University—industry relationships in science and technology in Canada are changing. A review of the data on R&D activities in Canadian universities points to a rise in industrial sponsorship from about 4% of total university-based research in 1980 to 11% in 1993. There are various reasons for this increase, but it is clear that government university—industry programmes have played a major role. There is also evidence of increasing cooperation between Canadian higher education and business in the planning, design and delivery of teaching and service activities. The Canadian infrastructure for university—industry interaction is composed of many organizations and levels, and new programmes or modifications to traditional approaches are continually being developed. Organizations have responded to the need to make university—industry programming more relevant to small and medium-sized enterprises, and are making some headway in cooperation. Nevertheless, an effective integration of the university—industry aspect into a national or regional system, with inclusion of all the relevant actors, still poses a challenge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LyntonErnest A., ‘Internal conditions for effective university engagement in knowledge transfer and other forms of outreach’, paper presented at conference on The Role and Impact of Science and Technology in Innovation and Regional Economic Development, University of British Columbia, August 1995, p 2.
2.
Statistics Canada, Science Statistics, as cited in Government of Canada, Resource Book for Science and Technology Consultations. Vol I, Ottawa, 1994, pp 3–5.
3.
Statistics Canada, Service BulletinScience Statistics, Vol 18, No 4, September 1994, p 3, Table 2. The federal government provided 31.4%, provincial governments 11.7%, and universities 37.6% out of a total amount of $2.75 billion. Note that in Canada universities are public institutions.
4.
Member companies of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada (PMAC) invested $538m in R&D in Canada in 1993, according to a survey by Peat Marwick Thorne, compared to $251m allocated by the Medical Research Council. The PMAC investment ‘… represents a cumulative increase of 225% since 1988.’ ‘PMAC deflects generic industry's assault on drug patent changes with release of impressive new R&D spending data’, (Research Money, Vol 8, No 8, 11 May 1994, p 1).
5.
With after-tax cost of each R&D dollar as low as 39.4 cents for small firms in Québec and as high as 58.3 cents in Newfoundland (Jérôme Doutriaux and Margaret Barker, The University—Industry Relationship in Science and Technology, Occasional Paper 11, Industry Canada, Ottawa, August 1995, Table 6, p 54).
6.
Estimated from Statistics Canada Service BulletinScience Statistics, Vol 18, No 4, 1994, Table 2, and Science Statistics, Vol 18, No 5, Table 4.
7.
NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 1993, p 136.
8.
Ibid, p 121.
9.
Over the pp. 1979–86 period, the average real rate of growth of industrial funding of university R&D (5.7%) was lower than the real rate of growth of total industrial R&D funding (8.5%). Over the 1987–91 period (most recent data available on total industrial R&D expenditures), industrial funding of university R&D has grown at a much faster rate (16% real annual growth) than total industrial R&D expenditures (3%). Real growth rates have been estimated from data in Statistics Canada Service Bulletin, Science Statistics, Vol 18, No 4, 1994, Table 2, and No 5, 1994, Table 4.
10.
In the USA, increased university—industry research relationships were ‘precipitated to some extent by perceived declines in federal funding for various types of academic research’ (CohenW.FloridaR.GoeR., University—Industry Research Centers in the United States, research report, Carnegie Mellon University, July 1994, p 3.)
11.
Doutriaux and Barker, Op cit, Ref 4, p 4. A recent comment lends weight to earlier arguments: ‘… larger firms are very gradually, almost reluctantly, moving some of their corporate research outside the company frontiers’ (WardaJacek, University—Industry Synergy, A Survey of Perspectives of University and Industry Leaders on R&D Collaboration, Draft Report, The Conference Board of Canada, May 1995, p 3).
12.
Network of Centres of Excellence: Powerful Partnerships, Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1992, p 2.
13.
WaldenJanet, ‘Networks of centres of excellence in Canada — a novel concept, but is it working?’, conference presentation, NSERC, 1992, p 4.
14.
The MRC/PMAC Health Partnership Fact Sheet, 17 May 1993; and $200 Million MRC/PMAC Health Program, MRC Press Release, 29 October 1993.
15.
RossGarry, Director, PMAC/MRC Health Partnership, personal communication, 5 August 1994.
16.
SchuetzeHans G., ‘The BC system of innovation — a view from an outside observer’, paper presented at conference on The Role and Impact of Science and Technology in Innovation and Regional Economic Development’, University of British Columbia, August 1995, p 5.
17.
National Centres of Excellence Interim Evaluation, ARA Consulting Group, February 1993, Appendix C, p C43.
18.
Schuetze, Op cit, Ref 16, p 34.
19.
