Strategic Cross- Border Research Collaborations:

Transcription

1 Strategic Cross- Border Research Collaborations: Reciprocal Impacts IEAA Research Roundtable, October 2014, Brisbane Prof. John K. Hudzik, Michigan State University NAFSA Senior Scholar for Internationalization Former Vice President Global Engagement and Dean of International Studies and Programs, Michigan State University Copyrighted by J. K. Hudzik

2 should My Assignment How do institutions align/justify the drive for transnational research collaborations with other key institutional strategic priorities? and why 2

3 Knowledge Economies, Globalization and Higher Education (H.E.) Competition and collaboration is shifting from the local/national to a global reference frame. Increasingly in ideas and talent. Cutting edge H. E. requires access to global pathways of learning, talent and ideas. 3

4 Forces Propelling Cross-Border Research Collaborations A widening of: Sources of cutting-edge knowledge Talent amalgamations Sources of money/funding Load-sharing of rising costs Entrepreneurial (access) The band wagon 4

5 It is a Massive Paradigm Shift When Internationalization and Institutional Research Strategy Integrate A move of internationalization from institutional periphery to core. Strengthens voice, roles and decision making of other VP/DVC s and deans in international priority setting. Heightens need to engage and respond to faculty. Becomes a principal driver of cross-border partnership formation. (from individualistic to institutionalized collaboration.) 5

6 Rapidly Expanding Global Higher Education and Research Capacity 6

7 Changing Global H.E. Capacity, Patterns and System Global educational and research capacity. Seat supply and demand (100m, 250m, 300m), mostly outside Europe. N. America, Antipodes Mobility: numbers, models, flows (2.4m, 7.1m, but ) Research capacity Multi-directional talent flows and collaborations. From brain drain to brain circulation Global ranking systems and stratification. Misleading methodology impacts talent flows and collaborations particularly the aggregate fallacy.

8 Percent Proportion of Global R&D Expenditures (2014 country shift in categories) YEAR EU USA AS-10 AS-20 REST WORLD CHINA JAPAN % 36% 23% 14% 2% 15% % 31% 31% (AS-10) 15% 12% 11% % 29% 36% (AS-20) 13% est. 17% 10% Asia 10 (China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Thailand). Source: NSB data from Battelle, 2014 (AS 20 adds: Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and others). Battelle s data draws heavily on NSB data. 8

9 Publication Co-Authorship Two-thirds of world S&E articles were co-authored in From1988 to Coauthored (domestic) articles (grew 50%) Coauthored (international) articles (grew 300%) Implications for the importance of partnerships Source: NSB 9

10 Rate of Citation of Articles that are in the World s Top 1% Cited Articles (The Best of the Best ) (Source: NSB, 2014) USA EUROPE CHINA

11 Country R and D Expenditures (Estimate for 2014 in US PPP $ in Billions) USA CHN JPN GER S.K. FRN UK INDIA RUS BRZ China forecast to exceed Europe in 2019 China Forecast to exceed USA in 2023 USA CHN JPN GER S.K. FRN UK INDIA RUS 11 Source: Battelle, 2014

12 The Challenge of Cost and Complexity Driving Collaboration The rising cost of cutting edge research infrastructure cost and its decreasing half-life; competition for scholars; rising match requirements. Interdisciplinary teams for cutting edge research Maintaining the pool via department store v. mall; Collaboration for affordability (Toope); Collaboration as intellectual turbo charger. 12

13 The Challenges of Hot and Now and Uneven Playing Fields of Mr. Big and Research Cartels Hot and Now: Applied v. Basic Research Sources of funding typically differ Easier to find for applied Development projects; requirements for indigenous and multi-country partners The Biggies: Formation of status clubs and cartels 13

14 Intellectual v. Pecuniary Drivers Growing public disinvestment in higher education yields growing private like forces in H.E. Private/Public Partnerships e.g., Industry and university research collaborations. Challenges: Intellectual property, copyright, royalties. proprietary rights and public access. Human subjects rights, animal rights. Challenges to institutional values. Balancing business and intellectual outcomes. 14

15 Implications of Privatization and Private-Like Forces on Internationalization Does it make money? Research: Does it build institutional reputation and pedigree in the aggregate Shaping inter-institutional partnerships and collaborations Building institutional capacity Rebalancing the relationship between knowledge for the sake of knowledge and payoffs. 15

16 The Bottom Line Increased cross-border H.E. trade and Competition, Collaboration, Stratification. More comprehensive and strategic forms of internationalization and global engagement. 16

