By Dr, Kamiel S. Gabriel
RE$EARCH MONEY
July 19, 2010
Volume 24, Number 11, Page 8
Webster defines research as an “investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new fats, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws”. This is a far cry from the simplistic classification commonly uttered in discussions these days. I am referring to the debate on what kind of institutions should focus on performing “basic” research versus “applied” research? As a researcher for more than 30 years, and a senior research administrator for over a decade, I find this increasingly popular categorization very simplistic, incomplete and alarmingly naive.
Harkening back to the Webster’s definition, research by its nature (an in almost every field of inquiry) is a complex, non-linear process in which the outcome is often not known or pre-determined. Whether it is the discovery of a new drug, the invention of a new mechanical system for more efficient extraction of natural resources, creating the next social network or improving literacy levels through interactive internet-based unties, these examples go through a process of discovery, initial testing of the hypothesis and improvements made to initial conditions/assumptions. Once verified, they are finally introduced to the public place as a new concept, theory, law, product or service.
The problem with such simplicity goes beyond differences of opinions or disagreement on definitions. The rhetoric has in recent months moved to the public areas with heads of academic institutions across Canada debating what kind of institutions should be focused on (and ultimately funded) performing research versus undergraduate teaching. The debate, while not dealing primarily with the question of basic versus applied research, assumes that a research divide can be crated based on arithmetically-driven metrics. These include measures such as research awards received by institutions and number of citations and faculty awards. While such metrics reflect the emphasis institutions put on attracting research dollars to support their research goals, they don’t tell the whole story. Namely, what do institutions do with the research output?
There is also growing rhetoric in S&T department of provincial and federal governments to focus future research funding on industry-driven research (versus research funds directed to academia). This is obviously motivated by the emphasis on commercialization of research output and the desire to see a higher return on investment gained from funding research. Some put it as focusing on the D side of R&D (rather than the traditional focus on the R side).
It is easy to understand the motives behind each of the two arguments. The academy is seen to be arguing for “research for the sake of knowledge”, and that research dividends in terms of commercialization and spin-offs can take years and cannot be predicted at the outset. Governments and businesses, however, advocate for short term deliverables by putting research dollars into the hands of industry to conduct targeted research aimed at solving “real-life” problems and, as a result, may increase productivity, enhance creativity, and accelerate commercialization of research outcomes.
Asking Different Questions
While the motives behind each argument are justified, it’s clear that we need to ask different questions that help us understand the underlying motives and hopefully see the bigger picture. While the self-interest of the academy is to promote research for the sake of knowledge, and that of industry and governments to support research efforts that directly contribute to problem solving, the argument appears to be missing a couple of crucial questions. First, how about receptor capacity? Unless there is a community of innovators ready to exploit the proceeds from research for the benefits of society, such knowledge opportunities will remain buried in library archives and conference proceedings. It is for this reason that attention should be first given to the building communities of innovation (COI).
A COI is a well integrated research business community where post-secondary institutions are effectively linked to the business and social communities. It is a community where much of the research and innovation activities are aligned with the community’s strategic growth opportunities, and where entrepreneurs are nourished and supported. In short, it is a community where the self interests of the academy and those of the local governments and business community are well aligned. The Waterloo, London and Ottawa regions are good examples of such communities.
So, should higher education institutions be categorized based on whether they focus on basic or applied research? Undergraduate teaching or research initiatives? Suffice to say it is in this domain, we also appear to be taking a very narrow view of a much wider and more complex world.
Given that research and scholarly activities are part of the formal duties required of faculty members at post-secondary institutions (and have now become more of interest to college professors as well), it is safe to assume that faculty members are well motivated to do scholarly work whether they are located in Thunder Bay or downtown Toronto. There will always be pockets of very good science and research communities regardless of where they are physically located. The answer to the question then becomes one where we should consider what emphasis institutions place on research for the sake of knowledge, versus research that is well “stitched” around the community’s economical and social goals.
I see a third category of post-secondary institutions taking shape in Ontario and Canada. In addition to traditional institutions that focus either on undergraduate teaching or fundamental research, we now see a thir4d category with its focus placed more on ensuring that they are well connected to the communities they serve. I call these innovation-driven institutions. Applied arts and colleges who aspire to be engaged in the innovation agenda rit well in this category without compromising their main mission of training the next generation of much needed trades.
Kamiel Gabriel, PhD, MBA, PEng, FCAE, is the founding associate provost of Research & Graduate Studies at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa ON. Over the past year, he was on secondement to the Ontario Ministry of Research & Innovation as its ADM Research and first science adviser.
