Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Movers and shakers of Canadian innovation policy — recognizing the influence of university vice-presidents as policy advocates

  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the growing influence and impact of university Vice Presidents (VPs) Research on coordinating Canada’s innovation policy. As universities have become increasingly entrepreneurial, the institutional responsibilities go beyond policy implementation and have shifted towards shaping national level policy debates. By utilizing multi-level governance framework, the paper demonstrates how non-governmental stakeholders navigate the multi-level, multi-actor and multi-issue landscape of innovation policy. The findings provide evidence on the role of VPs Research in advocating and mediating complex inter-jurisdictional relationships between the private sector, and the federal and provincial governments. Policy coordination is viewed as an issue-driven functional process that assumes individual learning capacity and is influenced by the interdependence of stakeholder interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979–1999. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 2, 102–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson-Grosjean, J., House, D., & Fischer, D. (2001). Canadian science policy and the public research organisations in the 20th century. Science & Technology Studies, 7, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benneworth, P., & Charles, D. (2005). University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: Learning from two decades of policy practice. European Planning Studies, 73(4), 537–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, J. (2008). Policy issues, organisational format and the political strategies of interest organisations. West European Politics, 37(6), 1188–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2008). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics, 37(6), 1103–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, P. (2016). The role of prestige in UK universities. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2014). Innovation policy for knowledge production and R&D: The investment portfolio approach (No. 2014/21). Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2014_021.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A., & Heard-Lauréote, K. (2009). Networks in EU multi-level governance: Concepts and contributions. Journal of Public Policy, 29(2), 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada First Research Excellence Fund [Website]. (2017). Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.cfref-apogee.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx

  • Cleverley-Thompson, S. (2016). The role of academic deans as entrepreneurial leaders in higher education institutions. Innovative Higher Education, 41(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clowater, G. B. (2012). Canadian science policy and the retreat from transformative politics: The final years of the science council of Canada, 1985–1992. Scientia Canadensis: Canadian Journal of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, 35, 107–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cram, L. (2011). The importance of the temporal dimension: New modes of governance as a tool of government. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 636–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & van Vught, F. A. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doern, G. B. (2007). Red tape, red flags: Regulation for the innovation age. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.brenderwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2007-SIR-Book_RedTapeRedFlags_web.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Doern, G. B., Castle, D., & Phillips, P. W. (2016). Canadian science, technology, and innovation policy: The innovation economy and society nexus. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J., & Kuhlmann, S. (2008). Coordination within fragmentation: Governance in knowledge policy in the German federal system. Science & Public Policy, 35(4), 265–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallis, G. (2013). Rethinking higher education: Participation, research and differentiation. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumasoli, T. (2015). Multi-level governance in higher education research. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill, & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 76–94). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, A, & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13(3), 267–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. (2014). Seizing Canada’s moment: Moving forward in science, technology and innovation 2014. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_07472.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. (2016). Innovation fora better Canada. Canada’s innovation agenda. Retrieved from https://doi.org/www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/home

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Types of multi-level governance. European Integration Online Papers (EloP), 5(11). Retrieved from https://doi.org/eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2001-011.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins Report. (2011). Innovation Canada: A call to action. Review of federal support to research and development–expert panel report. Retrieved from https://doi.org/rd-review.ca/eic/site/033.nsf/vwapj/R-D_lnnovationCanada_Final-eng.pdf/$FILE/R-D_lnnovationCanada_Final-eng.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2004). Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance. Multi-level governance, 49–74. Retrieved from https://doi.org/bobjessop.org/2014/01/10/multilevel-governance-and-multilevel-metagovernance/

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2017). Varieties of academic capitalism and entrepreneurial universities. Higher Education, 73(6), 853–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolsaker, A. (2008). Academic professionalism in the managerialist era: A study of English universities. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 513–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, H., Dornbusch, F., & Schnabl, E. (2016). Universities’ regional involvement in Germany: How academics’ objectives and opportunity shape choices of activity. Regional Studies, 50(9), 1595–1610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlman, S., Shapira, P., & Smits, R. (2010). A systemic perspective: The innovation policy dance. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doc.utwente.nl/86353/

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, E. E. (2015). The role of universities in local and regional competitiveness. In D. B. Audretsch, N. Albert, A. N. Link, & M. L. Walshok (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness (pp. 211–236). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. A. (2009). Innovation as an interactive process: User-producer interaction to the national system of innovation: Research paper. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 1, 10–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC. The State of the European Community, 2, 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, A. S., Fisher, D., Rubenson, K., Snee, I., Gingras.Y., & Jones, G. A. (2011). Canada: Perspectives on governance and management. In W. Locke, W. K. Cummings, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Governance and management of higher education institutions: Perspectives of the academy (pp. 151–174). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, M., & Moodysson, J. (2015). Regional innovation policy and coordination: Illustrations from southern Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 147–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J. (2000). Canada’s national system of innovation. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, Y. (2010). Accountability and multi-level governance: More accountability, less democracy? West European Politics, 33(5), 1030–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piattoni, S. (2010). The theory of multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilbeam, C. (2012). Pursuing financial stability: A resource dependence perspective on interactions between provice chancellors in a network of universities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilbeam, C., & Jamieson, I. (2010). Beyond leadership and management: The boundary-spanning role of the pro-vice chancellor. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 758–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sá, C., & Tamtik, M. (2012). Strategic planning for academic research: A Canadian perspective. Higher Education Management and Policy, 24(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salazar, M., & Holbrook, A. (2007). Canadian science, technology and innovation policy: The product of regional networking? Regional Studies, 41(8), 1129–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikkink, K. (2005). Patterns of dynamic multilevel governance and the insider-outsider coalition. Transnational Protest and Global Activism, 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market: The United States and the European Union. Higher Education, 63(5), 583–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamtik, M. (2016). Policy coordination challenges in government’s innovation policy–The case of Ontario Canada. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 417–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandberg, D. A. (2006). State-level higher education interest group alliances. Higher Education in Review, 3, 25–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verduijn, S. H., Meijerink, S. V., & Leroy, P. (2012). How the second delta committee set the agenda for climate adaptation policy: A Dutch case study on framing strategies for policy change. Water Alternatives, 5(2), 469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (1996). Basic content analysis (6th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zito, A. R. (2015). Multi-level governance, EU public policy and the evasive dependent variable. In E. Ongaro, Multi-level governance: The missing linkages (critical perspectives on international public sector management, volume 4) (pp. 15–39). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Administration, Foundations and Psychology (EAF&P), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

    Merli Tamtik

Authors
  1. Merli Tamtik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merli Tamtik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tamtik, M. Movers and shakers of Canadian innovation policy — recognizing the influence of university vice-presidents as policy advocates. Tert Educ Manag 24, 311–324 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1445772

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1445772

Keywords

Search

Navigation