University Transfer

University Transfer, or UT Arts, was the name of the college program in which I completed the first two years of my undergraduate degree.

Two articles in today's Globe offer some interesting insights on the college/university bifurcation. The first, by Humber College president Robert Gordon, calls for an end to "academic snobbery" and the enabling of college/university program articulation in order to maximize postsecondary education options. Gordon says "there would have to be some changes to the faculty, to the standards, to the curriculum, to the admissions" on the part of colleges in order to facilitate this, commensurate with a sea change in how universities view the college system.

I attended college in British Columbia, where the college/university system is fully articulated. It was a good option to accommodate the many students that crowd the postsecondary space in BC. The second article reports the view that colleges should "return to their vocational role," and not compete with universities. Despite some limitations in this report's view, it does acknowledge the value of the articulated educational system.

Of particular note is the push for the creation of a research cluster model (following the Alberta lead), though it is short sighted to advocate for streamlining research funding into universities. If the postsecondary education system is to leverage all aspects of the college and university articulation, then research clusters should be formed along institutional strengths, and include both colleges and universities in their mix. And while we're at it, why not high school students as well? Senior grades should be learning about applied science research as it is conducted in the research institutions around them. Exposing them to curricular links within the research and development sectors will reinforce educational options and direction.

Let's make of Canadian R&D "a thriving innovation engine"

Innovation and productivity are top of the agenda for the upcoming federal budget. Business innovation in particular is a key area of focus, as indicated in this article featuring Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear. Minister Goodyear struck the Jenkins panel (Polytechnics Canada CEO Nobina Robinson was a member of that panel) last year to review private sector R&D spending, and they came up with many good recommendations to get the country in line with our international counterparts. This complements the two panels recently struck by the Council of Canadian Academies on behalf of the Minister of Industry. A renewed focus on innovation and productivity is the right thing for Canada as we work toward the articulation of a new Science and Technology Strategy.

The Globe article quotes Liberal critic Ted Hsu as saying that we should not let industry drive research in government labs. This is wrong thinking. Government labs should be working to link both discovery-based research emerging from university labs and industry needs - think the US National Laboratories, which focus on strategic priorities and the needs of the country. The National Labs bridge the gap between basic and applied research, addressing pressing needs of today. University labs address the needs of tomorrow. Polytechnic and college applied research is another bridge between basic and applied research, academia and industry. As a country we must stop thinking of industry partnered research as a bad thing; we continue this at our own peril.

Let's embrace the possibilities inherent in realizing the gains of our own discoveries, and link together the universities, polytechnics, colleges, government research facilities in an innovation chain that sees industry as a partner in our own national efforts of "a thriving innovation engine."

ONE Way to Work Together in Support of Innovation

John Wilkinson, outgoing Minister of the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation (MRI), yesterday launched the Ontario Network of Excellence (ONE) during a speech at the Economic Club of Canada. The announcement is an update on the Ontario innovation system, and outlines how MRI is leveraging the considerable, collective assets supporting R&D in the province. Central here is the idea of an innovation ecosystem that MRI has been promoting for some time. This is the collaborate to compete model whereby all aspects of the system function in a complementary fashion in support of research, development and innovation. All of us involved in the innovation equation are oriented toward the same goal of increasing social and economic productivity in Canada.

Features of ONE include a client-focused and collaborative approach to the Ontario Commercialization Network whereby the parts are better integrated and coordinated, in order to make it easier for industry to access the intellectual and financial capital needed to create and improve new products and services. This is a transformation of the Ontario innovation system, said Wilkinson, calling it a "reboot" whereby industry can "access, understand, navigate and collaborate" with any part of the whole. This any point of access philosophy is in keeping with the kinds of systems approach many jurisdictions have constructed, from the EU, to the Boston Corridor and Singapore. A virtual, distributed research cluster built on the principles of a mesh network will offer seamless service delivery in support of R&D and innovation.

Four pillars will define ONE:

1. The Ontario Centres of Excellence will lead the academic/industry partnership development portfolio, something OCE is already excelling at.
2. Bringing new technologies to market will be led by MaRS, primarily through their Business Accelerator Program.
3. Regional Innovation Networks across the province will provide points of presence and contact for industry for the network.
4. Strategic financing will be provided by MRI.

All of these will be conjoined and oriented toward common metrics. These metrics, perhaps the most significant aspect of ONE, will ensure accountability and delivery on results. The metrics will be consistent across the network. ONE will "make geography irrelevant," as the focus will be on common innovation service delivery where the quality of ideas, depth of commitment, and the drive to succeed will be defining factors in the overall success of all, working together.

George Brown College, and our partners in the Colleges Ontario Network for Industry Innovation (CONII), are a core part of this network. Funding received in the last provincial budget has supported the continuation and expansion of CONII. GBC's own innovation support services are founded on this model of articulation and complementarity, and the ability to work within the innovation ecosystem in support of our common productivity goals.

