Tài liệu financial or intellectual imperatives doc

across the education sector_1 ‘The aim of mapping partnerships 1 Designing a process to map partnerships across the sector_7 Analysinj lerships in the South African higher education C

WORKING PARTNERSHIPS INHIGHER EDUCATIONINDUSTRYANDINNOVATION

IFINANCIAL OR INTELLECTUAL IMPERATIVES

© 2005 Human Sciences Research Council

First published 2005

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers

ISBN 0-7969-2108-3,

Cover by FUEL Design

Print management by comPress

Distributed in Africa by Blue Weaver Marketing and Distribution

PO Box 30370, Tokai, Cape Town, 7966, South Africa

Tel: +27 +21 701-4477

Fax: #27 +21 701-7302

email: orders@blueweaver.co.2a

Distributed worldwide, except Aftica, by Independent Publishers Group

814 North Franklin Street, Chicago, IL 60610, USA

www.ipgbook.com

“To order, call toll-free: 1-800-888-4741

Al other inguities, Tek: +1 +312-337-0747

Fax: #1 4312-337-5985,

email: Frontdesk@ipgbook.com

across the education sector_1

‘The aim of mapping partnerships 1

Designing a process to map partnerships across the sector_7

Analysinj lerships in the South African higher education

Coverage and contribution of partnerships _45

Products and outcomes of partnership _57

Summary 68

Patterns of, ip in the three high technology fields_73

‘The tension between financial and intellectual imperatives _73

‘Traditional forms of partnership _76

Dominant new forms of partnership 77

Entrepreneurial forms of partnership _79

‘Network forms of partnership 79

‘Mapping partnerships in the three fields of focus_81

Understanding forms of partnership 99

4 Facilitating and constraining industry partnerships in diverse

Mapping institutional responses to partnership in hi

technology fields 101

Harnessing innovation potential _107

Emergent entrepreneurialism 123

8 sent alternative i ices 167

‘Why and how do these institutions differ? 168

‘What are the emergent alternative approaches? _176

6 — Innovati lerships and education 189

‘A national system of innovation? _190

Understanding partnerships within institutions 199

Facilitating or constraining partnerships in different kinds re

Appendix 1: Dimensions of partnership used in the design of instruments _209

‘Appendix 2: Institutional profile template 215

Appendix 3: Total number of active researchers in the three high technology fickdh bị TH

Appendix 4: Total research output by higher education institutions _222

‘Appendix 5: NRF-rated scientists by higher education institutions 224

Appendix 6: Total higher education institution research income _226

Bibliography 229

Index_247

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table L.1 Assessing high technology capacity in this study 17

Table 2.1 Research income by source in the higher education sector,

‘An ideal vision of the role of research partnerships between higher education and industry in a rapidly globalising knowledge economy is becoming prevalent However, there isa great deal of dissonance between this vision and the realities of research, innovation and development in the South African context, characterised by fragmentation, inequalities and unevenness

‘Thus, we have a major knowledge gap about partnerships in South Africa We have a general agreement that they are a social and economic ‘good’ and that

it is desirable that collaborative partnerships and networks are formed We

have a great deal of literature on the possible forms they take in other

countries, their benefits and difficulties However, we have absolutely no sense

of the extent to which this vision is becoming actualised in South Africa

Significantly, in the South African case, rather than a focus on measuring the impact or understanding the ways in which specific features of partnerships work in order to improve practice, there is a prior research concern to open

up the field and map out what exists, as a basis for more detailed investigation

‘The study of necessity will be primarily an exploratory one, aiming to open

up the field and lay a basis for more detailed and in-depth investigations

‘The Human Sciences Research Council's research programme on Human

Resource Development has undertaken a project to explore the extent to which the networked practices that are believed to characterise the knowledge

economy have indeed begun to penetrate South African higher education and industry Where networks and partnerships have developed, how have they

taken form and shape in the South African context, with specific national

policy and economic imperatives? To what extent is there evidence of collaboration in knowledge generation, diffusion and/or application that will

ultimately contribute to innovation? In what ways has government succeeded

in promoting such partnerships? What are the kinds of changes and benefits

partnerships are bringing about in both higher education and industry?

PREFACE

‘Three high technology bands have been identified as priorities for developing

a national system of innovation that will improve South Africa's international competitiveness and economic development The relatively new high technology fields of information and communication technology, biotechnology and new materials development have been identified as most

likely to generate benefits for South Africa These were selected as the

empirical focus for the study Understanding the conceptions and practices of research partnerships in each of these three fields will inform understanding

of responsiveness to high technology needs and innovation in South Africa This large-scale empirical study is primarily exploratory, aiming to open up the field and lay down benchmark descriptions of the partnership and network activity emerging in South African higher education and industry It does so through a series of audits and mapping exercises, and through a series

of in-depth case studies

‘The study was conceptualised in terms of four distinct but closely inter-

related sub-studies or components Each empirical study will be disseminated

in a separate title in the series, Working Partnerships in Higher Education, Industry and Innovation

Component One was largely conceptual It provided an entry point into the conceptual and comparative literature on higher education-industry partnerships, as well as an introduction to the ‘state of the art’ in each of the three high technology fields in South Africa, to lay a foundation for the entire study

Component Two aimed to illuminate government's role in promoting research partnerships by exploring the forms of government contribution through the Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme

(THRIP) and the Innovation Fund, and the extent and nature of resultant

partnerships Data was gathered on industry and higher education beneficiaries, on the nature of co-operation at project level, and selected measures of the outputs of the co-operation The monograph, Government incentivisation of higher education-industry research partnerships in South Africa, showed how partnerships, networks and innovation are developing amongst beneficiaries of government-incentivised funding in general, and in the three high technology fields specifically

Component Three, this book, aimed to map the higher education landscape

in order to investigate the scale and form of research linkages and collaborative practices between higher education institutions and industry in each of the three fields Given the uneven capacity of higher education institutions and their differential historical legacies, and given different modes

of operation of different knowledge fields, it explores whether partnerships develop and take different forms in different institutional and knowledge contexts

Component Four, entitled Creating Knowledge Networks, focuses on the demand side, at enterprise level in industrial sectors related to the three high technology fields Ina limited set of cases, we explore the dynamics of partnerships in-depth, unpack their multilinear, contingent and tacit dimensions, and consider the impact on enterprise productivity, technological innovation and knowledge production in each of the three fields

Glenda Kruss

Project Leader

+ of the three technology fields — Professor Rob Knutsen, Dr Butana

Mboniswa, Dr Bob Day and Tina James;

+ of the international literature on partnerships and innovation - Dr Ansie Lombard and Professor Johann Mouton;

+ ˆ of current research activity in the three fields ~ Professor Johann Mouton and his team at the Centre for Research in Science and Technology at the University of Stellenbosch, Melt Van Schoor and Nelius Boshoff,

