Dr Kamiel Gabriel

Canada needs an academic New Deal

Dr Kamiel Gabriel

Canada needs to strike a new deal with higher education institutions if it wants to gain the maximum social benefit from funding research and innovation. For this to occur, a true, three-way dialogue between the main stakeholders: governments, universities/colleges, and the private sector must take place to form community-centered innovation ecosystems in provinces and territories which are linked together through effective provincial offices with science advisory roles and provisions for intellectual property (IP) reform.

Traditionally, universities and other higher education public institutions have been engaged in the old roles: teaching and learning, generators and codifiers of know-ledge, repository and preservers of know-ledge, transmitters of societal values and builders of citizens. In recent years, however, universities find themselves with different expectations and new roles to fulfill. These new roles expect universities and colleges to generate new technologies, be prime sources of new ideas and a catalyst for founding new companies and enterprises. In essence, the new expectations aspire to publicly-funded higher-education institutions becoming full-fledged partners in economic development and regional revitalization.

Such roles — while fully justifiable given the large investments by governments in R&D and S&T — pose several difficulties for faculty and administrators before they are able to fully embrace them, the most obvious being the paradox faculty members find themselves in. Most, if not all, Canadian higher education institutions still use a reward system based on faculty's performance along three metrics — teaching, research and service, with "service" being ill-defined, and success in research and scholarly activities playing an important part in tenure and promotion decisions. In addition, faculty members are motivated by the reputational aspects of research and the excitement of contributing to fundamental knowledge and discovery. But this is an acquired taste, not usually shared by the general public.

Contributions to economic, social and political needs are loosely lumped under the service category, with the main emphasis on service to university's administrative needs (e.g., participation on committees, taking on administrative roles within units, assisting with fundraising and open houses, etc.). To convert university research into something valuable for society requires interaction with the private sector. If investors and manufacturers see a potential market for an innovation, then the discovery moves efficiently out of the lab and into the market place. Not only does society get something it needs (as measured by its willingness to pay for it) but manufacturing and services create jobs and spur economic growth.

For university and college senior administrators, rewards usually centre around growth in terms of higher student enrolment and graduation rates, high profile research and scholarly achievements, athletic victories, recognition and accolades. The expectations are for the institutions to run their operation with sound budgets, exercise freedom of action, enhance relationships with and contributions from alumni and friends, and provide political support when needed. Furthermore, the stakeholders' expectation is for universities to stick to their core business of training highly qualified personnel who in turn become positive contributors to society.

It is clear that rewards for faculty are based on things that do not match social expectations in terms of direct and targeted contributions to economic development and wealth/job creation. One could argue that much of the training of next generations for the marketplace is in and of itself a contribution to societal needs and aspirations.

For universities and colleges to successfully move into the delivery on the new roles in terms of direct contributions to the economic development of the region where such institutions reside, it will need a New Deal with society and governments at all levels. The new deal would clearly spell out the new expectations, move activities related to technology transfer and IP management from their current place as periphery activities to become part of the institution's core activities, and adequately fund such activities for the short and long haul.

The social contract under the New Deal, therefore, is that university faculty are given the freedom to pursue their research interests, supported by taxpayers' funds. But at the same time, changes to IP policies and regulations should be introduced to ensure that discoveries will translate into new products and services, spurring regional economic growth. The contract specifies roles for the three stakeholders: governments, universities and the private sector. Successful innovation requires that these players, arguably with fiercely independent cultures and largely non-overlapping goals, engage in meaningful dialogues with each other. Unfortunately, this is not happening at the moment. True, there are pockets found here and there, but such interactions are not taking place in a strategic or coordinated way. This is best done through adequately financed and strategically connected provincial and national science advisory offices.

We can dramatically optimize a three-way dialogue by creating a community-centered innovation ecosystem, or what I have been promoting in terms of Communities of Innovation (COIs). A strategically developed ecosystem will facilitate conversations between the stakeholders and make them disciplined and productive. Ideally, each member would improve the connection with the others. Companies should advise government on university funding; universities should give government input on small business grants, innovation zones and regulatory science; and companies should help universities identify society's unmet needs, which government has a responsibility to address. Finally, the community at large and the public sector will be immersed in what takes place in the academy and get better engaged in its mission.

This approach will generate more user-driven innovation in universities and colleges; more efficient use of research outcome; a marked increase in discoveries coming to market; more evidence-based regulatory frameworks; and, enhanced economic growth through job creation.

Dr Kamiel Gabriel is the founding associate provost of Research & Graduate Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa ON. Recently, he was seconded to the Ontario Ministry of Research & Innovation as its ADM Research and first-ever Science Adviser.