Education is the foundation of the innovation economy, Wilkinson reminded the audience. Bringing talent into the innovation system is a key differentiator of the global economy where capital and labour are increasing mobile. The Ontario education and innovation systems will be well placed to integrate as the new MRI minister. John Milloy, is also Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Our focus on fostering innovation literacy in our graduates commensurate with work on industry-facing applied research projects is fully aligned with the direction MTCU and MRI are headed. This is a significant step forward in ensuring that Ontario can regain its competitive edge and be a global player in research, development and innovation.

Credit Transfer in Ontario

George Brown College today hosts MTCU Minister John Molloy who will make an announcement of credit transfer in Ontario. An article in today's (or yesterday's if online) Globe provides some details and context about credit transfer and educational articulation. This is an absolutely necessary step for modernizing the post-secondary education system. The article notes BC, Alberta and Quebec as having strong, centralized credit transfer systems. The point of these modern education systems is that they enable the province to compete as a larger jurisdiction, enabling learners to progress through education and into the job market much more easily, thereby focusing on social and economic productivity over and above any single actor in the system. Educational complementarity thus executed will foster a better set of outputs for the economy generally, mirroring the "any point of entry" innovation system that, while inchoate, is streamlining business innovation for Ontario firms.

Here are some links to news items about the announcement:

Province makes it easier to move from college to university – or back. parentcentral.ca Greg Evans started to study film at Ryerson University, but had a change of heart and switched to social work at George Brown College in second year. ...

New credit-transfer system for Ontario students CTV.ca Anne Sado, president of George Brown College and a spokeswoman for Colleges Ontario, says she is eager for the program's implementation, but notes that ...

Colleges applaud credit transfer system Canada NewsWire "We look forward to this system becoming operational as soon as possible," said Anne Sado, president of George Brown College and member of the credit ...

Province aims to make transfering easier Metro Canada - Ottawa Anne Sado, president of George Brown College, said she is eager for the program's implementation, but notes that willing partners will be needed to make it ...

Report on Colleges

The Globe and Mail today published their Report on Colleges, an overview of Canada's community colleges and what they offer today's post secondary education market. There are good articles on college-university articulation, applied degrees offered by colleges to meet demand, and Polytechnics Canada institutions that are catering to demand for applied degrees and applied research. It's clear there is room in Canada for all forms of education, but we do need more programs that enable students to transfer credits. Our education system needs to be responsive to the demands of the students, but also the workforce, as lifelong (and life-wide) learning increasingly become the norm.

Round table report on market trends and public education

The Learning Partnership yesterday convened a Round Table on Labour Market Trends and Implications for Public Education. The goals was to inform public education policy. Warren Jestin, Chief Economist of ScotiaBank, chaired the event, and offered introductory remarks on the context of the opportunities and challenges facing Canada and public education. Jestin identified three trends that will inform educational and economic policy, reminding the audience that we need to focus on the unfamiliar for growth. That is, the economy will rebound, but will not go back to what it once was. Jestin pointed out that the G20 is now the official voice of the world economy, acknowledging the complexities of the global economic system as being comprised of developed and developing nations.
The three trends are:
1. We must focus on the emerging world where we are not yet plugged in - but could be.
2. Discussions on the environment and sustainability are at a very early stage. Major changes are imminent and will impact all sectors.
3. Demographic changes will mean less people working and more retired.

Productivity must drastically improve if we are to complete internationally, Jestin said, and "there is a crying need for improved education and skills training." Jobs in health care will of course be in demand, as will change in how health care is operated and funded. Urban infrastructure requires investment and renewal if we are to compete on quality worldwide. Skilled graduates with innovation literacy will be in demand: "We need people who know how to do something in a rapidly changing world," including easy facility with language and technology. Driving this should be "more fluid transfer of credits between colleges and universities." This last point is especially important; articulation of the education system will make the innovation economy more effective and responsive to social and economic productivity demands.

Rick Miner spoke about his recent study "People without jobs; Jobs without people." This report is a must-read for anyone with an interest in education and its downstream effects. It is also a wake-up call for all of us to start (re)thinking how we conceive of education, how we structure its delivery, how we measure its outputs and social impacts, and what we need to do to ensure Canada remains globally competitive.

The subsequent discussion was interesting for its common approach - across many educational sectors represented - on change needed in our education system. A report on the Round Table is forthcoming. What is clear is that there is good alignment in education: Innovation is not just a word. It is an activity and a call to action to reformat our thinking and our approach to social and economic productivity.

Polytechnics Canada Pre-Budget 2013 Recommendations

Polytechnics Canada has put forward their Pre-Budget 2013 Recommendations, available on their website. Notable is the continued support of college applied research and the further development of apprenticeship. As I've noted before, the skilled trades are the knowledge workers of the innovation economy, providing a much needed link between our capacity to think up new ideas and to put them into practice - the connection between thinking, making and innovation is a cornerstone of a healthy economy.