+ of current institutional research profiles - the Human Sciences Research Council team of Salim Akoojee, Ansie Lombard, Mocketsi Letseka

‘Third are the researchers who conducted site visits and compiled richly detailed reports on partnership at each institution — Matthew Smith, Trish Gibbon, Ansie Lombard, Moeketsi Letseka, Salim Akoojee, Candice Harrison, Lesley Powell, Tracy Bailey, Carmel Marock, Neetha Ravjee, Tembile Kulati, George Subotzky, Paul Lundall, Carel Garisch and Gabriel Cele

Fourth are the colleagues in the research programme on Human Resources Development and the HSRC Press at the Human Sciences Research Council, who provided intellectual, moral and practical support to enhance this book

Professor Eddie Webster of the Sociology of Work programme at the

University of the Witwatersrand acted as critical reader, contributing to deepen the thrust of the argument presented

Finally, the study would not have been possible without the generous support

of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, particularly in the persons of

Courtenay Sprague and Narciso Matos This publication was made possible

(in part) by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author

Abbre

ions ARC Agricultural Research Commission

BRIC _ Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centre

CENIS Cente for Inter-Disciplinary Studies (now CREST)

CREST Centre for Research in Science and Technology (formerly CENIS) CSIR Council for Scientific Research

cre Committee of Technikon Principals

DACST Departments of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology

DoE Department of Education

pst Department of Science and ‘Technology

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation

HSRC Human Sciences Research Council

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IDRC —_ International Development Research Centre

MRC Medical Research Council

NACI National Advisory Council on Innovation

NRF National Research Foundation

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development R&D Research and development

SANBI South African Bioinformatics Institute

SAPSE South African Post-Secondary Education

SAUVCA — South African Universities Vice Chancellor’s Association

SMME Small, medium and micro enterprises

TESP Tertiary Education Support Programme

THRIP Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation USPTO United States Patent Office

‘CHAPTER ONE

Mapping industry partnerships

across the higher education sector

The aim of mapping partnerships

Higher education, innovation and development in global context

‘The higher education sector in South Africa currently faces myriad challenges, with potentially conflicting demands pressing from multiple directions This

is not a uniquely South African phenomenon As Bullen, Robb and Kenway argue, ‘the combined forces of globalisation and the global economy have exerted pressure on higher education and research institutions to serve the

needs of the emergent knowledge economy’ (2004: 3) At its most general and

broadest level, that is what this book is about It will contribute to our understanding of the ways in which higher education institutions in the South African context have responded to this pressure, to serve the needs of the knowledge economy

‘One of the strongest demands of new policy in South Africa, reflecting global trends, is the demand that higher education institutions, as crucial sites of knowledge production and technological innovation (Jansen 2004a), become more responsive to social and economic needs and contribute to development The key assumption that lies at the heart of a knowledge economy is that national productivity and competitiveness depend on the capacity to generate, process and apply knowledge-based information (Castells 1996) Hence, the capacity of a national higher education system to

‘generate, process and apply knowledge, to contribute to innovation, becomes

a critical issue

The recent United Nations Human development report 2001 (UNDP 2001)

designed a Technology Achievement Index to capture how well a country as a whole is participating in creating and diffusing technology and building a high skills base throughout the population, and thus, its capacity to

participate in global technological innovation in a network era South Africa

‘was categorised as a “dynamic adaptor’ alongside Brazil, China, Indonesia and

‘Tunisia, in that there are important high technology industries and one

‘technology innovation hub’ in Gauteng, but the diffusion of old inventions such as telephones and electricity is still slow and incomplete South Africa thus fares in the middle range, being ranked 39 of 72 ranked countries It does not have an impressive score on any of the indicators in the Index, whether it

be patents granted to residents, receipts of royalties and licence fees, and diffusion of internet hosts, or the proportion of high and médium technology exports, and the diffusion of old innovations or human §kills in terms of mean years of schooling or the gross tertiary science enrolment ratio

Nevertheless, South Africa has strong aspirations to move up the global value chain, to develop a national system of innovation Innovation is defined as:

the application in practice of creative new ideas, which in many

cases involves the introduction of inventions into the marketplace

In contrast, creativity is the generating and articulating of new

ideas It follows that people can be creative without being,

innovative, They may have ideas, or produce inventions, but may

not try to win broad acceptance for them, put them to use or

exploit them by turning their ideas into products and services that other people will buy or use (DACST 1996: 15)

This is seen as critical to the achievement of social, economic and political goals, in a context of competing national demands for global economic competitiveness, sustainable development and equity As the Department of

‘Trade and Industry (DTI) has proclaimed in its Integrated Manufacturing Strategy, competitiveness requires government to align a set of ‘fundamentals’

to steer the economy in its chosen direction, of ‘knowledge-intensive, value-

adding and employment-generating production’ (DTI 2002: 28) These

fundamentals include investment in research and development, innovation and the assimilation of new technologies

‘Technology achievement problems - summed up in the notion of an

‘innovation chasm’ between local industry, local research and international technology sources — have been identified as key challenges to be addressed by

the Department of Science and ‘Technology (DST) (see for example Adam

2003; DST 2002) Since 1994 there has been a concerted national push to

promote science and technology capacity across the country, with an

chasm’, It will be argued that this policy framework offers creative

opportunities for higher education institutions and researchers

Strategic alliances, networks, partnerships, linkages and collaborations between higher education institutions and industry — as these relationships are variously termed — have been identified as a primary means of addressing higher education's role in economic development A core assumption of new science and technology policy is thus the need to promote a ‘problem-solving, multi-disciplinary, partnership approach to innovation as a mechanism of

growth and development’ (DACST 1996: 9) Again, this strategy is not unique

to South Africa, being promoted globally by the Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD 1996, 2000), with a similar policy

thrust in the countries South Africa looks to for policy inspiration, Australia (Bullen et al 2004), the United Kingdom (Her Majesty's Treasury 2003), Canada (Advisory Council on Science and Technology 1999) and the United

States (Tornatzky, Waugaman & Gray 2002)

In South Africa, there are attempts on the part of the state to foster such a partnership approach between higher education, industry and science, engineering and technology institutions (SETIs) that can promote innovation, through funding incentivisation schemes such as the Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP) and the Innovation Fund An HSRC (2003) audit of the beneficiaries, functioning and products

and outcomes of THRIP and Innovation Fund projects in three high-

technology fields found that these partnerships have resulted in tangible benefits, with significant advantages to both industry and higher education

