tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/universities-and-industry-11900/articlesUniversities and Industry – The Conversation2015-05-13T04:32:09Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/404062015-05-13T04:32:09Z2015-05-13T04:32:09ZA different route to reducing university drop-out rates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79078/original/image-20150423-25553-1ujwxwv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A 3rd year chemical engineering student from the University of Cape Town in a vacation "boot camp" to help with supplementary exam preparation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jennifer Case</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa is in the grip of a skills shortage. Among the <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/state-s-top-100-most-wanted-skills-1.1695677#.VT5I_CGqqko">top ten skills</a> needed to boost its lacklustre economic growth are civil, mechanical, industrial and chemical engineers.</p>
<p>But of the just more than 3000 students the Department of Higher Education and Training estimated would sign up to do an engineering degree in South Africa this year, <a href="http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/Full_Report.pdf">fewer than half will graduate</a> after five years. </p>
<p>South Africa’s isn’t alone in struggling to get engineering students from enrolment to graduation. In the US only about 50% of engineering students complete their degrees, according to research published in the Journal of Engineering Education. In Australia the figure <a href="https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/ACED/Engineers%20for%20the%20Future.pdf">isn’t much higher</a>. </p>
<p>But South Africa faces a particularly difficult post-apartheid challenge. It needs to increase the number of black university graduates across all disciplines as a form of intellectual and economic redress. Its skilled workforce must reflect the demographics of a country whose population is around 90% <a href="http://www.bizadvance.co.za/content/definition-black-people">black</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is exacerbated by South Africa’s <a href="http://www.unisa.ac.za/cedu/news/index.php/2012/07/cedu-microwave-presentation-south-african-education-unequal-inefficient-and-underperforming/">troubled public school system</a>, which battles to produce students equipped for pursuing tough degrees like engineering at university level. Even if students do make it into an engineering degree, they are <a href="http://www.moneyweb.co.za/archive/sas-engineering-shortage-widens/">extremely likely</a> to drop out before completing their studies.</p>
<p>Despite the problem being widespread and seemingly intractable, various attempts continue to be made to overcome it. One of the earliest was started in the chemical engineering department at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in the mid-1980s. The department’s classes were largely white and male and the graduation rates were low. A few black students were enrolled but their success rates were poorer than those of their white peers.</p>
<p>UCT approached its industry partners for a frank discussion. They set out to find a way to teach engineering students from disadvantaged backgrounds effectively. </p>
<h2>A quarter-century of change</h2>
<p>Nearly 30 years later, UCT engineering undergraduate enrolment rates have risen and white students make up less than 40% of the South African students in the programme. By 2011, the programme posted an <a href="https://www.academia.edu/12136273/Academic_development_in_the_mainstream_A_case_study_in_an_undergraduate_engineering_programme_in_South_Africa">overall graduation rate</a> of nearly 70%, with dramatically improved rates for black students. </p>
<p>A group of higher education researchers and I recently worked with data to <a href="https://www.academia.edu/12077783/From_contradictions_to_complementarities_A_social_realist_analysis_of_the_evolution_of_academic_development_within_a_department">build a case study</a> of how change can happen in a university department. One of our key questions was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What makes educational change possible? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>We wanted to take a long-term view because so much of our present discourse on social shortcomings – particularly in education – fails to do so. </p>
<h2>Exploring academic development in the mainstream</h2>
<p>During the 1980s, driven by the needs of an increasingly diverse student body, South African universities began to develop a new way of thinking about academic development. </p>
<p>Since then, much work has focused on foundation programmes that offer students a different route of access to the regular “mainstream” programmes. A <a href="http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9KH%2FimrQf0Y%3D&tabid=452&mid=1036">policy statement</a> released by the South African government in 2005 suggested that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The introduction of funding for foundation programmes, as well as the
provision of development funds for teaching should contribute [to enhancing the quality of throughput and graduation rates] … In this
regard, it is important to ensure that attention is paid to developing foundation programmes in scarce skills areas. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But what happens after the foundation programme?</p>
