Advertisement

Higher Education Policy

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 197–214 | Cite as

Reconciling Tensions between Excellence, Access and Equity in Multilateral R&D Partnerships: A Canadian Collaborators’ Perspective

  • Anatoly Oleksiyenko
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Universities traverse epistemic, sectoral and geopolitical boundaries with increasing frequency, but along the way encounter challenges in mitigating unequal capacities, soaring costs and proprietary concerns. The bridging of disparate stakeholder interests requires an enormous effort, as research policies, institutional norms and organizational cultures in global science often remain irreconcilable. In seeking to identify strategic leverages for optimal balance in cross-border partnerships, this paper considers the case study of the Structural Genomics Consortium, which represents a synergy of resources, interests and commitments by research universities, governments and industries in Canada, Sweden and the UK. By triangulating data derived from content analysis of institutional materials, interviews and participant observations in Toronto, the study zeros in on the Canadian equilibration of symbolic, cultural and organizational forces aimed at securing long-term stakeholder support across institutional, sectoral and geopolitical domains.

Keywords

research universities competition multilateral partnerships excellence access equity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the editor of this journal and two anonymous reviewers for providing constructive advice on refining some analytical perspectives. All shortcomings, however, should be attributed to this author only.

References

  1. Adams, J. and Gurney, K. (2010) ‘Funding selectivity, concentration and excellence — How good is the UK’s research?’, Oxford, UK: HEPI, http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/46%20Funding%20selectivity,%20concentration%20and%20excellence%20full.pdf, accessed 16 May 2013.
  2. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A. and Sapir, A. (2010) ‘The governance and performance of universities: Evidence from Europe and the US’, Economic Policy 25 (61): 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altbach, P.G. (2007) ‘Empires of Knowledge and Development’, in P. Altbach and J. Balán (eds.) World Class Worldwide, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  4. Altbach, P.G. and Balán, J. (2007) World Class Worldwide, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, J. (2000) The Collaboration Challenge: How Nonprofits and Businesses Succeed through Strategic Alliances, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Averch, H. (1993) ‘Criteria and rules for evaluating competing R&D megaprojects’, Science and Public Policy 20 (2): 105–113.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, M., Harland, L., Foord, S., Hall, M., Dix, I., Thomas, S., Williams-Jones, B. and Brouwer, C. (2009) ‘Lowering industry firewalls: Pre-competitive informatics initiatives in drug discovery’, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 8 (9): 701–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beerkens, E. (2009) ‘Centers of excellence and relevance: The contextualization of global models’, Science, Technology, Society 14 (1): 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhan, A., Singh, J.A., Upshur, R.E.G., Singer, P.A. and Daar, A.S. (2007) ‘Grand challenges in global health: Engaging civil society organizations in biomedical research in developing countries’, PLoS Medicine 4 (9): e272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boardman, C., Gray, D. and Rivers, D. (eds.) (2013) Cooperative Research Centers and Technical Innovation, Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, J. (ed.) (2006) Fixing the Fragmented University: Decentralization with Direction, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Buse, K. and Walt, G. (2000) ‘Global public-private partnerships: Part I — A new development in health?’ Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78 (4): 549–561.Google Scholar
  13. Buse, K. and Waxman, A. (2001) ‘Public-private health partnerships: A strategy for WHO’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 79 (8): 748–754.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, E.G. and Blumenthal, D. (2000) ‘Academic-industry relationships in biotechnology: A primer on policy and practice’, Cloning 2 (3): 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, B.R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, Oxford: Pergamon Press for the International Association of Universities.Google Scholar
  16. Crane, D. (1965) ‘Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition’, American Sociological Review 30 (5): 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crane, D. (1972) Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Crone, R. (2008) ‘Flat medicine? Exploring trends in the globalization of health care’, Academic Medicine 83 (2): 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crowley, W., Sherwood, L., Salber, P., Scheinberg, D., Slavkin, H., Tilson, H., Reece, E.A., Catanese, V., Johnson, S.B., Dobs, A., Genel, M., Korn, A., Reame, N., Bonow, R., Grebb, J. and Rimoin, D. (2004) ‘Clinical research in the United States at a crossroads: Proposal for a novel public-private partnership to establish a national clinical research enterprise’, Journal of the American Medical Association 291 (9): 1120–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dalziel, T., Gentry, R.J. and Bowerman, M. (2011) ‘An integrated agency — Resource dependence view of the influence of directors’ human and relational capital on firms’ R&D spending’, Journal of Management Studies 48 (6): 