‘Partnership’ is seen to provide a key means for higher education institutions

to achieve greater responsiveness, to ensure that their research is better

utilised, their technology better transferred and their research more strategic

or applied There is a widespread perception that partnerships are desirable and can provide a means of income for institutions, in the face of shifting

relationships with the state, and a new funding environment The challenge is framed as a dual one, to contribute to economic growth and to improved quality of life for the citizens of South Africa

‘There is a strong prescriptive trend in this policy discourse, and to a large extent in the literature on the knowledge economy and partnerships There is

an assumption that the ‘network’ ideal, or the ‘knowledge economy’ ideal, will and must unfold if the country is not to be left behind, to ‘catch up’ with global trends Indeed, Muller (2001) has argued that the way in which South African intellectuals have responded to the theory of the network society proposed by Castells has been partial, in terms of their own political concerns and without coming to terms with his central argument

Increasingly, there is a recognition of the gap between the ideal promoted globally in policy, and the reality of South African conditions, as a developing country or ‘dynamic adaptor Castells himself warns that globalisation ‘has unleashed extraordinary creativity and technological innovation, but the contradictions of development are sharper than ever’ (2001: 19) South Africa,

it is clear, has a distinct historical legacy and pattern of socio-economic

inequality that will impact on the way it is able to pursue the ideal of a

‘knowledge economy’ or ‘network society However, we need greater specificity and substance in making such an assertion in order to begin to understand South Africa’s current and future development path

‘To take the issue of partnerships specifically, we have very little sense of the

‘ways in which partnerships, strategic linkages, collaboration or networks in fact do emerge in practice across the South African higher education system Are old forms of partnership continuing, or are new forms of partnership emerging? Is there evidence of the ideal network form of trans-disciplinary, collaborative partnership between industry and higher education in South Africa? We have very little sense of the conceptions of partnership that exist,

of the ways in which partnerships are initiated or the ways in which they

‘operate, and what their typical outcomes and products are And thus, we do not understand the ways in which a ‘knowledge economy’ ideal is indeed unfolding in the South African context, or whether there are uniquely South African ways emerging to bridge the innovation chasm in ways that can meet development goals ~ that is specifically what this book addresses

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

Investigating higher education-industry partnerships in South Africa

Such was the impetus that led to the present study in 2002, Research which attempts to understand higher education responsiveness in South Africa, and particularly the contribution of research to innovation and hence to economic

and social development, is slowly emerging (Cooper 2003; SAUVCA 2004;

Wickham 2002) A particular focus is the study of ‘technology transfer’ (Garduno 2003) or ‘research utilisation’ (Mouton, Bailey & Boshoff 2003), in the face of the policy analysis of an ‘innovation chasm’ in South Africa

The present study was motivated by the observation that there is a strong imperative to develop partnerships between industry and higher education, but we do not know the extent to which higher education institutions are responding And given the differential history and capacity of higher education institutions, one may expect that not all institutions will respond in the same way Castells (2001) has argued that by their very nature, universities are dynamic systems of contradictory functions — the generation and transmission of ideology, the selection and formation of dominant elites, training a skilled labour force, and the production and application of knowledge He stresses that these core tasks of universities have different emphases according to countries, historical periods and specific institutions, but that they all take place simultaneously within the same structure, This results in a complex and contradictory reality

In 2003, in a context of strong contestation around the future shape of the higher education sector proposed in ‘restructuring’ plans to merge institutions to more effectively respond to the challenges of the Department

of Education’s National Plan on Higher Education (DoE 2001), there were 35

institutions,’ 21 universities and 14 technikons with widely divergent

histories, strengths and potentialities in South Africa By 2005, the process of

ing will be formally complete, creating a new landscape of universities, comprehensive universities (DoE 2004), and universities of technologies out of the technikons (see CTP 2003), which will need to create new balances of these ‘contradictory functions: Higher education institutions have been established in different historical periods for distinct purposes, and this historical legacy continues to shape their response to the challenges of the present There are distinct variations between the regional economies of the provinces in which higher education institutions are located, which

contribute further contextual determinations The result is a complexity of different forms of partnership, shaped by competing old and new imperatives within institutions with distinct emphases of their core roles, imposed by policy demands that are themselves potentially contradictory

‘The aim of this research study was thus to map the patterns and trends in partnership activity between industry and higher education institutions evident across the higher education landscape, as a first step in opening up the field empirically and conceptually We have a knowledge gap about partnerships in South Africa, in the face of a general agreement that they are

a desirable social and economic ‘good: The research reported in this book explored the ways in which the vision of higher education's role in the knowledge economy promoted globally, and increasingly in South African science and innovation policy, is mediated in higher education institutions in practice, in all its complex, messy and difficult to quantify reality

Qualitative descriptive data is necessary to illuminate the complex forms of partnership that may develop in specific institutional contexts — or specific knowledge fields The empirical focus was limited to partnerships in three high technology fields typically at the cutting edge of innovation and the knowledge economy globally, and identified as priorities for development in national foresight studies in South Africa — namely, biotechnology, information and communication technology (ICT) and new materials development

A set of broad research questions guided the qualitative empirical ‘mapping

exercise’:

+ What are the forms of knowledge partnerships in different kinds of

higher education institutional contexts in South Africa?

+ What are the forms of knowledge partnerships in each of the three

knowledge fields — ICT, biotechnology and new materials development ~ identified as priorities for a national system of innovation in South Africa? + What are the institutional ‘levers’ that have facilitated or constrained the development of these forms of partnerships in different institutions and different knowledge fields?

‘The study thus has a specific focus and clear limits on the world of science and technology research, which need to be born in mind throughout It focuses primarily on the knowledge generation and dissemination function, rather

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

than on the other core missions articulated for higher education in South Africa, teaching and community outreach It focuses on higher education

partnerships with industry — and not on other forms of partnership, such as

those related primarily to teaching, particularly at undergraduate level, or partnerships with the public sector or communities It focuses on partnerships in science and technology, and specifically the three fields at the global cutting edge - and not on other fields, particularly in the humanities

and social sciences It thus does not claim to present a map of the total

‘picture’ of higher education in relation to research and innovation Further empirical studies will be required to research whether the conceptual and analytical frameworks developed in the study may be extended to community partnerships for example, or to partnerships based in the humanities and social sciences,

‘There is currently a lack of information on the nature and forms of partnerships, with few institutions keeping a systematic database of information pertaining

to partnerships This data problem is not specific to South Africa Charles and Conway (2001) report the difficulty of gathering data on higher education business interaction in the UK, given that data is not available on a centralised basis in a higher education information system, and the time required to compile such data, Hall, Link and Scott (2000) reported similar difficulties, in the US context, of identifying appropriate databases to explore the types of roles universities play in research partnerships, given the lack of systematic data on universities as research partners at firm or project level

It thus became necessary to design a methodology to map the forms of industry partnership and the institutional practices that facilitated or constrained them, across the South African higher education sector, a description of which provides the focus of the following sections

