Presentation to EU Regions Week Name David Marlow Third Life Economics

1. Maximising the contribution of universities to regional innovation – lessons and toolkits for policymaking Presentation to EU Regions Week Name David Marlow Third Life Economics Date 10th October 2019

2. Welcome and introductions Session purposes Format and speakers • To present: • a brief overview of the nature of the policy 'problem' – why do many universities still not realise their full potential in contribution to regional innovation? • the learning from three key initiatives that have sought to better understand the role of universities in regional innovation which have developed policy oriented tools and frameworks to help regional actors design more effective and place-based approaches • To discuss in plenary the merits and weaknesses of these findings as tools to underpin policy design and suggest ways they could be improved for implementation • Maximum of 15 minutes per speaker followed by… • Minimum 30 minutes plenary – questions, comments and discussion • Myself plus three presenters: • Peter Baur • John Edwards • Louise Kempton

3. The nature of the policy problem(s) – an initial UK provocation

4. Conceptual solutions… Actually is a lot of good practice – but highly inconsistent Easier to have capacity, capabilities and commitment in more advanced regions – potential for increased divergence Plenty of models, tools and techniques BUT…..

5. Enduring ‘wicked issues’ • The allure of being a member of the ‘incumbent elite’ – especially acute in lagging regions • The ‘challenger’ HEIs • Overstating the importance of the university (e.g. the GSE paradoxes) • Asking ‘what the place needs of their universities?’, and ‘servant-leadership’ models

6. Thank you DavidMarlow@thirdlifeeconomics.co.uk

7. Higher Education for Smart Specialisation John Edwards

8. Contribution of universities to Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) Source: Based on Kempton, Edwards et al (2013) Universities and Smart Specialisation, JRC S3 Policy Brief #3, European Commission

9. Perception of levels of research and innovation in S3 Platform regions (% of respondents giving a score of five or above from seven)

10. 2.2. Smart Specialisation – as Research and Innovation (and Education) policy approach • The RIS3 pre-conditionality – having a RIS3 (or existing similar national or regional strategy) in place in order to be eligible for ERDF support for innovation-related measures – applies specifically to two ERDF thematic objectives: • Strengthening research, technological development and innovation (R&I target) • Enhancing access to, and use and quality of ICT (ICT target) • This misses, however, the crucial role of (higher) education and foreign direct investments in fostering a major structural changes in the industry of the less developed regions, which the 3% R&D intensity target implicitly calls for. A well-developed RIS3 would need to pay sufficient attention to these two mechanisms to augment R&I capabilities.

11. A Renewed Agenda for Higher Education (2017) The Commission will : 12. Further roll out Higher Education for Smart Specialisation, to provide advice to public authorities to involve HEIs and, where possible, EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), closely in the design and implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies. • FOUR PRIORITIES FOR ACTION: • Tackling future skills mismatches and promoting excellence in skills development; • Building inclusive and connected higher education systems; • Ensuring higher education institutions contribute to innovation; • Supporting effective and efficient higher education systems. • and…support evidence for policy-making and practice The Commission will : 17. Optimise synergies between EU evidence tools by creating a Knowledge Hub on higher education. COM(2017) 247 Final: A renewed EU agenda for higher education

12. HESS project – conceptual basis Demand led innovation system

13. Action research in selected European regions Lithuania Lubelskie Northern Netherlands NE Romania Centre Val de Loire North Central Bulgaria Navarra Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Portugal Puglia

14. Smart Specialisation and Higher Education Institutions JRC activities 2017-19 Source: Adapted from Edwards et al (2017), Higher Education for Smart Specialisation: Towards strategic partnerships for innovation

15. The HESS Handbook (Higher Education for Smart Specialisation) provides guidance on how to involve Higher Education Institutions into the design and implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies

16. Where and how can the EU intervene? Supply Demand ERDF Good governance of S3 European Universities EIT - KICs Centres of VET Excellence European Semester Recommendations Involve regions in Horizon Europe missions HE conditionality for ESIF? Skills – ESF and (post 2020) ERDF Capacity building for less developed regions Erasmus+: Forward looking projects and Knowledge Alliances

17. Thanks Any questions?

18. RSA Policy ExpoUniversities and Regional Development Putting Universities in their Place An evidence based approach to understanding the contribution of higher education to local and regional development

19. Introduction to the project

20. Expo team • Lucir Alves - Western Paraná State University, Brazil • Louise Kempton – Newcastle University, UK • Conceição Rego – Evora University, Portugal • Mauricio Serra – University of Campinas, Brazil • Mark Tewdwr-Jones - Newcastle University, UK • Paul Vallance – Sheffield University, UK

21. Rationale and purpose • There have been several attempts in recent years to create conceptual frameworks and models to help universities and policy makers understand the role and contribution of higher education to local and regional development. • However these models have failed to fully reflect (or give insufficient attention to) the impact of the regional context (economic, social, political), the policy environment for higher education and territorial development and the diversity of management and leadership structures of universities themselves. • This has led to the development of static models that rarely work outside of the immediate context in which they were developed and therefore risk leading to design of policies that are not fit for purpose. • This Policy Expo will work with partners in Europe, South America, Africa, Asia and Australia to develop a new approach to thinking about the university that can be adapted to the specificity of institutional and local contexts.