1217–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Man, A.P. and Duysters, G. (2005) ‘Collaboration and innovation: A review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation’, Technovation 25 (12): 1377–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dill, D.D. (1990) ‘University/industry research collaborations: An analysis of interorganizational relationships’, R&D Management 20 (2): 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The Triple Helix: University-Government-Industry Innovation in Action, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freeman, R., Weinstein, E., Marincola, E., Rosenbaum, J. and Solomon, F. (2001) ‘Competition and career in biosciences’, Science 294 (5550): 2293–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glew, R.H. (2008) ‘Promoting collaborations between biomedical scholars in the US and sub-Saharan Africa’, Experimental Biology and Medicine 233 (3): 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grayson, L.M. and Wesselingh, S. (2002) ‘Management of infectious diseases’, The Medical Journal of Australia 176 (5): 202–203.Google Scholar
  27. Heimeriks, K. and Duysters, G. (2007) ‘Alliance capability as a mediator between experience and alliance performance: An empirical investigation into the alliance capability development process’, Journal of Management Studies 44 (1): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heller, M.A. and Eisenberg, R.S. (1998) ‘Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research’, Science 280 (5364): 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollingsworth, J.R. and Hollingsworth, E.J. (2000) ‘Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations: Perspective on Interdisciplinarity, Nurturing Leadership, and Integrated Structures, and Culture’, in P. Weingart and N. Stehr (eds.) Practising Interdisciplinarity, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 215–244.Google Scholar
  30. Hollingsworth, J.R., Hollingsworth, E.J. and Hage, J. (eds.) (2002) The Search for Excellence: Organizations, Institutions, and Major Discoveries in Biomedical Science, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hubel, D. (2009) ‘The way biomedical research is organized has dramatically changed over the past half-century: Are the changes for the better?’ Neuron 64 (2): 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hughes, R. (2008) International Collaboration and the Effects of Rankings, Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  33. Hui, C.T. (2010) ‘Public-private partnerships as an effective procurement system for mega projects in Singapore’, Ph.D. dissertation, Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar
  34. Johnston, R. (1994) ‘Effects of resource concentration on resource performance’, Higher Education 28 (1): 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones, B., Wuchty, S. and Uzzi, B. (2008) ‘Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography and stratification in science’, Science 322 (5905): 1259–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, G.A. and Oleksiyenko, A. (2011) ‘The internationalization of Canadian university research: A global higher education matrix analysis of multi-level governance’, Higher Education 61 (1): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C. (2008) ‘Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda’, Higher Education 56 (3): 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirch, D.G. (2008) ‘A principled partnership between academic medicine and industry’, Medscape Journal of Medicine 10 (8): 198.Google Scholar
  39. Krimsky, S. (2003) Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  40. Kronick, R., Goodman, D., Wennberg, J. and Wagner, E. (1993) ‘The marketplace in health care reform — The demographic limitations of managed competition’, New England Journal of Medicine 328 (2): 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lambert, R. and Butler, N. (2006) The Future of European Universities: Renaissance or Decay? London: Center for European Reform.Google Scholar
  42. Lang, D.W. (2001) ‘A Primer on Responsibility Centre Budgeting and Responsibility Centre Management’, in J.L. Yeager, G.M. Nelson, E.A. Potter, J.C. Weidman and T.G. Zullo (eds.) ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education, 2nd edn., Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing, pp. 568–590.Google Scholar
  43. Lansang, M. and Crawley, F. (2000) ‘The ethics of international biomedical research (editorial)’, British Medical Journal 321 (7264): 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu, C. (2004) ‘Bioengineering research partnerships: A new program to encourage multidisciplinary biomedical research from the NINDS and NIH’, Neurosurgery 55 (3): N7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marginson, S. and Rhoades, G. (2002) ‘Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic’, Higher Education 43 (3): 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marginson, S. (2006) ‘Dynamics of national and global competition’, Higher Education 52 (1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marginson, S. (2007) ‘The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision’, Higher Education 53 (3): 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martin, J.B. (2002) ‘Academic-industrial collaboration: The good, the bad, and the ugly’, Transactions of the America Clinical and Climatological Association 113, 227–240, discussion 239–240.Google Scholar