Designing a process to map partnerships across the sector

Defining partnership, collaboration and networks

At the most general level, ‘partnership’ was defined very broadly to denote any form of linkage or co-operative relationship of mutual benefit or mutual interest between an academic/s, department/s or unit/s in higher education, and industry In contrast, ‘collaboration’ was defined specifically as a

facilitates the acquisition of product design and production

technology, enables joint production and process development,

and permits generic scientific knowledge and research and

development to be shared (1996: 191)

Here we refer to such collaboration between a number of industry organisations and researchers from (several) higher education institutions Phrased in terms of these operational definitions, the objective of the study was to map out the scale and location of all forms of partnerships, and then

to identify what forms of research partnerships, collaborations and networks are emerging, where, how, and under what conditions across the South African higher education system

Identifying conceptual dimensions

Conceptual distinctions were required that would allow researchers to identify partnerships, collaborations and networks in all their empirical manifestations across the South African higher education sector Bawa and Mouton’s (2002) analysis of research capacity across the higher education system noted the continuation of stark differentiation, with five historically advantaged universities and six technikons continuing to dominate and

produce the bulk of accredited research in the higher education sector Shifts

were noted in the form of an increase in research productivity in some

technikons, and in two historically black universities (the University of the

‘Western Cape and the University of Durban-Westville) One might reasonably expect then, that high technology research activity would be concentrated in historically advantaged institutions with strong research traditions, with evidence of emergent trends in some institutions, evidence of aspirant trends

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

in some institutions and perhaps little evidence of activity at all in some institutions The audit of THRIP and Innovation Fund beneficiaries revealed that there are pockets of high technology activity occurring across the higher education system, in complex combinations (HSRC 2003) This underscored the significance of working qualitatively, and sensitively to institutional differences, to identify distinct forms of partnership It reinforced the necessity of mapping out all forms of partnership in order to identify emergent trends and triggers for innovative activity and higher education responsiveness across the system

distinguishing characteristics of each dimension were identified This set of

dimensions and characteristics underpinned the design of the interview schedules and the process of data gathering, the analysis of data for each institution, and the comparative synthesis in this report The first three sets of, dimensions relate to the conditions that facilitate or constrain partnerships, and to the institutional level; the fourth set of dimensions relates to the nature

of partnerships and to the research project level:

+ Research culture and vis

+ Coverage and contribution

+ Products and outcomes

AA full list of the dimensions, characteristics and features that were used in the design of instruments is reproduced in Appendix One

Operationalising the research questions

Given the relatively unexplored research terrain, the challenge was to identify

a means of obtaining reliable qualitative descriptions across the large and

10

diverse sector This was achieved by triangulating data gathered from a range of empirical sources at different levels within institutions, using diverse methods: + On the scale of researchers and partnerships in each of the three high- end technology fields, within each institution, and across the higher

education sector;

+ On the nature of partnerships evident within the institution, within each

of the three fields and within cutting edge projects, using the dimensions identified;

+ On the existence in institutional policy and practice of key policies,

structures and capacities that typically facilitate or constrain research partnerships

Data at each institution was gathered at three levels — the institutional level,

partnerships in general at faculty level, and cutting edge partnerships in research centres or projects The focus was on partnerships with industry in

the three high technology fields, but with strong ‘peripheral vision’ on the

general institutional partnerships context This could take a variety of forms — research in the technology field but not in partnership with industry, partnerships with industry but in fields other than the three technology fields

of focus, and other forms of partnership, whether in the three fields or other fields (for example, community, teaching) The research approach stressed a concern to identify features that are strongly evident, emergent, not very evident, or even not at all evident within a specific institution

Research occurred in interconnected phases, beginning with the compilation

of institutional research profiles and ending with site visits to each higher education institution to interview key research leaders,

Describing the institutional research context

Considerable energy was focused on attempting to provide a detailed understanding of the research context in each institution, and of the specific

features that constrain or facilitate partnership activity in general, in relation

to industry, and in the three high technology fields of focus,

Martin (2000) argued that the management of university-industry relations is

widely identified as a critical factor in developing partnerships The nature of

the research culture, research structures and research capacity and

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

productivity at each institution was profiled in order to gain a sense of the institutional context in which partnerships do or do not (or may or may not) occur In relation to research culture, the aim was to develop an understanding of the way in which research is conceived of and prioritised in the institution in general and in relation to partnerships with industry specifically A description of the internal and external interface structures established by each institution to support research in general, and specifically, external research partnerships (particularly with industry), was a second focus Lastly, an attempt was made to map the existing research capacity at each institution, reflected in: current research expenditure; productivity in terms of the standard measures of postgraduate enrolment, publication rates, funding grants and researcher ratings; partnership activity in the form of THRIP and Innovation Fund grants; and productivity in the three high technology fields specifically

‘The profiles were initially compiled in a desktop exercise, drawing on institutional websites, annual reports and research reports as available, and on a number of higher education research information databases obtained from the Centre for Inter-Disciplinary Studies (CENIS) at the University of Stellenbosch, the Department of Education (DoE), the South African Universities Vice Chancellor's Association (SAUVCA) and the Committee of Technikon

Principals (CTP) A team of Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC)

researchers used a template to interrogate the data and compile the profiles in a

‘comparable format (see Appendix Two) Draft profiles were sent to the Dean or Director of Research at each institution, to afford them an opportunity to verify, elaborate or suggest modifications to the data and emerging interpretation The {great majority of institutions collaborated on this task, and the profiles were amended accordingly

A key source for understanding the institutional research context was the Director or Dean of Research and, accordingly, interviews were conducted during site visits The purpose was, firstly, to verify and elaborate the draft institutional profile by gaining a sense of how the stated institutional research policy is played out in practice, and how central research leaders perceive their office's contribution to facilitate or constrain research partnerships Secondly,

an attempt was made to gain a sense of the conceptions of partnership evident

in the approach of a key research leader in the institution Similarly, interviews were conducted with the Deans of key faculties? that housed academics

u

Understanding partnerships in the institution in general

and in the three fields

An attempt was made to develop a theoretical population of researchers

currently active in the three high technology fields at each higher education

institution in order to provide a baseline against which to assess the scale of partnership activity The central approach was to compile a theoretical sample

of researchers in the three fields in higher education institutions, drawing on three publicly available databases:

+ SAKnowledgebase (housed at CENIS), a bibliographic database of authors

published in accredited journals, was consulted on the assumption that it

would provide a theoretical population of active researchers publishing

in their field A database was drawn of single authors in each high

technology field for the period 1997-2001 A limitation on this database

‘was that the institutional location was not available for all authors

+ The THRIP and Innovation Fund databases (HSRC 2003), covering the period 2000 and 2001 for THRIP and from 1997-2001 for the