The Polytechnics Canada submission has three key recommendations for improving the public-private partnership model of R&D (what we call P3RD):

Through re-allocating funds to industrial applied research, the federal government can help more companies overcome the “death valley” of commercialization and become competitive. Three specific actions are to:

• Implement a national commercialization voucher program that allows Canadian firms to choose the late-stage commercialization support they need, as recommended by the OECD study;
• Increase funds for the College Community Innovation Program to $50 million per year to address unmet demand from firms for innovation solutions;
• Expand the eligibility of NSERC’s Industrial Undergraduate Student Research Awards program to include college undergraduate students.

Fostering improved industry-academic collaborations through a P3RD model is an essential component of helping Canada improve its innovation and productivity. Reforming our approach to education along the way by providing a more modern approach to credential laddering and articulation will in turn foster greater education and training capacity throughout the economy. This can be understood as a productivity issue on the education system, and while Canada regulates education provincially, we have a unique opportunity to leverage federalism to enable greater mobility of highly qualified and skilled personnel across the life span. Life-long and life-wide learning will thus enable greater diffusion of innovation.

Federal Government Launches new Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy

Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday launched the much anticipated new Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy. Seizing Canada's Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation 2014 is a comprehensive and significant update to the 2007 Science and Technology Strategy. The new Strategy recognizes the idea to invoice continuum that is necessary for vibrant economies: world leading basic research linked to fruition in business innovation and social and economic benefit for all Canadians.

Receiving strong recognition in the new Strategy in the role of innovation intermediaries such as colleges and polytechnics. As the press release of Polytechnics Canada states:

The Strategy now includes an ecosystem approach to innovation which will lead to long-term economic benefit for Canada. It appropriately credits the diverse players in Canada's innovation ecosystem for their contributions: world-leading research universities, innovation intermediaries such as our polytechnics and colleges, and firms that are commercializing research and inventions.

This is a hugely significant approach.  Seizing Canada's Moment references the Jenkins Panel work in ensuring that there is a smoother path from invention through to innovation, both for our world leading universities and Canadian industry. The four priority areas of 2007's Strategy are reaffirmed, as reiterated in the Council of Canadian Academies report the State of Science and Technology 2012 (on which I had the pleasure of serving), with some expansion, detailed below. Fundamentally, our economy cannot prosper if we do not have both academic and industrial productivity. This means ensuring that we focus public R&D spending on national priorities, support the development of ideas to realize market success (academic productivity), while supporting business innovation (industrial productivity). With Canada spending more per capita on HERD than other countries, but with BERD lower, we cannot sustain this lop-sided approach to S&T. The new Strategy gets this balance right.

The 2007 Strategy set the stage for a strong focus on the country's strengths in research and development, or science and technology as it is often referred to. It paved the way for enhanced investment in basic research in our world leading laboratories. That Strategy also initiated the College and Community Innovation Program (CCIP), which saw college and polytechnic applied research recognized as a viable component of the innovation ecosystem.

There are a couple of key updates included in Seizing Canada's Moment. First is the creation of three new pillars: People, Knowledge, and Innovation. The second is a refreshed articulation of sector priorities.

The Pillars: Including Innovation as a key pillar is perhaps the most significant update. This pillar explicitly recognizes the benefit of linking ideas to invoice, or concepts to commercialization. This is not simple jingoism. Successive expert reports have articulated our excellence in basic research but our lack of business innovation. The Innovation pillar recognizes the value of the innovation ecosystem, of supporting world leading research and its fruition into social and economic value. It is worth quoting this in full:

[Seizing Canada's Moment] will also seek to close the persistent innovation gap that has hindered the transfer of ideas from the laboratory to the factory floor and the store shelf. The Strategy will also encourage businesses to work with partners in the innovation system, including by making Canada’s world-class research infrastructure, expertise and researchers available to them. It will encourage scaling up successful programs and consolidating program offerings to improve access and increase impact. The Strategy also emphasizes the need for Canadians to protect their intellectual property and enhances Canada’s access to global markets. (p 2)

The bottom line here is that where we spend more per capita on basic research than the rest of the world, we do not have the GDP to support unfettered research into anything and everything. We must set priorities. We also need to staunch the flow of Intellectual Property (IP) and realize this value to those that funded the R&D in the first place: the Canadian taxpayer (Canada has the largest negative IP balance of any other country).

Sector Priorities: The new Strategy recognizes the priorities from 2007's Strategy, while adding Advanced Manufacturing and a focus on things like additive manufacturing (3D printing) and disruptive technologies. Agriculture has also been added to the environment area. Both of these are overt recognition of the importance of the inputs to a resilient economy: the ability to make and/or produce what our society needs close to home. Also included in this area (as it was in 2007) is a focus area on food and food systems. George Brown College is very active in supporting this important sector through our Food Innovation Research Studio (FIRSt), which is supported by a College and Community Innovation Program Technology Access Centre grant. Demand from industry for our services is so great in the food area that we are working on expanding our capabilities in this important area of the economy.

