national literature caused
by native environment. The war, trauma, displacement, destroying of the
Arab society gave birth to such themes as memory, identity, looseness
in time and space, mixture of languages and cultures etc.
If in the 60s-90s engaged literature was outdated in the West,
Arab postmodern literature was represented by Emigrant, Prison,
Women Writings, Memoirs or Autobiography… These texts were not only
depicting the reality, but also contained concrete massages towards
Arabic and/ or Western societies.
In the Arabic culture of this epoch they also didn’t care for the
canons of genre. But as pure postmodern examples (by their form and
plot) of art are not frequent, it would be better if we speak about signs
of postmodernism in the concrete works
A Case of Facultative Use of Version Markers in the Teaching of Georgian as a Second or Foreign Language
No full textეძღვნება თსუ-ს ემერიტუს პროფესორ ლელი ბარამიძის დაბადებიდან 90-ე წლისთავს/ Dedicated to the 90th Birthday of Emeritus Professor of TSU Leli BaramidzeThe paper focuses on the use of the forms of the Georgian verb სმენა smena
‘listen/hear’ with preradical vowels უ- u-: უ-სმენს u-smens ‘he/she is listening to’, მო-
უ-სმენს mo-u-smens ‘he/she will listen to’, მო-უ-სმინა mo-u-smina ‘he/she listened
to’ and ი- i-: ი-სმენს i-smens ‘he/she hears’, მო-ი-სმენს mo-i-smens ‘he/she will
hear’, მო-ი-სმინა mo-i-smina ‘he/she heard’. The use of these forms is analyzed from
the perspective of teaching Georgian as a second or foreign language.
The paper argues that the forms with preradical vowel უ- u- denote the active
process of listening on the part of the individual/listener, who is concentrated on what
he/she is listening to, whereas the forms with preradical vowel ი- i- denote the process
in which the individual/listener is not active, hence, he/she does not concentrate on
what he/she hears. That is why the above-mentioned forms with preradical vowel უ- ucorrespond
to the English verb To listen (cf. Russian - слушать), whereas the forms with
preradical vowel ი- i- correspond to the English verb To hear (cf. Russian - слышать).
The above-mentioned semantic nuance is expressed by two different verbs in
English, whereas in Russian it is expressed by two stems of one and the same verb.
However, in Georgian this semantic nuance is expressed by two different preradical vowels
– უ- u- and ი- i-, which are markers of the grammatical category of version and for
which the expression of the above-mentioned semantic nuance is an additional, facultative
function
ZORA HURSTON: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN WRITER
No full textIn 1975, 15 years after Zora Neal Hurston’s death, African-American
writer Alice Walker published an essay, “In Search of Zora Neal Hurstons,”
in Ms. magazine, which marked a new beginning in the process of
reevaluation of her achievements and role in American literature. My
presentation aims at introducing this unfairly ignored writer whose
legacy and life experience might be equally interesting.
Writer, folklorist, and anthropologist Zora Neal Hurston is the
author of several novels, an autobiography, plays, essays, and a number
of non-fiction works. However, the novel “Their Eyes Were Watching
God” is considered to be her magnum opus. The novel, which is widely
discussed and highly praised today, was a commercial failure and
sank without a trace soon after publication. Her non-fiction project:
“Barracoon: The Story of the Last “Black Cargo,” published in 2018, has
an even more dramatic history. The book is based on interviews with
the last survivor of the last slave ship to land on American shores. Prior
to being published, the manuscript was stored in the Howard University
library archives, and it took 87 years for Barracoon to see the light of
day.
When Hurston arrived in New York City in 1925, the Harlem
Renaissance was at its zenith, and she soon became one of the
writers at its center. Although highly acclaimed today, her books drew
their share of criticism at the time, as they depicted problems of the
African-American community in an untraditional, controversial way.
