Research Culture in a University
M. Brock
Fenton
Department of Biology, York University
The Nature of
Research:
Individual and Institutional Perspectives
It is a commonly held view
that university faculty members (teachers-scholars) are expected
to be active in research, teaching, and service, a reality reflected
by many agreements and contracts between institutions and faculty
associations. Among these endeavours, arguably research is the most
private and personal, the most difficult to evaluate, and the most
challenging to promote and maintain. Indeed, in a university with
a range of programs, the detailed definition of research or scholarly
activity varies considerably across the spectrum from business and
law, to fine arts, the humanities and social sciences, sciences,
engineering and medical sciences.
The personal nature of research
means that university faculty members have a long tradition of exploring
their own interests and pursuing their own agendas when it comes
to research. While the last 20 years has seen a move towards more
collaboration between researchers, notably in the sciences, engineering
and medicine, in the final analysis an individual's involvement in
research reflects their situation. We have reached a time
when colleagues should make active research teams within their own
institution part of their research programs. This could maximize
their research activity and, ironically, their independence as scholars.
But a university's stature
and standing in academia reflects its research and scholarly activity. All
too often, inputs such as financial support for research are used
as indicators of research activity. Larger amounts of funding
may be equated with excellence, a situation that immediately gives
higher profile to big price ticket research operations. The "publish
or perish" tradition means that outputs in the form of publications
are deemed to be more difficult to assess in the face of the kaleidoscope
of what is considered to be research and scholarly activity. Each
year, Maclean's magazine reminds Canadians about the importance of
research inputs when making decisions about which are the "best" universities
in Canada.
In theory, a university's
and an individual faculty member's interests should converge on research
because both input and output provide good glory for basking. The
university should promote the research culture by ensuring that faculty
members have the resources necessary to attract appropriate financial
support for research. Faculty members should use their creative ideas
and energy to generate and maintain active research programs. Wherever
possible, institutions and colleagues should take discoveries with
commercial potential to the market. The university and the
collegium should work together to ensure that faculty workloads allow
time for research – that faculty are not inundated with too
heavy teaching loads or too busy administrative and service commitments. The
latter means minimizing administrative committee work and using curricula
whose design and diversity reflects faculty resources.
Fostering a research culture
often means recognizing the continuum from basic to applied research
and acknowledging that while some individuals pursue their own research
agenda in a solitary fashion, others depend more on team efforts.
Recognizing this diversity means giving full credit for contributions
of an applied nature, and acknowledging the role played by members
of research teams. In allocating internal resources for the support
of, and publicity about research, universities must pay equal attention
to low- and high-profile researchers and research.
In reality, the convergence
of institutional and individual interest in research can be eroded
by two factors. First, cutbacks to the support of universities have
curtailed the university's capacity to support research. Second,
these cutbacks have produced larger classes along with fewer faculty
and support staff, increasing the workloads of all concerned.
Outside Forces —
The University and Research
At first glance, programs
such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), designed to
provide infrastructure to support university-based research, should
promise to change the situation. But the mandate of CFI, decreed
by an Act of Parliament, severely limits the range of research
that can be supported, effectively contributing to the restructuring
of universities.
Furthermore, CFI provides
only up to 40% of the funds needed for any project. This leaves
the university to find most of the necessary funds, further reducing
the level of support it can offer in areas outside the CFI mandate.
Provincial programs may further exacerbate the situation both with
respect to internal funds and the areas to be supported.
Government programs designed
to support university-based research may require partnerships with
the private sector, meaning that today Canadian universities all
scramble for the same partnership dollars. Recent announcements
from the University of Toronto (June 2000) emphasize the importance
that society attaches to big-dollar projects.
Intellectual
Property
In Canada, there are three
models of ownership of the intellectual property (IP) arising from
research done at universities:
- IP is the property of the faculty member;
- IP is the property of the institution;
- IP is shared between faculty member and institution.
