Framework for a Research Policy

A Discussion Paper

One of the recommendations in the report of the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education in Ontario is:"...that Ontario develop a research policy. This development is urgent in view of the growing concerns about Ontario's competitive position in research. The policy should cover both basic and applied research and should encompass research in both the public and private sectors." The purpose of this discussion paper is to examine that recommendation more closely and to concentrate primarily on aspects of a research policy relevant to universities and colleges.

The paper started with an executive summary and continues in the following three parts:
I. objectives and characteristics of a research policy;
II. current provincial and federal policies;
III. judging performance and correcting gaps and overlaps in policies;

The material on which this paper is based has been drawn from the extensive consultations undertaken by the Panel in the fall of 1996 and from further consultations in 1997 associated with the preparation of this paper. The role of universities in technology transfer is more specifically examined in a separate paper by Jane Cousens

I. Nature and Characteristics of a Research Policy

a) Meaning and purpose

Research is a complex, many-faceted activity with a central feature – it creates knowledge. A policy addressed to research will also have many facets but its core would include: expressions of the vision and objectives of the policy; careful analysis of the main influences affecting the attainment of the objectives; options for policy initiatives to modify these influences in the direction of the objectives, along with warnings about dangers and drawbacks of some courses of action; processes for choosing among the options.

Ontario has not implemented a general design for a research policy. Indeed, it is not clear that there has been a policy at all, except in the sense that there have been many public policies bearing on research. The case for taking at least some steps in the direction of such a policy arises from several sources:

Dangers of moving in the direction of a research policy are also sometimes cited. Research does not thrive if a master plan is developed that imposes extensive bureaucratic regulations. There are some warnings that Ontario and Canada are already moving too far down that road. In addition, it is pointed out that aspects of a research policy can, at times, do more harm than good if the objectives and choice of instruments are defective. For example, there is much concern that more harm to research is done if the policy redirects funds from crucially needed base funding of universities to lower priority uses or if research support is not focused on excellence in whatever form of research is undertaken.

The development of a research policy requires much consulting and consensus building if it is to have the supportive base and characteristics needed for endurance. Leaders in both the private and public sectors must be persuaded of its value and high priority on the public policy agenda.

There are many options in building a research policy. The following attempts to sort them and to provide a list of summary points about them, without being unduly restrictive on the menu of choice.

A minimum statement of objectives would be to emphasize simply the importance of research as a public policy objective and the shared interest and responsibility in that objective. Thus:

b) Role of universities and colleges

Gross expenditures on research and development (GERD) as a percent of gross domestic product is low in Canada by international standards. Thus, Table 1 shows this percent for eight industrial countries and Canada stands seventh on the list.

Table 1

With respect to the importance of expenditures on research and development in the higher education sector (HERD) as a percent of gross domestic product, however, Canada stands closer to the average of the countries shown in Table 1. Thus, the country has been relatively more dependent on R&D undertaken by postsecondary institutions.

Comparable data for Ontario were not obtained, but other data indicate that, with a greater concentration of business than in other provinces, Ontario has a higher ratio of GERD to GDP than the national average.

Among postsecondary institutions in Ontario, research is concentrated in the universities. Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (hereafter referred to as Colleges) were established with a clear mandate for the provision of training. This separation of function continues and was reaffirmed in the Panel's report. Colleges are, however, changing in two respects that are relevant for research policy:

First, in some parts of some colleges, centres of activity have been evolving that fit the definition of "development" along the highly applied end of the spectrum described by the phrase "research and development". This work in colleges is in development and design and often has much to do with the transmission and diffusion of technology. For example, among many examples are: the program in animation at Sheridan; the specialization in chemicals at Lambton; the genetic studies in agriculture at Sir Sandford Fleming; the emphasis on plastics at Humber; and the list can be extended. Much of this work elicits direct support from industry because of the direct returns.

