Universities in the National Innovation Systems

Experiences from the Asia-Pacific

V. V. Krishna

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351619004
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This volume looks at the role of universities in the National Innovation Systems in economies of the Asia Pacific. It examines the tremendous growth of human and knowledge capital made possible by teaching and research excellence in major universities, along with how universities are being re-positioned as frontiers of innovation in the National Systems of Innovation. The chapters assess the impact of globalisation and innovation together with the emergence of 'new' knowledge sites extended to the Asia Pacific region.

With contributions by experts and academics and key case studies, this book will be useful to scholars and researchers in higher education, development studies, public policy, economics, business and resource management, Asian studies as well as policymakers.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Three missions of universities and their role in national innovation systems – experiences from Asia Pacific

V. V. Krishna

The rise of Asia in the global knowledge-based economies is intimately associated with the rise of higher education institutions (HEIs), particularly universities and institutions advancing scientific and technological research. Universities play an important part not only in the nation-building process, but also in meeting societal challenges whether it is in health, ageing, sustainability and climate change or in economic growth (Shahid and Nabeshima 2007; Altback and Salmi 2011). Mansfield (1991), in the case of industrialised countries, found that one-tenth of the new products and processes commercialised from 1975 to 1985 could not have seen the face of market without substantial contribution from the academic research undertaken in universities. Further, Grilliches (1995) drew attention to the fact that the rate of return on basic science (generally found in the academic research settings) is about three times that of applied R&D (generally undertaken in firms). In a most revealing way, (Schapper 2014: 51) in his recent chapter on universities and their role in economic development for a UNESCO Report on Asia pointed out that ‘it is estimated that between 1988 and 2010, U.S. federal investment in genomic research generated an economic impact of $796 billion, while spending on the Human Genome Project between 1990 and 2003 amounted to $3.8 billion’. Two features stand out that signify the transformation that is taking place. First, the coupling of teaching and research for the advancement of knowledge, which indicate the research intensity in universities and HEIs. Second, the ability of these institutions to convert this research potential to have an impact on society and industry (Mowery and Sampat 2006). There are now some interesting studies to show the impact of universities in specific regions – the classic cases of Stanford and MIT in boosting innovation ecosystems and development in Silicon Valley and Route 128 in Boston, respectively (Leslie 1990; Saxenian 1994). These developments came about over a long historical process involving broadly three overlapping phases associated with three corresponding missions. After tracing historical roots of these three academic revolutions, the introductory essay will devote some space to explore universities in national innovation systems (NIS) in the Asia Pacific region, particularly focussing on country case studies, which are included in this volume.

Three academic revolutions

The first academic revolution came about when teaching in specialised higher educational institutions was institutionalised. In India, we can trace it to the ancient universities of Nalanda and Takshashila. They functioned for more than 800 years between the 5th and 12th centuries ce. Nalanda functioned as a residential university with 2,000 teachers and 20,000 students from India, China, Korea, Mongolia, Turkey and Sri Lanka. It was the leading higher educational institution in the world in those times, which mainly focussed on Buddhist studies, religion, culture and civilisation. The only other university that is reported in this era was Al-Azhar University in Cairo established in 972 ce. This university specialised in Islamic learning including law, logic, grammar, rhetoric and how to calculate the lunar phases of the moon. Nalanda and Takshashila were destroyed around the 12th century. And since 2009/2010, Nalanda is being re-established in its rejuvenated form under the Chancellorship of Noble laureate Amartya Sen. Al-Azhar survives till date and has emerged as a modern university to promote secular subjects just like any other university in the world. The Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, The Catholic University of the Philippines, was established as a private Roman Catholic University in 1611. This can be considered as the oldest university functioning till date in Asia. In Italy, the first systematic evidence of institutionalised teaching is reported at the University of Bologna, founded in 1088. In France, at the University of Paris founded in 1160, and at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge established around the 12th century, the first academic revolution phase continued until the beginning of the 19th century.

The ‘transformation of universities from institutions of cultural preservation’, mainly teaching and maintenance of knowledge towards advancement of knowledge via research with a particular emphasis on science and technology disciplines, can be considered as the second academic revolution.¹ Some scholars characterise this development as the ‘Humboldtian revolution’. For the first time, we witness the evolution of a model in the modern university that combines teaching with research. Martin (2003: 8) termed it ‘Humboldt model’ reflecting ‘unity of teaching and research’, which was successfully established at the Berlin University in 1810 by the Prussian educational reformer Wilhelm von Humboldt. As Martin goes on to argue, the essence of this model served as a model of the ‘social contract’ between state and society, the former in the public interest funds research in the universities while maintaining a relatively high level of autonomy for both faculty and universities in their operation of teaching and advancement of knowledge. In the United States, teaching and research in the university systems came around the mid-19th century at institutions like Harvard and Colombia, where professors, often inspired by their German doctoral mentors, sought to initiate research training and advanced degrees. This model spread quite rapidly since the 19th century to most parts of Europe, Asia and North America with varying degrees invoked by higher education and science, technology and innovation (STI) policies.² For instance, consequent to the Vannevar Bush report of 1945 on Science: The Endless Frontier, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was established in the early 1950s. NSF became the major source of basic research funding for universities and stand-alone research laboratories.

