International research collaboration: opportunities for ... · PDF fileInternational research...

International research collaboration:opportunities for the UK highereducation sector

Research report

42718 UniUK International Research 22/4/08 09:08 Page i

Research Reports

This series of Research Reports published byUniversities UK will present the results of researchwe have commissioned in support of our policydevelopment function. The series aims todisseminate project results in an accessible formand there will normally be a discussion of policyoptions arising from the work.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the Prime Minister's Initiative forInternational Education (PMI2)

Technopolis Limited has been delivering policystudies and strategic advice to decision-makers inthe research and innovation policy arena for almost20 years, founded in 1989 as a spin-off from SPRUat the University of Sussex. The UK practiceemploys 14 people presently, and has an annualturnover of around £1.25 million. It sits at thecentre of the Technopolis Group, which comprisesTechnopolis Limited and six wholly ownedsubsidiaries in five other European member states,which together employ more than 50 policyanalysts.

Our principal business is conducting contractresearch using the full spectrum of social scientificresearch methods in a range of policy domains, butespecially (i) Science and public-sector research,(ii) Higher education and skills, (iii) SME andbusiness support, and (iv) Innovation andcompetitiveness policy.

Our work falls into five broad categories, whichencompass the policy lifecycle:

p International comparative analyses to model andbenchmark good practice in the design andimplementation of government policies andprogrammes;

p Prospective analyses (foresight, road-mapping)and formulation of strategic advice to informpolicymakers on policy and programme design;

p Design and piloting of new programmes,including the development of monitoring andevaluation systems to permit budget holders tomeasure progress against agreed targets;

p Evaluation and economic impact assessment ofgovernment policies and programmes;

p Design and delivery of approved training coursesin programme design and evaluationmethodology for policymakers and projectmanagers.

Our work is carried out on behalf of national andregional public bodies across the UK andinternationally, including governmentdepartments, public agencies such as the EPSRCand ESRC and non-governmental bodies such asthe Council of Science and Technology, the DesignCouncil and Universities UK.

The copyright for this publication is held by Universities UK. The material may becopied or reproduced provided that the source is acknowledged and the material,wholly or in part, is not used for commercial gain. Use of the material forcommercial gain requires the prior written permission of Universities UK.

About the UK HE International Unit

The UK Higher Education International Unit hasbeen established to coordinate, promote andundertake activities designed to support UKuniversities in a globally competitive world. TheInternational Unit is funded by the HigherEducation Funding Council for England, theScottish Funding Council, the Higher EducationFunding Council for Wales, the Department forEmployment and Learning (Northern Ireland),GuildHE and Universities UK.

42718 UniUK International Research 22/4/08 09:08 Page ii

2 Foreword

1

3 Summary

2

5 The study

3

6 Trends and benefits of international research

collaboration

6 3.1 Extent of collaboration10 3.2 Expenditure levels11 3.3 Motives and benefits

4

14 Comparative analysis of support for

international research collaboration

5

16 UK universities’ management and organisation

of international research collaboration

16 5.1 Survey and interviews16 5.2 Policy and strategy18 5.3 Benefits 19 5.4 Organisation20 5.5 International research budgets20 5.6 Keeping records21 5.7 Critical success factors22 5.8 Use of external support22 5.9 Ideas for support

6

24 Conclusion

25 Appendix A: Interviewees

26 Appendix B: International research offices

outside the UK

26 B.1 Basic functions of an international research office

27 B.2 Case studies of university international offices

Contents

Universities UK International research collaboration 1

International research collaboration

42718 UniUK International Research 22/4/08 09:08 Page 1

2

Foreword

Universities are international organisations witha diverse staff and student body. They have links,partnership and collaborations with universities,business and other organisations around theworld. This international dimension is essentialto their ability to prosper and remaincompetitive, and drive economic growth. Ouruniversities have a strong international researchrecord and the UK is second only to the UnitedStates across a number of key output indicators.Because of this strength the UK is seen as thelocation of choice for researchers, or a keypartner of choice. For example, UK scientists areengaged in 50 per cent more internationalcollaborations than they were ten years ago.

This is not, however, to deny that internationalcompetition is significant. While the UKcollaborates more with China than any otherEuropean country, Chinese researchers havemore than doubled their international researchcollaborations and tripled their share of worldpublications over the same ten year period. Inthe face of growing global competition it iscrucial that the UK can continue to exploit itsreputation for high research quality, improve itsattraction for inward investors and potentialpartners, and capitalise on internationalcollaborations.

Collaboration has of course always been anatural part of academic life, but within thecontext of an increasingly globalised researchenvironment the ability to link into or buildinternational collaborations becomes all themore important. Strengthening researchcollaboration is also important in order to meetthe big global challenges confronting science,such as climate change and infectious disease;as well as attracting and retaining links with thebest scientific talent to ensure that the UK staysat the centre of global innovation networks.

2

Enhancing the UK’s research performance is anational priority that is strongly endorsed byUniversities UK and in order to support thisaspect of the work of member institutions wecommissioned Technopolis to undertake a studyof international research collaboration. Itsreport reviews trends, examines competitorcountries’ policies and UK universities’management of this function. It confirms thatthere is an almost universal commitment acrossthe UK higher education sector to expand thelevel of international research collaborativeactivity. However, Technopolis reports that only aminority of our universities currently has aninternational research collaborative strategyalthough the great majority believe that morestrategic management of this activity is needed.The report provides examples of how this can bedone. It also points to the additional support thatnational agencies could provide to ensure thatour collaborative activity is strengthened and ourresearch performance is enhanced as a result.

Professor Eric Thomas

Chair, Research Policy Committee

Professor Paul Wellings

Chair, International and Europe PolicyCommittee

Universities UK



In terms of benefits, it seems that the world’spoliticians and policymakers are broadly inagreement, with most international researchstrategies citing the same quartet of motives: thecompetitiveness and sustainability of thedomestic research system; domestic economicgrowth; a commitment to work together oncommon problems, from climate change topoverty; and a commitment to internationalisationand a global citizenry more generally.

Higher education institutions foresee benefits ina variety of guises but perhaps the most crucialare those of international standing deriving fromvery visible and successful researchcollaborations, a good supply of researchers ofthe right calibre, and improving its recruitmentadvantages for prospective research students. Interms of researcher benefits, people note theexcitement and stimulation of working withpeople and groups that have somewhat differenthistories and viewpoints to one’s own.

The UK position appears to be broadly in linewith its main competitor countries, in terms ofits strategic support for international researchcollaboration. Policymakers elsewhere (forexample Australia, Germany, France, Japan,Sweden, the United States) do not believe thatthey are ahead of the game. Most agree thatthere is a great deal to be done at a policy leveland that there is a genuine sense of a risk ofbeing left behind.

Many ‘competitor’ countries have a publishedstrategy on international research collaboration(internationalisation of research), with mostprioritising the same broad set of motivesand/objectives: supporting national researchexcellence, underpinning nationalcompetitiveness ambitions and tackling globalissues (of national interest) more effectively.Wider policy objectives are evident in manycases, whether that is foreign policy, trade orinternational development.

We found no systematic overview of the natureand extent of the measures being used bycompetitor countries to support thedevelopment and expansion of internationalresearch collaboration. However, individualaccounts suggest that most employ acombination of routine monitoring and feedbackon developments and opportunities in targetcountries, some form of in-country promotionand support, as well as high-level endorsement,with politicians signing open collaborativeagreements.

This report presents the findings arising from astudy of international research collaboration,exploring trends, competitor countries’ policiesand UK universities’ management of thisfunction.

The literature reports that there has been stronggrowth in international research collaboration inthe recent past and there is an expectation thatthis trend will continue into the future.

Bibliometric data suggest that the volume ofinternational research activity has increased itsshare of total UK research outputs from 30 percent in the 1990s to around 40 per cent in 2005.The data suggest that the UK’s most prolificinternational partnerships are with researchersin the United States, Germany and France. TheUK’s fastest growing international partnershipsare with researchers in China, where there hasbeen a doubling in the output of internationalresearch papers between the 1990s and 2005.The data also suggest that larger, well-established research countries, including theUK, have seen their share of global internationalresearch output eroded, and mostcommentators expect that this relative declinewill continue.

We estimate that the monetary scale of the UK’sinternational research collaboration activity isequivalent to 10-20 per cent of the total UKscience budget (which includes the socialsciences and humanities). This estimateincludes the spectrum of international researchactivity, from national subscriptions tointernational scientific organisations such asCERN, to the ad hoc support for the internationalelements of projects financed through themainstream programmes of the researchcouncils. Dedicated international researchschemes run by the research councils, learnedsocieties, non-governmental organisations andothers account for about one per cent of the UKscience budget, and while numerous, they areused in the main to seed relationships ratherthan to fund more permanent interaction.

UK expenditure on international scientificorganisations appears to be flat, while spendingon European collaborations is increasing, andthere is also real growth in the UK’s funding ofdedicated international schemes. We found nogood data on the trend in expenditure throughmainstream research programmes, but weassume that it will be increasing as this fundinglargely follows trends in demand.

1

Summary


A small majority of universities is aware of atleast some forms of external support that areavailable to help institutions develop theirmanagement capabilities and strategic researchpartnerships, but less than a quarter wereactually receiving such funding at the time ofreplying to our questionnaire survey. Subsequentinterviews revealed that the forms of support aremany and various, with a majority being targetedon researchers rather than institutions in thefirst instance, typically dedicated internationalprogrammes providing small grants to cover thecost of short visits and fellowships.

Universities are broadly content with the currentsituation and are not clamouring for moresupport from government or its agencies,although all agreed that additional fundingwould be worthwhile. In discussing thechallenges, interviewees did offer severalspecific suggestions:

p more and better in-country promotion of theresearch capabilities of UK universities;

p more measures to support cross-institutional(within the UK) networking and learning;

p a scheme to support the ‘bundling’ of UKinstitutions with particular strategic interests;and

p a co-financed fund, to help universitiesdevelop strategic partnerships that haveemerged from seed funds or researcher-levelinitiatives.

UK higher education institutions share an almostuniversal commitment across the sector toexpand the level of international researchcollaborative activity. Almost all institutionsconfirm that it is currently an active policyobjective to develop such collaboration.Universities point to an important distinctionbetween two classes of international researchcollaboration, with most distinguishing the muchsmaller number of institution-level strategicresearch partnerships from the much moreextensive international collaboration betweenindividual researchers. Senior managementtakes a more formative role in the former and amore facilitative role in the latter.

At present only a minority of UK universities hasan international research collaboration strategy,although a significant majority has plans todevelop such a strategy in the near future byextending either their existing international orresearch strategies. The vast majority believethat their university would benefit frommanaging international research collaborationin a more strategic fashion.

Although no single organisational model isevident, there is something of a standardapproach beginning to emerge, with a memberof the senior management team having overallresponsibility for policy and strategy and adirector and small team coordinating theexecution of the strategy, usually in concert withdepartmental teams and senior researchers. Inmany cases, there is an international committeeconsisting of external members to provide adviceand challenges to the internal team.