Second, some faculty members in colleges have an interest in pursuing research though it is not required under their terms of employment. Opportunities to be associated with research facilities at universities can be of help in their work, and, arrangements are sometimes made to hold adjunct appointments in order to be part of research teams and grant applications. These latter arrangements are perhaps best left to develop in an ad hoc decentralized fashion, but universities should be encouraged to be receptive to developing such arrangements where appropriate.

c) Scope of research activity – the balance of basic and applied

The distinction between basic and applied research is not easy to define. Additional words and phrases are often sought to qualify the words "basic" and "applied" in an effort to bring greater clarity, because the distinction is relevant and important for judging if there is an appropriate balance in the scope of research activity. The former – basic research – is motivated principally by curiosity about the unknown and, in this sense, is exploratory on the frontiers of knowledge. The latter – applied research – is motivated principally by the quest for how ideas can be used or applied. The word "principally" is important because one can think of many cases of substantial common characteristics between the two.

Both kinds of research are important for our society. Basic research is the source of fundamental ideas that have profoundly affected human understanding. Since these ideas flow across national boundaries, the question is sometimes raised as to whether Canada and Ontario need to have a basic research capacity. Could we not simply live off the generation of ideas elsewhere? To a considerable extent we do, as Canada's contribution to basic research in the world has been estimated at between 2% and 5%. But, in order to import many of the complex ideas generated elsewhere, an indigenous basic research capacity is needed. Similarly many of the applied research ideas will be generated elsewhere, but to import them and to adapt them to the special needs of a country or region, an indigenous applied research capacity is needed. For the necessary flexibility and adaptability in a rapidly changing world, the country needs strength in both of these aspects of research.

The relative importance of these two kinds of research has been changing over time. Until the early 1980s, Canada and Ontario placed a strong emphasis on basic research with support for it coming largely through the base budgets of universities and through federal agencies. Since that time there has been a marked shift in emphasis to developing stronger applied research activity. This shift has been reflected in the increase in applied approaches in the federal granting councils, in centres of excellence initiatives at both the provincial and federal levels, and, more widely, in the growth of "partnership" conditions for eligibility for a growing proportion of research support.

The growth of support for applied research has received much acclaim. The unease that has been developing recently about this shift in emphasis has not been critical of applied research but has reflected concerns that not enough attention is being paid to keeping the basic research capacity of Ontario and Canada sufficiently strong. The weakening of this capacity has occurred in considerable measure because of the general financial constraints on university budgets, as well as from the shift in emphasis among agencies that support research.

d) Scope of research activity – the role of integrative/interpretive research

Research, along with teaching, are the twin functions on which all universities are based. Not all faculty members will be working on the frontiers of basic or applied research, but all should be active on another type of research, which some have called "reflective inquiry" (a term used by L-P Bonneau and J. A. Corry in Quest for the Optimum. AUCC, 1972), but which, I think, might better be called "integrative/interpretive research". Essentially this category of research refers to the activity of gaining a thorough understanding of the evolving body of knowledge in an area, of integrating it with added interpretive insights, and of communicating this work through publications or teaching. It requires that the researcher know about and understand advances in research in an area and can distil them for the greater understanding of students, other researchers and the public. In commenting on the related concept of "reflective inquiry", David Cameron states:

This work has not received the attention and respect it deserves, though, it is interesting to note, for example, that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has a special category of award in this area that reflects excellence in this type of research.

e) Scope of research activity – the balance across the spectrum of serious intellectual inquiry

The great diversity of knowledge covered in university programs means a great diversity in the subjects of research. Research spans the development and testing of hypotheses in the natural sciences, the applied sciences and the health sciences; in the examination of human behaviour in the social sciences; in the expressions of human experience and communication in the humanities.

Much debate takes place over whether some major parts of the spectrum of intellectual inquiry are being unduly neglected. Research in the natural and health sciences often requires expensive equipment and laboratory space that universities cannot fund from their operating budgets. Governments have provided direct funding, both through the establishment of government research laboratories, such as the National Research Council, and through funding agencies to support scientific work in universities, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC). For over a decade interest in developing scientific research has been relatively strong, even though the results of this interest have not matched the hopes of the scientific community. In Ontario there have been programs such as URIF (which was discontinued) and Centres of Excellence (which has been renewed). Discussion continues on a provincial science and technology policy. Federally, interest in a science and technology policy has been stronger. Also, a Network Centres of Excellence program was adopted and is now expected to continue indefinitely; the February, 1997 budget announced the Canada Foundation for Innovation program with its emphasis on building the scientific infrastructure in universities and research hospitals.