In addition we have some sound principles: Focusing on Priorities; Encouraging Partnerships; and Enhancing Accountability. The Partnerships principle is particularly important, as it recognizes the very real need to link the "business, academic, and public sectors both at home and abroad are essential to assuring world-class Canadian successes and to accelerate the pace of discovery and commercialization in this country. The cost, complexity and pace of scientific achievement demand the creation of smart partnerships, through which the unique capabilities, interests and resources of various stakeholders can be brought together for greater success." This principle will lead to greater academic and business innovation and productivity.

Seizing Canada's Moment reaffirms the role of federal government support to the S&T value chain - there is a good graphic on page 15 that illustrates these supports. A good example of this is George Brown College's Green Building Centre, which received support from the Federal Economic Development Agency of Southern Ontario (FedDev). The Green Building Centre was recently officially opened by the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario) and Bernard Trottier, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It is through support like this that Canada's colleges, polytechnics and universities can be oriented to fostering business innovation.

There is much to be celebrated in Seizing Canada's Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation 2014. This is a strong statement on the value of Canadian S&T, and addresses very well the challenges to fostering greater business innovation for social and economic productivity. Good for the federal government for getting this right; the new Strategy was definitely worth the wait.

In the days and weeks ahead there may be those that will decry this new approach to science, technology and innovation. Don't listen to these voices, for they are purveyors of the past. Instead, look to the future for ways on which we can build on what makes Canada great, and how we can work together to make it greater. After all, it is much harder to build than it is to tear down.

Education, information

This was a busy week for those interested in education. The Conference Board convened its annual PSE Summit, HEQCO held a conference on apprenticeships, and the Society of College and University Planning convened to discuss PSE planning, including physical infrastructure and programs. Of these I was unable to attend the HEQCO, though I have been told it was very good and featured excellent in depth discussion on important issues regarding skills, the skilled trades and the apprenticeship systems in Canada and elsewhere. Also related is a recent conference I attended at Simon Fraser University on Innovations in Undergraduate Learning.

The PSE Summit was presaged by a workshop on Monday held at Ryerson University's Digital Media Zone on "Rethinking the PSE Institution." It was a good discussion on how PSE can and should adjust to the changing world around us. The DMZ was held as an example of this, and rightly so. My read on the DMZ is that it is taking innovation and entrepreneurship and explicitly teaching this in a more competency based learning framework. It works because it is what the world needs, and what student (for the most part) are seeking - relevance of their education.

Relevance is a defining feature of much of the discussion on education, and as well it should be. I've quoted John Godfrey here before: "The goal of education is to make people privately happy and publicly useful." Yet while most people will agree with this, there is still a sharp demarcation between education as a way to better oneself versus education for gaining skills to get a job. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. Education is always both transactional and transformative. We should be focused on outcomes-based education wherein students are told up front what skills and knowledge they will gain from a course or program. This enables students to see themselves on a career trajectory while we instil values congruent with our society. While there are those in the university and college sectors who eschew anything that remotely sounds like practicality, we ignore this at our peril. To these I say: Show me the student who does not want a job. That student does not exist.

That said, we should of course always encourage learning within or learning programs. This means recognizing, as one PSE Summit presenter said (quoting Alvin Toffler), "The illiterate of the 21st Century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn." Learning how to learn is an essential component of what we need to teach in order to future proof our economy. This creates resilience. It is a defining feature of those innovation skills I've termed innovation literacy. If the pace of technological change ushers in new forms of learning (about and with new technologies, for example), then the pace of credentialing similarly needs to be accelerated and adapted (IBM's M Mindel). In short, not only are there new competencies and skills associated with innovation as J. Salmi put it, these lead to the development of learning models such as what Ryerson's president Sheldon Levy has called zone learning, which is just "an updated form of co-op."

University of Toronto president Emeritus Robert Birgeneau gave one of the better keynotes at the PSE Summit with an overview of the California system. He described, among other things, the excellent articulation that defines credential laddering in the California PSE system (a real "system" I would point out, unlike Canada's many and competing systems). Most tellingly, he also went into detail about the new master education plan California is creating, in which there are community colleges, state universities and large, research universities, which are logically placed in a per capita allocation. To put this another way, Birgeneau pointed out that, if Canada were to structure PSE this way, Ontario would have 5 doctoral granting research-intensive schools, Quebec 3, BC and Alberta 2, etc. and create pathways among these. It reminded me of the U15 proposal for research funding, which is a good way to ensure that we can fund appropriately our best chances for global research excellence. This recognizes that we cannot continue to support everything and anything and everyone to be global research leaders. We have to pick winners. And we need an education system that serves the needs of the research pipeline an the development of human capital (read: potential): colleges, polytechnics and universities, both those that are undergraduate focused and those that are research intensive. Sooner or later this will come to pass for sheer economics. We cannot afford duplication in either credentialing or research intensity.