Innovation Fund, were consulted, on the assumption that they would provide a theoretical population of researchers actively researching in

partnership with industry at each institution

+ The National Research Foundation (NRF) register of grants for 2000 and 2001 was consulted, on the assumption that it would provide a theoretical population of active researchers seeking funding for projects

in the three fields

The subsets mined from each of the three databases were triangulated into an Excel database to provide the theoretical population of researchers currently active in the three fields in each higher education institution A complex process of institutional verification of the dataset was undertaken Faculty Deans were key informants in relation to understanding the scale and form of partnerships in general and in the relevant field, on the assumption that they would have an overview of research practices in their field Interviews were

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

conducted, firstly to obtain assistance in the process of verification of the database during site visits Secondly, there was an attempt to access the conceptions of partnership evident in the approach of key facuity-level research leadership, and thirdly, to gain an overview of the nature of the partnerships in the relevant high technology field, within the faculty

Understanding cutting edge research partnerships in the three fields

Having begun with a broad operational definition of partnerships as any form

of linkage and attempting to map the scale of activity at the institutional level, the focus shifted from the institutional to the level of specific research projects operating in partnership with industry, to gain an understanding of the different forms of partnership that operate in practice Clearly, it was not feasible to obtain data on all partnerships in the three fields in all institutions

‘The design decision was to focus on those partnerships defined by the

institution as cutting edge partnerships At each institution, approximately

three research project leaders in each technology field were selected on the basis of their leadership of an apparently innovative cutting edge research partnership ~ in the context of that institution Selection of projects varied slightly across institutional sites In some cases, an initial set of projects was

identified from the institutional profile, or from the database In other cases,

the institution selected its ‘showcase’ projects, through the office of the Research Dean, In most cases there was room for selecting projects while on site, on the basis of the interviews with faculty Deans or other researchers

Interviews were conducted with research project leaders to establish the key characteristics of partnerships, to lay a basis for identifying the forms of

partnership operating in the specific institution, in each of the three fields,

drawing particularly on the categories identified as critical to Dimension Four, the nature of the linkage (see Appendix One) A key objective was to identify whether new forms of innovation research partnerships and networks are emerging, where, how and why

Three qualitative data sources

This process gave rise to three distinct data sources for analysis, on which the research reported in this book draws Each researcher visited a higher

13

14

education institution armed with a draft institutional profile and an unverified database It was part of their task to return a verified and amended profile, and verified data for central processing In addition, each researcher compiled a ‘partnerships’ report, structured according to a template, to allow for comparability The first section described partnership in the institution, exploring factors facilitating or constraining partnership, dominant and

competing conceptions of partnership, and descriptive indicators of the scale

of partnership The second section described the nature of partnership with industry in each of the three fields, with a specific focus on the nature of partnerships identified as innovative It will be evident that a great deal of this, data is self-reported, whether by institutions or individual managers and academics The fact that the analysis is constructed in large part from the perceptions and values of key informants, and the institutional descriptions researchers have obtained, must be borne in mind by the reader Nevertheless, there is sufficient confidence in the volume, depth and variety of the data sources triangulated to support the veracity of the kind of mapping exercise

undertaken here

Analysing partnerships in the South African higher

education institutional landscape

Defining analytical categories

Given their distinct historical missions, there was a strikingly apparent difference in the scale of research activity in the three high technology fields

at universities and technikons, which suggested that analysis of universities and technikons should be separate Technikons were formally created in 1979

to prepare skilled, high-level occupationally oriented graduates to meet the needs of commerce and industry, focusing on applied engineering, biological, chemical and physical sciences, commerce, humanities and arts The Van Wyk

De Vries Commission of 1973 relegated technikons to teach applied technology fields, and conduct no research, while universities were responsible for basic science and research This binary divide has shaped the trajectory of technikon growth until the present Creamer (2000: 28) has identified the key features

of the technikon sector that distinguish it from the university sector, in particular its direct contribution to economic development and employment:

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

+ The co-operative nature of technikon curriculum development, involving industry to enhance workplace relevance;

+ The ‘co-operative education’ in-service training component of technikon

education and placement of students in internships;

+ The less onerous admission criteria of the technikon system;

+ The high employment rate of technikon graduates;

+ The applied research focus of a problem-solving nature

Technikons were only recently granted degree-granting status (under the

‘Technikon Act of 1993) and consequently initiated a stronger research focus’

together with postgraduate programmes, with the focus on developing research capacity and potential areas of research strength A number of technikons aspired to become a university of technology along the lines of similar institutions internationally The CTP (2003) lobbied strenuously for a new institutional type focused on applied research, work-focused teaching/training, entrepreneurial activities and community outreach, including business, industry and community The acceptance of such a

proposal in 2004 will shape these institutions in future, but it was not in effect

at the time of the empirical research Hence, the report continues to use the

term ‘technikon’ throughout

There was also evidence of a stark distinction between the strongest

universities and the rest of the higher education institutions The ‘big five’ historically advantaged universities with strong research traditions do tend to dominate research activity in the three high technology fields of focus Analysis of the detailed institutional data in Appendix Three reflects that these five institutions represent 63 per cent of the university-based researchers in ICT, 69 per cent in new materials development and 68 per cent in the field of

biotechnology This resonates with Bawa and Mouton’s (2002: 319) finding

that these five institutions produce 60 per cent of the South African Post-

Secondary Education (SAPSE) research output at universities If the levels of

research activity are higher, it would be reasonable to assume that the scale of partnership with industry would also be higher at these institutions Analysis

of their activity could potentially provide an understanding of up to two- thirds of research and partnership activity in the three fields of focus

However, the concern was to conduct analysis that would open up

interpretation of partnerships with industry in high technology fields, and to

15

16

identify emergent sites of innovation and future capacity across the entire higher education sector It would be inappropriate to analyse universities and

technikons along the lines of the historical binary divide, particularly given

recent aspiration and policy shifts that see technikons becoming ‘universities

of technology’; likewise, it would be inappropriate to focus analysis only on a handful of universities with proven research profiles and capacities A first analytical ‘cut’ was thus made by grouping together all those universities and technikons with the capacity for research in the three high technology fields,

as distinct from those preparing for high technology capacity or developing research capacity in terms of other goals,

Table 1.1 reflects the four measures that were used to make this analytical ‘cut’: + Whether the institution has research capacity in one or more of the three

fields of focus — ICT, new materials development, and biotechnology;

+ Whether the institution has historically prioritised science and

technology as areas of strength for teaching and research;

+ Whether the institution has historically prioritised research in its

institutional orientation, funding, reward and organisational structures; and + Whether the institution has prioritised partnerships with industry in policy and structures

On the basis of these criteria, eleven universities and seven technikons were

grouped together for analytial purposes:

