Talk I gave at WIT Research Day 13th April 2011 on Irish Reseaerch Funding Policy, focused on its reference to non-linear theories of Knowledge Production. Draws on my doctoral research that did an analysis of public research policy documents in Ireland 2005-2008. Ireland in this period made the case for huge increases in HERD (funding for R&D in Higher Education), and implemented this from 1998 onwards primarily via the HEA PRTLI and SFI. My case is that this was done without a proper analysis of what impact on the knowledge economy was planned for, or how it could be measured. Now with less money available, we need to revisit the process, make critical decisions, and create clarity for ongoing funding.

1. Experiences
of
Irish
Funding
Policy

2. Dr
Mícheál
Ó
Foghlú

3. Outline
1. Theory
of
Knowledge
Produc>on
2. Irish
R&D
Policy’s
Use
of
Theory
3. WIT/TSSG
Experience
4. Synthesis
&
Comments

4. (1)
Theory
of
Knowledge
Produc<on

5. Vannevar
Bush
• Co-­‐ordinated
US
scien>fic
R&D
in
WWII
• 1945
“Science
the
Endless
Fron<er”
This
led
to
seYng
up
of
Na>onal
Science
Founda>on
(NSF),
he
subsequently
chaired
• (May
not
have
espoused
linear
model)
•
Promoted
a
post-­‐war
model
of
the
state
funding
“basic”
research,
and
industry
dealing
with
“applied”
research
(though
the
laber
was
spurred
on
by
lucra>ve
arms
contracts)
“The
most
important
ways
in
which
the
Government
can
promote
industrial
research
are
to
increase
the
flow
of
new
scien>fic
knowledge
through
support
of
basic
research,
and
to
aid
in
the
development
of
scien>fic
talent.”

6. (Simplis>cally)
Bush
=
Linear
• So,
although
Bush
did
not
invent
the
linear
model,
he
promoted
it
as
the
model
for
US
R&D
funding:
– Basic
Research
• Leads
to
– Applied
Research
• Leads
to
– Experimental
Development
• Leads
to
– Commercialisa>on

7. Modern
Research
Policy
Rejects
Linear
Model
• Generally
it
now
believed
that
R&D
is
a
much
more
complex
interac>ve
system
• Economists
(Nelson
et
al)
have
posited
a
“Na>onal
System
of
Innova>on”
where
these
complexi>es
interplay
• Educa>onalists
(Gibbons
et
al)
have
posited
“Mode-­‐
2”
science,
where
flexible
domains
that
are
trans-­‐
disciplinary
are
too
malleable
to
conform
to
tradi>onal
scien>fic
domain
norms

8. Stokes’
Pasteur’s
Quadrant
A
detailed
Analysis
of
Vannevar
Bush,
NSF,
OECD
Frasca>
and
other
ways
in
which
basic
and
applied
research
have
been
split
by
funding
mechanisms,
to
the
detriment
of
technological
innova<on.
Stokes, Donald E. [1997] Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological
Innovation. Washington D.C., USA: Brookings Institution Press.

9. Stokes’
Pasteur’s
Quadrant
Considerations for Use ?
No Yes
Yes
Pure
Basic
Use-­‐Inspired
Research Basic
Research
Quest for
(Pasteur)
(Bohr)
Fundamental
understanding?
Pure
Applied
No
Research
Taxonomies
and
Tools
Researchers
are
the
users
(Edison)
(Adapted from Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Stokes 1997, p. 73).

10. (2)
Irish
R&D
Policy’s
Use
of
Theory

11. 1990s:
Jus>fica>on
for
Investment
• 1995
STIAC/Tierney
– Science,
Technology
and
Innova>on
Advisory
Council
• 1996
CIRCA
– Assessment
of
management
of
research
• 1998-­‐1999
Technology
Foresight
Exercise
– Iden>fied
ICT
and
Biotechnology
as
key
growth
areas
Theore>cal
underpinnings:
Na>onal
Systems
of
Innova>on
(Nelson
et
al)
Ra>onale
for
investment
given
in
terms
of
economic
impera>ves,
“knowledge
economy/society”

12. 1998-­‐2002:
Implementa>on
• 1998
HEA
PRTLI
Established
– Funding
for
basic
research
and
capital
investment
• 2000
IRCHSS
Established
– Humani>es
and
Social
Science
• 2001
SFI
Established
– Arising
from
Technology
Foresight
• 2001
IRCSET
Established
– Science,
Engineering
and
Technology

13. 2000s:
Policy
by
Metrics?
• 2004
Enterprise
Strategy
Group
• 2004
OECD
Review
of
Higher
Educa>on
• 2006
SSTI
2006-­‐13
(Strategy
for
Science,
Technology
and
Innova>on)
• 2009
Innova>on
Task
Force
Theore>cal
jus>fica>on
of
NSI
lost
in
published
policies.
Strong
emphasis
on
pragma>c
governance
and
organisa>on,
establishment
of
cabinet
subcommibee,
efficient
financial
approvals,
and
targets.