Only a very few higher education institutionshave a dedicated budget to (i) support theirresearch teams in undertaking internationalresearch collaboration, or (ii) develop theirinternal management capabilities. However,funds are generally available when needed, butare drawn from any one of several internaluniversity budgets and occasionally fromexternal bodies with a remit to sponsoruniversities or research.

4



2

The study

This study of international researchcollaboration has involved a mixture of deskresearch, survey and interviews in order to arriveat an overview of:

p the trends and benefits of internationalresearch collaboration;

p the national policies and support forinternational research collaboration inselected UK competitor countries, with aparticular focus on support for universities;

and

p UK universities’ management andorganisation of international researchcollaboration.


Bibliometric statistics suggest that the numberof UK international journal articles is growing atperhaps 5 per cent a year, as compared withtotal research output, which is growing at 2–3per cent a year. The same data show that thisclass of research papers has seen its share oftotal UK research outputs rise from around 30per cent in the 1990s to around 40 per cent (in2005), a trend that is replicated broadly speakingfor France and Germany and far outstrips Japanand the United States.

Table 1 presents three related tables showingrecently compiled figures for the numbers ofinternational research articles published in eachof the last two, five-year periods4. The first twotables present the basic counts for each period.The third table presents growth across the twoperiods. The first two tables show the counts forthe UK and a series of eight partner countriesand a residual figure for papers written withauthors based at addresses somewhere in therest of the world (ROW), which together add up tothe total number of international papersrecorded by the Thomson ISI web of sciencedatabase. For comparison, the first two tablespresent the counts of international researchoutputs for each UK partner country in turn,along with the distribution of output across theother partner countries (and the UK)5.

3.1 Extent of collaboration

There is a small but growing body of statisticaland empirical material that tackles the questionof UK university involvement in internationalresearch collaboration, in terms of its nature,extent and trends. The report by EvidenceLimited, is arguably the most comprehensiverecent analysis1. There is a much larger body ofwork that debates the motives and benefits ofinternational research collaboration, available atboth the national and supra-national levels2.

The literature reports strong growth ininternational research collaboration and theexpectation that this will continue into the futureand might very well strengthen. Most reportspoint to supporting trends in one or more of theprincipal indicators, which include the number of

p international research outputs;

p international patents;

p international research awards (and theirvalue); and

p non-national researchers and researchstudents

The first of these indicators – using bibliometricdata – has proved to be perhaps the most fruitfulin helping to map the development ofinternational relationships in a systematicmanner, capturing important aggregateexchanges among the research communities ofdifferent countries and tracking the ebb and flowof this international endeavour3.

6

3

Trends and benefits of international research

collaboration



Source: Adams (2007), based on Thomson ISI publications data

Table 1

International collaborative

research output by country and

partner country, 1996-2000 and

2001-2005 (articles) and for

growth across the two periods

(percentage)

1996-2000 Total UK USA CAN FRA GER JAP AUS CHINA INDIA ROW

UK 97,592 30,874 6,138 11,114 13,490 4,988 6,039 2,838 1,369 20,742

USA 244,911 30,874 28,754 20,744 32,095 23,711 10,679 9,226 4,555 84,273

CANADA 55,429 6,138 28,754 4,791 4,136 3,069 2,433 1,801 627 3,680

FRANCE 82,076 11,114 20,744 4,791 11,863 3,119 1,772 1,351 1,036 26,286

GERMANY 106,821 13,490 32,095 4,136 11,863 5,485 2,729 2,754 1,713 32,556

JAPAN 54,346 4,988 23,711 3,069 3,119 5,485 1,986 3,915 1,076 6,997

AUSTRALIA 30,743 6,039 10,679 2,433 1,772 2,729 1,986 1,463 391 3,251

CHINA 25,836 2,838 9,226 1,801 1,351 2,754 3,915 1,463 404 2,084

2001-2005 Total UK USA CAN FRA GER JAP AUS CHINA INDIA ROW

UK 144,457 43,337 9,248 15,502 20,235 6,658 9,573 5,505 2,253 32,146

USA 334,662 43,337 38,913 27,135 43,921 31,148 15,999 20,542 7,021 106,646

CANADA 75,659 9,248 38,913 6,423 6,464 3,933 3,672 3,688 981 2,337

FRANCE 107,729 15,502 27,135 6,423 16,609 4,646 2,753 2,774 1,530 30,357

GERMANY 146,615 20,235 43,921 6,464 16,609 7,464 4,388 5,401 3,101 39,032

JAPAN 77,197 6,658 31,148 3,933 4,646 7,464 2,964 8,631 2,262 9,491

AUSTRALIA 46,502 9,573 15,999 3,672 2,753 4,388 2,964 3,663 776 2,714

CHINA 54,529 5,505 20,542 3,688 2,774 5,401 8,631 3,663 1,127 3,198

Growth Average UK USA CAN FRA GER JAP AUS CHINA INDIA ROW

UK 154% 140% 151% 139% 150% 133% 159% 194% 165% 155%

USA 148% 135% 131% 137% 131% 150% 223% 154% 127%

CANADA 142% 134% 156% 128% 151% 205% 156% 64%

FRANCE 146% 140% 149% 155% 205% 148% 115%

GERMANY 153% 136% 161% 196% 181% 120%

JAPAN 155% 149% 220% 210% 136%

AUSTRALIA 162% 250% 198% 83%

CHINA 214% 279% 153%


UK-China research collaboration has becomemuch more significant in the past decade and isstrengthening. However, some degree of cautionis necessary when drawing conclusions fromthis bilateral analysis: more detailed data showthat most of our partner countries have seen anincrease of more than 50 per cent in theirinternational collaborative output, and adoubling at least of links with China. Australia,the United States and Japan have seen thestrongest growth in output, while the UK andGermany have seen the least growth.

UK research collaboration with China

Innovation China-UK (ICUK) is a multi-millionpound research partnership between the UK andChina, co-funded by the UK and Chinesegovernments in a bid to bring the latest jointresearch to the marketplace. In May 2006, theproject was awarded funding of £5 million fromthe UK’s Higher Education Innovation Fund(HEIF3), which is to be matched by the Chinese(the first time a research initiative on this scalehas been jointly funded by the UK and China).Queen Mary's University of London is taking thelead, working with four other UK universities(University of Nottingham, King’s CollegeLondon, Royal Veterinary College, University ofSouthampton) in cooperation with around 20Chinese institutions7.

The Supergen group was awarded £202,258through the Engineering and Physical SciencesResearch Council (EPSRC) INTERACT scheme(4th Call) to link its funded projects with similaractivities in China. The aim is to extend theinternational influence of this flagshipsustainable energy programme to China, and topromote or augment individual members’overseas research links. The two-year projectincludes group visits, workshops, exchangevisits and the establishment of a forum. TheInteract Supergen Group involves collaborationbetween seven UK and seven Chinese highereducation institutions8.

The data suggest that the UK’s most prolificinternational partnerships are with researchers inthe United States, Germany and France, whichtogether account for around 55 per cent of its totalinternational research output as captured by theThomson ISI database. These same data suggestthat the UK’s fastest growing internationalpartnerships are with researchers in China, wherethere has been a doubling in the output ofinternational papers between the 1990s and 2005.Collaborations with researchers in India,Australia, Canada and Germany have all seenstrong growth of between 50 per cent (Germany)and 65 per cent (India) during the same period.

Chart 1 takes the same data for each of the tenyears since 1996 and presents them in a linegraph, better to illustrate the trend in UK-Chinaresearch collaboration, which has grown morethan threefold, rising from 400 to 1,600 co-publications a year, and the rate of growth isaccelerating. The chart also presents the ISIdatabase counts for all UK articles and for allChina articles, the latter of which show a fourfoldincrease, albeit from a low base, as compared withan increase of about 20 per cent for the UK. Thevery similar growth trend for China articles andUK-China articles suggests that the rapid growthin international research collaboration with Chinais being driven, or facilitated at least, by anexpansion in the capacity and output of theChinese research system more generally. Thereare other indicators which might support thisnotion: China has seen an increase in its share ofworld scientific publications, from 2 per cent to 6.5per cent over ten years (1995–2004); and itsspending on research and development hasincreased by more than 20 per cent a year since1999. It stood at 1.3 per cent of GDP in 20056.

Chart 1

Growth of research

collaboration between the

UK and China

Source: Table 1 of Research in China: patterns of internationalcollaboration, FCO, Beijing, January 2007, based on Thomson ISIpublications data

8

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

01996 1997 1998 1999

UK China UK-China

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


Universities UK International research collaboration

At the country-level, bibliometric data showregional alliances winning out over more distantpairings, so that rates of growth in bilateralcollaborations are stronger than average forthose pairings in Asia, for example, as they arefor some pairings in greater Europe.

With the bibliometric data really only coveringscience and technology (STEM) subjects, it is notat all clear how much international researchcollaboration occurs within the social sciencesor arts and humanities. There is no readilyavailable source of systematic data of relevancehere. Notwithstanding this absence of robust,time series data, it is clear from our bilateraldiscussions and from analysis of data on forexample EU-China collaborations within the EUFramework Programme 6 for research andtechnological development (or UK-Japancollaborations more generally) that there is agood deal of social science being undertakenwithin the context of international researchcollaborations.

Several commentators observed that there arelikely to be greater limits as to the relevance orvalue of international collaboration in the socialsciences and arts and humanities, whencompared with the natural and physicalsciences, as a significant proportion of thisresearch is concerned to understand andanalyse issues that are highly particular or evenunique to a given social system. Equally, therecan be strong epistemic and ideologicaldifferences, which can be a barrier tocollaboration, although in some instances suchtensions can be a source of creativity andintellectual advance. On the other hand, theparticularities of many socio-economic systemscan in itself provide a reason to collaborate withresearchers in the host countries, whether thatis health researchers exploring suicide in Japanor infectious diseases in China.

We were told by several contributors thatinternationally-framed studies can provideresearchers with access to unique populationsor data sets, which can assist greatly with thecontrolled study of a given phenomenon, with thenon-national population providing a criticalcontrol group.

The University of Leeds is involved in an initiativesupported by a Biotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council (BBSRC) ChinaPartnering Award and a grant from theuniversity’s own international fund. The projectinvolves collaboration between plant scientistsat the University of Leeds and appliedagricultural specialists from the ChineseAcademy of Sciences, working on joint projectslooking at the role of genes within crop plants,particularly rice. The project will also see thecreation of a ‘virtual laboratory’, whereresearchers can share information and researchdata. A memorandum of understanding betweenthe two countries was signed in late 2006 and thepartnership is expected to lead to long-termprojects and future joint appointments9.