‘The universities of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, Pretoria, Witwatersrand, Natal, Free State, Western Cape, Potchefstroom, Port Elizabeth, Rhodes University and Rand Afrikaans University;

+ Durban Institute of Technology, Port Elizabeth Technikon, Pretoria

Technikon, Technikon Witwatersrand, Cape Technikon, Free State

Technikon and Vaal ‘Triangle Technikon

‘These 18 institutions prioritise science and technology in their research focus, they have varying degrees of capacity in the three high technology cutting edge fields specifically, and they have a research orientation that favours partnership with industry in varying ways It must be borne in mind that

‘Table 1.1 simply summarises presence or absence, and masks vast differences

in levels of activity and capacity

Rand Afrikaans Univesity

University of Port Elizabeth

University of Durban.Westille

University of South Africa

University of Fort Hare

University of the North

tong-landing Tang tandng long-standing

Long-standing

Longatandig Emerging Emerging Emerging Emerging Emerging

‘new materials

| development/ICT

Strong priority:

all three Strong priority:

all three Strong priority:

all three

‘Strong priority all three

‘Strong priority all three Emerging priority:

Emerging priority:

one or more Emerging priority:

Emerging priority:

Emerging priority:

Emerging priority fone or more

Prioritised research

Sương historical focus Strong

historical focus Sương

historical focus

Strong historical focus

Strong historical focus Emerging focus Strong historical focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Strong focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Emerging focus

Emerging focus

1?

Durban Institute of Technology

Port Elizabeth Technikon

Technikon South Africa

Vaal Triangle Technikon

TTechnikon Northern Gauteng

Border Technikon

Mangosuthu Technikon

Technikon North West

Eastern Cape Technikon

Prioritised science and technology Emerging Emerging

Emerging Emerging Emerging Emerging Emerging Emerging Emerging

Emerging Emergi

Prioritised biotechnology/

new materials development/ICT

Emerging priority:

lone or more Emerging priority:

fone or more Emerging priority:

Emerging priority:

lone or more Emerging priority:

lone or more Emerging priority:

Emerging priority:

Prioritised research

Emerging ˆ focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Emerging focus Emerging focus — Emerging focus Emerging

MAPPING PARTNERSHIPS

idiosyncratic, many-layered and evolving patterns of expectation,

incentive and behaviour We observed some common principles,

many inconsistencies and a few contradictions (2003: 2)

Such an eloquent warning echoes the experience of this study extremely closely What follows is an attempt to place analytical and conceptual order on

a rich, complex and, at times, contradictory body of data, derived from ‘clever people’ in 35 distinct higher education institutions

Outline of this book

The starting point for analysis was thus to examine the forms of partnership and the facilitating and constraining forces at the institutions that do have activity in the three high technology fields, the focus of Chapters Two, Three and Four Chapter Two describes all forms of partnership with industry in the three high technology fields found in the 18 institutions with high technology capacity It provides a detailed description of the patterns and trends evident

in the conception, initiation, coverage and products of partnerships, across the institution This chapter identifies a critical tension between the financial and intellectual imperatives driving both industry and higher education institutions On this basis, Chapter Three goes on to develop an analytical matrix that can be used to discern distinct forms of partnership, which are essentially shaped by differing attempts to address and resolve the tension between financial and intellectual imperatives In this chapter, the analytical matrix is used to describe the patterns of partnership evident within each of the three high technology knowledge fields and their related industrial sectors, aggregated across the system Chapter Four returns to the perspective of

higher education, to distinguish, in broad brush strokes, ideal types of

institutions with high technology capacity that have similar ‘mixes’ of forms

of partnership, distinct in terms of their levels of research capacity, and the degree to which their approach to partnership with industry is structured within the organisation Four ideal types of institutional response to industry partnership are identified Significantly, this chapter attempts to show how such patterns of partnership are facilitated and constrained by institutional policy, structures and mechanisms

Chapter Five moves to analysis of institutions that have little activity in the three high technology fields, to examine the distinctive focus of research

19

20

activity and the forms of partnership evident, and consider how these can contribute to economic and social development in South Africa, in alternate ways The emphasis of all 17 institutions is on building institutional research capacity, but three distinct groups are identified, whose response to industry partnerships is akin to those of the ideal types, and which can potentially develop along those lines However, there isa distinct emphasis on developing partnership capacity with communities, regional and local government towards sustainable rural development and poverty alleviation The potential for harnessing research for innovation and socio-economic development is raised for consideration

Finally, Chapter Six considers the state of play in relation to a national system

of innovation and in relation to the emergent potential mapped across the higher education system

Notes

1 The institutional configurations and names used in the book areas atthe time of the empirical investigation which took place in 2003,

In some cases, Heads of critical Departments were interviewed

3 Bawa and Mouton (2002) note a substantial increase in research outputs at

tcchnikons, but off a low base of 23.52 units in 1991, to 174 units in 1999, which represents 3.1 per cent of the national total There is stronger funding support for technikons through schemes such as the NRF's Technikon Research Development Programme,

CHAPTER TWO

Describing partnerships in institutions

with high technology capacity

This chapter begins the task of identifying, empirically and conceptually, the complex South African forms of higher education-industry ‘partnership’ Partnership was defined in its broadest sense as any form of linkage of mutual benefit or mutual interest between higher education and industry What are the ways in which researchers and educators describe their partnerships? Do they talk of partnerships, collaboration or networks? As Smith and Katz (2000) remind us in relation to the concept of research collaboration, the terms have multiple meanings, developed in complex environments, at various levels - individual, group, department, institution, sector and country

It is important to know what is included under the rubric of ‘partnership’ in the South African higher education sector This chapter aims to lay the basis

to develop an analytical matrix of distinct forms of partnership, which is

‘empirically grounded in the South African context

to identify forms of industry-academic linkages, most of these are empirically descriptive, arising out of specific contexts

‘The extensive American literature, for instance, needs to be read against the much longer history of higher education—industry partnerships, and the specific focus and form partnerships take in the US context In a nutshell, the

a

2

US has a much longer history than South Africa of attempts to harness science and technology in general, and higher education specifically, to facilitate

international competitiveness Thus, in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act was passed to

facilitate and incentivise higher education research in the service of industry, resulting in an increase in the number of patents, corporate sponsorship of research, and commercial partnerships Bozeman (2000) points to the long dominance of a conservative market discourse as he traces shifts in research and higher education policy paradigms, towards a recent ‘co-operative technology policy’ paradigm In this context, much of the research on

industry-higher education partnerships is underpinned by the assumption

that itis important to investigate partnerships empirically in order to improve practice; that is, much of the research conducted has an evaluation focus, in order to inform better practice and economic benefit Significantly, much of the research has a narrow focus on a specific issue or feature of partnerships, such as commercialisation and technology transfer, particularly on patents,

legal relationships and commercial rights of the partners, formal joint ventures and on mechanisms of technology transfer The concern is with

maximising the benefits of partnerships, and hence, much research is

concerned with immediate, short-term benefits Consequently, many studies

aim to develop indicators for measurable outputs An example is a study by

Hall etal (2000), who attempt to measure the economic impact of partnerships

at project level While statistically sound, their work does not provide a great

deal of insight to develop understanding or measurement of economic impact

Clearly, the two national systems are not comparable, given the longer history

of partnerships in the US, the market orientation of policy and practice, and the American focus on technology transfer to maximise the commercial use

of higher education research This context needs to be borne in mind when reading the literature, and appropriating frameworks developed in the American context needs to be done with caution