14. (3)
WIT/TSSG
Experience

15. TSSG
Experience
• HEA
PRTLI
Cycles
2,
3,
and
4
(success
in
laber
2)
– Importance
of
Ins>tu>onal
Strategy
documents
• SFI
CSET,
Joint-­‐PI,
SRC
(success
in
laber
2)
– Importance
of
pure
basic
academic
criteria
– Industrial
impact
in
earlier
proposals
nominal,
now
less
so
• Enterprise
Ireland
CF-­‐TD
– Never
had
the
same
level
of
funding
as
HEA/SFI
• EU
FP4,
FP5,
FP6,
FP7
– Always
open,
no
biases

16. (4)
Synthesis
&
Comments

17. Ireland’s
R&D
Policy
• Jus>fica>on
was
more
theore>cally
based
than
implementa>on
• Quality
of
debate
poor,
lack
of
solid
theore>cal
basis,
implicit
assump>on
of
linear
model
• Lack
of
detailed
published
studies
of
Ireland’s
own
Na>onal
Innova>on
System,
par>cularly
in
SFI
priority
areas
-­‐
what
are
our
innova>on
catalysts?
• However,
investment
did
create
opportuni>es,
and
s>mulated
excellent
R&D
ac>vity

18. Linear
=
favour
Irish
Universi>es?
• Part
of
the
Ins>tute
of
Technology
sectoral
strength
is
in
its
aYtudes
to
industry,
from
giving
due
recogni>on
to
industrial
experience
in
staff
recruitment,
to
its
contribu>ons
to
regional
and
na>onal
networks
of
innova>on
• Linear
model
assumes
key
basic
research
metrics
predominate,
and
underplay
the
linkages
and
networks
required
to
effect
change
• But
it
is
too
simplis>c
to
simply
equate
the
linear
model
with
an
argument
for
preserving
the
binary
system

19. Ques>ons?
• Happy
to
answer
any
ques>ons

20. Contact
Details
Dr
Mícheál
Ó
Foghlú TSSG
Offices:
TSSG,
WIT
mofoghlu@tssg.org TSSG
(Waterford,
Ireland)
Headquarters
+353
51
302963
(w) ArcLabs
Research
&
Innova>on
Building
+353
86
8044640
(m) WIT
West
Campus,
Carriganore
Co.
Waterford,
Ireland
TSSG
(Dublin,
Ireland)
Customer
Mee<ngs
Digital
Depot,
Roe
Lane
The
Digital
Hub
Dublin
8,
Ireland

21. Selected
Bibliography
Ó
Foghlú,
Mícheál
2010
Science,
Engineering
and
Technology
Research
Funding
Policy
in
Ireland
1995-­‐2008:
A
Policy
Document
Analysis,
Doctoral
Thesis,
University
of
Sheffield
Calvert,
Jane
[2004]
The
idea
of
“Basic
Research"
in
language
and
pracIce.
Minerva,
42(3):pp.
251-­‐268.
Gibbons,
Michael;
Limoges,
Camille;
Nowotny,
Helga;
Schwartzman,
Simon;
Scob,
Peter;
and
Trow,
Mar>n
[1994]
The
New
ProducIon
of
Knowledge:
The
Dynamics
of
Science
and
Research
in
Contemporary
SocieIes.
London,
UK:
Sage.
Godin,
Benoit
[2006]
The
linear
model
of
innova>on:
The
historical
construc>on
of
an
analy>cal
framework.
Science,
Technology
and
Human
Values,
31(6):pp.
639-­‐667.
Nelson,
Richard
R.,
editor
[1993]
NaIonal
InnovaIon
Systems:
A
ComparaIve
Analysis.
Oxford,
UK:
Oxford
University
Press.
Nowotny,
Helga;
Scob,
Peter;
and
Gibbons,
Michael
[2001]
Rethinking
Science:
Knowledge
and
the
Public
in
an
Age
of
Uncertainty.
Cambridge,
UK:
Polity
Press.
Stokes,
Donald
E.
[1997]
Pasteur's
Quadrant:
Basic
Science
and
Technological
InnovaIon.
Washington
D.C.,
USA:
Brookings
Ins>tu>on
Press.