22. Research questions • What are the different roles that universities play in local and regional development and how do these manifest themselves? What can we learn from comparing practice and experience internationally? To what extent are policies aimed at promoting university-region relationships transferrable? • What are the internal (e.g. HEI management and leadership, history, mission, structures) and external (e.g. HE and territorial development policy context, governance system, nature of the ‘place’) drivers and how do these explain the nature of the relationship? • How can we think about the university in new ways that can embrace the breadth and diversity of its relationships with its place by providing a framework to understand and assess its role and provide guidance for universities, local leaders and policy makers to embed and deepen the contribution of HE to regional development?

23. Methodology • Review of the literature that analyses the problems and challenges in mobilising universities for regional development, particularly in less developed regions • Call for evidence and survey • Develop underpinning framework for analysis • Test with partners in a variety of geographies, institution types and policy contexts • Develop a practical tool that can be applied in any context around the world to help shape place-sensitive policies that are appropriate to local circumstances

24. Findings from literature review and call for evidence (A) Limitations of existing approaches

28. Findings from literature review and call for evidence (B) Nature and sources of challenges

30. Findings from literature review and call for evidence (C) Findings from survey responses (110 respondents)

31. Impact of Region Type on Regional Engagement • Research and engagement in peripheral regions more likely to be oriented to regional need • Formal relationships with big business, hospitals and think tanks most common in core regions, with micro business, schools and charities in peripheral • Staff in universities in periperhal regions much more likely to describe their institutions as deeply engaged and playing a strategic role in the region • Staff in core regionsmore likely to say their institutions are more focused on it national/international role • People in universities in peripheral regions most likely to say engagement is at the heart of their mission, central to what they do and say their institution is a critical actor and plays a central role in regional decision making

32. Impact of HEI Landscape on Regional Engagement • Sole HEIs much more likely (almost 90%) to say research is aligned to regional need compared to HEIs in regions with multiple insitutions (30%) • Sole HEIs more likely to have formal relationships with local/regional government and business organisations • Sole and one of few HEIs more likely to have pressure from local/regional government to increase their engagement, one of many more likely to have pressure from staff and students • Sole HEIs much more likely (x2) to see their regional engagement as strategic and core to their mission, one of few/many more likely to see it as up to individual’s motivation • Sole HEIs much more likely to be a critical actor in regional development

33. Impact of Territorial Governance on Regional Engagement • Interestingly not a lot of variation • HEIs in autonomous regions much more likely to say teaching and research oriented to regional need (but very small number) • More devolved = more likely to be engaged with local and regional government • More devolved = more likely expect engagement to increase over nest three years • Respondents from universities in centralised governance systems more likely to see the institution as a critical actor in regional development (suggests insistutional thinness at regional level?)

34. The framework

36. Developing the toolkit Each of the six elements in the model has been expanded to a set of questions with four options. The one that best describes the HEI under investigation should be chosen. There are 17 questions, so there are 83,521 potential combinations, which highlights the heterogeneity of HEIs in the context of regional development.

38. Definitions

39. Type of HEI • Very small, small, medium, large • Very young, young, middle aged, old • Teaching intensive, mostly teaching intensive, slightly research intensive, very research intensive • Arts and humanities focused, technical/vocational focused, arts humanities and some engineering science, full range • Only HEI, one of few, one of many (biggest), one of many (smallest)

40. Contribution of the HEI • Strategic leader/anchor, key actor, programme manager, reactive • Regional initiatives are core and important, are part of what we do, are small part, are non-existent or rare • Graduates mostly regional and retained, graduates mostly regional and migrate, graduates mostly non-regional and retained, graduates mostly non-regional and migrate

41. Institutional Characteristics • Research almost totally oriented, significantly oriented, slightly oriented, not (purposely) oriented • Teaching almost totally oriented, significantly oriented, slightly oriented, not (purposely) oriented • Few rewards and incentives for regional engagement, some rewards, lots of rewards, highly rewarded • Regional engagement is central to our strategy, important to university leaders, of some importance, of little importance

42. Characteristics of Place • Developed/Developed, Lagging/Developed, Developed/Less Developed, Lagging/Less Developed • Concentrated/thriving, concentrated/declining, diverse/thriving, diverse/fragmented • Lots of actors public and private, lots of actors mostly public, few actors public and private, few actors mostly public

43. Governance of Regional Development • Fully autonomous regional/federal, some formal autonomy, some informal autonomy, little/no autonomy

44. National and Regional Policy Context • HE centrally controlled, HE centrally controlled but some emphasis on regional engagement, HE regionally controlled but needs to contribute to national targets, HE totally regionally financed and focused

45. Key Questions • How can these findings help policy-making? • Inform policy makers directly? • Or support other initiatives? • What is the most useful way to share findings and project outputs? • Who should we be targeting? • HEIs, public policy makers, supra-national bodies (OECD, EC, IDB etc.) • How can we engage policy makers outside Europe?

46. Next steps • Present to policy makers at EU Regions Week in October for feedback • Review and revise • Test the framework in 20-30 in a range of places and institutions • Review and revise • Develop 10 in-depth case studies • Publish findings in an academic paper for Regional Studies and a policy oriented book

47. Thank you!