Although China may be grabbing the headlines,the absolute dominance of the UK’s collaborativeoutput with the United States, Germany andFrance remains significant. While a goodproportion of the growth in UK internationaloutput may focus on China and India, the natureof relationships underpinning these statisticsmakes it hard to imagine that our ties withestablished partners are going to decline inabsolute terms, at least in the medium term.

The data also suggest that larger, well-established research countries, including theUK, have seen their share of global internationalresearch output eroded by several countries thathave witnessed much stronger than averagegrowth in their international research output (forexample China), and most commentators expectthis relative decline to continue.

Trends in the data for the UK’s key partnercountries and research competitors suggest thatthe historical notion of research excellence as theprimary driver may be somewhat overstated, andthat other factors including access to internationallabour markets (students and researchers) and tooverseas markets are also important.

The importance of research excellence as a‘driver’ is most apparent at a discipline level,with the distribution of total outputs being biasedtowards those country pairings where there is amutual interest in a particular disciplinary sub-field, and where the citation data suggest thatthe quality gain is strongest. The geography ofthe disciplinary hot spots (pairs) tends to bemore variable and more widely dispersed thanthe aggregate country-level data, whichsuggests that where advancement of knowledgeis the primary objective, large physical andcultural differences are less significant barriersthan one might imagine.

9


“A preliminary analysis of research projectsundertaken from 1 November 1998 to April2004 that were international either in theirfocus of enquiry or their funding sourcesuggests that at least 8.5 per cent of currentresearch activity is international. The level ofresearch income from EU and other overseassources has increased markedly over the pastfive years”12.

3.2 Expenditure levels

We estimate that the monetary value of the UK’sinternational research collaboration isequivalent to 10-20 per cent of the total UKscience budget. This estimate includes the fullspectrum of international research collaborationactivity from the national subscriptions andassociated research tied to internationalscientific organisations such as CERN, the valueof participations in the EU frameworkprogramme and the ad hoc support for theinternational elements of predominantlynational projects financed through themainstream programmes of the researchcouncils.

Dedicated international research schemes runby the research councils, learned societies, non-governmental organisations and others accountfor about 1 per cent of the UK science budget andwhile they are numerous, running into the manytens of schemes, they are quite small in financialterms, as they are used in the main to seedrelationships through the internationalmovement of people (short visits, exchanges,individual fellowships).

UK spending on international scientificorganisations appears to be flat, while spendingon European collaboration is increasing, throughthe framework programme itself as well asseveral of its offspring, notably the EuropeanResearch Council (ERC) and ERA-NET (thenetworking of national and regional researchprogrammes within the European ResearchArea). There is also real growth in the UK’sfunding of dedicated international schemes, withthe addition of schemes such as the EPSRC’sInteract, the BBSRC’s strategic partneringawards and the British Council’s UK IndiaEducation and Research Initiative. We have nogood data on expenditure trends throughmainstream research programmes, however theBritish Embassy in Beijing did say that itsexchanges with the various research councilshad produced an estimate of £53 million forcurrent financial commitments in China. Weassume that it will be increasing too as this modeof funding largely follows trends in demand.

One can see further evidence of the level ofinterest in the social sciences where theprincipal national source of research grants, theEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC),has maintained an international unit almostfrom the outset when it was launched in theearly 1980s, and has longstanding ties withresearch councils and leading academies aroundthe world. Professor Ian Diamond, ChiefExecutive of the ESRC, commented:

“The ESRC has international bilateralagreements with thirteen countries aroundthe world, which together produce 400–500international (bilateral and multilateral) bidseach year, all of which are carefully peer-reviewed using an agreed standard procedure,endorsed by all of the national funding bodiesand research councils, all of whom arecontent to fund their domestic researchgroups’ share of any approved projects” 10.

In preparing its international research strategy11

Research Councils UK (RCUK) carried out somebackground analysis together with its individualmember councils and arrived at a series ofestimates to indicate the extent of the UK’sinternational research engagement. In 2007,data and estimates from the research councilsand the Higher Education Statistics Agency(HESA) reveal that:

p 40 per cent of research council grants have aninternational component;

p 50 per cent of UK PhD students are non-nationals; and

p 40 per cent of UK research staff are non-nationals.

Although there are data on the extent ofinternational research engagement, thebibliometrics provide the best view of thechanging volume of collaboration. A smallnumber of universities have stated that they haverun their own internal surveys in order better tounderstand the nature and extent ofinternational research collaboration, althoughthese data are not often public and have neverbeen aggregated.

The following extract from the internationalstrategy of the Institute of Education at theUniversity of London is an example of suchinstitution-level data:

10



A survey of EU member states’ senior scienceand technology officials (carried out on behalf ofthe CREST working group on internationalisationof research and development) confirmed thesepriority objectives. It underlined the extent towhich domestic wealth creation is the strongestof three major objectives: 60 per cent ofrespondents stated that gaining access toemerging markets was a primary motive.Interestingly, at this national or strategic level,increasing the quality of research was reportedto be a primary focus for just under half of allrespondents, an outcome that underlines theimportance of research to wider economicambitions and international relations moregenerally.

Exhibit 1

Major objectives of

internationalisation of

science and technology in

EU member states (n = 20)

Source: Survey of EU member states’ senior science and technologyofficials carried out on behalf of the CREST working group oninternationalisation of research and development, July 2007

These national-level drivers echo the motives ofUK universities to some extent, with mostexpressing concern about the long-termsustainability of their institution in what is seen tobe an increasingly global market place, especiallyfor the provision of postgraduate education andthe recruitment of students and staff.

“By 2015, our distinctive ability to integrateworld-class research, scholarship andeducation will have secured us a place amongthe top 50 universities in the world.” Visionstatement from the University of Leedscurrent strategy.13

3.3 Motives and benefits

The desk research and surveys make clear thefact that the benefits of and motives behindinternational research collaboration looksomewhat different depending upon one’sperspective, and level within the researchsystem: national, institutional or researcher.

The world’s politicians and policymakers arebroadly in agreement with one another aboutnational policy ambitions, with mostinternational research strategies citing the samequartet of motives, which are:

p maintaining and enhancing thecompetitiveness and sustainability of thedomestic research system facilitated byresearch institutions becoming moreinternational. This includes establishing newstrategic partnerships to boost researchquality and reputation, improving access tointernational labour markets (researchersand research students) and achieving theeconomies that can result from sharing thecost of overheads;

p improving the competitiveness of thedomestic economy, secured throughresearch-led access to overseas markets andby the attraction of high-value added inwardinvestment;

p a commitment to expand the global assault onthe most pressing, shared problems, such asclimate change, poverty and security; and

p a commitment to the internationalisation ofpeople and politics, with researchcollaborations and researcher mobility seenas being a powerful and cost-effectivecontribution to a more harmonious and saferworld (global citizens).

Selection criteria for partner countries andthematic priorities are closely related to theseobjectives. They encompass scientific, politicaland economic considerations and areincreasingly applied based on systematicinformation gathering on science and technologyresearch activity in other countries.

11

Tackle global issues andinternational development

Increase the quality of R&D

Improve competitivenessand market access

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


Exhibit 3

Drivers of international research collaboration (University of

British Columbia, Canada)

Why we pursue international research collaborations

p Different perspectives promote knowledge

p Capacity-building without cost

p Research funding

p To develop solutions that resonate around the world

p Graduate student recruitment

p Reputation

Source: Presentation by Craig Klafter, Associate Vice PresidentInternational, University of British Columbia, to a Universities UKseminar, London, 20 November 2007

As with the national agenda, research excellenceis just one of several objectives for universities,although, once again, as with most aims, it is themeans rather than the end. Global visibility andinstitutional reach appear to be more typical ofthe high-level ambitions of UK universities, andthis is being driven by expectations of studentsand staff, global competition and gatheringforces of institutions, cities, regions andgovernments – all pressing universities toengage with an international agenda and todevelop more operational clarity around this.

Two of the drivers mentioned by institutions areless commonly reported in national policydiscussions, and yet they are clearly ofsignificance to researchers themselves. The firstrelates to the insights that can result fromcollaboration between academics with differentepistemic perspectives, wherein attempts toresolve tensions and apparent contradictionscan precipitate the emergence of new ‘truths’and prompt advances in understanding moregenerally15.

The second novel institutional driver relates tothe occasional need to deliver capacity quicklyand at low or no cost to the university, which canbe achieved through project-specificcollaboration among established partners.These kinds of temporary alliances arecommonplace in many areas of the privatesector, and are expected to be an importantfocus for organisational development in thefuture.

Institutions foresee benefits in a variety ofguises, but perhaps most prominent are: theirinternational standing derived from very visibleand successful research collaborations (forexample, with leading researchers, businessesand institutions; and the influence it can conferwithin international forums and politicaldebates); a good supply of top-flight researchstaff, and a plentiful supply of good researchstudents. Most also see that they have a publicduty, as part of their institutional mission, tosupport knowledge transfer throughinternational collaboration as a route toenhanced social equity and economicdevelopment.

Exhibit 2 presents a well-developed list of‘drivers’, which include many of the forces forchange cited by senior officers interviewedduring the course of this study, although in thiscase, the list was specified in a presentation bythe University of Leeds.

Exhibit 2

Drivers of international

research collaboration

(University of Leeds) 14

Drivers of the ‘internationalisation’ of research

p World-class research is inherently international and important forthe sustainability of a research-led university;

p Undergraduates, research students and postdoctoral researchersincreasingly request international experience as part of their‘standard’ education;

p Major corporate funders are changing their purchasing styles (valuefor money, stimulation of developing economies, new forms ofpartnership) favouring international collaborations;

p Collaborative research publications gain 2.5 to 5 times the citationimpact of the field average for ‘single-country’ authored papers;

p EU programmes facilitate direct involvement of many countries;

p Several major non-UK funders (for example the National Institutesof Health in the United States) are increasing the scope of their callsfor proposals, with very significant income being secured by UKuniversities;

p UK research funders’ emerging commitment to prioritise researchinvestment around global challenges (for example, the researchcouncils);

p Regional economic development agencies across the UK areencouraging local universities to work with them to strengthen theirability to secure international objectives for the region, aroundexports, foreign direct investment and productivity.

Source: Presentation by Richard Williams, Pro-vice-chancellor forEnterprise, Knowledge Transfer and International Strategy at theUniversity of Leeds, to a Universities UK seminar, London, 20November 2007

Exhibit 3 presents a similar although perhapsrather sharper set of drivers from a Canadianuniversity, underlining the quite generic natureof universities’ goals in the international arena.

12



For example, leading civil engineers, such asArup, make extensive use of partnerships andcoalitions to achieve the flexibility they need tocope with a somewhat unpredictable market. Inthe case of universities and civil engineers, aproportion of those partners will be non-nationals. Several contributors mentioned that itwas easier in some instances to collaborate withnon-national partners, as the funding system inthe UK tended to reinforce inter-institutionalrivalry and impede cooperation.