And so we end where we begin, in the need to focus on the development of a system (education and research) that works together, and provides students with outcomes and pathways throughout lives and careers. These issues arose at the SCUP conference and the SFU symposium. At SCUP there was a focus on planning and building physical spaces to reflect new learning, but also on program prioritization. Engaging in these sorts of exercises forces us to confront the cold reality of relative value of certain programs and types of education. This is as it should be. At SFU, there was a lot of discussion about outcomes amidst some fear that outcomes will restrict the ends of pedagogy, which to some is simply "crating good citizens." A noble goal, to be sure, but the majority of these citizens (95% according to one speaker) are entering universities to get a job and a career.

Those who eschew outcomes based learning I would liken to those who believe in magic. The students enter the educational institution, take some courses, and are magically transformed into a good citizen. To state what skills someone will learn from a given program or course disrupts this magical thinking, pulling back the curtain to lay bare the mechanisms of learning. The course or program is a black box in which magical things happen that are ineffable. This is alchemy, a transmutation that cannot be rendered explicit for fear of disrupting the professorial power to conjure this transformation.

To be fair it is difficult to render everything explicit. But we must be honest with ourselves and our students about what they will gain for their investments, and for those investments of public money we put into education. For if Canada tops the OECD in the percent of population with a tertiary education, yet there is still a mismatch in skills and gaps in career readiness, then there is a disconnect in the publicly-funded system and the needs of the private sector, where the majority of jobs are, in addition to the private needs of the individual to lead a fulfilling life as a participating citizen. This may simply be a communication gap (which is the rationale behind our innovation literacy badging program). And there are good models of public+private partnerships for education and research.

The private and public goals of education are complementary. The discussions held this week at these various venues has shown that there is great potential for the PSE system in Canada. There are good models at home and abroad that can shine a light on how we might reimagine our PSE systems, and make of them a true system.

small r, Big D: Polytechnics Canada and Applied Research

Polytechnics Canada convened its annual conference yesterday and today which featured discussion of the goals and rationales of polytechnics, as well as applied research. There were some excellent speakers presenting various perspectives on the polytechnic advantage, and useful discussion of "the commercialization of innovation."

What is an innovation professional? How can we prepare our graduates for work in tomorrow's work force? How do we forecast what skills we will need for the future? These questions were posed by the various speakers and participants. What is clear is that polytechnical education produces graduates who respond to workforce needs. Canada's productivity depends on education: there is a strong correlation between economic prosperity and higher education. The polytechnics have a close articulation with industry for applied education and research.

Our focus on applied research is the Development in R&D. We don't focus as much on research as we do Development, taking basic research developing it further, and participating in producing productivity gains over and above other education sectors. This is the polytechnic advantage.

Drummond offers prescription for fiscal health

The much-anticipated Drummond Report released yesterday contains many recommendations for fixing Ontario`s ailing economy. As pundits weigh in on what options will get the most traction, it is worth noting that the recommendations for the post secondary education system align well with the need for Ontario to modernize its approach to providing talent for the innovation economy. Differentiation, articulation and pathways all point to a more systematic approach to ensuring that learners can access education in stages and can ladder credentials through work and life.

Some highlights:
"Recommendation 7-7: Create a comprehensive, enforceable credit recognition system between and among universities and colleges. This is an absolutely essential feature of differentiation."

It is also a feature of any modern economy.

"Recommendation 7-8: Post-secondary institutions need to devote more resources to experiential learning such as internships; allow for more independent or self-assigned study; develop problem-based learning modules; and increase study abroad and international experiences. Many institutions already incorporate these features into their programs, funding them from within existing portfolios."
Experiential learning (what we at George Brown College call field education) internships, and problem based learning are all hallmarks of how applied research is integrated into college curricula.

The focus on "strategic research" is code for applied research (NB the CFI's Strategic Roadmap also has this as part of its mandate) and reflects the need for Canada to take a proactive approach to managing research inputs to gain more from its outputs. The Report notes that we continue to do poorly at commercializing research. There is no mention in this section of the need to link to industry to accelerate commercialization of basic research nor to aid industry in innovation.

"Recommendation 7-17: Award provincial research funding more strategically and manage it more efficiently. Consolidating and offering a single-window approach for access and reporting through an online portal will greatly improve efficiency and reduce paperwork, both for government and for post-secondary institutions."

This was also suggested by the Jenkins report, and was included in the recommendations GBC sent to the Jenkins Panel. Simplifying the contact into the Ontario innovation system will reap huge gains.

More study is necessary of course to grasp the full potential of the Report's recommendations. The good news is that we have begun to talk seriously about the modernization of the Ontario education system.