BellStephenSadlakJan, ‘Technology transfer in Canada: research parks and centres of excellence’, Higher Education Management, Vol 4, No 2, 1992, p 231.
20.
Ibid, p 232.
21.
DoutriauxJérôme, ‘Intéraction entre l'environnement universitaire et les premières années des entreprises essaimantes canadiennes’, Revue Internationale PME, Vol 5, No 2, 1992. A series of telephone interviews conducted in the summer of 1994 and a review of current data seem to show that these 1990 statistics are still quite representative of Canadian industrial liaison offices.
22.
In most cases, they handle both industrial and non-industrial research contracts; in some cases, they handle also other academic service contracts (professional development, institutional assistance projects).
23.
Doutriaux and Barker discuss this problem (Op cit, Ref 11, pp 79–84).
24.
Ibid, pp 98–99.
25.
Doutriaux, Op cit, Ref 21, pp 7–39.
26.
ArmingtonC.HarrisC.OdleM., Formation and Growth in High Technology Businesses: A Regional Assessment, Brookings Institution, Washington DC, 1983, cited in SteedGuy P., ‘Policy and High Technology Complexes: Ottawa's “Silicon Valley North”’, chapter in Industrial Change in Advanced Economics, HamiltonF.E.I., ed, Croom Helm, Wolfeboro, NH, 1987.
27.
Brief to the Minister of Industry Concerning Federal Government Policies to Support Science and Technology, Corporate-Higher Education Forum, 27 August 1994, p 2.
28.
75% of the 48 science and engineering Deans who responded to a survey of faculties of engineering, science and health sciences conducted in pp. 1990–91 by Jérôme Doutriaux had such advisory boards, and an average 33% of board members were industry representatives. See also Doutriaux Op cit, Ref 21, for other results from that survey. And about two-thirds of Canadian business schools have such advisory boards, according to a recent survey (J.W. Berry and Associates, Innovative partnerships: Canadian University Business Schools and the Private Sector, a study conducted for Industry Canada, March 1994, p 12).
29.
28% of the Deans surveyed by Doutriaux (pp. 1990–91 survey, see Ref 28) reported having visiting professors from industry.
30.
42% of the science and engineering Deans surveyed by Doutriaux (pp. 1990–91 survey, see Ref 28) reported having Co-op programmes. The number has increased significantly since that time. Indeed, according to a recent survey, close to 50 000 Canadian students, mainly undergraduate, from 150 colleges and universities currently alternate work and study terms to obtain their degree — this represents 5.2% of the 950 300 full-time college and university students in Canada (data on full time enrolment from Statistics Canada, Educational Quarterly Review, 1994, #81–003, Vol 2, No 1, p 83). In 1993, there were only 13 master's programmes offering the co-op format, and 31% of the 864 co-op students enrolled in these programmes were in technology-related domains (SzaboM.E., ‘Postgraduate cooperative education: a framework for university—industry collaboration’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 9, No 1, February 1995; these 864 co-op students represent 1.2% of the country's 70 000 graduate students; the 270 co-op students studying in technology-related domains represent about 1.7% of the science and engineering graduate student population). To encourage this type of university—industry collaboration and support the training of young graduates with an industrial research orientation, NSERC is introducing a scholarship programme for master's students in co-op science and engineering programmes.
31.
Annual Report, pp. 1993–94, The Teaching Company Scheme, Faringdon, Oxfordshire, 1994, p 4.
32.
The Laurier Trade Development Centre of Wilfrid Laurier University is a typical example involving the Wilfrid Laurier School of Business and Economics and 22 companies (in 1993; as reported by Berry & Associates, Op cit, Ref 28).
33.
National Guide 1995 Répertoire National, College and University Programmes, Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa/Hull, 1995; and Ontario Spectrum 95, Quebec Spectrum 95, Atlantic Spectrum 95, Western Spectrum 95 (four volumes), Your Guide to pp. 1995–96 Post Secondary Education and Training, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario, 1994.
34.
Learning from Each Other: University—Industry Collaboration in the Continuing Education of Scientists and Engineers, Science Council of Canada, proceedings of a workshop, November 1986.
35.
AluttoJoseph A., Dean, College of Business, Ohio State University, in American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), p 40.
36.
StevensonMark, ‘Boot camp for the new economy’, Canadian Business, June 1994, p 26.
37.
ClarkeTom E.ReavleyJean, Educating Technological Innovators and Technical Entrepreneurs at Canadian Universities, Science Council of Canada, May 1987.
38.
‘The rainmakers, behind the scene of economic development’, 17th Annual Guide to Economic Development, Canadian Business, August 1995.
39.