Contrary to the former attitude, today it is considered that her legacy “may help teach us to live with uncomfortable truths, not only about
the complicated and terrible stories it records but also about the
complicated and tremendous author who recorded it“. (Cep. 2018, p.2)
“Literature as profound and original as the spirituals” – such is
Zora Neal Hurston’s assessment today. The path that led her from harsh
criticism and obscurity to such acclaim is, without a doubt, worthy of
renewed attention and appropriate study
Hearths and Stands as Peculiar Features of Kura-Araxes Culture
No full textOne of the peculiarities of Kura-Araxes culture is clay hearths and stands of diverse form and size. Their role and function is of great interest, because they seem to have a strong mental connection with the traditions, cosmogony and religious faith of representatives of this culture. The hearths are placed in special areas of buildings; they are frequently ornamented and painted. The stands are placed beside the hearths. However, unlike the hearths, the stands, taken together or separately, are found in every religious building or less important place of habitation of Kura-Araxes culture. Most probably, the broad area of spreading of hearths and stands does not imply the increased influence of the culture itself (although dominance over certain local cultures is vivid in some places – for instance, there are traces of representatives of Kura-Araxes culture in the society of Arslantepe). The influence of Kura-Araxes culture is obviously felt in daily routine, agriculture, commerce and trade. All this points to active migration-emigration of the given society. This factor is always accompanied by the export of leading cultural features. It should be noted that both hearths and stands exist within the given culture and disappear together with the culture. Yet, while the culture is present there is a diversity of hearths and stands. The assumption regarding the religious function of hearths and stands is acceptable and widespread among the scholarly circles worldwide. Hence, we can assume that these two key attributes of Kura-Araxes culture, the hearth and the stand, were visual expressions of cosmogonic ideas, according to which these objects represent heavenly bodies: the hearth represents the sun i.e. a female essence, great mother, while the stand represents the moon i.e. male essence. In this case, it is not surprising that they are placed in a special area of the house and ornamented with graphic images. Their location is a place of special religious rituals. The hearths and stands serve the purpose of visualization of implementation of such rituals, which is part of culture and daily routine of the given society, wherever the representatives of this culture settle, on the entire area of dissemination of their culture
საქართველოს ალექსანდრე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის გეოგრაფიული საზოგადოების შრომები
No full textაბსტრაქტი. საქართველოს ს. ჯანაშიას სახელობის ეროვნული მუზეუმის ზოოლოგიური კოლექციები,
რომელიც ასახავს საქართველოს და ზოგადად კავკასიის ფაუნის მრავალფეროვნებას,
უნიკალურია თავისი სიძველით. წლების განმავლობაში ზოოლოგიური ფონდები მდიდრდებოდა
კავკასიის ფაუნისტური ექსპედიციებიდან, ორგანიზაციებიდან, კერძო პირებისა
და სხვადასხვა ქვეყნიდან შემოსული მასალებით. ეს ხდებოდა როგორც გაცვლის წესით
და შემოწირულობით, ასევე შესყიდვის გზით, რისი წყალობითაც დღეისათვის ზოოლოგიურ
ფონდებში დაცულია კავკასიაში გავრცელებული ცხოველების თითქმის ყველა სახეობის მასალა.
საინტერესოა ძუძუმწოვარ ცხოველთა ფონდში არსებული ექსპონატები, რომელთა შორისაა
საერთაშორისო კონვენციებითა და საქართველოს წითელი ნუსხით აღიარებული ენდემური,
რელიქტური და სხვა იშვიათი სახეობები. ძუძუმწოვართა (Mammalia) შორის თავისი
მრავალფეროვნებით გამოირჩევა მღრღნელების (Rodentia) რიგის ციყვისებრთა (Sciuridae) ოჯახისა
და ციყვების (Sciurus) გვარის წარმომადგენლები. საქართველოს ეროვნული მუზეუმის
ზოოლოგიურ კოლექციების ძუძუმწოვარ ცხოველთა ფონდის ციყვების კოლექცია
წარმოდგენილია 829 ექსპონატით,რომლებიც ძირითადად მიეკუთვნებიან ჩვეულებრივი
ციყვის (Sciurus vulgaris) და კავკასიური ციყვის (Sciurus anomalus) სახეობებსა და ალთაური
ციყვის (Sciurus vulgaris altaicus) ქვესახეობას
On the Perfection of the Index of Verb-Stems with Vowel Alternation in Modern Georgian
No full textIt is common knowledge that Georgian verbs like გრეხს – გრიხა
(twists-twisted) form various series and screeves by means of vowel alternation
ე – ი (e-i). Hence, they are said to be verbs with vowel alternation (ablaut).
Naturally, in order to define the number of such verbs and make their
complete index, it is important to identify stems with vowels ე (e) and ი (i).
Certainly, there are verbs with vowel alternation, representing the stems with
both vowels at a certain stage of development of the Georgian language, for
instance, in the contemporary literary Georgian: კვნეტს – კვნიტა k’vnet’s –
k’vnit’a “crunches – crunched”; ჟღენთს – ჟღინთა ჳγent(h)s – ჳγint(h)a “saturates,
saturated”; სრესს – სრისა sress – srisa “crushes – crushed” and
so on. However, there are verbs represented by stems containing only one vowel
(either ე (e) or ი (i)). Hence, if we are unable to find the stem containing
the second vowel, the stem cannot be considered as the one with the vowel
alternation.
In order to identify a certain stem with the vowel alternation, dialectal
material should be analyzed alongside with the data of the contemporary literary
Georgian. The dialectal data will help to fill the so-called deficient forms
existing in the literary Georgian or to reveal “new” forms with vowel alternation,
not found in the literary language.
