Is the New Role of - PDF document

1 Is the New Role of Universities Reall
Is the New Role of Universities Really ‘New’? An Historical Perspective Professor Ben R. Martin SPRU, University of Sussex and Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge (B.Martin@sussex.ac.uk) Keynote Presentation at the COSINUS Conference on ‘Innovation Systems and the New Role of Universities’, University of West England, Bristol, 5 - 6 September 2011 2 Contents • Challenge facing universities to develop U - I links and ‘3 rd mission’ more broadly  Is the university under threat? Is this new? • ‘On the origins and evolution of the university species’ â

2 €¢ The evolving ‘social contract’
€¢ The evolving ‘social contract’ • Mediaeval, Humboldt, V Bush • Global driving forces for change • Revised social contract • Relations & tensions between 3 missions • Conclusions 3 Introduction  Changing role of university  2 traditional missions – T & R  ‘Third mission’ – contributing to industry/economy/ region/society  Two contradictory theses  Pessimistic thesis • The university/basic research/scientific ‘commons’ are under threat (e.g. Ziman, David, Nelson)  Optimistic thesis • Opportunity for the ‘entrepreneurial university’ to beco

3 me the ‘engine’ of the knowledge ec
me the ‘engine’ of the knowledge economy (e.g. Clark, Etzkowitz) 4 Challenges facing universities • Becoming more closely linked to industrial, economic & societal needs? • Less Mode 1 and more Mode 2 research? • Emergence of a Triple Helix relationship? • Changing ‘ social contract ’? • Issues raised • Is this ‘new’? • Is basic research threatened? • Will the university survive? • Will universities become more central in knowledge society? At what cost to autonomy? 5 Challenges facing universities  Tendency of some commentators to adopt a short - term &

4 selective perspective • University
selective perspective • University = ‘liberal education’ + ‘knowledge for its own sake’ + ‘autonomy’ • Third mission = new, intrusive & threatening  But when exactly were ‘the good old days’? • Why is the ‘the golden age’ always in the past?  Need to adopt • more systematic approach to historical evidence • long - term historical perspective • an evolutionary model of the university 6 Evolution of the university  Mediaeval university  Two original functions • teaching – priests, lawyers, public servants, doctors • scholarship – theological,

5 classical, philosophical etc.  Ove
classical, philosophical etc.  Over time, two functions evolved • Teaching – emergence of two distinct types • to produce trained professionals with useful knowledge/skills • to develop full humanistic potential of the individual • Scholarship – over the centuries, two changes • scholarship extended to include creation of new knowledge (‘research’) – but opposed by some (leave to academies) • distinction between 2 types of research – knowledge to meet needs of society VS knowledge ‘for its own sake’ 7 Evolving ethos/ideology  Two main conceptions  Pure/â

6 €˜immaculate’ conception • Knowl
€˜immaculate’ conception • Knowledge/education for its own sake (‘bios theoretikos’, ‘vita contemplativa’)  Instrumental/utilitarian ethos • Creation & dissemination of useful knowledge, and training students with useful skills (‘bios praktikos, ‘vita activa’)  Rival conceptions implicit from start within mediaeval universities (e.g. in Italy)  But over time tensions  emergence in 18 th /19 th C of two distinct HE ‘species’ 8 Two main university ‘species’  ‘Classical’ – emphasis on humanistic education • Humboldt – essential integration of T

7 and R in institutions dependent on stat
and R in institutions dependent on state for funding • Cardinal Newman – ‘ivory tower’ of independent scholars providing students with ‘liberal education’  ‘Technical’ – strong emphasis on 3 rd mission • Ecoles – Mines, Ponts & Chaussées, Polytechnique etc. – training engineers, meeting needs of the State • Polytechnics e.g. Prague, Vienna, Rensselaer • Technical ‘Hochschulen’ in Germany, Switzerland • Institutes of Technology e.g. KTH Stockholm, MIT, Caltech, Illinois, UMIST, Imperial College 9 ‘On the origin of the university species’  Evolutio

