EQUIP

BUILDING A RESEARCH CULTURE

  December 7, 2011
International research
Here is the talk I gave at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry summit on higher education in Delhi:

FICCI conference talk: building a research culture

Pete Downes, Principal and Vice Chancellor, University of Dundee

Before commencing my talk I would first like to respond to the chairman’s suggestion that the most significant research breakthroughs are often brought about by individuals unsupported by grand strategy or by eye-wateringly expensive infrastructure. At the University of Dundee, which I am fortunate to lead as its Vice Chancellor, we have developed one of the world’s leading centres for biomedical research. In terms of citations and other markers of excellence our scientists and clinicians have enviable reputations, but more significantly, our work has impact on society in terms of clinical outcomes and the development of a biotechnology cluster in Dundee that now accounts for 16% of the area’s economy. I am therefore asked frequently, by politicians, journalists and fellow academics, ‘what is Dundee’s secret; what was the strategy for success?’ Well I can reveal now that our secret strategy was that we had no strategy! Developing research excellence was the result of grasping opportunities and selectively supporting emerging strengths. Retrospectively, it has the appearance of a strategy that worked, but don’t be fooled. What I believe does matter, however, is culture. The culture in Dundee that nurtured its success and continues to do so has the following elements:

1. Only recruit faculty whom we believe are better than we are (from wherever they may be in the world).
2. Collaborate to compete.
3. Respect and value the contributions of all staff including support staff.
4. Celebrate one another’s success stories.

I now want to contribute to the topic of ‘building a research culture’ under four headings. Why we do research; the role of universities in innovation; capturing the impact of investment in research; implications for research-led teaching.

Why we do research

By this I mean of course why should universities do research? The first reason is that we have a responsibility to create a legacy of new knowledge for future generations. The technological, social and cultural developments from which we benefit today are the result of advances in knowledge made by previous generations. In this respect we stand on the shoulders of giants. Abdicating this responsibility would be the academic equivalent of failing to provide for our children! The second reason is that humankind is curious by nature. Creating new knowledge and understanding is one of our greatest cultural achievements and is intrinsically rewarding, motivating and inspiring. The third reason, to quote Einstein, is that we are curious for a reason. We know, both instinctively and from experience, that knowledge and understanding of the most fundamental and esoteric kinds, can eventually be put to good use. That universities should bear the major responsibility for driving curiosity-led research relates, in my view, to the fundamental concepts of independence and academic freedom as well as to the value of research as an inspiration to students.

The role of universities in innovation

Innovation concerns the harnessing of new knowledge and understanding to the needs of society and it includes not just economic, but also social and cultural needs.
Traditionally the role of universities has been to expand knowledge, to publish the findings of research and to allow others to exploit it as they will. Such a passive approach has been justified by the unpredictable nature of when and how knowledge can best be exploited. I do not accept this justification not least because it is tolerant of an approach that is demonstrably inefficient. Universities should play active roles in ensuring the efficient exchange of knowledge with the many users of the outputs of research. They should do this not by shifting from curiosity-driven research to applied research, but by developing partnerships with industry and those who will drive cultural and social developments.

The key lessons that emerge from these ideas are as follows:

Universities must not be persuaded to stop doing curiosity-driven research.

There must be a balance of short medium and long term impacts of research.

Universities must shift from the traditionally passive mode of knowledge dissemination to one that is more actively engaged with the users of research.

Capturing the impact of investment in research

Governments which invest heavily in the research capacity of universities nowadays increasingly expect a return on their investment not least because the people who elect them want that too. Publications in high quality journals and the resulting citations for that work enhance the reputations of individuals and the institutions which employ them, but the information is more or less instantly available throughout the world. Any applications that arise are therefore not, in any obvious way, tied to nation or place where the initial investment was made. The partnership approach introduced earlier tends to create clusters of intensive activity where new knowledge is much more likely to be exploited by users of research within the cluster than elsewhere in the world. As a bonus, the users of research, in partnership with universities, will begin to frame research questions designed to address problems they face in their businesses driving a self-supporting, mutually beneficial virtuous circle.

This brings me back to the concepts of knowledge exchange and intellectual property (IP) which are central to my University’s engagement with innovation. IP can be broadly divided into two types. Tangible IP takes the form of patents, copyright and direct university-owned spin-outs. Intangible IP is best represented by the distinctive, high quality expertise and reputations of the faculty and the research units in which they work. The latter is frequently underestimated in terms of its significance and power to drive the key partnerships that I have referred to frequently in this presentation. An example of the latter in Dundee would be the Division of Signal Transduction Therapy, based around world class expertise in cell signalling research, which has brought inward investment in excess of £50million from several of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies and spawned two new companies in the city.

Implications for research-led teaching

As research, especially in technology-driven disciplines, becomes more and more intensively competitive, we will need new models to deliver research-led teaching. The old model of individual faculty doing research, teaching and shouldering their share of administration is out of date and can often lead to a culture of mediocrity in both teaching and research. Workload allocation will in the future increasingly recognise the distinctive contributions and talents of individual faculty and research-led teaching will be delivered by teams, not individuals. In turn academic leaders will need proactively to manage workload allocation, and differentiation of faculty roles.

But there is something else more profound than more efficient ways of working. There is a tendency for universities to be cloistered environments where academic achievement is held above all other forms of distinction. Yet we want our students to be highly employable and key participants in economic growth. Ensuring universities are highly networked organisations fully engaged with multiple partners is the best way I know to maintain the links not just between teaching and research, but between teaching, research and innovation. The type of engaged university that I have described therefore will not only produce research that has impact, but, even more importantly, employable, innovative graduates.

http://blog.dundee.ac.uk/principal/2011/12/building-a-research-culture/

posted by AcrosticGuy @ 2:43 PM