Dr Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dr Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Dr Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

play fullscreen
1 / 99
Download Presentation
Dr Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland
Download Presentation

Dr Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Globalisation of Knowledge: Challenges & Opportunities for Higher Education and Higher Education Institutions Dr Ellen Hazelkorn Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland Programme in Higher Education and Research Policies University of Lausanne November 2005

  2. For the first time, a really international world of learning, highly competitive, is emerging. If you want to get into that orbit, you have to do so on merit. You cannot rely on politics or anything else. . . Research is a core element of the mission of higher education. The extent to which higher education institutions are engaged in research and development activities has a key role in determining the status and the quality of these institutions and the contribution, which they make to economic and social development.

  3. Themes • Higher Education in a Global Knowledge Marketplace • Restructuring the University for Change • Challenges and Opportunities for Policymakers and Higher Education Institutions

  4. 1. Higher Education in a Global Knowledge Marketplace

  5. . …we cannot be complacent…because other international competitors like Australia, China and India are making big strategic investments in their best research and if we do not do the same we will slip down the research league (UK Department for Education and Skills, 2004). • … if Europe wants to remain competitive at international level, more investments both public and private, are going to be required to generate scientific and technological that can be compared to the performance of the USA or Japan (Rainer, 2004). • The continued transition to more knowledge-based economies, coupled with growing competition from non-OECD countries, has increased reliance of OECD countries on the creation, diffusion and exploitation of scientific and technological knowledge, as well as other intellectual assets, as a means of enhancing growth and productivity. (OECD, 2004a)

  6. Changing Idea of the University • Classical University: mission and role of higher education and academic research distinct from commercial activity • American Graduate School: mission to train the next generation of scholar-researchers • Polytechnics and New Generation Universities – new model catering for wider range of socio-economic groups and educational requirements

  7. Post-WW2, post-Sputnik era... • Economic and demographic boom • Significance of scientific discovery • Perceived gap between investment and output in terms of innovation and contribution to the national economy • Subdivision of disciplines and professionalisation of academic careers • Heightened importance of educational attainment

  8. Post-1970s Pressures • Fiscal crisis  management by market forces • Knowledge-based economy • Sophisticated labour market & student demand • Restructuring of HEIs  pressures on the academy • Massification and universalisation of higher education • Accountability and responsibility

  9. Changing HE environment • Globalisation and internationalisation • Demographics and enrolment patterns • Technological revolution • Stricter regulatory environment • New educational sites and formats • Changing nature of the workplace and academic work

  10. New Model of HEI? In contrast to older, traditional universities, new HEIs • have grown exponentially and now majority of all HEIs around the world • channelled mass demand away from historically elite sector • influenced wider debate about institutional and research diversity • emphasize particular skills and training, • accommodate new areas of knowledge via “innovative courses suited to the new economies” • engage directly with the wider community • support both applied and long-term R&D

  11. Restructuring HE systems • Traditional institutional boundaries fading: • Elite vs. Mass • Vocational vs. Academic • Technological vs. Traditional • Undergraduate vs. Postgraduate • New binary emerging? • Teaching vs Research • Third level vs Fourth level • Regional/community vs National/international status

  12. Higher Education Mission • To produce new knowledge • To produce new knowledge workers • To produce new knowledge producers

  13. Theories Underlying Change • Competitive Advantage (Porter, 1990) • National Systems of Innovation (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993) • Triple Helix (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997) • Mode 2 (Gibbons, et al, 1994; Nowotny et al, 2001) • Entrepreneurial University (Clark, 1998; Clark, 2004)

  14. Competitive Advantage • Distinguishes between • Comparative advantage: inherited factors like cheap labour or energy, or natural resources • Competitive advantage which is created via a menu of institutional or enterprise strategies • 4 interlinked factors: • Factor conditions: adequate infrastructure/funding, research competence and capability • Demand conditions: relevance and interest in research/academic output • Organisational strategy: management/organisational structure • Regional/national relations: membership/participation in collaborative networks and partnerships • Role of Government critical

  15. National Systems of Innovation • Technological advance in advanced industrial nations proceeds through the close and complex interaction the close interaction between science, research and development. • Policy focused on creating the environment necessary for promoting collaboration and interdependence between the different actors (universities, private firms, government/public sector) • As a result, HEIs are now widely regarded as an integral part of the national innovation system.

  16. Triple Helix • Transformation of knowledge into wealth requires tripartite collaboration or triple helix, which • network between university/researchers-industry-government • each element recognises the mutual benefit of such co-operation • evolving networks of communication • Boundaries between public and private, science and technology, university and industry are in flux. Universities and firms are assuming tasks that were formerly the province of the other sectors.