8 n in functions of university reflected i
n in functions of university reflected in emergence of other ‘species’ by end of 19 th C • ‘ Classical ’ university (4 faculties) – transferred to Latin America, US, Japan • ‘Technical’ university – again transferred to US (e.g. RPI), Japan etc. • Land - grant university – new ‘species’ that emerged in US to provide low - cost HE & meet local needs (agricultural, mechanical) – i.e. explicit ‘third mission’ • Teaching HEI – e.g. grandes écoles, Fachhochschulen, US ‘liberal arts’ colleges, UK polys 10 Co - evolution of different HE species  Co -

9 existence of different species in differ
existence of different species in different national ‘niches’ • Germany – Humboldt + technical u’s (& later Fachhochschulen) • France – universities + grandes écoles • UK – universities + institutes of technology (& later polys) • US – private universities + land - grant universities + institutes of technology + ‘liberal arts’ colleges etc. • Japan – Humboldt - type u’s + tech colleges + teaching HEI’s  Continuous tension between rival ideologies • US late 19 th /early 20 th C – shift from instrumental to ‘pure’ ethos  For much of 20 th C, in

10 most prestigious u’s ‘pure’ ethos
most prestigious u’s ‘pure’ ethos dominated – emphasis on basic res & Mode 1 11 Mediaeval ‘social contract’  First u’s emerged to provide training for professions • Medical (Salerno, Montpellier) • Legal (Bologna, Oxford) • Theological (Paris)  Later u’s set up (and funded) by kings, princes, cities and church • Main task = to train elite with knowledge & skills to serve society • Also to aid development & raise status of region • i.e. 3 rd Mission present from start  A mediaeval ‘Triple Helix’ • Monarch/state + university + church 12 Late mediaeva

11 l/early modern period  Growing emph
l/early modern period  Growing emphasis on scholarship & ‘liberal arts’ (Vs useful kn) and on humanistic education (Vs training for a profession) • But many new univ’s of 16 th & 17 th C essentially training institutions for priests, lawyers & doctors  Many of the important advances of Sc’ic Rev’n (apart from in medicine) occurred outside univ’s • in scientific academies, astronomical observatories etc. (e.g. Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Huygens, Tycho Brahe)  New specialised HE institutions emerged in 17 th & 18 th C to fill gap & produce useful knowledge & training • e

12 .g. in surgery, veterinary medicine, agr
.g. in surgery, veterinary medicine, agriculture, architecture, engineering, mining, administration, commerce 13 Humboldtian social contract  Characteristics • scholarly learning & humanistic education ( Bildung ) • training bureaucratic & professional elite • funded by the state • essential unity of teaching and research • high level of autonomy – profs & students free to seek truth & knowledge as they understood them  BUT Prussian/German u’s closely controlled by state • 1819 Carlsbad Decrees – gov’t ‘plenipotentiaries’ in each univ’y (e.g. to prevent profs “spre

13 ading harmful theories”) • ‘Poli
ading harmful theories”) • ‘Political’ activities  profs fired (e.g. ‘the Göttingen Seven’) • Profs appointed by state not univ’y  ‘the Althoff system’ • In return for generous state funding, G prof’s increasingly sacrificed independence over 19 th C 14 Humboldtian social contract (cont.)  Model spread to other countries in 19 th & 20 th C (altho negative aspects downplayed in academic ideology)  By 20 th C, widespread belief that unity of teaching and (basic) research essential to the university  Europe – general institutional funding for T & R –

14 university free to determine allocatio
university free to determine allocation across disciplines/departments  US – considered this model after WW2 but rejected as would have  high % of research funds going to large state universities cf. elite institutions 15 Utilitarian social contract  In 18 th & 19 th C, emergence of new HEIs operating under more utilitarian social contract – addressing industrial & societal needs ignored by old universities • France – grandes écoles – to meet needs of French Republic (old u’s abolished) • UK – UCL set up by utilitarians to meet needs of modern industrial soci

15 ety ignored by old u’s; ditto later ci
ety ignored by old u’s; ditto later civic u’s • Germany – Technische Hochschulen (e.g. Aachen) – ditto • US – land - grant universities – given land in exchange for help to agricultural and mechanical sectors (e.g. Texas A&M)  In 19 th & early 20 th C (before it had own R&D labs) ind’y relied heavily on u profs to help solve tech problems • Often central in birth of new science - based industries (e.g. chemical, electrical) 16 Vannevar Bush social contract  Science as ‘The Endless Frontier’ (1945)  Scientific discoveries in 1 st half of 20 th Century +