Thanks to the above-mentioned approach, we have traced about four
hundred (to be more exact, 398) verb stems with vowel alternation, the
significant part of which is coming from dialectal verbs.
The verbs with vowel alternation found in current Georgian dialects, are
interesting from various viewpoints. First of all, we should find out when they
appeared in the Georgian language and whether they existed in Old and
Middle Georgian.
With this regard, based on the comparison of Old, Middle and New
Georgian data, we give the analyzes of the following verb stems with vowel
alternation: კლეტ /კლიტ k’let’ / k’lit’ “to shut”; სრევ / სრივ srev / sriv “to
shoot”; ჩეკ / ჩიკ t (h)ek’ / t (h)ik’ “to hatch eggs”; ჩხვეპ / ჩხვიპ t (h)xvep’ / t (h)xvip’ “to prick”; ჭყერ / ჭყირ t q’er / t q’ir “to peep”; ჭყლემპ / ჭყლიმპ
t q’lemp’ / t q’limp’ “to squeeze” and the like.
The existence of the above-mentioned stems in Old and Middle Georgian
is important from two viewpoints. Firstly, it proves the alternation of
vowels in the above-mentioned stems. Secondly, it proves that these stems,
although not found in the contemporary literary Georgian, are the stems with
long history of vowel alternation, because they are found on different stages
of the development of the Georgian language and in the dialects of the contemporary
Georgian
Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 – the Role of the University
No full text1. Breque, M., De Nul, L. and Petridis, A. (2021) Industry 5.0. Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. European Commission. R&I paper series. Policy brief. https://op.europa.eu
2. Carayannis, E.G. and Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2021), “The Futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as Driving Forces of Future Universities”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00854-2
3. Charekishvili, L. (2018). “Lifelong Education and ICT in Georgia”. IV International scientific and practical conference “Strategic Imperatives of Modern Management” (SIMM-2018), KNEY, Kyiv, 2018 pp.273-278. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197267023.pdf
4. Chen, X., Eder, M. A. and Shihavuddin A.S. (2020), “A concept for human-cyber-physical systems of future wind turbines towards Industry 5.0”, TechRxiv, Preprint, https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.13106108.v1
5. Cillo, V., Gregori, G.L., Daniele, L.M., Caputo, F. and Bitbol-Saba, N. (2021), “Rethinking companies’ culture through knowledge management lens during Industry 5.0 transition”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2021-0718
6. Demir, K.A., Doven, G. and Sezen, B. (2019), “Industry 5.0 and human-robot co-working”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 158, pp. 688–695, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2019.09.104
7. Dominici, G. and Gagnidze, I. (2021), “Effectiveness of Entrepreneurial Universities: Experiences and Challenges in Digital Era (A Systemic Approach)”, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 13-30, DOI 10.7906/indecs.19.1.2
8. European Commission https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu
9. Faruqi, U. A.I. (2019), “Future Service in Industry 5.0”, Jurnal Sistem Cerdas, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 67-79, https://doi.org/10.37396/jsc.v2i
10. Gagnidze, I. (2022) “The Numerous Challenges of the Post-COVID Economy”. 6th FEB International Scientific Conference “Challenges in Economics and Business in the Post-COVID Times”. Proceedings. pp. 11-19. https://doi.org/10.18690/um.epf.5.2022.2
11. Giones, F., Kleine, K. and Tegtmeier, S. (2021) “Students as scientists’ co-pilots at the onset of technology transfer: a two-way learning process”. J Technol Transf. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09880-3
12. Gogorishvili I. (2018). “Small and Medium Enterprise Perspective in the Development of Digital Economy”. E-Book of Abstract, Fifth Business Systems Laboratory International Symposium, Cocreating Responsible Futures in the Digital Age: Exploring new paths towards economic, social and environmental Sustainability, University “Federico II” of Naples, January 22-24, pp.255-257. ISBN 9788890824265 http://bslab-symposium.net/Napoli-2018/BOA-BSLAB-Symposium-2018.pdf
13. Grabowska, S., Saniuk, S. and Gajdzik, B. (2022), “Industry 5.0: improving humanization and sustainability of Industry 4.0”, Scientometrics, Vol. 127, pp. 3117–3144, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04370-1
14. Grant, C. and Kokkoris, I. (2021). “University 4.0. University and Research Leadership Forum Drivers of Resilience, Prosperity, and Recovery.” Discussion paper. 10th anniversary GFCC. Queen Mary University of London. p.1. https://www.thegfcc.org/universities-innovation
15. Innovation ecosystems for a sustainable Europe: How to enhance the contribution of universities Based on the results of the EUA survey on universities and innovation. Position. November. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/innovation%20survey_position.pdf
16. Kharadze, N., Giorgobiani, M., Melkoshvili, T., Dzebisauri, L. and Pirtskhalaishvili, D. (2021), “Effective strategies to manage teacher intellectual work productivity in distance learning”, Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR), Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 653-665, https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v8i4.840
