1 / 27

From academic values to stakeholder value?

From academic values to stakeholder value?. Kari Raivio Chancellor emeritus University of Helsinki OECD/IMHE Conference ”Does size matter?” Reykjavik 5.-6.6.2008. ACADEMIC VALUES - HISTORY. Wilhelm von Humboldt 1810: Unity of research and teaching Freedom of teaching and research

prem
Download Presentation

From academic values to stakeholder value?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From academic values to stakeholder value? Kari Raivio Chancellor emeritus University of Helsinki OECD/IMHE Conference ”Does size matter?” Reykjavik 5.-6.6.2008

  2. ACADEMIC VALUES - HISTORY • Wilhelm von Humboldt 1810: • Unity of research and teaching • Freedom of teaching and research • Academic self-governance • ”Ivory tower” • John Henry Newman 1852: • ”A University is a place where inquiry is pushed forward,..discoveries verified and perfected, and..error exposed, by the collision of mind with mind, and knowledge with knowledge. Thus is created a pure and free atmosphere of thought, which the student also breathes”

  3. STAKEHOLDER VALUES • WHAT (WHO) IS A STAKEHOLDER? • DICTIONARY: STAKE: ”prize in a contest” or ”an interest or share in an undertaking or enterprise” (Webster) • POTENTIAL UNIVERSITY STAKEHOLDERS: • STUDENTS (CURRENT AND ALUMNI) • SOCIETY (GOVERNMENT, TAXPAYER) • PERSONNEL • FUNDING AGENCIES, SPONSORS • PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS • REGIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

  4. WHY ATTENTION ON UNIVERSITIES? • KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY • PRESSURE TO ”INNOVATE” • DEMAND FOR SKILLED WORKFORCE • GLOBAL COMPETITION • RESEARCH EXCELLENCE • BRIGHTEST STUDENTS • RANKING LISTS UNIVERSITIES – INSTRUMENTS OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY!

  5. EU - RESUSCITATION OF LISBON(Wim Kok, 2004) • REALIZATION OF ”KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY” • RECRUIT TOP RESEARCH TALENT • MINIMIZE BUREAUCRACY • IMPROVE UNIVERSITIES • INDUSTRY-ACADEMIA (”IDEOPOLIS”) • R&D FIRST PRIORITY • PUBLIC/PRIVATE INVESTMENT • TAX RELIEF • ERC • PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

  6. SIX AREAS OF EMPHASIS HEADS OF STATE (HAMPTON COURT 27.10.2005) • RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT • UNIVERSITIES • DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGE • ENERGY • MIGRATION • SECURITY

  7. UNIVERSITIES AS ENGINES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • EDUCATIONAL MISSION • BASIC TRAINING OF WORKFORCE • CONTINUING EDUCATION (LLL) • RESEARCH AND INNOVATION • EXPLOITATION OF OWN RESEARCH • CONTRACT RESEARCH • KNOWHOW/CONSULTING • MAJOR GENERATORS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY • AS EMPLOYER • AS PROCURER • AS BUILDER

  8. STATUS OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH MAJOR SITES OF RESEARCH VARY • UNIVERSITIES (UK, SCANDINAVIA, SWITZERLAND) • RESEARCH INSTITUTES (FRANCE, GERMANY, ”EASTERN BLOC”) • SUBSIDIARITY PREVAILS • NATIONAL POLICIES DECISIVE • EU R&D FUNDING 1/11 OF AGRICULTURE • IDENTICAL UNIVERSITY MISSIONS/ QUALITY VARIABLE

  9. NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

  10. USA 62.8 UK 12.8 GERMANY 10.4 JAPAN 6.9 FRANCE 6.9 CANADA 5.8 ITALY 4.3 SWITZERL. 4.1 NETHERL. 3.8 AUSTRALIA 2.8 SWEDEN 2.5 SPAIN 2.1 BELGIUM 1.7 DENMARK 1.5 ISRAEL 1.5 RUSSIA 1.3 FINLAND 1.1 AUSTRIA 1.0 SHARE OF 1% OF MOST HIGHLY CITED PUBLICATIONS 1997-2001

  11. HARVARD STANFORD UC BERKELEY CAMBRIDGE MIT CALTECH COLUMBIA PRINCETON U CHICAGO OXFORD (U. HELSINKI 73.) SHANGHAI HARVARD CAMBRIDGE= OXFORD= YALE IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRINCETON CALTECH= U CHICAGO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MIT (U. HELSINKI 100.) TIMES H.E.S. RANKING OF UNIVERSITIES (TOP 10 IN 2007)