There is also an issue of cost-effectiveness andproductivity, with several intervieweesmentioning the specific benefit of higher staffoutput and lower labour costs. In India forexample, a research dollar buys more researchhours than it would in the UK, and perhaps moreimportantly, there is a potential intellectualboost in that typically, Indian institutes are in aposition to deploy several post-doctoralresearchers to wrestle with a theoretical orconceptual issue, where the team in the UKmight be forced to move forward with a singleresearcher and he or she might well have morethan one project in hand. This expansion ineffective capacity is amplified by the intensity ofwork rates in India, where we are told that theatmosphere inside a typical research institute iscloser to that of a busy press office with endlessdeadlines and concerns over time, as comparedwith the more congenial and self-determinedenvironment evident in the UK.

In terms of research benefits, bibliometric datasuggest that on average international researchoutputs are of substantially higher quality andhigher impact, with typical average impactratings being two or three times the averagerating for all domestic papers in the same sub-field. Despite the structural boost multipleauthors can give to any paper’s citations, thedifferential appears to be so significant as tosuggest that there is a real quality ‘gain’ frominternational research collaboration.

For the individual researcher there is theexcitement and stimulation of working withpeople and groups that have somewhat differenthistories and viewpoints, the career andreputational gain of being seen to have beenassociated with leading overseas groups and theincreased opportunities for interaction, debateand learning that derive from pursuing individualinterests in a global community of hundreds(rather than tens of peers, at home) of deepspecialists.

13


4

Comparative analysis of support for international

research collaboration

Policymakers elsewhere (for example, officialsin Australia, Germany, France, Japan, Swedenand the United States) do not believe that theyare ahead of the game. Most were of the opinionthat there was a great deal to be done at a policylevel and that there was a genuine sense of a riskof being left behind. Most stated that they arejust beginning to marshal their communities,seeking to develop strategies and associatedactions that will help them to be more successfulin the international realm in the future and toderive more value from it, whether that is inrespect to domestic research excellence, laboursupply or the exploitation of knowledge producedin other countries.

A good number of UK competitor countries(Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Norway,Sweden) have a published strategy oninternational research collaboration(internationalisation of research), with mostprioritising the same broad set of motives andobjectives: supporting national researchexcellence, underpinning nationalcompetitiveness ambitions and tackling globalissues (of national interest) more effectively.Wider policy issues are evident in many cases,whether that is foreign policy, trade orinternational development.

Although there are strategies aplenty, we foundno cases where these high-level documents areaccompanied by implementation plans, withspecific objectives, budgets and activities todeliver those strategies. That said, most of thesehigh-level documents do make somecommitments to specific actions to drive forwardstrategies, in the shape of new funds to expandresearcher mobility, for example, as well ascommitments to a broad approach (for example,extensive partnerships involving the widerscientific community, working with non-governmental organisations in order to benefitfrom their wealth of knowledge in-country andthe need to ensure mutually beneficialpartnerships where all partners contributesignificantly to the venture).

We found just one attempt at a systematic view ofthe measures being used to supportinternational research collaboration, howeverthe exercise was essentially European; it wasbased on a survey of EU member state seniorofficials and the question posed was onlysufficient to reveal the existence of a form ofsupport. There is no indication as to the extent ofsuch support, the frequency with which it is usedor the relative importance of one measure ascompared with any other.

There is a growing sense that several of the UK’sscientific competitors are devoting rather moreeffort to strengthening their internationalresearch links than the UK is. There is a beliefthat these presumed differences in activity mightlead to a relative decline in the quality andinternational standing of UK science in themedium to long term, as we find ourselvespassed over as preferred partners by the bestresearch groups and most exciting researchprojects.

Technopolis’ research on internationalcooperation, carried out for the former Office ofScience and Innovation (OSI) and the GlobalScience and Innovation Forum did produceanecdotal evidence suggesting that Australiaand Germany in particular, but Canada andSweden too, were devoting substantial energy tostrengthening ties with China and India, whichwas reflected in the numbers of high-leveldelegations, new memoranda of understandingand investment in new joint centres andinstitutions16.

This apparent difference in strategy andinvestment might not be quite so pronounced inreality of course, and there are some contra-indicators. The recently published paper onPatterns of international collaboration for theUK and leading partners suggests that the UK isperforming as well if not better than France andGermany in terms of the numbers of links itsresearchers have with their peers in theemerging scientific nations of China and India17.

Nor is the policy position static, with the UKhaving recently launched several new initiatives,such as the UK India Education and ResearchInitiative, the UK China Partners in Scienceprogramme, and the Global Science andInnovation Forum strategy for internationalengagement.

Our research suggests that this sense of fallingbehind is probably overstated and that the UKposition appears to be broadly in line with itsmain competitor countries, in terms of itsstrategic support for international researchcollaboration.

14



Exhibit 4

International research

collaboration measures

across EU member states

(n = 20)

Measure Number percentage

of countries of countries

Small grants for overseas visits 19 95%

Promotion in country by embassies 18 90%

Support with partner search 17 85%

Unfunded foreign partners in national projects 16 80%

Technical advice to individual collaborators 16 80%

Nationally coordinated international marketing campaigns 15 75%

Dedicated sponsorship agencies in country 12 60%

Joint funding of running costs 12 60%

Joint funding of infrastructure 11 55%

Local funds for foreign partners in national projects 10 50%

Other funding measures 10 50%

Foreign branches of research institutions 10 50%

Other promotion measures 7 35%

Other measures 5 25%

Fiscal incentives 4 20%

Source: Survey of EU member states’ senior science and technologyofficials carried out on behalf of the CREST working group oninternationalisation of research and development, July 2007

Exhibit 4 presents the results of this survey, withthe measures sorted in descending order usingthe number of citations, which reveals a patternclosely matching the kind of assistance in usehere in the UK. Researcher mobility schemesand in-country support by embassies are prettywell universal, and support with partner search,technical advice and in-country promotionalcampaigns are also pretty widespread.

The ranking reveals two measures where the UKmight be argued to be somewhat out of step withthe majority, which are:

p The share (60 per cent) of countries thatresponded to the survey, stating that theymaintain dedicated promotional agencies in-country, in selected strategic partnercountries. The UK is beginning to match thiswith its recently opened Research CouncilsUK (RCUK) offices in China, India and theUnited States.

p The share (50 per cent) of countries thatresponded to the survey, stating that nationalresearch schemes are able to pay the costs ofnon-national partners involved with ‘national’research projects. The Scandinavian countriesappear to have been particularly forward-looking in this respect, having beenencouraging international projects withintheir national schemes for at least ten years,and being increasingly prepared to considerextending the geographical application oftheir financial investment (through nationalinstitutions) to secure engagement withstrategic partners.

Our own discussions confirm that mostcountries’ embassies are involved actively inmonitoring and reporting on important scienceand technology developments, brokering andhosting inbound missions and the organisationof ad hoc bilateral conferences/events. Embassysupport for business appears to be moredeveloped than support for universities, on theassumption that the university sector has its ownliaison offices. There is also activity at the level ofthe research institutes, with some universitiesand institutes having decided that it makesstrategic sense for them to create affiliates ofnational universities and research institutes inanother country. We heard from our interviews inChina that American universities wereparticularly active in this regard.

15


5

UK universities’ management and organisation of

international research collaboration

“Internationalisation in itself isn’t ‘new,’ butwhat is new is the way in which institutions,and now towns, cities and government, areengaging with the international agenda morestrategically and with more operationalclarity.”18

It is also clear that most of these institution-levelrelationships began with educationalprogrammes, ranging from double mastersdegrees to international summer schools andmajor recruitment campaigns. However, there isclearly a growing interest in researchcollaboration, more narrowly:

“Launched in April 2005, the strategy of theUniversity of Edinburgh’s China Office is toenhance the University's profile through thedevelopment of research and educationallinks with high-ranking Chinese institutions.Through these links and public awareness ofthe university’s reputation, Edinburgh hasdeveloped a good relationship with variousfellow prestigious universities and academicinstitutions, such as Peking University,Tsinghua University, Fudan University,Beihang University, Beijing Film Academy,Xiamen University, Nankai University, ChinaAgriculture University, in fields as diverse ase-science, engineering, life and medicalsciences, arts and culture”19.

“Columbia University and the London Schoolof Economics (LSE) have a formalcollaboration at the institutional level, and ourtwo anthropology departments already havean ongoing program for collaboration andexchange. At both the institutional anddepartmental levels, Columbia and the LSEshare a number of areas of expertise andinterest. For example, our anthropologydepartments have substantial shared regionalexpertise in South Asia and East Asia, as wellas expertise on the themes of globalisation,nationalism, and gender. And yet there arealso significant differences between thedepartments and institutions – in approachesto anthropology, in undergraduate andpostgraduate teaching programs, inadministrative framework, and so forth. Weconsider these to be areas that provide scopefor a genuine collaboration between partners,as well as an opportunity to evaluate theeffectiveness of these educational tools in twodistinct and yet closely related learningenvironments”20.

5.1 Survey and interviews

We ran an online survey directed to the vice-chancellors and principals of 150 universitiesand higher education colleges, and obtained 86responses. We carried out follow-up interviewswith twenty pro-vice-chancellors and researchdirectors at a wide range of institutions todeepen our understanding.

While pro-vice-chancellors were content torespond to our survey, confirming the timelinessand importance of the topic, we found thatrespondents were rather more diffident when itcame to representing their institution as any kindof exemplar. For most, this was an importantjourney that they have only recently embarkedupon.

5.2 Policy and strategy

The survey suggests that there is an almostuniversal commitment across UK highereducation institutions to expanding theirinternational research collaboration, withalmost all respondents (94 per cent) confirmingthat it is currently an active aim of theirinstitution to develop such collaboration.

Almost all (94 per cent) are actively trying toincrease the volume of research collaboration,with around two-thirds targeting institution-levelcollaboration on specific disciplines andcountries, which in practice means thematicpartnerships with one or more institutions in agiven country.

Follow-up interviews revealed an importantdistinction between two classes of internationalresearch collaboration, with most peopledistinguishing institution-level strategicpartnerships from researcher-levelcollaboration. The latter is reported to accountfor the great majority of total activity and isdriven by individuals’ own research interests andambitions, where international engagement isan integral part of being a research professional.Respondents see their duty here as beingfacilitative, for the most part simply providinggeneric support and ad hoc advice to individualsand research groups. For most, this bottom-upapproach increasingly coexists with a morestrategic, institutional perspective. It seems thatmany UK universities already have a smallnumber of strategic research partnerships,institution-to-institution, with overseasuniversities or research groups, motivated by thedesire to sustain or improve the institution’sresearch capability and international standing orreputation. As the University of Birmingham’sinternational strategy comments:

16



Exhibit 6

Institute of Education’s

internationalisation

strategy (2005-2008)

Strategic objectives for the Institute’s international work

The overall aim of the strategy is to secure the Institute’s position asa global leader in the field of education and related areas of socialscience and professional practice.