17. Kozirog, K., Lucaci, S. and Berghmans, S. (2022) Universities as key drivers of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Results of the EUA survey on universities and innovation. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/innovation%20report.pdf
18. Konno, N. and Schillaci, C.E. (2021), “Intellectual capital in Society 5.0 by the lens of the knowledge creation theory”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 478-505. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0060
19. Lekashvili, E. and Bitsadze, M. (2021), “The Role of University Spin-Offs in the Success of Research Programs”, Nata, R. V. (Ed.), Progress in Education, Vol. 68 Chapter 4, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 73-102, DOI: https://doi.org/10.52305/WPPN2619
20. Longo, F., Padovano, A. and Umbrello, S. (2020), “Value-Oriented and Ethical Technology Engineering in Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Perspective for the Design of the Factory of the Future”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 10 No.12, 4182, pp. 2-25, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124182
21. Muller, J. (2020), “Enabling Technologies for Industry 5.0. Results of a workshop with Europe’s technology leaders. Independent Expert Report”, European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, available at: doi:10.2777/082634 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8e5de100-2a1c-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
22. Natsvlishvili, I. (2018). Youth’s Entrepreneurial Attitudes in the Contexts of Higher Education Management in Georgia. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197267038.pdf
23. Natsvlishvili, I., Kharaishvili, E. and Lazariashvili, T. (2020). “Impact of agro tourism on economic development of related sectors in the context of sustainable well-being (case of Georgia)”. International Journal of Markets and Business Systems, Vol.4 No.2, pp.120 – 139. DOI: 10.1504/IJMABS.2020.113122
24. Papachashvili, N., Mikaberidze, T., Tavartkiladze M. and Roblek, V. (2021), “Industry 4.0 and the Challenges of Higher Education Programs in the Field of Business Administration”, Nata, R. V. (Ed.), Progress in Education, Vol. 68 Chapter 7, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 171-202, DOI: https://doi.org/10.52305/WPPN2619.
25. Potočan, V., Mulej, M. and Nedelko, Z. (2021), “Society 5.0: balancing of Industry 4.0, economic advancement and social problems”, Kybernetes, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 794-811. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0858
26. POSITION EUA response to the European Commission’s New European Innovation Agenda, July 2022 https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eu%20innovation%20agenda.pdf
27. Reichert, S. (2019) EUA Study The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems, Much. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20innovation%20ecosystem%20report.pdf
28. Seturidze, R. and Topuria, N. (2021), “A way of developing collaboration between universities and businesses in a time of COVID-19”, Kybernetes, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1661-1678, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2020-0518
29. Sepashvili, E. (2020), “Supporting digitalization: Key goal for national competitiveness in digital global economy”, Economia Aziendale Online, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 191-198, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13132/2038-5498/11.2.191-198
30. Sobolieva, T.O., Holionko, N.G., Batenko, L.P. and Reshetniak, T.I. (2021), “Global technology trends through patent
data analysis”, in Markopoulos, P., Koranaki, I.P., Slatineanu, L., Cretu, G., Dodun, O. & Mihalache, A.M. (Ed.s), IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1037, 012059. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1037/1/012059.
31. Sepashvili, E. (2020) Digital Chain of Contemporary Global Economy: E-Commerce through E-Banking and E-Signature. Economia Aziendale Online-, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp.239-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.13132/2038-5498/11.3.239-249
32. Universities without walls A vision for 2030. European University Association. February 2021 https://eua.eu/resources/projects/784-europe%E2%80%99s-universities-2030.html
33. WMF (2019) The WMF’ s Top Ten Skill s for the Future of Manufacturing, https://worldmanufacturing.org/wp-content/uploads/WorldManufacturingFoundation2019-Report.pdf
34. Vesperi, W. and Gagnidze, I. (in press) “From the University Ecosystem to the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem – The Way for Developing of the Local Economy”. International Journal of Economics and Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijebr.2022.10041232
35. Vesperi, W. and Gagnidze, I (2021). “The Impact of the 4th Industrial Revolution on the Higher Education System: Rethinking the Role of Universities”. Progress in Education. Vol 68. Chapter 6. Ed: Nata,R. V., Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISSN: 1535-4806 ISBN: 978-1-68507-230-8; pp.143-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52305/WPPN2619
36. Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B. and Wang, L. (2021), “Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 – Inception, conception and perception”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 61, pp. 530-535, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.00