Science, Technology, Students

In picking up the thread of research and development in Canada, there have been a few good articles of late that help frame the fall conversation. This will be particularly important as the federal government readies the release of its anticipated update to the S&T Strategy.

The Globe has a piece by economist Todd Hirsch on the lack of S&T investment by industry. This is not new news. Hirsch does do a good job of articulation what this may mean down the road for Canada's economy, especially when, as he notes, Canadian companies are "flush with cash." Partnering with a post-secondary institution such as a college, polytechnic or university can help industry to de-risk the R&D enterprise. This has been a staple of government support for R&D of late.

Of course there are those that decry this approach to R&D funding, saying that requiring industry partners will debase the pursuit of science. A recent Ottawa Citizen op-ed claims that governments are "starving" fundamental science research with the focus on industry engagement. Without wading too far into this, I wonder if a more nuanced approach is required? Certainly declining grant success rates is frustrating for anyone applying for funds. But fostering a greater national approach to partnering in research generally, and in this I include with industry, and among universities, colleges and polytechnics, both fosters greater academic and industry R&D productivity, while giving students better experience. I've made the point many times that engaging students in applied R&D with industry fosters innovation literacy. The point here is that, as CCA reports have outlined, we are excellent at many areas of basic research. I just think we don't have the GDP to support unfettered research into everything and so have to make choices. And health is likely a good one.

With the economic recovery perhaps not as good as we might hope, there is a couple of voices coalescing on the value of Canadian education. Both Mark Kingwell and Minister Jason Kenney have not dissimilar views. While the former lauds the value of Canadian universities such as the University of Toronto, Kenney goes a step further in seeking to leverage immigration specifically to attract and retain talent. Both underscore the value of our educational systems as being components of the larger productivity strategy that involves talent and R&D.

And this is a good segue into the Strategic Mandate Agreements that the Ontario government has recently required of all PSE institutions in the province. I've not yet had a chance to review these in detail and to compare and contrast them, but it will be interesting to see how our colleges, polytechnics and universities can work together to meet the needs of the labour market generally, for the economy of today and that of tomorrow.

Scorecard 2013 from the Board of Trade: Focus on skills for the innovation economy

The Toronto Region Board of Trade has launched their Scorecard 2013, reporting on the region's capacity for productivity and innovation. The focus this year is on human capital performance. There is good news in this year's report, including Toronto ranking fourth in North America for having the labour pool needed to increase our productivity, and sixth for overall performance.

"Beyond capital investment and investment in R&D, productivity performance and economic success of a region is also dependent upon the quality of its human capital" (p 60), the report notes. This is the three-legged stool of innovation, and the skills and talent part of this equation is arguably the most important as it is a driver of and result of improved R&D and technology investment.

The timing if the report coincides with the release of the Board of Trade's cluster strategy and Budget 2013's focus on these three essential elements for improving economic health. The report picks up on recent discussion trends on education, in particular the inference that an undergraduate degree is the key to economic success. There is a strong focus on the role that colleges and polytechnics play, both in offering undergraduate degrees and other credentials relevant to the labour market. This underscores an inherent problem with reporting on educational statistics, in that there is little room for nuance in understanding the effect of those who take a university degree followed by a college program to obtain job-relevant skills. Statistics Canada reports on the highest level of educational attainment only, and so will lose this point entirely. This came up in a recent panel discussion I participated in on The Agenda, which airs this evening. The Future of Higher Education is grappling with issues pertinent to skills and the innovation economy, and the need for a greater focus on outcomes at all levels of education coupled with a linking of education to labour market outcomes. Of course not all education need be instrumental  but we should nonetheless provide students (and so graduates) with the keys to future success via an articulation of what skills a particular program teaches.

James Bradshaw, writing in Saturday's Globe and Mail, makes this point well in Toronto’s recipe for prosperity: More graduates – and more paths to good jobs. There is a good example of how GBC graduate Noe Galeana is now working with Clear Blue Technologies, a company GBC Research is supporting. The point here is that when education - and in this case applied research - is linked directly to the needs of industry  everyone wins: the company who is innovating and who accesses skilled talent, the graduate who deploys these talents, and the economy generally. It is companies that commercialize products and services, and the people inside them who innovate.

Scorecard 2013 offers many good points for industry to heed, and presents a positive picture overall of the region's capacity to innovate. It notes areas for improvement, including getting more females in management occupations, increasing female labour market participation overall, and doing a better job of linking highly skilled immigrants to industry.

The Board of Trade is providing the kind of leadership we need in Canada: non-partisan analysis on how our world leading education system can work together to provide the required inputs for the labour market.


#skillsarewherethepuckisgoing

More on college+university transfer

Here's another article on the impending post-secondary enrolment crunch facing the GTA, and the suggested solution of articulating college+university programs to increase capacity throughout the system. The article suggests looking west for models - specifically Alberta and British Columbia - that show how an articulated system can work to students' advantage. As I've noted twice before, this is how I completed my undergraduate education.