Entrepreneurship and/or business courses compulsory in some programmes in 6% of the faculties, available as electives in 49% of the faculties, and not available in 45% of the faculties, as reported by the Deans surveyed by Doutriaux (pp. 1990–91 survey, see Ref 28).
40.
HouleFrançois, ‘Chercheurs universitaires et entreprises: synergie et haute technologie dans deux régions ontariennes’, communication, Canadian Association of Political Science, Charlottetown, June 1992.
41.
FisherDonaldRubensonKjellSchuetzeHans, The Role of the University in Preparing the Labour Force, A Background Analysis, Center for Policy Studies in Education, University of British Columbia, 1994, p 22.
42.
Lynton, Op cit, Ref 1, p 17.
43.
Doutriaux and Barker, Op cit, Ref 11, chapter II—3.
44.
Nora Hockin (ISC), personal communication, 1 October 1993, in Doutriaux and Barker, Op cit, Ref 11, p pp. 3–2.
45.
NSERC Research Partnership Program Evaluation: Final Report, ARA consulting group, 7 October 1991, and Follow-up Study, 21 January 1991.
46.
Agenda: Jobs and Growth. Building a More Innovative Economy, Government of Canada, November 1994, see chapters 3 and 6.
47.
Resource Book for Science and Technology Consultations, Vol I, Government of Canada, June 1994, p 2.
48.
Warda, Op cit, Ref 11, p 3.
49.
For the purposes of the survey, firms were classified as large if sales revenue exceeded $50m. This contrasts with other definitions, which consider firms having more than $20m in sales revenue as large. Industry Canada, consistent with the Small Business Loans Act, defines the small firm as one with less than 50 employees for service firms and less than 100 employees for manufacturing firms, and less than $5m in revenue. Its definition for a medium firm varies, but generally it follows the SBLA and considers a medium firm one with less than 500 employees and less than $20m in annual revenues. IRAP defines an SME as one with less than 500 employees. Small firms carrying out R&D but not yet making sales were excluded from the sample group.
50.
Conference Board of Canada, Management of Innovation and Technology Program, R&D outlook, 1992 (Table B-10), 1993 and 1994 (Table B-14); sample sizes (number of firms having purchased R&D outside) were 120 in 1991 and 100 in 1992.
51.
Effectiveness of University and Government Research Funded by Industrial Corporations, Canadian Research Management Association, 1991, p 12.
52.
‘Technology transfer to private sector gets boost with two new NSERC programs’, Research Money, Vol 9, No 2, 2 February 1995, p 1.
Technology Partnerships Program, programme brochure, Government of Canada, March 1995.
55.
Technology Partnerships Program: Program Description, Government of Canada, March 1995.
56.
Intellectual Property Management Program: Guide for Applicants, NSERC, June 1995.
57.
Profit Magazine, March 1994, p 11.
58.
‘University technology opportunities’, letter addressed to Canadian universities, NSERC and NRC/IRAP, 19 December 1994.
59.
ColleyDoug, Technology Assessment and National Coordination, IRAP, personal communication, 13 September 1994.
60.
CooperDenys, personal communication, 25 August 1993.
61.
Government Launches the Canadian Technology Network, press release, Ottawa, 5 August 1994.
62.
PellandRéal, ‘La subvention, instrument de politiques publiques. Collaboration université—entreprise”, Politiques Provinciales Comparées, sous la direction de Jean Crěte, Louis Imbeau and Guy Lachapelle, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 1994, pp 235–236.
63.
Industry Canada, Katherine Gagnon and Peter Cowan, ‘University/business collaboration: provincial assistance programs involving universities and industry’, an Internet-based information source to be incorporated into the Canadian Technology Gateway and Trans-Forum.
64.
Investigations are still continuing for some programmes, and changes maybe occurring in Ontario in the wake of the 1995 election.
65.
BargeBrian, Chairman of the APRO Board of Directors, letter to the federal Minister of Industry and Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development), 18 October 1994.
66.
Research Partnerships Program, Request for Applications (RFA) Program, pp. 1994–95, Calls for Letters of Intent, NSERC, Spring 1994.
67.
Sue Geffken-Graham, Program Officer, NSERC, personal communication, 16 August 1995.
68.
MaxwellJudithCurrieStephanie, Partnership for Growth: Corporate-University Cooperation in Canada, Corporate-Higher Education Forum, 1984, p 10; Ference Weicker & Company, ‘Increasing the participation of BC Colleges in the Process of Technology Transfer’, Consultant Report for the Science Council of BC, August 1993.
69.
Burnside Development, ‘Canadian Community Colleges/Institutes of Technology and Technology Transfer’, Consultant Report for Industry Canada, 31 March 1994.