The literature from the UK, in turn, needs to be read against the context of an

industrialised state attempting to improve its position on the global ‘league

table Since the 1980s, there has been extensive policy developed and mechanisms instituted to reorganise higher education to meet the high skills needs of the country in order to advance innovation and competitiveness The policy framework and discourse is more akin to that adopted in South Africa, with an emphasis on research that contributes to

DESCRIBING PARTNERSHIPS

economic performance and to improving quality of life British higher education institutions are bound to develop their own distinctive strategy and research to have a greater focus on university-industry linkages What is significant is the development, in the UK, of the term ‘third-stream activities’

to cover the mission of the university — besides teaching and basic research —

to include partnerships between higher education and industry, but also,

partnerships with communities, civil society organisations and local/regional

development initiatives Again, the length of time that this policy process has been playing out is significant, The extent to which higher education has changed to meet the new challenges is evident in recent attempts to develop

‘measures of university-industry/partner interactions to develop an evidence- based system for the allocation of funding Such a system would be similar to the rating and funding logic of the Research Assessment Exercise

The work of the Science and Technology Policy Research programme at Sussex university has been influential, both in the volume of research and the substantive content of their work As Molas-Gallart (2002) points out, much

of the previous research in the field in the UK has been modelled on the

United States, and its focus is narrow, on entrepreneurial activities and

commercialisation UK policy attempts to facilitate diversity by encouraging universities to define their own missions that balance different activities

Based on a survey of institutions, Charles and Conway (2001) distinguished

between partnerships based on collaborative research, managing intellectual property, consulting activities, spin-off firms, training and personnel links, and regeneration Howells, Nedeva and Georghiou (1998) noted a growth in the scale, number and variety of linkages between higher education and industry in the UK They distinguished three main types of relationship: in the context of research (direct or mediated); in the process of teaching and

training (postgraduate students, short courses and continuing education);

and the commercialisation of research results (intellectual property/patents and licences, spin-off companies, science parks and incubator units) The central concern of such research is how best to conceptualise partnerships, in order to measure them as a basis for funding decisions In the South African case there is a prior research concern to understand the extent and forms of partnership that have emerged in recent years, rather than a focus on

‘measuring the impact, or understanding the ways in which specific features of partnerships work in order to improve practice

B

24

however, an emerging consensus in the literature that argues for more nuanced, complex analyses of partnerships, beyond immediate gains and

narrow linear commercial conceptions In the UK literature, for instance, a key

paper by Scott, Steyn, Geuna, Brusoni and Steinmeuller (2001) criticises what they call the dominant ‘intuitive approach’ to calculate benefits, which assumes

a linear relationship between the production of new scientific knowledge through research, and its take up by industry through innovation Like Bozeman (2000) — and indeed, they draw on his work directly - they too argue that innovation processes are not linear; they involve complex relationships and thus an understanding of the many channels of communication and the

‘many benefits to the economy and society at large required (which may not be easy to quantify) The focus of analysis is the functionality of the university to the national system of innovation, how capabilities are framed in the academic sector, and how they are exploited through a range of mechanisms in different

knowledge fields This provides a useful way to understand the structures,

‘mechanisms and policies in place to facilitate partnership

In the US context, Jacob and Hellstrõm (2000) have argued that with radical shifts in the way in which scientific knowledge is produced, two dominant and interdependent models for what they term ‘multi-directional co-operation’ have emerged ‘The first they name a ‘commission model, where typically, industry defines the research task and effectively outsources it to higher education, or in a variant, researchers may have identified an application for

their knowledge and seek funding from industry to develop it further Jacob

and Hellstrém argue that this model is the most well-established form of co- operation to date, with a long, if problematic, history The second they name

a ‘partnership model, where research projects and problems emerge out of

‘mutual scientific, social and financial interests, and may give tise to temporary research and development (R&D) systems or networks which extend beyond the life of a specific project Jacob and Hellstrém propose that the partnership

model is increasingly found in higher education as the shift to ‘Mode 2°

knowledge production deepens, and is gradually replacing both traditional forms of disciplinary modes of research as well as corporate in-house R&D

These authors primarily provide typological lenses with which to view partnership, based within a specific national context The emphasis of their research shifis to investigate the impact of partnerships in a more holistic manner, and provides a number of potentially useful’ analytical and

DESCRIBING PARTNERSHIPS

methodological distinctions This is in contrast with much of the literature that focuses on ‘improving’ or ‘measuring’ partnerships in an instrumental way In that case, it would be useful to develop a descriptive typology of South African forms of partnership as a basis to address the concerns of institutions, larger policy issues, as well as critical questions about innovation

in South Africa

‘The literature was therefore mined to identify key dimensions that could simply and usefully distinguish different forms of partnership across the higher education sector in South Africa.’ Chapter One described the four dimensions identified for this task: conceptions, initiation, coverage, and products of partnership (see Appendix One for detailed features of each of these dimensions) Essentially, they lead us to ask: how are ‘partnerships’ typically initiated, what do they typically focus on, what are their typical

‘outcomes and who do they benefit in their products and outcomes?

In this chapter we will use these questions to describe key patterns and trends

evident in the attitudes and experiences of research managers and research project leaders at the 18 institutions with high technology capacity Through

an iterative process, this descriptive analysis will inform systematically the

definition of ideal types’ of partnership with industry currently operating in the South African higher education context, in high technology fields An analytical matrix will be developed on this basis in Chapter Three

However, two caveats are required before proceeding, First, the nature and intensity of partnership activity clearly differs among the 18 institutions When working at the high technology end of the spectrum, a category of

‘emergent’ activity — in both universities and technikons — is significant as this

is where expansion and capacity building of the entire system has a strong potential effect in the future Second, during discussions within institutions, a wide range of partnerships was mentioned, with a range of partners ~ including other South African higher education institutions, international higher education institutions, science councils, national, provincial and local

government departments and community development organisations At

some institutions there are significant levels of traditional academic collaborations and of community-oriented partnerships For this group of 18 institutions with high technology capacity, however, the focus will be only on

partnerships where industry is a significant primary partner, although, as will

become evident, a project may include other kinds of partners

25

26

Conceptions of partnership at the 18 ins!

tutions

‘The first dimension considered was the conceptions of partnership that can

be discerned in the discourse of research managers and leaders In discussions about partnerships with industry, what terms and meanings do they draw on, ideally and in practice, and how do they judge and place value on partnership?

