Paper Blog: Industry – Academic Collaboration
Corporate and academic goals seem to fundamentally differ. One is the pursuit of money while the other is the pursuit of knowledge. Looking at it this way, they may seem strange bedfellows indeed. But consider for a while the old saying “knowledge is power.” Since power often refers to money, and money is needed to get more knowledge, then perhaps these two visions are not so conflicting. Yet the motivations of each party still differ which can pose a problem for their necessary and mutually beneficial collaborations. What are some of the most important things for each, and the most important things for both which can be protected and promoted so that neither party feels disenfranchised?
In a study done on both Swedish and Australian universities and corporation, buy-ins and a mediator were found to be important aspects for both. Academic research can be severely under-funded and many time focused on the cutting edge rather than production-quality. A buy-in provides a lab with enough stability to make the principal investigator happy. Additionally, it provides a vote towards developing a certain technology to the point where it is (at least somewhat) production-ready. On the corporate side, a buy-in is good as well. It’s a solid investment into a technology route or a relationship with a research group. This gives a company the feeling that research and development is a bought/sold service/good, which fits well with the economics of company.
Seeing a lab as an investment, why not simply buy the lab and incorporate the employees? Some companies have researchers internal to them but not inside a specific research and development branch. However, if you’ve ever worked on a group project you realize that people have specific skills. Most of these researchers do not have the skills to work as average employees of the company, and moreover, most of the average employees do not have the skills to work as researchers. Having a self-contained or partnered research and development department provides for the specific needs of the different types of worker better. Additionally, many of the best people already have appointments and it would be hard for a company to pry them completely away from their friends at a university or lab. And science doesn’t work in a vacuum. They need to stay in their research circles.
Now that the need for an research and development department has been argued, how are some ways of doing this and implementing the recommendations in the paper? I have seen first-hand a productive research and development department last summer. There were the researchers. Everyone was a researcher and everything was research. This, of course, was funded by the corporation to research toward a certain goal, but the Ph.D’s still had the chance to follow what interested them (and receive that buy-in). The connection to the main corporation was through our “big boss.” This was the senior vice president. His was some of our only contact for information leaving the research area and requirements coming in. Having a moderating force (mediator) to smooth information flow seemed essential when I was working there.
The benefits from collaboration between industry and academia cannot be understated. Having seen a working connection between the two provide good results, I can agree with the paper’s recommendation that researchers and companies share a need for consistent buy-in (such as a contract) and a multi-talented go-between to translate between the speech of business and the speech of research.
4/28/2014