The American Research University A Policy Briefing

1. The American Research UniversityA Policy Briefing Concepts and models ASU’s emerging directions Additional recommendations

2. Introduction • Why select this topic? • ASU’s moment to affect Arizona history, directions • ASU’s mission converges with State economic needs • Economic need for R & D to create opportunities • Must replace other engines of growth, which have stalled (real estate and “machiliadora” assembly plants) • Unprecedented community leadership support for ASU • ASU’s new entrepreneurial spirit—in line with Arizona • Time in Arizona for reinvention of institutions--1980 redux (strong leadership, “Arizona Tomorrow” study)—w/educ.

3. The American Research University • Concepts • Graham & Diamond. Origins of the American Research University. • Decentralization, pluralism, and market competition of the American university system created greater innovation, accumulation and dispersion of knowledge than the elitist, centralized and rigidly controlled European system. • Kerr. The Realities of the Federal Grant University. • The university structure has been changed by national needs • Morrill Act of 1862 created land grant universities which solved agricultural, industrial and political problems of the day—though populist, they incorporated German pragmatism and intellectualism • Research needs of World War II, created in the government contracting, a “new type of federalism” resulting in • Intuitive imbalance—or, problems inherent in fed contracting • Bureaucratic balance—solutions to institutional gaps, poor teach.

4. The American Research University • Rhodes. Research, a Public Trust. • Is undertaking research, based on the curiosity of the researcher, a questionable strategy? • Not if you look at the wealth and invention flowing from this process. (e.g., Bank of Boston Study on MIT, and interview of MIT graduates.) • Unpredictability of research is a result of curiosity of researcher. • Curiosity, which creates unpredictability, drives creativity in science. • Culture of creativity is the best of all worlds for science & innovation. • Tucker & Crow. The American Research University in America’s de facto Technology Policy. • V. Bush’s Linear model (basic to applied sci) is flawed, and wrongly kept Am universities out of the conversation on US technology policy • Promotes basic science research at the expense of technology research • Open science, the American tradition, does not differentiate; mission driven OK • Am U’s frequently discounted in technology research (Bayh-Dole response)

5. The American Research University • Rosenberg. American Universities as endogenous institutions. • Structure of university (competitive, decentralized) leads to rapid diffusion of new knowledge • Morrill Act institutionalized this diffusion to community and in curriculum • Computers, aerospace, biotech • Nelson. American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry. • Engineering and applied science institutionalized by American universities • New subjects rapidly incorporated into curriculae

6. Themes • Recap of themes • Comparing university traditions: • US democratic, decentralized, market driven (ideas, faculty, teachers) and competitive vs. • European elitist, centrally controlled, intellectually isolated • Greater knowledge creation and innovation in US universities • Creation of great US research universities via pragmatic approach (current needs, populism & German intellectualism) • Government contracting system and education mission of U. • Curiosity driven vs. mission driven research (tech policy) • American universities promote diffusion of tech knowledge • Rapid incorporation of new tech disciplines

7. The American Research University • Columbia research model • All are multidisciplinal • Research: Curiosity and mission driven • Strategic ventures • Departmental research • Science and Technology Ventures: Entrepreneurial • Develops tech and holds patents • Licenses to users • Digital Knowledge Ventures: Promotes new ways of learning • Earth sciences—about place

8. How does this relate to ASU? • New directions for ASU • One of the specific ASU S&T initiatives • Identifying additional S&T initiatives—a process • The key: Depth of support for ASU S&T • Institutionalize Support for ASU S&T • Three models for institutional support

9. New directions: ASU—The Gold Standard • Changing directions—ABOR Initiative • Tuition, admission, identity • The Gold Standard—ASU Initiative • Embrace cultural, socioec, physical setting • Force, not only a place • Entrepreneur—not agency • Pasteur’s principle—specificity in research • Focus on individual • Intellectual fusion—multidisciplinary approaches • Social embeddedness • Global engagement • Self Study For accreditation • Coor initiative—New direction for Arizona • Tech and economic development—Tech policy for Arizona • Assuring educational opportunities for all

10. Specific ASU S & T initiative • First initiative—life sciences and technology • Basic life sciences—new building • 7 building complex—biotech • Strategic alliance with Genomic project • Alliance with , looking at high tech policy in Arizona

11. Identifying additional S & T opportunities for ASU—a process • Look at areas where State and ASU resources converge • Aerospace • Look at areas where State has need (see bibliography) • Energy—alt fuels • Pollution reduction • Natural resources, especially water • Learning technologies • Overlooked powerhouses, allies: Winter residents, individuals with businesses elsewhere, many high tech

12. The Key: Depth of support for ASU S&T Initiatives • Business • Has always wanted R & D jobs for State econ development • Must “grow our own” R & D, as we have come to learn • Government • Develop venue for educating government officials in complex issues, such as high tech; • Community at large • Identity of State, as well as ASU, an issue • Need to develop venue for integrating old and new cultures for high tech to thrive

13. Institutionalize support for ASU: Community ownership • In business community--Embeddedness • Links with community “pillars” (underway) • Champion who will take as mission to develop hi-tech Model—UCSD Connect program • In government--Entrepreneurship • Morrison, Public Exec’s Inst, Non-profit Inst--gov support • Institution that will set the pace for innovative government-KSG Model • In the community--Identity • PCEP—Links w/affluent knowledge workers, opinion leaders • Clarify identity of community, develop point for dialog—William Ferris (NEH) Model—Center for Study of Culture

14. Three models for institutional support • Business—UCSD CONNECT model • Government—KSG model • Community—Ferris model

15. UCSD Model—Embeddedness • UCSD totally embedded in San Diego • Community set out to create great institution • CONNECT • Program to grow high tech locally • One entrepreneur and intensely civic minded man, Bill Otterson, acted as champion • One of the many pay offs--QUALCOMM

16. KSG Model—Entrepreneurship • Problem/Opportunity • Wild west history—lawless, energetic, creative • Extremes—government scandals, & extraordinary statesmen • Highly parochial lawmakers/must educate • Must do more than provide information—set pace, train • Innovation in government—best scholarship & practice • Place study, forum for best local, national, internat’l leaders • Links provide opportunity • Phoenix—best run local government • Next to 3rd world countries; surrounded by 4th world countries • Links with hotspots—training future leaders in Kosovo, Africa

17. Ferris Model—Identity • Identity issues not limited to Arizona universities • Cities had no “there there”—recent leaders ameliorated this situation • State, perhaps too much!—strong individualistic ethic • CONFLICT • Integration of conflicting aspects of Arizona’s identity, and development sense of “place” via study of culture • William Ferris (Former NEH Chair) Model • Look at best and worst of culture—preserve history • His work at University of Mississippi, Stanford University • Created ability for individuals with divergent views to come together—COMMON BASIS FOR DIALOG, CELEBRATION

18. Conclusion • The foundation is laid for ASU to change the future of Arizona • The need—R & D, as a base for dispersed wealth • The convergence of missions of the State and ASU • The support at high levels • The leadership in place—time of revitalization • The key is to develop the institutions to create broad based support, so that changes will be sustained