Who needs university research?

There possibly still exists a handful of university presidents each of whom can live the Humboldtian dream. By definition the University is a place for the free exchange of ideas, where research and teaching advance side by side for the general betterment of an appreciative society.

Creative scholarship and research suffuse the place. We gain a deeper understanding of the human condition and of nature around us by exploring ideas on their merits. That understanding is an absolute good, although capable of being harnessed, usually by others, for practical ends.

I suspect that everyone here holds some such ideal in their romantic heart - no doubt more sophisticated in its expression - but, equally, that all are called upon to make pragmatic modification and compromise. The problem is that too many in the institutions called universities aspire to the ideal and too few outside find it seductive.

Let me pass lightly over the first part of the problem. With increased pressure for access to university and continuing need to cap public expenditure on higher education, every government is tempted to over-expand the system. Unless this is accompanied by ruthless concentration of resources, either planned or achieved through deregulation, then quality falls and the ideal recedes far from our vision. The easy way out is to let this happen and blame the vice-chancellors.

Inevitably these vice-chancellors form lobby groups of research-intensive universities and that brings us to the second part of the problem. We need university research! How do we convince others to find it?

Having declared a willingness to compromise I will focus upon research for wealth creation. With an increasingly integrated world economy, firms can move investment at will, chasing cheap labour costs, favourable tax regimes and available talent. Countries with the highest capacity to innovate will hold a comparative advantage in attracting and retaining investment.

International agencies such as the World Bank are placing greater emphasis on education policy and there is a growing perception that too much concentration on vocational training can lock in existing industrial patterns and deny access to the vital technological step changes.

This is a point worth underlining because, at least in Australia, there are strident advocates for universities concentrating on training rather than research and for matching that training to existing industry needs. Indeed the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra recently gained national coverage for his argument that universities have been stripping undergraduate education to pay for postgraduates who will not find jobs. His position is honourable insofar as he leads a non research-intensive institution and has no truck with lofty ideals. Indeed he writes, 'It is well to remember that the Ph.D. is not a qualification highly regarded outside universities and research settings. It is not even obvious to me, as someone who has been managing universities at one level or another for nearly 30 years, that Ph.Ds make better academics, all things considered."

I have recently read Going Global, which is a report prepared by the US Council on Competitiveness, a nonpartisan forum of 161 corporate chief executives, university presidents and labour leaders. One of the organisation's three co-chairs, William R. Hambrecht, states:


"The competitive challenge for the future is likely to come not just from low-cost producers but from low-cost innovators. Because the innovator club is growing, the United States must look to the fundamentals to sustain a competitive environment: support for basic research creates the seedcorn for innovation, an assured talent pool, and the legal, regulatory and accounting rules that can incent (or impede) industry investment in innovation."

If we accept this, as I do innovative warts and all, then the next issue is the location of the investment in research infrastructure.

Several Australian business figures have been arguing that government research investment should be direct to industry or, at a pinch, to specialised research institutes but not universities. Recent government policy in New Zealand favours the 'crown research institutes' over universities.

We must accept some blame for these perceptions. It should be obvious that the combination of research-training and research in a highly networked interdisciplinary environment provides a desirable solution. In fact universities are often accused of fostering an arrogant and individualistic variant of the research university ideal. Impenetrable firewalls, it is said, separate baronial fiefdoms.

Strangely enough the Australian government appears to be considering a change in research allocation mechanisms which could encourage such behaviours. There is a proposal to provide more adequate infrastructure for individual research grants by using general funds currently awarded to the institutions.

We have also seen an increase in schemes which foster industry-university collaboration. These have several advantages, at least the demonstration that industry is prepared to contribute primarily, sometimes for marginal government seed funds. They also put some participants together, achieving a progressive osmosis between cultures. On the other hand they can distort institutional priorities if there are insufficient discretionary funds in a university to achieve a degree of 'socialization' or if funding bodies cut back basic research to pay for such new programs.

I see it as the task of someone in my position to persuade academics to participate vigorously in industry-linked schemes which can lead to wealth generation and to persuade government to invest in an innovative culture. Provided the community can be made to understand that it needs university research, I am less concerned about the particular mechanisms employed.

In Australia we need internationally competitive tax regimes for venture capital investment and for research and development. Appropriate changes would generate an industry pull just as beneficial to the universities as increased grants. I am confident that anyone who believes in the key to increased employment and prosperity will also believe in the need for university research.

That answers the question of the title, but what remains can be seen through the I's of Hambrecht:


Inspire, induce, incept