  17. Mode 2 • Mode 2: • Intellectual and strategic importance of collaborative and interdisciplinary work focused on useful application, with external partners including the wider community. • Achieves accountability and quality control via “new knowledge production” does so through social accountability and reflexivity. • Mode 1 • Disciplinary or “curiosity-oriented” research • Achieves accountability and quality control via the peer-review process

  18. Entrepreneurial University • Entire universities, and their internal departments transforming themselves into organisations capable of taking chances and earning additional income in the educational marketplace • Five characteristics: • Strengthened steering core • Expanded developmental periphery • Diversified funding base • Stimulated academic heartland • Integrated entrepreneurial culture

  19. HE Research as Economic Driver • Global knowledge-economy → Strategic importance of national research strategy & formation of human capital • National and regional development → production of new knowledge, knowledge transfer and economic performance • Role and mission of HE → task of growing research capability and capacity no longer optional • Innovation, application and knowledge specialization  competitive advantage and performance • Academic knowledge production + Innovation = Economic growth

  20. Governments Examining Future of HE • Backing Australia’s Future, Australia, 2002-2004; • Higher Education at the Crossroads, Australia, 2002; • Achieving Excellence: Investing in People, Knowledge and Opportunity, Canada, 2002; • Action Scheme for Invigorating Education Towards the 21st Century, 2001, China; • Higher Education Act, Czech Republic, 1998, 2001; • University Act, Denmark, 2003; • Higher Education Act, 2000, Hungary; • OECD Thematic Review of Higher Education, Ireland, 2004; • A New Image of National University Corporations, Japan, 2002; • Shaping the System, New Zealand, 2000; • The Distinctive Contributions of Tertiary Education Organisations, New Zealand, 2004; • Law of Autonomy of Universities, Portugal, currently being debated in parliament; • Brain Korea 21, South Korea, 2004; • White Paper 3 on Higher Education, 1994, South Africa; • Higher Education Act, 1997, South Africa; • Sustainability of University Research, UK, 2003; • Review of Research Assessment, UK, 2003; • Future of Higher Education, UK, 2003.

  21. Factors Influencing Policy Review

  22. Policy Trends (1) • Battle for ‘world class excellence’ via concentration of resources around select few universities or departments • Strong focus on science and technology as economic driver • Creation of knowledge transfer networks, separating teaching and research via feeder institutions • ‘Social’ or institutional contract between government and universities • Accountability and responsibility • Management by market forces • Stricter regulatory environment

  23. Policy Trends (2) • Differential, competitive or externally earned funding • ‘User pays’ principle via de-regulated fees

  24. R&D Policy Trends • Strong focus on science and technology as ‘wealth creators’ • Designation of a few priority research domain • Growing emphasis on knowledge and technology transfer activities • Emphasis on ‘entreprenurial’ activities and reorganisation of university to enable such activities • Growing separation between teaching and research activities and careers • Academic salaries pegged to market value.

  25. International Experiences • Taiwan: three-tiered system: <10 research-oriented universities, state colleges and community colleges • Brazil: S&T investment in well-established universities at expense of newer research centres in remote parts of country • Japan: research funding, competition and evaluation • China: ‘211’ policy will develop 100 world-class universities • Baltics: merging universities and research institutes in drive for competitiveness • South Africa: merging universities and Technikons to create better and more competitive HEIs • Russia: call for ‘Russell Group’ of ‘top-rated’ universities

  26. International Experiences • Denmark/Sweden: tradition of research-based teaching • Canada: Innovation Fund focus on innovation/return on investment in research, i.e. commercialisation • UK and Australia: Research Assessment Exercise provides competitive funding to ‘best’ research departments and institutions, and forcing developing of ‘centres of excellence’ • Ireland: National Development Plan, Science Foundation Ireland and Enterprise Ireland developing institutional capacity in internationally competitive HE research and collaboration with industry • New Zealand: HE resource allocation driven by economy and society and no longer student choice

  27. Observations • Policy similarities transcend national boundaries and political party in power. • Ever-widening global knowledge production divide between ‘research-rich’ and ‘research-poor’ nations. • Developing countries operating at huge knowledge and technological disadvantage because they ‘lack a sufficient pool of trained personnel to perform research and development in new technologies [my emphasis]’. • Active and selective use of policy instruments is critical

  28. Implications for HE • Greater competition  alliances, mergers, acquisitions • Governments and HEIs benchmarking performance in international terms • Funding tied to measurable outcomes • National priority-setting • Transversal themes vs. defined ‘technologies’ • Value-added & commercialisation vs. ‘simple’ knowledge production • Funding based upon outcomes, e.g. UK RAE • Regional/local society not identified as priority • Declining role of HASS disciplines

  29. Organisational Implications • ‘New knowledge production’: • Partnerships with and between other knowledge-producing institutions • Knowledge production/dissemination conducted in diverse contexts and with heterogeneous skills • Flatter and more temporary management structures • ‘Entrepreneurial model’: emphasis on autonomous units and alternative revenue sources • Growing distinction between teaching & research