As today's article says, smaller class sizes is among one of the reasons students opt for this choice, which may aid in the transition from high school to advanced education. Colleges Ontario President Linda Franklin advocates for increased articulation of post-secondary programs such as that in the west. Alberta's and BC's approach is to create provincial blocs of post secondary education providers that competes together. In fact, Alberta and BC earlier this year signed a Credit Transfer Protocol (part of the Alberta-BC Protocol of Cooperation) that is signed by individual institutions and "improves opportunities for students to receive appropriate transfer credit when moving between the two provinces' post-secondary institutions." While some have said that this would never work in Ontario's larger system, there is much to be learned from the collaborate to compete model that is open sourcing education.

Envisioning the Future for Humanities and Social Science Research

Two weeks ago I had the pleasure to attend the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Imagining Canada's Future workshop. As a member of SSHRC's Programs and Quality Committee, I joined  60 or so academic leaders from across the country and from a variety of disciplines to engage in strategic planning for SSHRC to 2030. The event was an excellent exercise in seeking understanding of the present and how SSHRC can best respond to – and shape - future challenges. Over the course of two days the group went through a variety of discussion exercises designed to identify future challenges, articulate plausible scenarios (both positive and negative) congruent with these challenges, and then posit possible responses the SSHRC community can enable.

Discussion over the course of the event was representative of the multiple disciplines present, and was a very positive articulation of future scenarios and how the SSHRC community can play an active role in helping to shape the future of Canada in a global context.

The event was as much a validation of the recent changes to the overall program architecture mix SSHRC enacted over the past year or so, showing that there is strong consonance in the streamlined program architecture with future directions and needs, and that this new approach is an effective architecture of the future. That is, the course SSHRC is on represents an enabling strategy that will let the SSHRC community provide leadership on areas of concern for all Canadians. Some of these issues will be topical - the environment, for example - in the sense that we are currently grappling with them and will continue to need to do so for some time to come. Other topics, such as the role and impact of technology, gender, race, aboriginal issues, the role of research – all resonate strongly with what is important in the world, and how Canada relates to the world. Above all, what struck me as most interesting was the balance the conversation had around what our society needs in terms of social and economic productivity and innovation, but also what we want: a well balanced approach to the integration of arts, culture, and ideas to underpin our social infrastructure.

And this is precisely what the SSHRC community offers Canada. Understanding the human condition is the hallmark of the Humanities and Social Science (HASS) disciplines. Ensuring that our understanding is strong and vibrant, and can contribute to a strong and vibrant culture, is essential to our long term social and economic well being. This ethos pervaded the discussion and conclusions, though these conclusions are a prelude to the work that lies ahead. This includes the further engagement with the SSHRC community around the implications for these scenarios, and a discussion about how the HASS disciplines can continue to enable Canada to lead and to further develop the human capital potential latent in our future. We have an excellent foundation to work on, and an even better blueprint, or compass, for building and charting the future.

This foundational discussion was rendered even more relevant with the release last week of the CCA Expert Panel Report on the State of Science and Technology in Canada. Of the six disciplines in which Canada leads the world, the majority are HASS disciplines. This is excellent news for the SSHRC community, and represents a key step forward in recognizing the excellence that SSHRC is known for. Of particular importance is the fact that the 2006 report was not able to squarely cover the HASS disciplines. Now, however, with a very rigorous and robust methodology, we can clearly see evidence for what many of us have known for some time, that SSHRC research in Canada is world leading in many fields, and represents some of the country's greatest strengths.

There is work to be done, however. The CCA report outlines some gaps in covering the HASS disciplines. While effort was made to work around these gaps, there are limitations that can be addressed by the SSHRC community. This includes harmonizing definitions and language and coming to a common understanding of how to measure excellence in HASS disciplines. SSHRC should lead this effort, working with the Federation of Social Sciences to set the standards for how we want to be measured for excellence. There is an excellent foundation for this in the report. Now is the time for us to seize the opportunity to lead the HASS community in defining our standards of excellence.

On the role of colleges and polytechnics, there is work to be done both in terms of ensuring that the applied research in this sector is quantifiable (we have a start in the report) in terms of outputs. There is also work to connect the fact that the colleges represent key HASS disciplines in their work with Canadian industry. This is a key driver of business innovation.

There are many high points in the report: SSHRC is highly valued as an organization contributing to Canada’s research infrastructure according to S&T experts in the country. The single most important thing industry needs to innovate is access to innovative talent, and in this area the HASS disciplines are very strong. HASS disciplines make up a significant percentage of the country’s production of graduates – both undergraduates (as inputs to robust S&T) and graduate students (as outputs, or contributors). Digital media and ICT are fast emerging clusters of importance.