The need for a balance in research support across intellectual disciplines was reflected in the establishment of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) at the time that NSERC and MRC were established in the 1970s. All three councils have profoundly enhanced the scope and quality of research in Canada. As shown in Table 2, funds allocated through SSHRC have been less than through the other two granting councils, reflecting judgements on the relative costs of research in different disciplines and political priorities.

Table 2

Many leaders in the research community have applauded the recent signs of greater public support for scientific research. At the same time, there is a growing concern about undue neglect of the social sciences and humanities. A research policy cannot – and should not – be precise on the appropriate balance of research activity among intellectual disciplines. But it should increase sensitivity to the importance of not under-weighting major areas of importance. Ontario and Canada need to develop further their distinctive structures for the economic, social, cultural and political life of their people, and research will be vital to this development. Research in the social sciences and humanities is being adversely affected by the greater constraints on university budgets, which are particularly important for the support of this research, and by current public perceptions which are less favourable to the development of new initiatives for external research support.

f) Open competition and peer adjudication as guardians of research quality

Research is about ideas, and depends on giving bright, creative individuals, educated on the frontiers of their subjects, the necessary facilities and time for their work. Crucial to this activity is an open process for the critical evaluation of ideas. This evaluation comes from presenting ideas to students and other researchers, from adjudication of research grant applications, and from peer evaluations of papers submitted for publication. The testing of ideas in such forums is extraordinarily important for sifting ideas emerging from research and for keeping research activity vital. Sheltering research activity from open critical evaluation – whether this sheltering occurs through protected research in governments, industry or universities – will generally lead to a withering of the quality of research activity.

This openness in the sharing and scrutiny of the results of research becomes constrained under some circumstances. Contracts for research between universities and the private or public sector will sometimes involve requests for confidentiality on data used and on the results. It is a responsibility of governing boards of universities to define clear guidelines that establish limits to such confidentiality in order that students working on theses in conjunction with the contracts are not put at a disadvantage and that the public role and responsibility of the university is not compromised. Moreover issues of intellectual property rights have become more important as applied research sometimes bears results that can be captured in significant financial yields.

g) Differentiation in the research functions of universities

A research policy needs to be sensitive to the different missions of universities. Some universities will emphasize their role in training the next generation of researchers through Ph.D. programs; others will concentrate more strongly on their undergraduate programs. Some universities will emphasize high cost infrastructure for research in the natural sciences, applied sciences and health sciences; others may emphasize more their strengths in social sciences and humanities. This differentiation is desirable in order to make more effective use of resources and to give students a wider choice of high quality programs.

This differentiation can emerge through two routes. One is through a centrally planned differentiation with regulations to implement it. Thus, for example, in some state university systems in the United States, institutions are divided clearly by function and regulated accordingly. The other route, which Ontario has followed, is to allow differentiation to emerge primarily through institutional choice within a broad framework of incentives and disincentives.

Regulation is not totally absent; the number of medical schools, for example, is limited. But there has not been a central plan for differentiation.

This second route appears to have worked reasonably well in Ontario. Studies that have started on the assumption that differentiation has been lacking – this assumption, for example, appears to have been a cause for the establishment of the Bovey Commission – have found a surprisingly high degree of differentiation. One measure of differentiation in research intensity is reported in Table 3. It provides data on sponsored research revenue as a percent of operating revenue of Ontario's universities. No one measure of research intensity is entirely satisfactory, and data on sponsored research revenue may not always be consistent among institutions because of differences in exclusions and inclusions, such as with respect to how sponsored research in teaching hospitals associated with universities is treated. Nevertheless, Table 3 indicates that external support for research is a pervasive feature of Ontario's universities, and, so too, is a high degree of differentiation among universities in the degree of that support.