<p>The experience of UCT’s chemical engineering department over 25 years is an interesting example of what can be termed “academic development in the mainstream”. This is exciting because it opens the door to universities exploring different routes to greater inclusivity, and explores a space that traditional foundation programmes have not occupied before.</p>
<p>Here is how it was done.</p>
<p>First, an independent Advisory Board was established for the chemical engineering department. Its members were recruited from key positions in South African industries – a sign that the department was building closer links with business and was receptive to its views.</p>
<p>From its side, industry did not buy any arguments that low success rates were inescapable in engineering. The board also rejected the idea of a separate academic programme for black students and urged the engineering department to prioritise the social integration of its student body. It was convinced that an energetic department with a strong academic base should be able to build an undergraduate programme that could make help students from a broad range of social backgrounds succeed.</p>
<p>A few years later, a large industry donation led to the creation of an academic post in the department to focus on academic development. I have held this post since 1996.</p>
<p>The department also made changes to its curriculum and introduced new approaches to teaching. They established a first-year engineering course, improved industry exposure at the junior levels and developed better systems for advising undergraduate students. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79598/original/image-20150428-3075-q19pg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chemical engineering students work together on an assignment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jenni Case</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Lessons from the journey</h2>
<p>These are three key lessons from the chemical engineering department’s metamorphosis.</p>
<p>First, rather than making pejorative statements about its students, the department took a positive approach and emphasised success even when pass rates in courses might have suggested otherwise. I found this quite striking when examining 25 years of departmental deliberations.</p>
<p>Second, the department did not shy away from critical feedback. It did ongoing research and then shared the findings, even when the results reflected poorly on it. For example, a key study showed how good intentions in building a new design course were not being carried through to the level of assessment and feedback.</p>
<p>Third, industry’s demands were a significant spur to change. </p>
<p>On some scores, these changes could be considered modest because they were driven in collaboration with industry, and by a department needing particular outcomes. However, given the persistent challenges in the South African university landscape, the experience of UCT’s chemical engineering department deserves attention.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40406/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer M. Case receives funding from the National Research Foundation of South Africa as well as from the University of Cape Town.</span></em></p>How do you overhaul a university department so it offers the best teaching, support and development for a radically changed context?Jennifer M. Case, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366472015-02-11T04:28:49Z2015-02-11T04:28:49ZTaking the long view: universities and their unique research role<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71589/original/image-20150210-24691-1ooqc4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who else will do the long-term research if universities don't do it?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/bogdanhoda</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Increasing university-industry collaboration and boosting the commercial return from research is <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/IndustryInitiatives/Pages/Boosting-the-Commercial-Returns-from-Research.aspx">currently under review</a> by the Australian government.</p>
<p>The Minister for Industry (and recently for Science), Ian Macfarlane, has said the government “<a href="http://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/macfarlane/speeches/science-meets-parliament">expects</a>” universities and research organisations to be “open for business” and do more on inventing, patenting and commercialising research.</p>
<p>But is this really a good idea? Is it good policy to ask – and even offer incentives for – university researchers to work on problems posed by or of primary interest to commercial entities?</p>
<p>On its face, improving ties to industry doesn’t sound like a terrible idea, despite <a href="https://theconversation.com/research-industry-collaborations-are-only-good-for-some-research-33547">some reservations</a> and observations of <a href="https://theconversation.com/commercialising-university-research-a-good-but-costly-move-30453">similar moves overseas</a>. </p>
<p>It is widely recognised that university-led fundamental research has enormous <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf">social and economic benefits</a>. Why not support the process by an appropriate government-driven incentive structure? </p>