A really strong success story for us at SSHRC is the emerging disciplines area of the report. Health and personalized medicine was top of the list, which includes digital media. Digital media is an interesting discipline as it is a combination in of arts and engineering. This interdisciplinary approach is indicative of a future trend in many areas, and exemplifies the boundary crossing capacity of HASS disciplines. That is, the integration of divergent thinking is a key strength of arts based education, for example, and this emergent area in particular shows the value that HASS disciplines bring to emergent areas of science and technology. To put this another way, gaming, to use the example cited in the CCA S&T Report, requires programming, but importantly also storytelling, art direction, and design skills. It is these HASS disciplines that arguably create the greatest advantage in this mix. To that end, personalized medicine, while certainly refers to genetics, also refers to technology to enable this. This infers design skills, meaning there are interdisciplinary strengths the HASS disciplines bring to many other S&T areas.

Another world leading area of excellence is in business and management, another SSHRC area. Given the country’s focus on entrepreneurship and innovation, this is another significant good news item and opportunity for us to show the core value of HASS disciplines to the well being - social and economic - of the country. While STEM skills are certainly important, they are clearly one component of a robust S&T infrastructure. What is clear from the report is that the HASS disciplines, and SSHRC, are an essential strand in the double helix of our science and technology capacity and innovation potential.

More on the Multiplier Effect

As per recent posts on the multiplier effect, an entire workforce with innovation literacy puts complementary skills to work on common innovation issues. Students develop innovation skills  through applied research project work as linked to workforce skills and education. The articulation of workforce skills development and innovation literacy is made in the OECD report on Workforce Skills and Innovation referenced here in earlier posts (this report is a must-read for anyone engaged in education and innovation). The Globe and Mail today published the Report on Campus Research 2011, which includes many good stories on applied research at Canadian colleges, and basic research from our universities. The online version has a few other stories, including an interview I did in "How Canada can get more R&D bang for its buck." I refer to the multiplier effect of using granting council funding for the development of HQSP to more broadly spur the diffusion of innovation. The point here is that we need STEM and nonSTEM working together. We can expand the idea of the multiplier effect - which I've previously used this to refer to graduate and undergraduate students with innovation literacy working together for improved productivity - to include the idea of adding value to work teams via multidisciplinary collaborative problem solving. This point is alluded to in Budget 2011, where funding for both NSERC and SSHRC can work together to promote the college research chairs through a mixture of business and technical skill-sets oriented to applied research problem solving.

Higher Education Summit addresses innovation, credit transfer

Colleges Ontario's annual conference was held in Toronto the last two days, and featured many discussions on education as an enabler of downstream social and economic productivity. Highlights included the Conference Board's report on college applied research, "Innovation Catalysts and Accelerators: The Impact of Ontario Colleges’ Applied Research", and expert panels on credit transfer and addressing the future needs of society amidst change and challenge (c.f. demographics and the economy). There was also a great talk by the CBC's Bob McDonald who outlined the role of science in knowledge generation and how we ignore the role of knowledge change over time at our peril.

On the issue of credit transfer and articulation of the Ontario education system, I was disappointed to hear many people talk about how difficult this will be in Ontario and how it won't work, or won't work easily. While it is certainly important to acknowledge the challenges we face in achieving a true educational system, it is clear that we need to modernize the Ontario educational system. Adopting an "any point of entry; any point of exit" model such as Alberta's (to name one jurisdiction) will greatly aid our overall capacity to innovate and compete internationally. It is too easy to say why this can't be done in Ontario; it is much more difficult to work at building a responsive education system that has the needs of students and employers in mind.We need to challenge ourselves as a system, make bold, future-facing decisions, and act now to build the framework for integrating new immigrants and addressing the skills gaps and shortages that are upon us.  The innovation economy demands innovative responses to the challenges we face.

Productivity, and why it matters

I was remiss in commenting a week or so ago when Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney commented on the sorry state of Canadian productivity. Needless to say, it's sobering to learn that Canada's productivity continues to plummet. Carney's comments that business needs to do more were met by protestations from some in industry. Regardless, the need to increase Canadian productivity is real. Today's Report on Business has a good op-ed from Gwyn Morgan on Why productivity gains should matter to Canadians.  A short while ago I referenced Kevin Lynch's article on our innovation deficit, and here is another piece he has written on Canada's Productivity Trap. Both Lynch and Morgan are aligned on the need to encourage education and innovation as ways to escape this productivity trap. Ontario's recent budget has a very strong and necessary focus on education, and perhaps most importantly in this area, better articulation of credit transfer among Ontario post-secondary institutions. We can liken the coming seismic post-secondary education sector changes in Ontario to moving from a feudal to a federated system. This evolution to an integrated innovation/education system will ensure our population has the education and skills to compete in the innovation economy.

Morgan closes his column with a definition of productivity from "the website of the National Trade Union Congress of Mauritius:"

"Productivity is a process of continuous improvement in the production/supply of quality output/service through efficient, effective use of inputs; with the emphasis on teamwork for the betterment of all."