  30. Impact of Policy Changes

  31. Policy Influencing Institution Behaviour • ‘…universities…direct efforts in obtaining parts of the earmarked funding whether for research, education, knowledge transfer or organisational changes.’ (Denmark) • ‘…that funding is likely to accrue only to the quantum of 3* research will mean massive reduction in funding.’ (UK) • ‘continued trend towards formulaic performance-based funding…in the main…has benefited [us].’ (Australia) • ‘RAE has had huge effect on performance…generally…positive.’ (Scotland)

  32. Summary (1) • Globalisation having profound impact on higher education and academic research policy • Governments and HEIs thinking more strategically about academic knowledge production & dissemination • Government policy more pro-active and interventionist

  33. Summary (2) • Significant ‘system shaping’ and ‘super-market steering’ to maximise HE role in economic growth and performance • Small group of internationally-focused research-intensive universities • Larger group of nationally or regionally-focused mainly teaching institutions • ‘New binary’ has implications for government efforts to move beyond the elite phase of higher education and widen access to the knowledge society.

  34. 2. Restructuring the University for Change

  35. Given that research practices are changing and the pressures to deliver significant outputs are intensifying, “[t]he key question is how to structure and organise teaching and research in the universities” (Gibbons et al, 1994).

  36. Strategic Planning and Priority-setting • Shape what should do, not simply what can or are best equipped to do • Optimal use of scarce resources (financial, human and physical) • Align institutional competencies with external environment and national aspirations • Balance existing capability with potential and opportunities

  37. Institutional Opportunities • National and regional economy • Institutional history and development • Research experience, capability and capacity • HE system and role of individual HEIs

  38. Identifying Institutional Mission • Teaching-only • Research informed • Research based • Research active • Research led • Research intensive • Research-only

  39. Process of Growing Research Context Strategy Organisation Global knowledge economy National & regional economy HE system & investment HEI history & experience Evaluation & benchmarking V-P Research Research & KT/TT Office Research teams & centres ‘Science parks’ Graduate School HR policies Infrastructure Strategic plan & priority setting Match competences with niche Investment strategy Align funding, recruitment to priorities RAM Alliances & collaboration Government vs HEI Mission? Teaching vs Research vs Scholarship? World-class vs National vs Region?; S&T vs HASS?

  40. Key Steps • Map institutional and researcher priorities and competences against external environment/priorities • Identify goals and objectives, institutional priorities • Draft strategy and realistic implementation plan • Put appropriate structures, finance, support services and infrastructure in place • Facilitate and encourage faculty, viz. reward/award systems, career path,

  41. Priority-setting Process • Centralised or top-down: priorities and funding are determined by Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research • De-centralised or bottom-up: priorities set by individual researchers or departments • Combination: priorities set via involvement of different vertical levels of university personnel, boards and groups

  42. Indicative Research Structure

  43. Research Management • Director/Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research • Research office • Research strategy and management plan • Priority-setting and evaluation process • Research units/centres with special resources

  44. Research Office • Professional One-stop Shop • Financial and budget advice • Identify funding opportunities • Project preparation • Project management • Research training and mentoring • Ph.D. programmes • Intellectual property and commercialisation advice

  45. Technology Transfer Office • Professional project and contract management • Professional advice regarding • Pre-contract • Intellectual Property, patents, licensing and other forms of exploitation • Sourcing new funding opportunities • Budget preparation • Application writing • Researcher and supervisor training • Sector ‘intelligence’ • Mentoring • Identifying and promoting links, research and other projects between academia and industry

  46. Widening Definition of Research • Basic vs applied • Disciplinary vs interdisciplinary (Mode 1 vs Mode 2) • Professional and creative practice • Knowledge and technology transfer • Research vs Scholarship – Research and Scholarship?

  47. ‘Culture of Scholarship’ • Not everyone needs to be involved in research • Policies should enhance nexus between research and teaching • Range of services, awards and rewards to encourage and facilitate research should be introduced • Wider definition of scholarship, rather than a traditional dichotomous view of basic and applied, would provide more encouraging environment

  48. Identifying Priorities • Applied research • Industry-related • Basic research • Institutional significance • Collaboration • Interdisciplinary • Regional or local significance • New or emerging domain • Creative practice

  49. Strategic Alliances • Collaboration paramount to developing programmes and sustainable research • external partners • industry/commerce • local and/regional economy • other and similar HEIs • Exploiting particular ‘niche’ advantages and opportunities

  50. Building teams • Existing expertise, commitment and mutual benefit/compatibility • Champion at both individual and institutional level • Deep disciplinary knowledge • Support structures, incl. funding • Relationship between research and teaching, to institutional structures • Appropriate management competences How to grow such activity from ab initio status?