<p>Phrased a bit more cynically, the proposition sounds decidedly less favourable. </p>
<p>Try this hypothetical presentation instead: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is widely recognised that university-led fundamental research has enormous social and economic benefits. Nonetheless, government should shift away from investing in these public benefits and instead subsidise industry by outsourcing university research teams – on the public purse – to help achieve short-term private gains for commercial entities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>University academics ask the big questions in science, technology, medicine, the humanities and the arts. They dedicate their entire lives to problems with the potential to truly change the world, even if no one will make money off them.</p>
<p>Who would take up that mantle if the best researchers started turning more and more towards short-term projects most likely to produce capital returns for private investors? </p>
<h2>The government’s view</h2>
<p>Chief Scientist Ian Chubb’s <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS6-Paper-for-print.pdf">report</a> points out Australia’s poor relative global performance in business collaboration and the patenting and commercialisation of university research. </p>
<p>The appropriate response, according to Minister Macfarlane, is for academics to “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/chief-scientist-releases-national-strategy-for-science-innovation-and-technology-20140902-10ba8z.html">make themselves relevant</a>”. This implies that they aren’t relevant at the moment – that they’re working on the wrong things.</p>
<p>The criticism of Australian Research Council (ARC) grants by <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coalition-angers-research-community/story-e6frgcjx-1226712215714">some Coalition MPs</a> makes plain the that belief that academics are somehow failing the public isn’t uniquely held by the Minister. Academics, in their minds, are awarded taxpayers’ money that is “wasted on projects that do little, if anything, to advance Australians’ research needs”. </p>
<p>In order to boost the direct economic impact of Australian academic research – according to the general argument – we need appropriate incentives for academics to link more closely with industry. Academics need to start delivering what the private sector wants and needs.</p>
<p>Reports abound of new metrics for research performance based on “<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/general/Research_Impact_Pathway_Table.pdf">impact</a>” and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm">patents filed</a> rather than knowledge gained and published, and even a possible <a href="http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/Documents/Boosting-Commercial-Returns-from-Research.pdf">diversion</a> of ARC funds away from standard academic proposals towards industry-defined topics. </p>
<h2>The value proposition</h2>
<p>Putting aside the government’s fundamental misunderstanding of how entrepreneurial and outcome-focused most academics are, what specific additional value does an academic researcher bring to the economy at large, relative to, say, researchers working in industry? Why shouldn’t academic researchers be given incentives to boost innovation by working on industry-focused problems that have more direct commercial impact? </p>
<p>For starters, as the Chief Scientist’s <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf">report highlights</a>, the majority of local industry apparently doesn’t even consider itself innovative.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Less than one in two Australian firms identify themselves as innovators. Just 1.5 per cent of Australian firms developed new to the world innovations in 2011, compared with 10 to 40 per cent in other OECD countries.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Businesses today are, by and large, focused on the short-term, and therefore are largely unable to consider investing in projects that might take a decade or more to realise a commercial outcome. They exist to generate profits for their leaders and shareholders, which requires constant revenue and profit growth today. </p>
<p>Universities, by contrast, exist only to engage in the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Relating to research, successful university programs therefore bring three main differentiating value propositions:</p>
<ol>
<li>the ability to work on problems for the public good, with little or no commercial gain, but potentially large social value </li>
<li>consideration of problems that might be of great commercial value in the long-term, but require dedicated research on timescales that are unacceptable to commercial entities</li>
<li>investment in critical capital-intensive infrastructure needed especially for technical fields.</li>
</ol>
<p>Universities have become almost uniquely positioned to focus on these challenging but vital problems which would otherwise fall through the gaps. </p>
<p>Developing vaccines for diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria – which provide low capital returns – are <a href="http://www.who.int/immunization/research/forums_and_initiatives/13_Plenary7_innovation.pdf">great examples of this</a>, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).</p>