Its objectives are as follows:

p The generation and dissemination of knowledge that recognises adiversity of contexts and is informed by the Institute’s commitmentto truth and justice;

p The promotion of international, intercultural and comparativeapproaches to Institute activity;

p The achievement of market leadership in terms of attractingstudents from outside the UK to study education and related areas;

p The achievement of a significant increase in the income generatedthrough research and third stream work with an internationalorientation.

Source: Extract from the International Strategy of the Institute ofEducation at the University of London (2005)

A minority said that their international researchcollaboration strategy was being developed aspart of the institution’s wider research strategy.The documents encompass a number of facets,including the institution’s international researchstanding (and monitoring thereof), itsrecruitment of talented researchers, support forshort overseas visits for younger researchers,and the pursuit of international researchcollaborations in areas of particular importanceto the institution.

The survey and interviews suggest that overallinstitutions no longer feel that it is quite enoughto leave things to individual researchers and thatthe realisation of their more general institutionalobjectives is more likely if some consciousdecisions are made centrally about the creationof international partnerships in particular fields,and even with specific institutions.

“Forging scientific links with othersynchrotrons across the world has been animportant element of Diamond’s work thisyear. During 2006 Diamond Light Source hassigned a number of memoranda ofunderstanding with international facilities. On20 February 2006, during the China-UK N+NWorkshop on Synchrotron Science inShanghai, Diamond signed a memorandum ofunderstanding with the Shanghai SynchrotronRadiation Facility/Shanghai Institute of AppliedPhysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences”21.

“India is a huge focus for Leeds MetropolitanUniversity and our Northern Film School, andwe have strived to establish strong links to theIndian Film Academy (IIFA) and Bollywood. Ourmotive is a blend of enterprise (3rd stream),education and practice-led research andconsulting. Research collaboration is not a bigpart of what we do, however it is an increasinglyimportant part of the mix; we are just about toestablish two academic chairs, the IIFA Chairfor Global Cinema, and an India 60 Chaircelebrating 60 years of Indian independence.The infrastructure, relationships and insightgained through the work with India and the IIFAhas been used as a platform for ongoing effortsto develop a strategic collaboration with SriLanka (Colombo, High Commission, BritishCouncil) around ‘responsible tourism”22.

There is widespread commitment to becomingmore strategic, which is not to say thatinstitutions are seeking to switch modes frombottom-up to top-down, but rather to do a betterjob of operating a hybrid model. The surveyfound that only a few universities presently havean international research collaboration strategy(13 per cent), although it revealed that asignificant majority has plans to develop such astrategy in the near future (65 per cent). An evengreater proportion (91 per cent) stated that theybelieved their university would benefit frommanaging international research collaborationin a more strategic fashion. Follow-up interviewsrevealed that many of these strategies areinternational strategies and not internationalresearch collaboration strategies per se, anddeal with the internationalisation of the entirespectrum of higher education activities,including research. In many cases, internationalresearch is addressed as both means and ends:research of international significance used as ameans by which to compete with other UK andoverseas higher education institutions for thebest researchers and research students;international collaboration as a means by whichto secure and sustain research capability ofinternational standing.

17


Tangibles: the potential to secure increasedlevels of research and consulting incomeoverall as compared with a bottom-up model;it has the potential to strengthen one’stechnical capabilities through concentrationand specialisation on the one hand and thepooling of complementary (and otherwiseabsent) competences, methodologies anddata sets on the other; the potential toincrease the numbers and quality of non-nationals (fee paying) applying to study firstand higher degrees, including researchdegrees”.

Interviewees suggested that this more strategicmode of behaviour falls naturally to theuniversity’s central functions or the faculties anddepartments because an individual researchercannot easily be ‘strategic’. It is equally unlikelythat such behaviour would emerge automaticallyas an aggregate effect of many researchers’individual decisions. They commented:

“The institution is better equipped to createsignificant and wide-ranging collaborations,as compared with individual researchers.Moreover, individual researchers oftenstruggle to sustain long-distancerelationships, as their respective careersprogress and their research interests evolve.Individual relationships may wither forpersonal reasons, even when there is still agreat deal of potential value to be derived”.

“The NSF Materials International Institute forComplex Adaptive Matter, a subsidiary of theInstitute for Complex Adaptive Matter (ICAM)at the University of California, is a multilateralinternational research partnership involvingthe Max Planck Institute and CambridgeUniversity, among others, a collaborated thatis reported to have helped the University ofCalifornia leapfrog from ‘ordinary’ to ‘worldclass’ in this materials field in little more thantwo years”.

“The university has the authority, reputationand resources to establish friendships andmutual understandings among a muchbroader group of interested and influentialparties (eg in-country universities andministries, the local British Council, ForeignOffice, etc) as compared with individualresearchers or research groups. Similarly, theinstitution has the financial wherewithal toestablish a significant presence in-country, tobuild relationships and engage local staff, andgenerally embed the institution and its jointventure”.

Some interviewees expressed minorreservations as to the ultimate feasibility ofmanaging research collaboration centrally,because of its critical dependence upon bringingtogether individuals with complementaryinterests and ambitions, where deepspecialisation and interpersonal chemistry canrather get in the way. These same intervieweesstated that while senior management mightreadily divine one or two of the more obviousstrategic partnerships, they are not in a positionto look more widely. To help to overcome thisparticular challenge, several of the respondentshad created internal seed funds, which inviteresearch groups to come forward with proposalsfor international projects or networks, which ifsuccessful will be granted £10–20,000 tofacilitate relationship-building and ideally a jointfunding application.

We heard one of two arguments against the needfor increased central management andcoordination of international researchcollaboration, including one individual whoexpressed concern at the growing pressureevident in policy circles for universities to bedoing more, which he suggested was somethingakin to a problem looking for a solution. Severalof the more research-intensive universitiesargued that the bottom-up approach really wasthe best way to organise things.

“I am not a great fan of institutional strategiesfor, or central management and coordinationof, international research collaborations.Universities need hungry individuals that wantto collaborate with overseas partners, coupledto administrations that support them in theirambitions and do what they can to supportthem. I don’t see much need for ‘strategy’ thatgoes beyond this”23.

5.3 Benefits

Interviewees told us that there are severalbenefits to a university of being strategic, insome degree at least, about the management ofits international research collaboration:

“Intangibles: it increases the reputation andbrand value of the university at home andinternationally; it underwrites thecosmopolitan feel of the university; and itmakes us (students and staff) more aware ofglobal issues and means we are likely to bebetter global citizens.

18



“In terms of our strategic approach theUniversity of Bath’s attitude is that we shouldblend a top down and bottom-up approach. Weshould encourage collaborations to developbottom-up and do what we can to supportthese, but this should be supplemented by amore concerted ‘top-down’ effort in areas thathave been identified as ripe for furtherdevelopment. The research support units inthe university help researchers to find suitablepartners if necessary, and provide the usualrange of other ‘Research Office’ activities,such as assistance with funding opportunities,grant applications, etc”24.

“At the University of Bristol, the pro-vice-chancellor for research (Malcolm Anderson)has overall responsibility. He is heading up theoperational unit that provides internalsupport. The university is also a member ofthe Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) –Vice-Chancellor Eric Thomas is the chair –and this is a key mechanism through which itdevelops and thinks about internationalresearch collaboration at a more strategiclevel. They have an international developmentmanager who leads for them in this area froman operational participation perspective”25.

“Bi-lateral relationships are quite commonbut multiple partner arrangements are rare.With an increased desire to develop strategicinternational links to address global issuesthere is an opportunity to increase thelikelihood of success by using establishedinternational university networks. Some ofthese networks have already establishedtrusting relationships between their memberinstitutes and the discipline based researchclusters within them. Some can alreadydemonstrate a track record of researchoutcomes. For example, the World UniversityNetwork (www.wun.ac.uk) with its emergingprogramme of research to address globalchallenges is a clear opportunity for UKresearch councils to connect with, especiallywhere the challenge programmes alignstrongly with the thematic signposts in therecent Treasury delivery plans. For example,in the case of EPSRC (they relate) to healthand medical technology, energy,nanotechnology etc. Use of such networks willspeed the rate of progress and seems anobvious first point of call for research councilsseeking to explore effective multi-partnercollaborations”26.

5.4 Organisation

While there is no single organisational model,the survey and interviews suggest that there issomething of a standard approach beginning toemerge, with a member of the seniormanagement team having overall responsibilityfor policy and strategy and a director and smallteam coordinating the execution of the strategy,but usually in concert with departmental teamsand senior researchers. Often there is aninternational committee comprising externalpeople to provide advice and challenges to theinternal team.

Our survey established that for the greatmajority (76 per cent), international researchcollaboration is the specific responsibility of oneof the university’s senior officers, typically a pro-vice-chancellor. However, only around a quarter(27 per cent) of higher education institutionshave personnel in central units who spend atleast half of their time supporting internationalresearch collaboration activities, and just lessthan a quarter (22 per cent) have peopleperforming such roles at the department-level.

The interviews refined this view somewhat, andsuggest that, in most cases, the pro-vice-chancellor is supported by a small team ofinternational research collaboration staffers. Itseems that most have a senior member of theuniversity staff, at director level, withresponsibility for the delivery of internationalresearch collaboration, whether that is thedevelopment of strategic research partnerships,or the provision of support on demand toindividual research collaborators. However, inmost cases, he or she also has responsibility forseveral other important outward-facingfunctions, such as international studentrecruitment or external relationships moregenerally. Central support teams are similarlyquite likely to have a broader corporate remit, soa team of 5-10 people might very well amount torather less than one full-time equivalentmember of staff dedicated to internationalresearch collaboration.

19


5.6 Keeping records

The survey found that a small majority (58 percent) do maintain some kind of central record oftheir international research collaborationactivities. Follow-up interviews confirmed,however, that in many cases the information isincorporated in more general files on forexample research grants (i.e. contracted incomeand expenditure; parties to the grant or contract)and the reportable data is usually limited toidentification of projects that include an externalcollaboration and (if so) with which institution(s).

Accordingly, several of the respondents statedthat the information is not recorded for thepurpose of understanding international researchcollaboration, and that it would take them sometime to organise their data in such a way as toreveal for example trends in the volume ofoverseas collaboration, or changes to the profileof partner countries over time.

“The only records we keep [at the University ofAbertay, Dundee] are a list of grantapplications – this would include internationalcollaborators on the application, so some kindof partnership listing could be generated,however there is nothing ready to be used, orshared”27.

Several interviewees said that it would be ofgreat benefit to them to have access to ratherbetter data about their institution’s overseasresearch linkages. However, one or two othersindicated that they have sought to develop such arecord in the past and that the data had beenlittle used, so the databases had fallen intodisrepair. On balance, there appears to be ademand within the institutions for bettermanagement of information in relation tointernational research collaboration, such thattrends and patterns can be understood andexisting relationships developed.

“Bournemouth University’s internationalcollaboration activity is extensive and weperiodically try to work out what is going onand document it. However, the information wecollect through these exercises tends not to beused to any great extent, after somepreliminary review, it just sits on the shelves,and so there is currently no routine recordkeeping on international activities”28.