The third academic revolution came about as universities progressed through further transformation taking on the mission of not just teaching and research, but also getting involved in the knowledge transfer and economic development. What is of significance is the development of coupling teaching and research with innovation and at the same time forging university and industrial links and partnerships. As Etzkowitz, Webster and Healey (1999) mention, this phase came about more or less the same time as the second one. Very well known is the case of basic research in German universities that contributed to the German supremacy in pharmaceutical and dyestuff industries. Much of the basic research and innovation potential in chemistry at the German universities found their way into three major firms such as Bayer in 1863; Hoechst after 1880; and BASF in 1873. By 1877, Germany accounted for half the world’s dyestuff production and captured the world market. In the years between 1908 and 1912, close university-industry relationships led to the process of synthesising ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen under high pressures, which came to be known as the Haber-Bosch process. In the following 50 years, these firms became big multinationals. In the last decade and a half, perspectives on ‘Triple Helix’ of university-industry-government relationships and the rise of entrepreneurial universities with specific cases of MIT and Stanford clearly signify the third academic revolution (Etzkowitz 2002, 2008; Etzkowitz et al. 2008).

The three phases in the progress and transformation of universities are not exclusive but overlapping missions. All these three missions and revolutions resonate, though in a small way, in the Asia Pacific countries. Following the University of Melbourne in 1853 and the University of Sydney in 1853, three universities were established in the Presidencies of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay as early as 1857. Before the close of the 19th century, University of Tokyo (1867) and Keio University (1858) in Japan, Rangoon University (1878) in Myanmar and Peking University (1898) and Tianjin University in China were established. The first two decades of the 20th century witnessed the creation of 12 other universities such as Tsinghua (1911) in China; Hokkaido University (1876), University of Tokyo (1877), Kyoto University (1897), Tohuku University (1907) and Kyushu University (1911) in Japan; Chulalongkon University (1917) in Thailand; Vietnam National University (1904) and Hanoi Medical University (1902) in Vietnam; Ewha Women’s University (1910) and Yonsei University (1915) in South Korea; and The University of Hong Kong (1911).

The birth of modern universities in Asia from the mid-19th century came about in different social, economic and political contexts. The extent to which Asian universities experienced autonomy and authority to impart quality education and institutionalise research and innovation activities depended on respective political contexts. Most Asian countries were reeling under various colonial occupations from British, Spanish, Dutch, French and Japanese control. Whereas China was under various dynasties until the Republic of China was established in 1949, Thailand was a kingdom. Given this historical backdrop, different styles of university governance, curriculum and modes of teaching and learning came to be institutionalised in modern Asian universities. Teaching was well institutionalised in all Asian universities, but the emergence of research and innovation activities greatly depended on the university funding generally governed by the state policies. Unlike universities created under different colonial contexts, universities in Japan were relatively autonomous to progress into the second and third revolutions.

Soon after the Meiji restoration in Japan, the University of Tokyo was established followed by several imperial universities. The Japanese government made relentless efforts after the Meiji restoration to industrialise with the application of science and technology. The government selected few imperial universities such as Tokyo and Tohuku to develop engineering and technological capabilities by World War I. Japanese investment into higher education and research in select universities was the single largest by late 19th century, particularly in communications and transportation (Odagiri 1999; Branscomb et al. 1999). One of the institutions established was the Kogakuryo Technical College in 1873, which later on became the engineering department of the University of Tokyo. Companies such as Toshiba, Dai Nippon Seiyaku in pharma, iron mills at Kamaishi and Yawata and other leading iron and steel firms all received valuable technological inputs from the University of Tokyo in their formative years. The Iron and Steel Institute at the Tokyo University played an important part in university-industry relations and Japanese technological potential by the First World War (Odagiri 1999; Hashimoto 1999). Half a dozen imperial universities created during the 1870s and 1910 institutionalised research departments and institutions on the university campuses. By the 1920s and 1930s, effective strong links and collaborations emerged between large firms and imperial universities (Kodama and Branscomb 1999). Similarly, Tohoku University forged relations with the industry, with the establishment of Institute for Materials Research (IMR) and the Research Institute of Electrical Communication (RIEC). Teaching and research was combined at Tohoku to evolve research and innovation potential for the development of local region of Sendai. By the Second World War research conducted at Tohoku led to Japanese technological capabilities in material and electronic industries (Jiang, Harayama and Abe 2007).

In India, the Presidency College was created in 1855 (earlier known as Hindoo College established in 1817), which became a centre of industrial research with the pioneering work of Prafulla Chandra Ray, also known as father of Indian chemistry. Ray’s struggle against British colonial government for the lack of support for industrial research in 1893 led to the establishment of Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works (BCPW), the first ever example of university-industry relationships in India. By the First World War, BCPW became a major supplier of sulphuric acid and other chemicals to wartime needs and demands. It had employed 1,400 workers by 1927 and emerged as India’s leading pharmaceutical firm (Chakrabarti 2011). Ray’s lead influenced other professors such as T. K. Gajjar who established a chemical plant around the same time as BCPW, which later grew into Alembic Chemical works Ltd. in Baroda in 1907. Gajjar was professor of chemistry at Baroda College and established a polytechnic institute known as Kala Bhavan – the precursor to the present-day M. S. University of Baroda. By the 1920s, Kala Bhavan played an important role in the emergence of Baroda as an important industrial town. S. S. Bhatnagar, the first chief of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) created in 1942, was heading the Chemical Laboratories at Punjab University in Lahore in 1940. His pioneering work on colloid chemistry, which earlier contributed to the promotion of oil industry in Assam, played an important role in the promotion of industrial research (Krishna 2011). The third important example is the establishment of the Department of Chemical Technology at Bombay University in 1934, which played an important part in the establishment of National Chemical Laboratory of CSIR at Pune and chemical industrial cluster around Bombay and Pune since the 1940s (Tyabji 2011).

Post-war Asian experiences

Such early insights into university-ind...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction: three missions of universities and their role in national innovation systems – experiences from Asia Pacific
• Part I Japan, Australia and New Zealand
• Part II China and India: emerging economies
• Part III South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore: newly industrialising economies
• Part IV Southeast Asian countries: Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam
• Index