16 contributions to WW2  belief in l
contributions to WW2  belief in linear model of innovation  Basic res  Applied res  Development  Innovation  Government responsibility = to fund basic research – will eventually  wealth, health & national security.  Contract not very explicit about exact form of benefits nor when  But convenient rationale for expansion in gov’t funding 17 Vannevar Bush social contract (cont.) • high level of autonomy – few strings attached to funds • institutionalisation of peer review to allocate resources • belief that basic research best done in universiti

17 es  V Bush social contract very suc
es  V Bush social contract very successful from ~1945 - 1990 (esp’y in US)  in large increases in gov’t funding, trained scientists & res outputs  But ignores fact that much university research funded under utilitarian social contract (e.g. by DOD, NIH, DOE) 18 Global driving forces for change  Since ~1990, various key drivers  End of Cold War   decreased gov’t funding for physical sciences   Search for other funding sources e.g. industry  Increasing competition  More ‘players’ in market economies + huge variations in labour costs + globalisation  ï

18 Ĭ Increasing emphasis on innovation a
ƒ¨ Increasing emphasis on innovation and S&T  Need for more explicit gov’t policy e.g. re university 3 rd mission, developing U - I links, exploiting IP etc 19 Global drivers (cont.)  Constraints on public expenditure  Problem in most countries & likely to grow   Increasing demands for accountability, effectiveness, relevance, value for money   Universities sought new funding sources in industry and among other ‘users’  Increasing importance of S&T  S&T knowledge becoming a strategic resource for firms & countries  S&T skills/expertise ever more import

19 ant in relation to wealth creation & qu
ant in relation to wealth creation & quality of life  New technologies • demand new skills • make old skills obsolete (more rapidly?) • . . . Industry & other research ‘users’ increasingly turning to u’s for help 20 Global drivers (cont.)  Government policy  Recognition of role of u’s in ‘national/regional system of innovation’  Gov’t policies encouraging technology transfer, collaborative res, commercialisation of U research, U - I links, exploiting IP  Influenced by examples/‘heroic myths’ of MIT & Route 128, Stanford and Silicon Valley, ‘the Cambridge Pheno

20 menon’  Massification of HE 
menon’  Massification of HE  Need for mass higher education + continuous (life - long) learning  Gov’ts willing to pay for large increases in HE (from 10% to 50%), but not necessarily for similar increases in scale of academic res • Encourages u’s to seek other sources of funds 21 Mode 1/Mode 2 thesis  Gibbons et al. – a fundamental “shift towards a new mode of knowledge production”  But is Mode 2 new?  Historians of sc have shown most research in earlier centuries carried out ‘in the context of application’ • e.g. new/improved weapons, astronomical data for al

21 manacs, medicine, thermodynamics, chemi
manacs, medicine, thermodynamics, chemistry • Merton (1938) – 40 - 60% of sc’ic discoveries in 17 th C related to solving problems in navigation, mining etc.  Mode 2 predates Mode 1 (latter only emerged in 19 th C)  More Mode 2 now than 1945 - 1990 but not cf. earlier eras  i.e. a shift in the balance between Mode 1 & Mode 2 in last part of 20 th C  Back to earlier balance pre - 1945? 22 Triple Helix model  Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff  Closer links between universities, industry & government • Best represented by a triple helix  ‘New’ 3rd mission of HE of contr

22 ibuting to economy • ‘2nd academic
ibuting to economy • ‘2nd academic revolution’  the ‘entrepreneurial university’ • U = source of new kn., human capital, innovations, new firms  Appealing metaphor but what does helix model add?  And is the 3rd mission of universities actually ‘new’? 23 Revised social contract  Guston & Keniston (1994) – new soc contract based on • more complex, chain - link, interactive model of S, T & I • concept of national system of innovation – emphasis on links  Publicly funded researchers should address needs of society and in particular research ‘users’ e.g. in in

