International Research Collaboration - GlobalHigherEd

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Some interviewees expressed minorreservations as to the ultimate feasibility ofmanaging research collaboration centrally,because of its critical dependence upon bringingtogether individuals with complementaryinterests and ambitions, where deepspecialisation and interpersonal chemistry canrather get in the way. These same intervieweesstated that while senior management mightreadily divine one or two of the more obviousstrategic partnerships, they are not in a positionto look more widely. To help to overcome thisparticular challenge, several of the respondentshad created internal seed funds, which inviteresearch groups to come forward with proposalsfor international projects or networks, which ifsuccessful will be granted £10–20,000 tofacilitate relationship-building and ideally a jointfunding application.We heard one of two arguments against the needfor increased central management andcoordination of international researchcollaboration, including one individual whoexpressed concern at the growing pressureevident in policy circles for universities to bedoing more, which he suggested was somethingakin to a problem looking for a solution. Severalof the more research-intensive universitiesargued that the bottom-up approach really wasthe best way to organise things.“I am not a great fan of institutional strategiesfor, or central management and coordinationof, international research collaborations.Universities need hungry individuals that wantto collaborate with overseas partners, coupledto administrations that support them in theirambitions and do what they can to supportthem. I don’t see much need for ‘strategy’ thatgoes beyond this” 23 .5.3 BenefitsInterviewees told us that there are severalbenefits to a university of being strategic, insome degree at least, about the management ofits international research collaboration:“Intangibles: it increases the reputation andbrand value of the university at home andinternationally; it underwrites thecosmopolitan feel of the university; and itmakes us (students and staff) more aware ofglobal issues and means we are likely to bebetter global citizens.Tangibles: the potential to secure increasedlevels of research and consulting incomeoverall as compared with a bottom-up model;it has the potential to strengthen one’stechnical capabilities through concentrationand specialisation on the one hand and thepooling of complementary (and otherwiseabsent) competences, methodologies anddata sets on the other; the potential toincrease the numbers and quality of nonnationals(fee paying) applying to study firstand higher degrees, including researchdegrees”.Interviewees suggested that this more strategicmode of behaviour falls naturally to theuniversity’s central functions or the faculties anddepartments because an individual researchercannot easily be ‘strategic’. It is equally unlikelythat such behaviour would emerge automaticallyas an aggregate effect of many researchers’individual decisions. They commented:“The institution is better equipped to createsignificant and wide-ranging collaborations,as compared with individual researchers.Moreover, individual researchers oftenstruggle to sustain long-distancerelationships, as their respective careersprogress and their research interests evolve.Individual relationships may wither forpersonal reasons, even when there is still agreat deal of potential value to be derived”.“The NSF Materials International Institute forComplex Adaptive Matter, a subsidiary of theInstitute for Complex Adaptive Matter (ICAM)at the University of California, is a multilateralinternational research partnership involvingthe Max Planck Institute and CambridgeUniversity, among others, a collaborated thatis reported to have helped the University ofCalifornia leapfrog from ‘ordinary’ to ‘worldclass’ in this materials field in little more thantwo years”.“The university has the authority, reputationand resources to establish friendships andmutual understandings among a muchbroader group of interested and influentialparties (eg in-country universities andministries, the local British Council, ForeignOffice, etc) as compared with individualresearchers or research groups. Similarly, theinstitution has the financial wherewithal toestablish a significant presence in-country, tobuild relationships and engage local staff, andgenerally embed the institution and its jointventure”.18
5.4 OrganisationWhile there is no single organisational model,the survey and interviews suggest that there issomething of a standard approach beginning toemerge, with a member of the seniormanagement team having overall responsibilityfor policy and strategy and a director and smallteam coordinating the execution of the strategy,but usually in concert with departmental teamsand senior researchers. Often there is aninternational committee comprising externalpeople to provide advice and challenges to theinternal team.Our survey established that for the greatmajority (76 per cent), international researchcollaboration is the specific responsibility of oneof the university’s senior officers, typically a provice-chancellor.However, only around a quarter(27 per cent) of higher education institutionshave personnel in central units who spend atleast half of their time supporting internationalresearch collaboration activities, and just lessthan a quarter (22 per cent) have peopleperforming such roles at the department-level.The interviews refined this view somewhat, andsuggest that, in most cases, the pro-vicechancelloris supported by a small team ofinternational research collaboration staffers. Itseems that most have a senior member of theuniversity staff, at director level, withresponsibility for the delivery of internationalresearch collaboration, whether that is thedevelopment of strategic research partnerships,or the provision of support on demand toindividual research collaborators. However, inmost cases, he or she also has responsibility forseveral other important outward-facingfunctions, such as international studentrecruitment or external relationships moregenerally. Central support teams are similarlyquite likely to have a broader corporate remit, soa team of 5-10 people might very well amount torather less than one full-time equivalentmember of staff dedicated to internationalresearch collaboration.“In terms of our strategic approach theUniversity of Bath’s attitude is that we shouldblend a top down and bottom-up approach. Weshould encourage collaborations to developbottom-up and do what we can to supportthese, but this should be supplemented by amore concerted ‘top-down’ effort in areas thathave been identified as ripe for furtherdevelopment. The research support units inthe university help researchers to find suitablepartners if necessary, and provide the usualrange of other ‘Research Office’ activities,such as assistance with funding opportunities,grant applications, etc” 24 .“At the University of Bristol, the pro-vicechancellorfor research (Malcolm Anderson)has overall responsibility. He is heading up theoperational unit that provides internalsupport. The university is also a member ofthe Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) –Vice-Chancellor Eric Thomas is the chair –and this is a key mechanism through which itdevelops and thinks about internationalresearch collaboration at a more strategiclevel. They have an international developmentmanager who leads for them in this area froman operational participation perspective” 25 .“Bi-lateral relationships are quite commonbut multiple partner arrangements are rare.With an increased desire to develop strategicinternational links to address global issuesthere is an opportunity to increase thelikelihood of success by using establishedinternational university networks. Some ofthese networks have already establishedtrusting relationships between their memberinstitutes and the discipline based researchclusters within them. Some can alreadydemonstrate a track record of researchoutcomes. For example, the World UniversityNetwork (www.wun.ac.uk) with its emergingprogramme of research to address globalchallenges is a clear opportunity for UKresearch councils to connect with, especiallywhere the challenge programmes alignstrongly with the thematic signposts in therecent Treasury delivery plans. For example,in the case of EPSRC (they relate) to healthand medical technology, energy,nanotechnology etc. Use of such networks willspeed the rate of progress and seems anobvious first point of call for research councilsseeking to explore effective multi-partnercollaborations” 26 .Universities UKInternational research collaboration 19
Page 1: Research reportInternational resear
Page 8: 3Trends and benefits of internation
Page 13 and 14: 3.3 Motives and benefitsThe desk re
Page 17 and 18: Exhibit 4 presents the results of t
Page 19: “Forging scientific links with ot
Page 24 and 25: p Several interviewees stated that
Page 26 and 27: 6ConclusionIn conclusion, there is
Page 28 and 29: Appendix B:International research o
Page 30 and 31: International Research Office, Oslo
Page 32 and 33: The Office of International Researc
Page 35 and 36: NotesSectionA head1 Jonathan Adams

International Research Collaboration - GlobalHigherEd

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?