Conceptualizing the Regional Roles of Universities, Implications and Contradictions

Abstract

The impact of universities on the economic wellbeing and innovative potential of regions has been the object of intense scholarly and policy interest in the last years. Despite this interest, a clear picture is missing in relation to the roles universities are seen to play, the benefits of university activities and the mechanisms through which they occur. This paper proposes a review and a critique of current views on the role of universities and their associated policy implications. To achieve this, the paper identifies five “models” for universities as they are reflected in the literature, each advocating different set of roles of universities, different spatial aspects of interactions, as well as different mechanisms for university engagement. National and regional innovation and research policies tend to explicitly or implicitly reflect one or a combination of several of these models, giving rise to potential contradictions or conflicts of policy rationales and objectives.

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the ESRC and the HE Funding Councils’ sponsored IRIN project. The author acknowledges the valuable comments received from Kieron Flanagan, Phil Shapira, Rebecca Boden and Jakob Edler.

Notes

5 or 5* rated according to the Research Assessment Exercise.

Some authors have questioned the assumption of a cause and effect relation between the technology transfer activity following the Bayh–Dole Act and the increase in patents. They argue that the positive trend in patenting activity preceded the act (although was possibly magnified by it), and may owe more to opportunities in the bio-medical field than to policy action.

Indeed, the 2008 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey carried out by the Higher Education Funding Council for England has reported that an annual increase of 22% in the resources invested in IP protection has been accompanied by just 1% IP generated income rise for universities.

Inconclusive evidence has been reported on the impact of the parks on tenant firms' innovative activity (Westhead, 1997) and the quality of links between the park's firms and universities (Massey et al., 1992).

These activities, however ill-defined, are concerned with “the generation, use, application and exploitation of knowledge and other university capabilities outside academic environments” (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002, p. iii). In the UK, a “third-stream” of funding has operated since 1999, with the objective of rewarding and encouraging universities to enhance their interaction with business, industry and the public services. This funding—now brought together under the umbrella of the HEIF and awarded on a formula-driven basis—is granted according to universities' performance in relation to not only commercialization activities but also wider regional economic engagement.

These trajectories included indigenous creation, i.e. the generation of new knowledge leading to the creation of an entirely new industry; the transplantation of an industry from elsewhere; the diversification into technologically related industries; or the upgrading of existing industries.

EU Structural Funds have provided significant resources to be channelled towards regeneration projects and supporting local SMEs in assisted regions. In 2000–2006, Structural Funds support for Research, Technology, Development and Innovation (RTDI) amounted €10.5 billion (8% of the ERDF total), 26% of which is dedicated to RTDI projects in universities and research institutes and 37% to innovation and technology transfer and setting up networks and partnerships between business and/or research centres. Structural funding evidently comes with “regional” strings attached, shaping engagement strategies in a number of regions, yet it is not clear how the phasing out of this funding will mean a continuation, deepening or a diversion from this focus.

In the UK, HEIF funding has been recently supplemented with other initiatives more geared towards wider engagement such as the Beacons for Public Engagement. They are university-based regional collaborative centres to support and build capacity for public engagement work. Centres comprise universities and other actors such as museums, libraries, archives and the BBC. See http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/sis/beacons.htm