<p>The world would benefit tremendously – socially and (in the long term) economically – due to improved vaccines for these diseases.</p>
<p>But research costs are high, and it’s difficult to charge premium prices for immunisation against so-called “poverty diseases”. There is limited financial justification for a private sector entity to lead a major program in this area. But university scientists drive this research forward for the good of humanity.</p>
<p>Interestingly, an increase in patenting by academics – as advocated by the Minister for Industry and Science – has been identified as an impediment to innovation in this space, an observation also made more generally by the Chief Scientist.</p>
<h2>Infrastructure is more than just roads</h2>
<p>Most important is the notion of infrastructure investment. It’s critical to remember that Google, Facebook, Twitter and other high-tech companies only exist because long-term investments were made – using public sector resources – in building the hardware that allows for ultra-fast internet connectivity, or microprocessors powerful enough to handle countless transactions in a split-second.</p>
<p>Creating this hardware necessitated the construction of high-cost, special-purpose research infrastructure including precision labs that start-up businesses simply couldn’t justify in the early days of these technologies.</p>
<p>The same is true today. With a few exceptions (which don’t apply to the Australian technology sector), industry generally shies away from capital-intensive R&D infrastructure projects. </p>
<p>Only universities are filling the gap, as demonstrated by major research facilities being <a href="http://www.education.gov.au/education-investment-fund">developed across the country</a> – such as the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=12000">Australian Institute of Nanosciece</a> at the University of Sydney – while industry is shuttering manufacturing centres (think auto industry). </p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>By all means, let’s address legitimate shortcomings of Australian research, from the small number of unproductive academics and poor visibility of academic research with true commercial potential, to onerous and counterproductive IP policies in academia.</p>
<p>A thoughtful set of <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEM_AustraliasFuture_Sept2014_Web.pdf">recommendations</a> on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) strategy that the Chief Scientist put forth provides some ideas on how to support the sector’s ability to drive local innovation. </p>
<p>But perhaps after all of this discussion it’s time to re-examine the original proposition and turn it on its head.</p>
<p>Let’s provide incentives for local industry to truly collaborate with universities – to invest in the future through new public-private partnerships in critical areas with long time horizons.</p>
<p>And instead of asking universities to be more responsive to the short-term requirements of today’s businesses – forsaking a long-term role only they can fulfil – let’s make sure that universities are supported to undertake the research that will build tomorrow’s industries.</p>
<p>Diverting academics away from long-term efforts conducted in the public interest creates a critical gap in the innovation system. And we will all be poorer for that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Biercuk receives funding from the Australian Research Council, US Army Research Office, and US IARPA</span></em></p>Increasing university-industry collaboration and boosting the commercial return from research is currently under review by the Australian government. The Minister for Industry (and recently for Science…Michael J. Biercuk, Associate Professor in the School of Physics, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/304122014-08-13T20:24:26Z2014-08-13T20:24:26ZFund R&D, then maybe universities can support industry<p>Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane let his discretion slip this week in a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm">speech</a> to the Queensland Media Club when foreshadowing an upcoming report on research funding and competition. Distancing himself from the awarding of funding based on prior researcher publications, he signalled a distinctly different approach that is likely to inform policy in the near future.</p>
<p>Noting that research grant funding “can work better”, he suggested that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the current arrangements are based on the number of papers [researchers] produce, which is great if you’re into producing papers, but I’m into producing jobs and producing products that are commercialised from an IP that a scientist or researcher might have developed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It cannot be denied that the minister has a point – some academics, when they write, primarily have an audience of other academics in mind. This is probably most true in the social sciences, and increasingly less true in the physical and medical sciences. However, to suggest that this phenomenon is prevalent - in any field - is simply overstating the point.</p>