The Fortier Commission examined
privatization of discoveries arising from university research and,
in 1999, recommended that the IP must be owned by the institution.
This recommendation was presented in the absence of compelling
evidence that any of the three models noted above was more successful
at generating commercialization of university-based discoveries.
The Report also recommended
that unless the IP rested with the institution, its faculty members
should not be eligible for grants from the Medical Research Council,
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) or
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Rather
than promoting a research culture, such a move would turn the federal
granting agencies and university offices of research administration
into policing operations, ensuring that applicants had signed potential
IP over to their institutions.
Tenure
There are many sound academic
arguments for preserving tenure. At the same time, however, public
perception of "tenure" tarnishes the reputation of
universities and faculty members alike because it is seen as a
system that protects the incompetent. At some American universities,
tenure review is said to have proved an effective alternative,
protecting the rights and freedom of faculty members, while exerting
some quality control.
Research versus
Teaching
The practice of awarding
teaching (course) releases to faculty members with active research
programs can be said to promote the notion that teaching and research
are mutually exclusive activities. There is a strong dichotomy
of practices with respect to teaching release between SSHRC and
NSERC "cultures". NSERC does not provide course releases
and grantees may not use NSERC funds to buy out teaching. Some
SSHRC grants bring with them teaching release (matched by a contribution
from the university). In the face of a balanced workload that allows
faculty time for research, service and teaching, course releases
should not be necessary.
Conferences
and Publishing
Conferences and publications
are main venues for reporting research findings, exchanging ideas,
and developing new plans for research. Every year university colleagues
spend large amounts of time and money participating in conferences.
Agreements between faculty members and their institutions often
provide financial support for colleagues to attend conferences
to present their findings. Conferences are a vital part of a research
culture. But conferences also can generate revenue for the host
institution or organization. Local support for hosting conferences
should not be a drain on already-scarce funds earmarked to support
research. In the same way, publication is a sine qua non of
research. Some publishing operations are extremely profitable.
Should dollars earmarked for research in universities be used to
subsidize publication? I think not.
Four Threats
At any university at least
four situations can undermine the research culture:
- The reluctance of university administrators to deal firmly
with "difficult" colleagues. Whether students or
colleagues are the targets of inappropriate behaviour, universities
must intervene. The extreme cost of not doing so is starkly illustrated
by the Fabrikant incident at Concordia University and it is a
caution to us all.
- Having a "one size fits all" policy about research
(for example, using dollar values of grants and contracts as
measures of excellence) is a mistake. Whether the issue is measuring
research and scholarly activity, providing essential infrastructure,
or start-up funds for new colleagues, university administrators
must show leadership in their support for research and scholarly
activity.
- Allowing disparities in workload and expectations to become
entrenched practice can preclude some faculty members from having
active research programs. In turn, this means accepting the premise
that some faculty members will be active researchers, while others
will not, a move that tiers faculty within institutions and leads
directly to the tiering of the institutions themselves.
- Allowing external forces, such as CFI, to restructure universities
by channeling resources into some areas of endeavour at the expense
of others. Increasing public understanding about the role of
universities in society and the role of research in universities
are two vital elements in the political battles around establishing
agencies such as CFI.
The best antidote for these
four situations is strong action by chairs and deans in protecting
colleagues from themselves, and leadership in the areas of curriculum
and governance by faculty and administrators alike.
The Future...
The recruitment of new faculty
members presents us the opportunity to reinvigorate research cultures
in Canadian universities reeling from a decade of cuts to funding.
By ensuring adequate funds for start-up, reasonable teaching loads
and administrative burdens, universities can set the stage for
a new generation of teacher-scholars. As more and more faculty
members retire, we will see increased competition for the best
new scholars. Welcoming them into functional, co-operative and
supportive teams may be one vital element in succeeding in the
competition to ensure our future.
...Is Us
Achieving this goal is essential
to the future of Canadian universities as we know them, but it
will happen only if we ensure that it does. As Pogo would say, "We
have met the enemy and he is us." |