  49. Martin, R. (2002) The Responsibility Virus: How Control Freaks, Shrinking Violets — And the Rest of Us — Can Harness the Power of True Partnership, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. McMichael, A.J. and Beaglehole, R. (2000) ‘The changing global context of public health’, The Lancet 356 (9228): 495–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Merton, R. (1988) ‘The Matthew effect in science II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property’, Isis 79 (4): 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn., Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE.Google Scholar
  53. Newell, S., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., Bresnen, M. and Obembe, A. (2008) ‘Interdependencies in complex project ecologies: The case of biomedical innovation’, Long Range Planning 41 (1): 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nwaka, S. (2005) ‘Drug discovery and beyond: The role of public-private partnerships in improving access to new malaria medicines’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 99 (Supplement 1): S20–S29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oleksiyenko, A. (2008) ‘Global portfolios and strategic international partnerships of a major research university’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  56. Oleksiyenko, A. (2010) University-Industry Biomedical Partnerships: A Multilevel Stakeholder Management Approach. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning (ASAIHL) entitled ‘Higher Education: Engaging the Knowledge Economy; 16–18 April, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  57. Oleksiyenko, A. (2013) ‘Organizational legitimacy of international research collaborations: Crossing boundaries in the Middle East’, Minerva 51 (1): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ostrom, E. and Hess, C. (eds.) (2007) ‘A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons’, in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  59. Park, G. and Kang, J. (2013) ‘Alliance addiction: Do alliances create real benefits?’ Creativity and Innovation Management 22 (1): 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Perorazio, T.E. (2009) ‘Curiosity and commercialization: Faculty perspectives on sponsored research, academic sciences and research agendas’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  61. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  62. Powers, J.B. (2004) ‘R&D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial?’ Research in Higher Education 45 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reich, M. (ed.) (2002) Public-Private Partnerships for Public Health, Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sá, C. and Oleksiyenko, A. (2011) ‘Between the local and the global: Organized research units and international collaborations in the health sciences’, Higher Education 62 (3): 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sakakibara, M. (1997) ‘Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and cooperative research and development: An empirical examination of motives’, Strategic Management Journal 18 (S1): 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salicrup, L.A. and Rohrbaugh, M.L. (2005) ‘Partnerships in technology transfer. An innovative program to enhance biomedical research and global health’, International Microbiology 8 (1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  67. Schleyer, T.K., Teasley, S.D. and Bhatnagar, R. (2005) ‘Comparative case study of two biomedical research collaboratories’, Journal of Medical Internet Research 7 (5): e53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Segall, M. (2000) ‘From cooperation to competition in national health systems — And back?: Impact on professional ethics and quality of care’, International Journal of Health Planning and Management 15 (1): 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. SGC — Structural Genomics Consortium (2013) ‘About SGC Toronto’, http://thesgc.org/scientists/groups/toronto, accessed 16 October 2013.
  70. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Streiffer, R. (2006) ‘Academic freedom and academic-industry relationships in biotechnology’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (2): 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. The Royal Society (2011) Knowledge, Networks, and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century, London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  73. UToronto Magazine (2003) ‘Speeding toward discovery’, UToronto Magazine 1 (2): 3.Google Scholar
  74. van den Besselaar, P., Hemlin, S. and van der Weijden, I. (2012) ‘Collaboration and competition in research’, Higher Education Policy 25 (3): 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Voorhis, W., Hol, W., Myler, P. and Stewart, L. (2009) ‘The role of medical structural genomics in discovering new drugs for infectious diseases’, PLoS Computational Biology 5 (10): e1000530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weatherall, D. (2003) ‘Problems for biomedical research at the academia-industrial interface’, Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (1): 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weigelt, J. (2009) ‘The case for open-access chemical biology: A strategy for pre-competitive medicinal chemistry to promote drug discovery’, EMBO Reports 10 (9): 941–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wellcome Trust (2003) ‘Structural Genomics Consortium launches’, http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD003984.html, accessed 25 January 2006.
  79. Wright, M.T., Gardner, B., Roche, B., von Unger, H. and Ainlay, C. (2010) ‘Building an international collaboration on participatory health research’, Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 4 (1): 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yin, R. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anatoly Oleksiyenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of PolicyAdministration and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options