23 dustry  Poses both threats and oppo
dustry  Poses both threats and opportunities for universities  Threats • Weakening relationship between research and teaching in u’s • Pressure to meet societal needs may threaten basic research, Mode 1, autonomy  Opportunities • Research as source of new knowledge for kn - based economy • Growing demand for skills and mass HE/continuous learning 24 Relations & tensions between missions  T - R symbiosis – reality or convenient myth?  Since Humboldt, integration of T and R = article of faith, altho little rigorous evidence of benefits  Conventional rationale – 2 - wa

24 y benefits • For up - to - date T, l
y benefits • For up - to - date T, lecturers need to be at forefront of R • T keeps lecturers broad in their interests – may stimulate R  Some examples to support, but also counter - examples e.g. • many excellent research - only institutes • very good teaching - only HE institutions  Better to view combination of T and R as bringing both benefits (synergy) and costs (time, energy) with tension between them   In some circumstances benefits may outweigh costs, but not in others 25 Relations & tensions between missions  Traditional functions (T & R) Vs ‘3rd mission’ ï

25 ® Academic ideology that 3rd mission may
® Academic ideology that 3rd mission may damage T & R  Little rigorous evidence – some anecdotal evidence for but also some against e.g. • grandes écoles – T geared to meeting specific national needs, but high quality • tech universities (MIT, IC, Aachen, Zurich etc.) – high quality basic research • universities funded by DOD, NIH etc. – also do high quality basic research 26 Relations & tensions between missions  T&R Vs ‘3rd mission’ (cont.)  At end of 19 th C, 3rd mission also very pronounced • German u’s – eng depts – close links with industry (ele

26 ct, chem etc.) • UK, France –
ct, chem etc.) • UK, France – leading sct’s (e.g. Kelvin, M Curie) also working on industrial problems • US land - grant universities – linked to ind needs (agricultural etc.) – many went on to become leading research u’s in 20 th C  Linking 2 traditional functions with ‘3rd mission’ brings both benefits and costs/risks   In some circumstances, benefits may outweigh costs  Recent empirical studies – some found little effect, others found a positive effect of 3 rd M on T&R (Larsen, 2007) 27 Some conclusions  Are U’s becoming more closely linked to industr

27 ial, economic & societal needs?  Sh
ial, economic & societal needs?  Shift in balance cf. 1945 - ~1990 when less closely linked, although links never as weak as academic ideology suggested (e.g. DOD, NIH, MIT)  Post - 1990 – situation in some respects similar to late 19 th C (e.g. in German universities and US land - grant universities), with u’s taking up (again) ‘third mission’ – i.e. not ‘new’ 28 Conclusions (cont.)  Is the social contract changing? Compared with when? Is basic research under threat?  Yes, but only cf. 1945 - 1990  Was that merely a temp’y phase (e.g. reward for war - time contributi

28 ons)?  Back to social contract embo
ons)?  Back to social contract embodied in 19 th C institutes of technology & land - grant u’s – university research becoming closer (again) to application  Since emergence of modern science, funding often linked with expectations of benefits e.g. new weapons, astronomical data for almanacs, medicine, chemistry  Little evidence from history that threatens basic res  cf. ‘Pasteur’s Quadrant’ – research that is both fundamental and useful 29 Conclusions (cont.)  Will the university survive? Is it threatened by new entrants?  History suggests university a very adaptable

29 organism – able to evolve as enviro
organism – able to evolve as environment changes  Always been new entrants but u’s adapted & survived • Few university ‘deaths’ (apart from those killed by Fr Rev’n & Napoleon)  ICTs may lower barriers to entry  new species or hybrids + more blurring of institutional & public/private boundaries  Expect university to survive but taking on modified/new evolutionary forms  e.g. hybrids (e.g. ‘bricks & clicks’), specialised (e.g. T only), ‘no frills’ (e.g. Phoenix), networked (e.g. with FhG institutes), mergers & acquisitions (e.g. UCL, Karolinska) 30 Conclusions (cont.)

30  Will universities become more centr
 Will universities become more central in the knowledge society? At cost of autonomy?  Yes, generating not only intellectual capital but also economic & social capital  Autonomy/ability to set own direction may actually increase as become less dependent on government funding (cf. debate in US in 1930s re gov’t funding)  Ability to develop more explicit policies may  less ‘accidental’ evolution than in past  Despite the increasing emphasis on the 3 rd mission, the university and university research will survive, continuing to evolve in an ever changing political and economic envir