Making better sense of (doctoral) collaboration with non-academic organisations

1. Making better sense of (doctoral) collaboration with non-academic organisations YrAthro David James, Cyfarwyddwr, PartneriaethHyfforddiantDoethurolCymru ESRC Professor David James, Director ESRC Wales DTP

2. Making better sense of doctoral collaboration with non-academic organisations • What’s the problem, who says so, and why do they say it? • What remedies are proposed, and are these taken up? • Non-academic collaboration ‘on the ground’: structured and emergent, ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ • A better grasp of the tensions – e.g. Burawoy’s sociologies • A three-dimensional view of social science/non-academic collaboration • So what should happen next?

3. 1988 book made into a 4-part BBC series in 1989.

4. The problem? • Since the 1980s, belief in the knowledge economy has required ever-closer university-industry relations, and has steered investment. Also produced a change in the conceptualization of doctoral education and what it should include. • Policy disappointment. Series of major reviews in UK (Lambert, 2003; Wilson, 2012; Dowling, 2015). For example, Wilson notes progress since Lambert but bemoans ‘lack of engagement with employers’ and a deficit of ‘enterprise skills required by business’. Cites exceptions but says ‘the level of preparation for PhD students outside academe remains disappointing’ (sic) (p. 64) and recommends ‘further development in the context of enterprise skills and business experience’, and internships for all PhD students

5. Remedies? Dowling: Recommendation 9 Forming connections with business at the outset of an academic career path could significantly enhance the environment for collaboration over the longer-term. To enhance doctoral training: a. Universities should ensure that all PhD students in appropriate subjects receive IP awareness and wider business skills training; b. The Research Councils and other major funders of PhD studentships should support students in appropriate subjects to spend some time in business as part of their doctoral training; and c. Universities should play an active role in facilitating industrial placements for their PhD students.

6. Remedies? Dowling: Recommendation 15 CASE studentships are highly valued tools for establishing partnerships between industry and academia. The Research Councils should: • Use a standard model for allocation of and eligibility for CASE studentships and synchronise timelines wherever possible; • Increase the availability of CASE studentships to SMEs and to new business-university partnerships, for example by creating a ring-fenced fund, for studentships for SMEs and new partnerships that organisations which Doctoral Training Partnerships would bid into.

7. The remedies? ESRC Doctoral Training From 2011 ESRC required all Doctoral Training Centres to meet a target of 20% of studentships involving collaboration with a non-academic organization. From 2017, this was increased to 30%. “There should be real measurable benefits for the non-academic partner from the outcomes of the project. Expectations of how these will benefit the organisation should be considered and agreed between the HEI and the collaborating partner” “The project should contribute to the successful creation, development and application of new techniques or ways of working or of relating to the broader environment in a way that improves the effectiveness and efficiency of individuals and organisations” www.esrc.ac.uk/files/collaboration/good-practice-guide-for-setting-up-collaborative-studentship-opportunities/

8. ESRC DTCs: Levels of collaboration by sector 2011-2015

9. Non-Ac. collaboration in social science doctorates ‘on the ground’ • Studentships that are structured to include collaboration. Agreements, in-kind and/or financial support from non-academic organization (Wales DTP Collaborative Studentships a good example) • Funded internships and placements • Emergent collaborative dimensions to to a Doctorate • ‘Success’, ‘indifference’ and ‘failure’. Constructive abandonment, unpredictability and opportunities for learning

10. Examples of emergent/’organic’ collaborations • At the early stage of research design a student identifies a Mumbai-based educational NGO with whom she hopes to work and/or carry out research. The link develops and strengthens over time and she ends up spending at least six months working with the organisation developing a mobile app and literacy curriculum. This was not initially framed as a collaborative studentship. • A project on successful brain-injury rehabilitation, which had gathered data from patients, families and health professionals. During early stages of analysis student felt that some events bringing those parties together could enrich the whole study. Two ‘public engagement’ events held, supported by DTC small grant of only a few hundred pounds. Outcomes sharpened analysis, and research and researcher better ‘connected’ to relevant stakeholders.