In the following section we will attempt to analyse the patterns evident in the

‘way ‘partnership’ is described and understood in the 18 institutions

Partnership: valued positively or negatively?

A key basic ‘indicator’ of divergent conceptions of partnership, at the most simple level, was whether partnerships with industry were viewed in a positive

or a negative light The empirical trends observed in the study echoed Rip’s

(2000) argument that there are two basic responses to the contextual changes

in higher education: some policy-makers and entreprising academics embrace the changes and attempt to exploit opportunities, while others resist or reluctantly accommodate them It will become evident in this section that there is a range of positions in-between, articulated by managers and researchers in the institutions with high technology capacity

Here it is important to bear in mind the complexity inherent at different levels

of a higher education institution, At the level of formally articulated institutional policy, some institutions explicitly aimed to promote partnership with industry as part of a strategic vision or research policy, while others were silent on the issue At the level of institutional research management, formal strategic vision was more likely to be directly disseminated At the level of faculty Deans and departmental heads, different concerns often came into play, and once one engaged at project level with academic research leaders, a widely diverging picture often emerged For instance, as will become evident, the central institutional thrust may have been strongly in support of partnerships as a key form of ‘third stream’ income, while individual researchers and scientists were more strongly concerned with preserving their traditional academic integrity

‘The distinction between universities and technikons outlined in Chapter One also needs to be borne in mind In this regard, the very recent development of research capacity at technikons, and the consequent greater degree of variance

Moreover, there were distinct trends to value partnerships differentially in specific knowledge fields and disciplines, some of which were seen as more likely to stimulate significant partnership activity because of the very nature

of the discipline or programme content For instance, while there has been a long tradition of strategic linkages between industry and academics in engineering faculties, there has been a recent significant increase in the number of partnerships initiated by researchers based in science faculties, often facilitated by the identification of strategic research thrusts aligned with national priorities and preferential funding In general, researchers in the three high technology fields of focus were concentrated in Faculties of Engineering and of Science, with smaller concentrations in Faculties of Health Sciences and of Agricultural Sciences (particularly in the field of biotechnology), typically housed in the fllowing departments:

Biotechnology ~ Molecular and Cell Biology, Biochemistry, Microbiology, Botany, Chemical Engincering, Animal and Wildlife Sciences, Applied

Environmental Sciences;

+ New materials development — Physics, Chemistry, Materials Engineering,

Chemical Engineering;

+ ICT —Computer Science, Informatics, Electrical and Electronic

Engineering, Mechanical Engineering

It is thus difficult to provide a neat, consensual conception of partnership evident at each institution, What is possible is to illustrate the general tensions

at work and the different kinds of broad positions that may operate within institutions at different levels and in different high technology fields, and whether the thrust is generally positive, negative or ambivalent

The strongly negative view of partnership

‘Two broad thrusts may be discerned among those who view partnerships in a negative light The strongest negative view, typically evident in universities, is that partnerships are ‘inimical to traditional academic work This classical

27

to create new knowledge The university should rather be focusing

on publications and generating new knowledge Once you've generated the knowledge, it’s your responsibility to put it out there, but there your responsibility ends

Many researchers at project level were resentful and fearful of the potential impact of a push towards partnerships on their scientific credibility and integrity There were strong concerns about the implications of dependence, and the loss of control and integrity arising out of industry partnerships,

whereby the researcher could become a ‘scientific prostitute? Examples given

were of restrictions on publication of findings and embargoes placed on innovative products or by-products of research,

A tension between fundamental and applied or strategic research was evident, underpinning this negative attitude towards partnerships, and summed up pithily by another university-based senior researcher: ‘it is no good being able to solve today’s problems if you are then unable to solve tomorrow's problems”*

In the estimation of these researchers, the core function of the university should be research and teaching, and research commissioned by industry was

‘not real science: Many university-based researchers with this attitude were not prepared to pursue partnerships with industry As one Dean stressed, ‘I have no partnership with industry, I have never had one and do not intend to develop one’*

Ona more ambivalent and slightly less negative note, a number of Deans and project-level researchers perceived partnerships to be a ‘necessary evil’ These research managers and researchers felt compelled to enter into partnerships with industry in order to generate income, but were strongly aware of the potential dangers, and were concerned to contain or limit them The strongest concern was that academic freedom would be constrained by ‘the narrow needs of industry.* Academics were concerned to protect the freedom to select, research areas of focus without prescription from the institution itself or any external partners; potential dangers include a negative impact on teaching, an embargo on the research findings of a student, or a decline in research output

DESCRIBING PARTNERSHIPS

As one researcher put it, ‘collaboration with industry is good, as long as we don't become their donkeys.’ This position was often linked to the notion that what such projects are doing is ‘not real science; but that it was necessary to allow researchers to do other work that was considered to be ‘real science’ As one researcher described the tension:

Whilst the money is very good and I would not survive without it,

Tam not really learning anything from this I suppose there is

some technology transfer here, but I would not call it real research*

The strongly positive view of partnership

In total contrast, a strongly positive attitude to partnerships was also evident

during the research At a number of technikons, partnerships were valued as a critical means to ‘stimulate technologically induced innovation’ Partnerships

were adopted as a strategy based on global best practice, often modelled on

international universities or institutes of technology, but attuned to the South African environment, which attempted to build on the technikons' history of co-operative learning in partnership with industry Technikons’ research missions emphasise applied and developmental ‘solution-oriented’ research,

explicitly relevant to the needs and interests of industry and the ‘community’

‘The notions of technological innovation and technological entrepreneurship

explicitly permeate and are embedded in this conception of partnership, and

perhaps account partially for the fact that fundamental and applied research are not strongly counter-posed, but are seen to be in close association

Moreover, technikons have historically experienced more centralised

regulation and control, and do not have as strongly rooted a notion of

‘academic freedom’ as do universities Hence, the imperative of protecting academic freedom in relationships with industry is perhaps not as strong The

concerns expressed rather tended to relate to developing an appreciation on

the part of industry of the capacity of technikons, and changing the culture of the technikons to support research production, innovation and technology

transmission, in ordet to maximise partnerships

Some universities adopted the view of the possibility of a strategic balance between applied and fundamental research, in which the advantages of third

stream funding could be balanced with maintaining academic excellence The

strongest articulation of this strategic position was that:

29