  12. TOP EUROPEAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES (”CROWN INDICATOR”,CWTS, LEIDEN 2006) 1. OXFORD 1.67 2. CAMBRIDGE 1.63 3. ETH ZÜRICH 1.52 4. EDINBURGH 1.48 5. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 1.46 6. IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON 1.45 7. HELSINKI 1.38 8. UTRECHT 1.37 9. AMSTERDAM 1.35 10. ZÜRICH 1.33

  13. WHY ARE U.S. UNIVERSITIES SO DOMINANT? • GENETIC ADVANTAGE – NO • BETTER RESEARCHER TRAINING – NO • BETTER FUNDING – YES • RECRUITMENT OF POSTDOCS – YES • RECRUITMENT OF TOP SCIENTISTS – YES • ”PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE” - YES • COMPETITION • CAREER DEVELOPMENT • REWARDS

  14. ANNUAL EXPENDITURE PER STUDENTon educational institutions, in equivalent US dollars converted using PPPs

  15. USA 284.6 JAPAN 114.0 GERMANY 57.0 FRANCE 37.5 UK 33.6 KOREA 24.4 CANADA 19.3 ITALY 17.7 SPAIN 11.0 SWEDEN 10.4 AUSTRALIA 9.1 HOLLAND 8.8 BELGIUM 7.6 AUSTRIA 6.4 SWITZERLAND 5.6 FINLAND 5.2 MONEY COUNTS – NOT % GDP R & D FUNDING 2003(OECD, bn $ PPP)

  16. Foreign-born scientists and engineers in U.S. S&E occupations, by degree level and field

  17. DILEMMAS OF EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES • ALL PRETEND TO DO EVERYTHING • BASIC BUDGETS LOW, DECREASING • R & D FUNDING LOW, SCATTERED • TUITION INCOME LOW OR ZERO • ENDOWMENTS INSIGNIFICANT • PRIVATE CAPITAL FLOW LOW • COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES LIMITED • ”CIVIL SERVANT ATTITUDE” • IS COMMERCIALISATION THE ANSWER?

  18. HOW CAN UNIVERSITIES MAKE MONEY? • COMPETITIVE RESEARCH FUNDING • DONATIONS (ALUMNI, FOUNDATIONS etc) • EDUCATION MARKET • KNOWHOW/CONSULTING • CONTRACT RESEARCH • EXPLOITATION OF OWN RESEARCH • PATENTING/LICENSING • START-UP COMPANIES • COOPERATION WITH EXISTING COMPANIES

  19. Borderless education:Where international students goPercentage of foreign tertiary students reported to the OECD who are enrolled in each country of destination According to the Shanghai rating, 17 of the world’s top 20 universities are in the United States

  20. OUTCOME OF COMMERCIAL VENTURES OF UNIVERSITIES • CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP VANISHING, PRIVATE UP • MORE FUNDING FOR ACADEMIC RESEARCH • BUTlicensing/royalty/startup income only 3% of research budget of major USA universities • SEVERAL STARTUP COMPANIES ESTABLISHED • BUT life expectancy short, successes few, dependency on public support • MORE PATENTING/LICENSING ACTIVITY – YES • BUTmost universities lose money (even in USA)

  21. UNIVERSITY REFORM ? • ARE EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES AILING ? • YES – THE DIAGNOSIS IS RIGHT ! • IS COMMERCIALISATION THE ANSWER? • NO – THE MEDICINE IS WRONG ! • MORE ATTENTION TO STAKEHOLDERS? • YES – BUT ACADEMIC VALUES NEED NOT BE COMPROMISED !

  22. MODERNIZATION AGENDA FOR UNIVERSITIES(EU Commission 2006) • Diversity/specialization • Mobility • Autonomy with accountability • Cooperation with private sector • Relevant studies/degrees • Adequate funding (min. 2 % gdp) • Internal boundaries down • Reward system/elitism

  23. ONGOING UNIVERSITY REFORMS • CANADA: MILLENNIUM PROJECT • CHINA: TOP UNIVERSITIES • FRANCE: LEGAL & GOVERNANCE REFORM • GERMANY: ”EXZELLENZINITIATIV” • SWEDEN: LINNAEUS GRANTS CORRECT PRINCIPLE: COMPETITION BASED UPON QUALITY !

  24. IMPROVING INDUSTRY-ACADEMIA RELATIONSHIPS • Creating fora for dialogue (esp. SME´s) • Active information exchange • Participation in university governance • Curriculum development • Internships • Reform of doctoral training (generic) • Joint research for trainees • Mobility of personnel

  25. ELEMENTS IN REDEFINING THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSITY • What is ”useful knowledge” ? • Engagement with society (and other stakeholders) • Importance of humanities/social sciences • Age and diversity important, size not • Academic environment vs. supermarket • Understanding vs. rote learning • Innovation: industry vs. university • Time scale: industry vs. politics vs. university • Freedom & autonomy vs. accountability • ”Product”: graduate vs. publication

More Related