“The University of St Andrews runs internalexercises periodically to document what isgoing on, but there is no formalisedmanagement information system that wouldpermit us to generate/review reports on ourinternational activities”29.

Most interviewees were quick to point out thatspecific strategic initiatives are tackled jointlywith a given department or school, with adepartment’s senior academics and supportstaff typically playing a major role in thedevelopment of the relationships, the framing ofits objectives and activities, and often finding theseed funds for travel and negotiations fromwithin their departmental budgets. In somecases, interviewees stated that their universityhas created dedicated management andsupervisory structures for each strategicpartnership, with academic working groupsleading on content and academic/administrativegroups providing a supervisory and evaluativefunction.

Interviews with selected universities suggestthat greater attention is being afforded tointernational research collaboration in its ownright, and in many cases, it is beginning to becoordinated and managed separately fromstudent recruitment. This is not to suggest thatthe two aspects of the university mission havebeen divorced from one another, indeed, it isclear to most that there is strong synergybetween the two.

There appears to be a trend whereinresponsibility for international researchcollaboration is increasingly being assigned toresearch directors or pro-vice-chancellors forresearch, with fewer and fewer cases where itremains within the domain of pro-vice-chancellors for international affairs.

5.5 International research budgets

Hardly any higher education institutions have adedicated budget for (i) supporting theirresearch teams in undertaking internationalresearch collaboration, or (ii) developing theirinternal capabilities in this area. However, theinterviews refined this view, suggesting thatfunds are generally available when needed, butdrawn from any one of several budgets (notspecifically earmarked for internationalresearch collaboration); the budgets for therecruitment of international students are quitesubstantial. Equally, many institutions havesufficient reserves or discretionary funds toinvest six-figure sums in the exploration ofinternational partnerships, and there are alsonumerous places where one can make ad hocapplications to small funds operated by learnedsocieties or in several cases local and regionalgovernment.

20



p Really successful collaboration tends tounfold over time, and to follow on from earlierrelationships and success.

p Supporting success where it emerges fromthe bottom. This includes providing aninstitutional-level commitment, extending thecollaboration through different types ofinteraction and even investment so as toreduce the risk of a partnership waning as aresult of individual researchers’ careermovements.

p Research collaboration is rather different toeducational partnerships. It depends criticallyon the commitment, chemistry and benefitsderived by a small group, which requiresdifferent sorts of support people to those onefinds in some international units; people whoare a little more proactive and creative, peoplewho will think about the best way to tackle anissue, and not be limited by existinginstruments or bureaucratic procedures.

p Where language and cultural differences areparticularly pronounced, it can be a great helpto include one or more post-doctoral fellows,originally from the partner country, in theteam, working closely with the senioracademics.

p In terms of institutional support, it seems thatit makes good sense to appoint a senioruniversity officer with explicit responsibilityfor international research cooperation andideally having a collaboration strategy, teamand budget to pursue those duties.

p Even within established strategic researchpartnerships, central management teamsfacilitate rather than prescribe and must workin conjunction with senior academics. Theresearchers have to want the partnership tobear fruit.

p Several universities report great successarising from the institution having created asmall international fund, for academics/staffto bid into competitively, which encouragespeople to come forward with ideas forcollaboration that might ultimately be ofstrategic interest to the university. The opennature of the competitions has generatedwidespread interest and is proving to be quitea powerful seed fund for future projects andpartnerships.

“Leeds Metropolitan University’s InternationalFaculty works very hard to keep track of theinstitution’s international collaborations. Wework with the individual faculties to keep arecord of all proposals submitted and currentjobs, as well as encouraging visitors – inboundand outbound – to prepare a standard reporton their trip, a ‘database’ of experiences andcontacts which is available for others to referto and learn from. We also try to keep a recordof students, income and publications. As wellas trying to capture information on individualactivities and transactions, each facultyprepares an annual report covering all of itsmany and various international activities,which is then synthesised and reviewed by thesenior management team”30.

5.7 Critical success factors

Just as there is no single reason for or type ofinternational research collaboration, so it wouldbe hard to imagine a single, right way ofmanaging international collaboration. Indeed,none of our contributors proffered a guide tocollaboration.

Notwithstanding this diversity, contributors didpoint to a small number of what one might callrules of thumb which they believe are critical tosuccessful research collaboration:

p To be successful, strategic researchpartnerships need to align with an institution’swider research and education strategy, inorder to be sure of senior management’s fullengagement and its ability to invest real timein the relationship.

p Most institutions seek to maintain just a few ofthese strategic relationships, five rather thanfifty, whereas the international partnershipsof their individual researchers will run into thehundreds.

p There has to be value evident in thecollaboration for all parties, as creating newstrategic partnerships requires a lot of seniormanagement time and energy as well assubstantial investment. The bestcollaborations are non-competitive spaces,where everyone gets something positive out ofthe relationship and mutuality and reciprocityare strong ideas.

p Strategic partnerships seem to work bestwhere there is a good fit in terms ofinstitutional goals, competences andphilosophies.

21


It is also fair to characterise this support aspump-priming or seed funding, intended totrigger new relationships rather than to fundmore extensive collaboration or indeed tosustain these long-distance relationships in thelonger term. This emphasis on a single impetusis borne out by the lists of grantholders, wherefew if any individuals can expect to benefit frommore than one grant from the same scheme.There is a presumption that significantcollaboration has to be financed through theresearch councils.

5.9 Ideas for support

Almost all respondents agreed that additionalsupport to help higher education institutionsdevelop their international researchcollaboration capabilities would be a good use ofpublic resources (88 per cent), and we used thefollow-up interviews to explore people’s ideasabout useful additions to the current portfolio ofschemes.

Most interviewees were broadly content with thecurrent situation and were not clamouring formore support from government or its agencies,although all agreed that additional supportwould be worthwhile32.

Several people commented that most UKuniversities are not well known overseas, andparticularly not in China, where Americaninstitutions dominate perceptions and only thebiggest UK institutions tend to have any profile atall. This works the other way round too, with UKuniversity officers reportedly knowing very littleabout the capabilities of most of the Chineseinstitutions not in the top flight. This asymmetryin awareness can cause problems on the ground,with frictions, delays and missed opportunities.There was a general anticipation that the newRCUK offices might be able to run the kinds ofinformation campaigns and marketing initiativesnecessary to create brand awareness and a‘feel-good’ factor around UK universities, as wellas attracting the attentions of national andregional policymakers and planners.

Interviews with senior officials and professors inChina, all of whom had been involved withframework programme projects and networks,provide a slightly different picture to the one thatemerges from the UK looking out. Theimpression given by the dozen or so interviews isthat:

p The United States and Japan are the dominantscience and technology partners, and, inEurope, Germany is the best known.

p Several interviewees stated that they try tomain a central archive of reference material,from listings of country contacts, to checklistsfor travellers and even presentations and visitreports, submitted by previous travellers. Inaddition, some universities maintain a list ofnamed individuals with a lot of experience ofcollaboration with a given country, and whomthey can refer people on to in order to obtain amore personal and in-depth introduction tothe whys and wherefores of collaboration,from etiquette to funding systems.

Beyond this, interviewees tell us that successstill has a somewhat random quality:

“Success is part chance, part hard work, partgood communication between institution-level management teams and academics, acommitment to experiment and learn, and awillingness to recognise and respond to theaspirations and circumstances of one’spartners”.

5.8 Use of external support

A further set of questions explored the extent towhich higher education institutions are currently(i) aware of, and (ii) receiving external forms ofsupport for the development of capability ininternational research collaboration. A smallmajority are aware of at least some forms ofexternal support, but less than a quarter wereactually receiving such funding at the time ofmaking a reply.

Subsequent interviews revealed that the formsof support are many and various, but that mostare dedicated international programmesproviding small grants to cover the cost of shortvisits or longer-term exchanges or fellowships.Sources include the research councils, learnedsocieties and charities. Several peoplementioned the EU framework programme asproviding a range of measures to support cross-border networks, and that these can includemembership of researchers from third (non-partner) countries, such as Canada or China31.

In the main, the support given had been to helpindividual researchers develop newrelationships with parties in other countries, andhad not been designed to support institution-to-institution partnerships or indeed institution-level capability building in the manner of theHigher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) in thearea of knowledge transfer or the initiative,Beacons for Public Engagement, that wasannounced in 2007.

22



p It would be useful to have schemes to supportcross-institutional (within the UK) networkingamong the senior managers and academicsinvolved in institution-level researchcollaboration, to facilitate informationexchange and learning, and reduce thecosts/waste associated with every institutionhaving to the learn the same lessons andmake the same mistakes.

p We need information portals, to publishinformation on international research support(for example, what is available, to whom, towhat end, on what terms, etc), lessons andexperiences in support material (for example,checklists, case studies, role models) thatcould be made available to all universities –and indeed, researchers – to help people tolearn more quickly and make fewer mistakesalong the way.

p Schemes to support the ‘bundling’ of UKinstitutions with particular strategic interests,such as common and complementaryinterests in a field such as climate change, asthe basis for strengthening the attractivenessof the ‘offer’ to potential partners would beuseful. One aspect of this would be thepotential to build much stronger, multilateralnetworks and partnerships.

p A high-profile challenge fund, available on acompetitive basis, would be productive. Itwould help the most committed institutionsdevelop and experiment with new strategicpartnerships that have emerged from seedfunds or researcher-level initiatives, withgrants in the high tens and hundreds ofthousands, provided on a matched fundingbasis (with universities having to invest/risktheir own central reserves as a means bywhich to get the right incentives and also as aquid pro quo for a rather open and non-prescriptive approach).

p UK universities and research capabilities, andthose of Europe in general, are not wellknown.

p American universities are the most visible andmost ambitious.

p Strategic contact is often institution, ratherthan government led, even though overseasmissions might be (heavily) supported andfinanced by state government.

p Links are built on the pre-existingrelationships maintained by a majority ofprofessors, which has studied or done post-doctoral work in the United States.

p Investments focus on joint laboratories andfacilities, rather than people or salaries.

p Investment commitments might be measuredin millions not thousands.

The importance of awareness and perceptions inthe target country was also underlined in arecent study Technopolis carried out for theBritish embassy in Tokyo, where we found amarked difference in perceptions of researchexcellence and willingness to collaborate,between those who had worked with Britishscientists and engineers and those who had not.

“The academic survey in Japan suggests thatthe UK is generally seen as a strong scientificperformer, with over 30 per cent (400) ofrespondents ranking UK research partnerssecond only to the United States on scientificexcellence. On this analysis, UK researchperformance is better than either Germany orFrance. The picture is not all good, however.For those researchers without experience ofcollaboration with the UK, the impression ofUK research was lower than for those that do,sufficiently so to detract from the idea ofcollaboration”33.