11. A better grasp of the tensions After Burawoy (2005). Burawoy is explicit about contradictions within and between each disciplinary quadrant of the model. He describes the dangers of one ideal type dominating another, but also a necessary ‘antagonistic interdependence’. For example, ‘The social sciences are at the crossroads of the humanities and the natural sciences since in their very definition they partake in both instrumental and reflective knowledge’ (p.286)

12. Criticality – fundamental to good social science, and maybe also democracy • The hallmark of good social science (Bourdieu – e.g. 1993) • ‘Sceptical of common sense’ but also as a claim to being the avantgardein a disciplinary context(Parker & Thomas, 2011) • ‘Capability’ arguments (e.g. Nussbaum, 2010; Boni & Walker, 2013) • Academic freedom (e.g. Bilgrami & Cole, 2015) • ‘Critical thinking …involves calling into question the assumptions underlying our customary, habitual ways of thinking and acting and then being ready to think and act differently on the basis of this critical questioning… (it is) crucial for creating and maintaining a healthy democracy’ (Brookfield, 1987, p. 1)

13. Collaboration: 1, 2 and 3-dimensional views • Instrumental, utilitarian & deficit view of universities, research, supervisors, disciplines or students. Uni-directional ‘benefit’. Researcher is exposed to non-academic context and therefore develops differently, is more ‘employable’ and contributes more to the knowledge economy. • All the above PLUS a level of reflexive knowledge exchange. Collaboration = meaningful 2-way dialogue (both student and organization learn). Mutual benefit. • All the above PLUS a ‘meta’ dimension, where practices of collaboration become focus for learning by student, peers and supervisors – especially the negotiation, management, epistemological tensions. So, collaboration as an important source of learning.

14. The pedagogic challenge • If criticality is fundamental to good social science, and if Burwoy is right about the productive tensions, there is a major task here. • Yet how do we harness the conceptual insights, together with student experience, to maximise the benefits of collaborations with non-academic organisations in research? • Jagoda (2016) – collaboration as ethical and political as well as organizational. ‘Reflective entganglement’ • Bartunek & Ryne (2014) – ‘generative paradoxes’ which define academic-practitioner relationships. Rather than trying to ‘solve’ or ‘resolve’ tensions, we should treat them as important raw material.

15. In sum… • There will be fundamental tensions between good social science research and the goals, values, practices, assumptions of a whole range of other organisations; • However, collaboration is vital, so long as ‘successful’ outcomes can include not only positive impact on productivity, but also challenge – even divorce! • Mainstream conceptions of ‘the problem’ are too simplistic • We need to find ways in which to problematize and learn from collaborative experience • Burawoy and the other theorists mentioned provide a promising approach.

16. Selected references Bartunek, J. M. and S. L. Rynes (2014). "Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike: The Paradoxes of Academic–Practitioner Relationships." Journal of Management 40(5):1181-1201. Bilgrami, A. & Cole, J. R. (eds) (2015) Who’s Afraid of Academic Freedom? Columbia University Press, NY Boni, A. & Walker, M. (eds) (2013) Human Development and Capabilities Routledge Bourdieu, P. (1993) Sociology in Question London: Sage Brookfield, S. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers Open University Press Burawoy, M. (2005). "For public sociology." American Sociological Review 70(1): 4-28. Dowling, (2015) The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations Jagoda, P. (2016). Network Aesthetics. Chicago, Chicago University Press Lambert R, (2003) Lambert Review of Business - University Collaboration. HM Treasury, London, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/EA556/lambert review final 450.pdf Nussbaum, M. (2010) Not for Profit – Why Democracy Needs the Humanities Princeton University Press, NJ Parker, M. & Thomas, R. (2011) ‘What is a Critical Journal?’, Organization 18 (4), 419-427 Wilson, T. (2012) A Review of Business-University Collaboration