<p>In other respects, the minister misses the point. Current arrangements acknowledge and reward researchers who garner industry buy-in (through the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/lp/lp_default.htm">Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Projects</a>, for example) and those that address defined national research priorities. Generally, the experts at the ARC and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) finally decide which applications are funded (prior, that is, to any <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coalition-angers-research-community/story-e6frgcjx-1226712215714">ministerial veto</a>). They would be unlikely to fund any research that lacks relevant application.</p>
<p>More broadly, the minister’s over-simplification of the current arrangements and his linking of patents and job creation (in the absence of more basic forms of research) does not square with much that we know about research, innovation, economic growth and job creation.</p>
<h2>Australia among its peers</h2>
<p>The minister has in mind, one suspects, a more innovative economy where research spurs innovation and the creation of well-paid jobs for highly skilled workers. As a vision for Australia, such an approach has much to offer.</p>
<p>Australia certainly <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21531002">lags the OECD</a> in relation to patents, but also in relation to aggregate research and development spending. Notable among OECD nations with <a href="http://www.ediweekly.com/strength-to-build-on-but-canada-still-lags-in-industrial-rd/">higher aggregate R&D spending</a> are the Nordic nations of <a href="http://www.oecd.org/finland/sti-outlook-2012-finland.pdf">Finland</a> and <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sweden/sti-outlook-2012-sweden.pdf">Sweden</a> and other nations including <a href="http://www.oecd.org/israel/sti-outlook-2012-israel.pdf">Israel</a> and <a href="http://www.oecd.org/switzerland/sti-outlook-2012-switzerland.pdf">Switzerland</a>. Their governments have long adopted an activist industry policy to support high-technology industry emergence.</p>
<p>Common among all of these exemplar nations is a strong commitment to government investment in research and development. This commitment is sorely lacking in Australia.</p>
<h2>The locale of innovation</h2>
<p>Most international research that examines the linking of basic research, applied (commercial) research and job creation adopts a number of key assumptions. An exemplar of such work is the <a href="http://www.leydesdorff.net/rp2000/">Triple Helix model</a> developed by Etzkowicz and Leyersdorf. This approach emphasises the central role of universities as hosts for both pure and applied research. Indeed, it is the exploratory elements of puzzle solving that drive the essential creativity that underlies all innovation.</p>
<p>The US is often seen as an exemplar of market-facing university research. Yet the massive historical subsidies for pure research in materials science and information technology – initiated to assist in the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2380128.pdf">development of defence-sector innovations</a> – have created important spin-offs that today form the basis of much of the US high-technology sector.</p>
<p>In both the European and US contexts, universities that harbour pure researchers often form the anchor of important industrial districts. It is in pure research that academics and applied scientists develop the skills that they will later apply to develop innovations. It is impossible to sustain the suggestion that applied research and patenting can occur in the absence of the technical literacy that pure research engenders.</p>
<p>Indeed, if the literature on innovation districts has a common theme it is that close relationships develop between inventors of knowledge, entrepreneurs who commercialise that knowledge and institutions that facilitate commercialisation. The notion that you can skip to the commercialisation stage in the absence of a supportive knowledge base is nonsense.</p>
<h2>Doing more with less?</h2>
<p>The big issue, regardless of how the research pie is sliced, relates to the ongoing retreat of the Commonwealth from adequate funding of research – in universities, at the CSIRO and through funding agencies.</p>
<p>The processes of cutting funding started under the previous Labor government. The cuts have continued under the Coalition with gusto. </p>
<p>Research tends to be seen as a soft target when tough cuts are required. Researchers’ contracts simply are not renewed. They head off to other work, losing for the nation the accumulated capabilities that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop.</p>
<p>If the minister is serious about creating jobs, his leadership is needed to ensure that these cuts are reversed and Australian investment in R&D increases. In the current political context, researchers should not hold their breath on this. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30412/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Rice is employed by Griffith University and has received Category 1 funding from the ARC, ALTC and CWL. He is a member of the Australian Labor Party and the NTEU. </span></em></p>Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane let his discretion slip this week in a speech to the Queensland Media Club when foreshadowing an upcoming report on research funding and competition. Distancing himself…John Rice, Associate Professor in Strategic Management, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.