In discussing the challenges, the contributors tothis study did offer several specific suggestions,however most remarked on their very partialknowledge of what was available already and theattendant risk that any ideas they have mightalready exist. The following list is the sum of thesuggestions made:

p More and better overseas promotion of theresearch capabilities of leading UKuniversities (or clusters of universities) in agiven field by the relevant research councils,and the new RCUK overseas offices is needed.

23


6

Conclusion

Hardly any higher education institutions have adedicated budget to (i) support their researchteams in undertaking international researchcollaboration, or (ii) to develop their internalmanagement capabilities. However, funds aregenerally available when needed, but are drawnfrom any one of several internal universitybudgets and occasionally from external bodieswith a remit to sponsor universities or research.

There would appear to be value in thecreation of a small, dedicated developmentfund, which might be used in any one ofseveral ways: strategy fund forconsolidation/extension of promising newpartnerships; training and education fundto support would-be collaborators throughcreation of course; creation of guidancematerial and archives and participation inuniversity networks; and seedcorn fund foracademics to explore researcher-levelinternational collaboration

A majority of external support is targeted onresearchers rather than institutions, typicallydedicated international programmes providingsmall grants to cover the cost of short visits andfellowships. Universities are broadly contentwith the current situation and are notclamouring for more support from governmentor its agencies, although all agree that additionalfunding would be worthwhile for bothresearchers and institutions.

There would appear to be value inuniversities joining one of several existingnetworks, such as the newInternationalisation Forum, set up by theUniversity of Birmingham with sixteenother UK universities, to support cross-institutional (within the UK) networking andlearning

In conclusion, there is an almost universalcommitment across the UK higher educationsector to expand the level of internationalresearch collaboration, both institution-levelstrategic partnerships and the more typical,researcher-level international collaboration.

At present only a few UK universities have aninternational research collaboration strategy,although most believe that their university wouldbenefit from managing international researchcollaboration in a more strategic fashion.

Where universities have a strongcommitment to expanding internationalresearch cooperation, they might considerthe value of creating an explicitinternational research collaborationstrategy, tied to the institution’soverarching mission and strategy, settingout the rationale, objectives and means bywhich the strategy will be delivered

Although no single organisational model isevident, there is something of a standardapproach beginning to emerge, with a memberof the senior management team having overallresponsibility for policy and strategy and adirector and small team coordinating theexecution of the strategy, usually in concert withdepartmental teams and senior researchers.There is often an international committee,consisting of external members, to provideadvice and challenges to the internal team.

Where universities have a strongcommitment to expanding internationalresearch cooperation, they should considerthe value of appointing someone at pro-vice-chancellor or director level to lead theinstitution’s endeavours in this area

There would appear to be value also in thecreation of a small, dedicated support teamwith the confidence and skills necessary towork on a global scale and thedetermination and creativity to findsolutions to the challenges that willinevitably reveal themselves

24



Loughborough University

University of Reading

University of Kent

University of Surrey

St George's, University of London

Leeds Metropolitan University

University of Paisley

The Open University

University of Bristol

University of Lancaster

University of Bath

University of St Andrews

Bournemouth University

University of Abertay Dundee

Queen Mary, University of London

University of Liverpool

London School of Economics

Institute of Education, Universityof London

University of Sheffield

RCUK

Heriot-Watt University

University of Leeds

University of Hull

Director of InternationalisationStrategy

Pro-Vice Chancellor Research

Director of Research Office

Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research andEnterprise

Vice-Principal Research

Associate Dean, Research,Partnerships and Consultancy,International Faculty

Vice-Principal, Research &Commercialisation

Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research andStaff

Director of Research and EnterpriseDevelopment

Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research

Pro-Vice-Chancellor StrategicDevelopment

Vice-Principal Research


Research Development Manager

Director of Corporate Affairs

Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research

Director Research and ProjectDevelopment

Assistant Director, Learning andTeaching

Research Development Manager

Director, RCUK office, Washington

Head of Research and Legal Services



Professor C J Backhouse

Professor Dianne Berry

Mr Dave Coombe

Professor Barry Evans

Professor George Griffin

Dr Edward Halpin

Professor H.T. Hassan

Professor Brigid R Heywood

Dr David Langley

Professor Trevor McMillan

Professor Jane Millar

Professor Alan Miller

Professor Nick Petford

Dr Clive Randall

Mr Nigel Relph

Professor Jon Saunders

Mr Angus Stewart

Dr Mary Stiasny

Heather Sugden

Dr Helen Thorne

Dr Antony Weir

Professor Richard Williams

Professor Barry Winn

25

Appendix A:

Interviewees


p Oversee contracts and grant agreementsrelating to international research.

p Lead contract negotiation with sponsors andproject partners, ensuring the best use offinancial resources, clarifying respectiveroles, responsibilities and mutual interest,reducing the risks associated with workinginternationally.

p Oversee project implementation.

p Coordinate the institution’s participation inmajor programmes for research cooperationwith institutions abroad.

Training

p Foster an understanding of history, culturesand values.

p Increase mutual interest and understanding.

p Give guidance and advice to researchers oncooperation with foreign universities.

B.1 Basic functions of an international research

office

Based on the examples of international researchoffices given below, the following is arepresentative list of functions undertaken androles played by such offices.

Strategic

p Create a university-wide strategy (to replaceexisting individual and department leveldevelopment).

p Bring together staff from several departmentswho deal with international activities(including those relating to internationalstudents).

Liaison

p Expand existing partnerships and developmutually beneficial relations.

p Maintain active liaison with sponsoringagencies and research organisations.

p Maintain active liaison with internationaloffices at other institutions.

p Establish, maintain and hold internationalagreements with foreign institutions.

Exchanges

p Facilitate the establishment and review ofinternational exchange programs andacademic linkages.

p Facilitate exchanges.

p Provide protocol support for outgoingdelegations visiting other countries.

p Host delegations from foreign institutions andprovide support services for visitingresearchers and scholars.

Promotion

p Promote international research activities.

p Monitor, provide information and promote theinstitutions current activities.

Funding

p Identify and publicise funding opportunitiesand diversify the pool of donors supportinginternational activity.

p Give advice and assistance in the preparationand submission of proposals, ensuring fullcompliance and helping to increase successrates.

26

Appendix B:

International research offices outside the UK



B.2 Case studies of university international offices

International Unit, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

In May 2007, the University of Waterloo, Ontario, announced a new Waterloo International Unit (with itsown office and meeting space) to support the university’s increased international focus. The unit bringstogether staff from several departments who deal with the university’s international activities(including the international student office, the international programs office, and the recentlyappointed alumni officer for international programs), headed by the associate vice-president(international).

The university’s Sixth Decade Plan (Going Global) set out ambitious goals for internationalisation at theuniversity. It stated that in the next decade Waterloo plans to establish at least two internationalcampuses abroad and expand partnerships, collaborative academic programs and joint researchcentres with other prominent international institutions.

The Office of International Programs (which will be folded into the new international unit), providesinformation and assistance, working in close cooperation with academic and administrative unitsacross campus and promotes research and international activities.

International Programs provides information and assistance to the university community for a widevariety of research and training related activities including all non-industry research and internationalprograms. Working in close cooperation with academic and administrative units across campus, theoffice:

p promotes research and international activities;

p facilitates visitor protocols;

p monitors and provides information on the university's current activities in these areas;

p identifies and publicises funding opportunities;

p gives advice and assistance to faculty in the preparation and submission of proposals;

p Maintains active liaison with sponsoring agencies, research and international education organisations,and international offices at other universities; and

p facilitates the establishment and review of international exchange programs and academic linkages.

Office of International Agriculture, University of Auburn, Alabama, United States

The Office of International Agriculture fosters and supports faculty, staff, and student travel, studyabroad, research, and outreach, as well as international visitors and exchanges. It holds teninternational academic interchange agreements with institutions in other countries, includingEngland, China and various countries in South America.

The university’s College of Agriculture also runs China Programs, which build bridges between theUnited States and China, drawing on the strengths of various departments in the college and othercolleges at the university, and partner with public and private organizations in Alabama and the UnitedStates. It promotes relations with China by:

p facilitating educational exchange including exchanges of faculty, staff, and students;

p promoting collaborative research and research activities;

p facilitating activities related to teaching and training;

p fostering an understanding of history, cultures, and values;

p serving as a catalyst and resource for the promotion of economic, governmental, and civic pursuits;and

p increasing mutual interest and understanding.

27


International Research Office, Oslo University, Norway

In 1997, the Senate of the University of Oslo adopted the strategy plan for the university's internationalactivity: the university in the global community. The strategy document consisted of two parts: onewhich described the higher-level strategy for international activities, and a second which described thenecessary measures to implement this strategy. In the years following the adoption of the internationalstrategy, a large number of the proposed measures were taken.

The International Research Office coordinates the University of Oslo’s participation in majorprogrammes for research cooperation with universities and research institutions abroad. The mainfocus areas of the office are the EU framework programmes and programmes for cooperation inresearch and higher education with Africa, Asia and Latin America. In addition, the office is involved inpolicy processes and gives guidance and advice to the university’s researchers for cooperation withinstitutions in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in industrialised countries outside Europe (theUnited States, Canada, China, Japan and Australia).

International Research Office, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada

The International Research Office spearheads the coordination, facilitation and implementation ofprograms, partnerships and policies at the University of Saskatchewan, to support an expandingresearch and training portfolio. Office staff work with the university research community and theirnational and international collaborators, to develop mutually beneficial relations that advance thegoals articulated in the University of Saskatchewan foundational documents. Responsibilities of theoffice include:

p providing guidance to faculty and administration on all aspects of the project cycle relating tointernational research, advisory services and training contracts;

p liaising with international agencies, Canadian government departments, universities and the non-governmental organisation sector to promote faculty involvement and accountability of externallyfunded research;

p overseeing all contracts and grant agreements relating to international research; and

p supporting the work of the tri-council research facilitators to expand international opportunitiesavailable in those programs.

28



International Research and Development Office, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The International Research and Development Office assists the University of Toronto centraladministration and academic communities in the development of international collaborativeagreements and research partnerships. It hosts incoming delegations from foreign institutions andprovides protocol support for outgoing University of Toronto delegations visiting other countries.

The Office of International Research and Development:

p researches and nurtures opportunities for developing collaborative agreements between the universityand foreign institutions, research entities, and governments;

p hosts visiting delegations from foreign institutions interested in developing collaborative agreements;

p enhances strategic international relations and agreements in support of divisional and institutionalgoals.