17 The Basis of Productive Partnerships There are benefits but they aren t cost free. 17

18 Key Framing Questions 1. What are the intellectual drivers and core values to be advanced? What are the desired outcomes? What is the definition of success? 2. Do we have institutional commitment? 3. Do we have the right partners? 4. Will there be benefits for all involved? 5. Will key sectors/authorities support? 18

19 Basic Collaborative Options Collaborations that are: Strategic: Long-term sustainability as well as depth and breadth in the nature of interactions, and a high degree of shared responsibility and tight connection to institutional missions. Project/Tactical: Focused collaborations that tend to be project-specific and which may also have expectations of an end date. It may be easier and less risky to test the water with latter than with the former. Institutionalized v. individualistic 19

20 University of Nottingham Matrix Scope: Focused (Single activity in a single area) Scope: Broad (Multiple activity and/or multiple areas) Scale Standard Numbers impacted relatively small Scale: Extensive Large numbers of individuals involved Standard Focused Partnerships with a single clear focus impacting on relatively small numbers eg a dual or joint award for limited student numbers in a given subject area Extensive Focused Partnerships with a single clear focus impacting on relatively large numbers eg a large scale undergraduate articulation teaching partnership. Standard Broad Partnerships with a multiple foci impacting on relatively small numbers eg an exchange agreement across multiple academic areas, or an agreement involving collaborative teaching, research links and staff exchange in a single academic area Extensive Broad Partnerships with a multiple foci impacting on large numbers e.g., a large scale teaching articulation withstudent and staff exchange and research collaborations. Driven Top Down, but Blending Bottom Up 20

21 The Basis of Strategic Partnerships Supports core missions. Addresses priority institutional research thrusts. Builds on strength and/or advances capacity in priority areas for build up. Addresses key measures of success. 21

22 1 st Define What will Constitute Success Number of customers or participants. Maintenance/enhancement of standards of quality. Faculty assessments and customer satisfaction. Financial (viability, break even, surplus). Academic outcomes: (e.g., students completion rates and academic performance, grants, awards, contracts). 22

23 The Growing Importance of Outcomes Sample Input Measures Number & diversity of study abroad options, locations, subject matter, and support. Institutional research expenditures per faculty member. Or, external research dollars, etc. Dollars, people and other resources applied to problem solving engagement. Sample Output Measures Number & diversity of students studying abroad; length of study; curricular integration; safety; cost control; etc. Publications; patents; incidence of citation; grants and contracts from external sources. Numbers of projects/locations, numbers of people involved. Sample Outcome Measures Impacts on knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, life skills, careers, etc. Enhanced reputation/awards; commercial applications income; economic development of locations/regions; community problem solving, etc.. Impact on people s well being and condition: economic, health, income, nutrition, safety/security, access, etc. Note: These are examples and no assumptions are made as to whether evidence exists to establish cause and effect connections when moving from left to right on the grid. 23

24 2 nd Is there Institutional Commitment? Is the proposed collaboration personality or institutionally driven and supported? If driven by administrative leaders, is there evidence of commitment from key faculty(ies)? Institutional sustainability: what is the likely staying power on the part of the institutions involved? 24

25 Who is Driving the Collaboration? Main options Top-down based on macro institutional variables of stature and need, and strategic priority. Bottom up based on programmatic level variables of stature and need. Pervasive, multi-sourced: From the top, from the bottom, from the middle. 25

26 3 rd Do We Have the Right Institutional Partner(s)? Are institutional cultures and values Compatible enough to forge a partnership, Flexible enough on both sides to adapt where needed (administratively and cross culturally), Open to learning from the outside? Will priorities remain stable at collaborating institutions? 26

27 Collaborative Structures Bi-lateral (Probably easier to manage and focus) Tri- or multi-lateral (Expands the talent base and access to resources and connections) Networks (More complex interactions, greater need for network management, but wider and flexible access to a diversity of talent) Fixed (in membership and roles) Flexible and shifting (membership may shift but members may also access different parts as needed). The network is as important as its hubs 27

28 4 th The Basis for Mutuality Shared vision of desired outcomes Mutual contribution Each bringing value added and unique contribution From assistance to co-production Documentable benefits all around Symmetric (similar benefits e.g., straight exchanges, project grant and research collaborations leading to shared funding/revenue). Asymmetric (the benefits are defined and operationalized differently for members). 28

29 Examples of Asymmetric Benefits Requires being creative in establishing a way to equilibrate the value of different benefits. Creativity in establishing the currency of exchange. Undergraduate study abroad support in one direction, banking credits for graduate degrees in the other. Research and publication opportunities for faculty from institution X and community capacity building and problem solving at institution and community Y. Developing markets for community X products and access to valued products by community Y 29