International Centres

Berlin Centre

Founded in 2001 by the University of Toronto and the Université de Québec à Montréal, the CanadianUniversities' Centre in Berlin serves as a vehicle to strengthen academic cooperation between themember Canadian universities and universities, scholars, and scientific institutions in Europe. TheCanadian Universities Centre assists with a large summer university programme for Canadian andother international students in Berlin, provides information and advice to European scholars onopportunities for study and research in Canada, and promotes outstanding Canadian scholarship inGermany and Europe by organising and co-organising conferences, speaker series and study visits inBerlin. http://www.cuc-berlin.org/

The Asia-Pacific Advancement Office (Hong Kong)

The Asia-Pacific Advancement Office, the university's office in Hong Kong, is operated by the Division ofUniversity Advancement and serves as a platform for development initiatives, alumni affairs, publicaffairs in the Asia-Pacific Region. This office serves as the administrative centre for the University ofToronto (Hong Kong) Foundation Ltd., the University of Toronto Alumni Association (Hong Kong), and theUniversity of Toronto Club of Singapore, and works together with alumni volunteers in China, Japan,Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Macau and Australia. The office also provides advice and administrative supportfor visits by the university's senior administration to the region. http://www.utoronto.com.hk

International Agreements

The University of Toronto is currently engaged in a wide range of agreements with academic, researchand scientific institutions and government bodies around the world. It is currently operating with a totalof 130 agreements in 41 countries, excluding non-international agreements within Canada.

Region Number of Agreements

Western Europe 62

Asia 34

Africa and the Middle East 7

Central & Eastern Europe 10

Australia / New Zealand 9

Central & South America 3

Caribbean 1

North America 4

29


The Office of International Research, McGill University, Quebec, Canada

The Office of International Research facilitates, coordinates and promotes international research anddevelopment activities at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. It plays a strategic role in assisting andenhancing international projects and outreach and supports faculty members across campus in alltheir international activities, including fundamental research collaborations.

The office provides guidance on proposal preparation, then leads contract negotiation with sponsorsand finally oversees project implementation. Its mandate can be divided into four broad andinterconnected areas of responsibility:

1. A liaison and advocacy role with foreign government agencies and private sector companies andfoundations, which disseminates information about opportunities and challenges.

2. Early involvement in the development of proposals, ensures full technical and budgetary compliance,helping to increase success rates in competitive calls. The Office also identifies new and non-traditional sources of funding and diversifies the pool of donors supporting international activities.

3. It acts as the authorised representative of the university and takes the lead role in negotiatingcontractual terms and conditions with project partners and sponsors. Thus ensuring the best use offinancial resources at hand, clarifying respective roles and responsibilities and mutual expectations,and contributing to reducing the risks associated with working internationally.

4. It promotes the application of the highest standards of business practices in the operational andfinancial management of McGill’s international projects, allowing project teams to dedicate themselvesentirely to the academic aspects of their international project.

Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute

The Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute promotes collaboration between India and Canada throughscholarly activities, academic and cultural exchange, and applied research. It is a collaborative effort of22 member institutions in Canada, the Governments of Canada and India and the community at large.The Institute is working towards increasing the participation and membership of universities in India.The Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute builds knowledge in Canada and India by sponsoring academicactivities. The Canadian studies programme offers fellowships for Indian scholars and visitinglectureships in India for Canadian academics. Under the Institute's India studies programme,fellowships are provided to Canadian scholars, librarians and artists and Indian imprints are suppliedto Canadian universities, the purpose being to promote understanding of India in Canada.

30



Office of International Research, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

The Office of International Research is the administrative centre responsible for promoting andcoordinating the growth of international research and development at the University of Ottawa. It wasestablished in 2005 and works closely with faculties, research facilitators and top-notch researchers atthe university to build effective international collaborative projects. It is dedicated to enhancing theinternationalisation of the university, to:

p develop and promote international R&D projects;

p advocate for faculty and researchers with international interests;

p discover grant opportunities for research, collaboration, and travel by faculty and researchers;

p create and administer international networks to facilitate collaboration and exchange programs;

p promote the university's numerous institutional affiliations and linkages abroad;

p provide support services for visiting researchers and scholars;

p maintain relations with international organisations and donor agencies;

p enhance the university's capacity for participation in technical and development assistance project;

p act as the university's principal liaison for outreach activities to science-based departments andagencies and regional organisations with international concerns in the Ottawa region.

In the lead-up to the articulation of a full international research strategic plan, an interim strategic planhas identified eight key actions for the Office of International Research to pursue:

1. create an administrative foundation;

2. develop and sustain a comprehensive network of contacts;

3. identify international opportunities;

4. align opportunities with policy priorities;

5. integrate opportunities with academic priorities;

6. devise appropriate policies and programs;

7. facilitate the emergence of incentives, services and products;

8. provide tools and administrative support.

31


Office of International Research Promotion, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

The mandate of the International Research Protection Office includes the establishment of aninternational research development methodology for cultivating international calibre researchers andthe creation of a university-wide strategy for and focus on the development of international research, toreplace existing individual and department level development. Its work is as follows:

1. Formulate guidelines to promote the international research

p utilise existing overseas outposts centred in Asia

p cooperate with overseas institutions

p construction of networks with overseas researchers

p coordinate international research cooperation

2. Establish a database for international exchange

p full use of international exchange data in the development of international strategy.

3. Hold a workshop for young researchers to develop writing skill in English

4. Support international research development

p provide translation service for researchers who plan to apply for international conference or journals.

5. Hold international research symposium, etc.

p disseminate Waseda's research products and research activities internationally through thoseopportunities

32



Section

A head

33

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

Section

A head

12 International Strategy of the Institute ofEducation (IOE), University of London,2005.

13 This would be a significant improvement onLeeds’ current position and within a fast-moving environment in under 10 years: the2007 THES World Ranking places theUniversity of Leeds at equal 80th

14 Compiled from a presentation made byRichard Williams, Pro-Vice-Chancellor forEnterprise, Knowledge Transfer andInternational Strategy at the University ofLeeds, to a Universities UK seminar,London, 20 November 2007

15 As noted earlier, these epistemicdifferences are thought to be morewidespread – and valuable – within thesocial sciences, as compared with thenatural and physical sciences.

16 The Technopolis report is available todownload from the GSIF web site, atwww.berr.gov.uk/dius/science/int/gsif/evidence/page40353.html

17 Jonathan Adams (2007), op.cit.

18 Extract from ‘an introduction toBirmingham’s international strategy,’ byDr Judith M Lamie, Director ofInternational Strategy at the University ofBirmingham.

19 Dr Nini Yang, The China Office, University ofEdinburgh

20 Research Director, London School ofEconomics

21 STFC Diamond Newsletter

22 Associate Dean Research, LeedsMetropolitan University

23 Vice-Principal Research at St George’s,University of London

24 Pro-Vice-Chancellor StrategicDevelopment at University of Bath

25 Director of Research and EnterpriseDevelopment at University of Bristol

26 Professor Richard Williams, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Enterprise, KnowledgeTransfer and International Strategy,University of Leeds

27 Research Development ManagerUniversity of Abertay, Dundee

28 Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research &Enterprise), Bournemouth University

29 Vice-Principal Research, University of StAndrews

30 Associate Dean Research, LeedsMetropolitan University

31 Conversations with university officers inCanada and China offer a slightly differentperspective, where the attraction ofworking with scientists and engineers inEurope is tempered by the small amountsof money on offer and the significant levelsof bureaucracy

32 This result resonates with the findingsfrom the 2005 ‘drivers’ report for GSIF(Drivers, Barriers, Benefits andGovernment support of UK internationalengagement in science and innovation,Technopolis Ltd., 2005) in whichcontributors to a UK-wide survey, this timesenior researchers, put forward very fewsuggestions as regards new or differentschemes missing from the UK policylandscape. The two issues that didmaterialise were (i) a general sense ofthere being too many very small schemeswith highly particular rules on who andwhat might be supported and (ii) anabsence of agencies actively promoting UKresearch capabilities in-country, preparingthe ground so to speak.

33 Extract from the Main report of themapping project on UK-Japan science andinnovation carried out by Technopolis andthe University of Tokyo, for the BritishEmbassy in Tokyo.

1 Jonathan Adams et al (2007) Patterns ofinternational collaboration for the UK andleading partners. Evidence Limited, Leeds.

2 For example, the Global Science andInnovation Forum (GSIF) Strategy forInternational Research and Engagement(www.berr.gov.uk/dius/science/int/gsif); orPolicy approaches towards science andtechnology cooperation with thirdcountries, Brussels, September 2007,prepared on behalf of the CREST WorkingGroup on Internationalisation of R&D byJan Nill, Klaus Schuch, Sylvia SchwaagSerger, Jörn Sonnenburg, Peter Teirlinck,Arie van der Zwan.

3 As with any indicator, bibliometrics havetheir limitations and in this context theirmost important shortcoming is theexclusion of social science, arts andhumanities, fields where we know there iswide-ranging and long-standinginternational research collaborations.These broad fields tend to publish theirmost important work in monographs andbook chapters rather than journal articlesand as such bibliometric statistics will tendto omit a major part of their oeuvre. So,throughout this paper, the bibliometricdata relate to science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM)subjects and not social science or the artsand humanities.

4 Derived from data presented in Table 2‘changing volumes of internationalcollaboration,’ of the report, Adams (2007)Patterns of international collaboration forthe UK and leading partners.

5 The exception is India, which was notincluded in the basic database constructedby Evidence Limited in order to prepare itsreport by Adams (2007), op.cit.

6 DEMOS (2007) The Atlas of ideas: HowAsian innovation can benefit us all. London:DEMOS,

7 Ms Manyi Cristofoli, senior technologytransfer officer, Queen Mary UniversityLondon. See:www.kegoodpractice.org/downloads/Queen%20Mary%20-%20ICUK_20032007.ppt

8 Dr Haifeng Wang, Visiting Fellow,Department of Economics andInternational Development, University ofBath. See: http://www.bath.ac.uk/elec-eng/news/chinasupergen.html

9 Professor Phil Gilmartin, Pro-Dean forResearch, Faculty of Biological Sciencesand Professor Brendan Davies, Director,Centre for Plant Sciences with Dr Bing Liu,Director of China Liaison, Faculty ofBiological Sciences. See:http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/press_releases/current/china_collaboration.htm

10 Professor Diamond, chair of ResearchCouncils UK, speaking on internationalresearch cooperation at a breakfastseminar held at the House of Commons on27 November 2007, and hosted by the UKHigher Education International Unit.

11 www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/publications/international.pdf

Notes

100%

This product has been manufactured on paperfrom well managed forests and other controlledsources.

It is manufactured using the FSC Chain of Custodyand by a company employing the ISO14001


About Universities UK

This publication has beenproduced by Universities UK,which is the representative bodyfor the executive heads of UKuniversities and is recognised asthe umbrella group for theuniversity sector. It works toadvance the interests ofuniversities and to spread goodpractice throughout the highereducation sector.

Universities UK

Woburn House20 Tavistock SquareLondonWC1H 9HQ

telephone

+44 (0)20 7419 4111

fax

+44 (0)20 7388 8649

email

[email protected]

web

www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk

© Universities UKISBN 1 84036 174 3April 2008


International research collaboration: opportunities for ... · PDF fileInternational research...

Documents

Transcript of International research collaboration: opportunities for ... · PDF fileInternational research...