Table 3

Another dimension of the differentiation is the degree to which universities have chosen to emphasize graduate studies and the training of researchers of the future, and the extent to which they have chosen to emphasize undergraduate studies. Table 4 measures enrolment in terms of the widely used calculation of full-time equivalents (FTEs). The relative importance of Ph.D. enrolment and of combined Master and Ph.D. enrolment are shown. Not surprisingly, in view of the importance of research activity for graduate studies, there is a close correspondence in the rankings of universities in Tables 3 and 4. Data on total FTEs are also shown to provide a sense of differences in size among Ontario's universities. Here too differentiation has characterized the evolution of Ontario's universities.

Table 4

The tendency in some quarters to ascribe social value and prestige to the rankings in these tables needs to be countered. Some research activity, it has been suggested above, should be characteristic of all universities. But it is also of great social value that some universities choose to emphasize undergraduate learning, that some meet the regional needs of students by providing an appropriate range of undergraduate programs in less populated major regions of the province, such as the north, that some specialize in providing academic programs for francophone students and for aboriginal students. It is in achieving high quality in the diversity of strengths of Ontario's universities that high quality of the system of universities is achieved.

Differentiation, it has been suggested above, is being achieved in Ontario through primary reliance on institutional choice within a policy framework of incentives and disincentives established by the government. Yet, there are some discrete decisions that would be assisted by an intermediary body of high quality, credibility and at arms length from both the government and universities. (Such a body was proposed by the Advisory Panel on Postsecondary Education.) Highly respected analyses of the structure of Ontario's postsecondary institutions are needed to determine if greater institutional change in some areas is needed, such as with respect to the number of faculties for a particular area of professional training. A carefully constructed intermediary body could help with this analysis and with facilitating the adjustments required.

h) Relation between base funding and research capacity

A research policy cannot be discussed in isolation from the state of base funding of universities. This funding has a profound effect on research capacity, for it supports the longer- term appointments of researcher/teachers and the facilitative environment for learning and research.

The assessment of the Panel on Postsecondary Education was that base funding by the provincial government has fallen seriously below that of other provinces in Canada and major public university systems in the United States. The damaging effects have affected the quality of higher education and research. Evidence has been mounting of the inability of Ontario's universities to compete for the best researcher/ teachers.

I) Infrastructure needs

The physical and human requirements for research will vary greatly according to the nature of particular research projects, but the general weakened state of this infrastructure has caused much concern in recent years in Ontario and also, more broadly, in Canada. The national concern was reflected in the announcement in the federal budget in February of a Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) supported with an up front investment of $800 million. The accrued yield is expected to provide another $160 million, and with an average matching of about 60% from private and provincial sources the Fund has the potential to support a total of about $2.4 billion in infrastructure expenditures for universities, colleges and research hospitals over the next six or seven years.

The direction of the federal support is towards physical rather than human infrastructure and with emphasis on the natural sciences, applied sciences and medical sciences. Provinces are responding in various ways to assist their institutions in accessing this infrastructure support.

Ontario's budget of May 6 contained a number of important, relevant steps. It proposed a $3 billion R&D Challenge Fund to which the provincial government would contribute $50 million a year for ten years or a total of $0.5 billion. The matching conditions over the ten year period would require $1.0 billion from universities and other research institutions, $1.0 billion of private sector investment and $0.5 billion from other participants including the Canada Foundation for Innovation and Federal Granting Councils. At the same time an Ontario Business-Research Institute Tax Credit was announced which is to provide a 20 percent refundable tax credit for qualifying business sponsored R&D undertaken at Ontario universities, research hospitals and other non-profit research centres.

The approach announced in Ontario's budget has a high ratio for the matching of non-government funds to government funds. Although proposed areas of support are weighted to the sciences, it appears to be less exclusive in this regard than the CFI. Also, it allows more emphasis on human infrastructure than the CFI and it is broader in its definition of eligible research institutions. Both the federal and provincial initiatives require the establishment of boards to administer the programs and their interpretations of the policies will be highly important.

The announcement of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) has been well received in the research community. Much is yet to be worked out with respect to details of its implementation and with respect to the response of provinces, the private sector and universities.

Similarly, Ontario's initiative of an R&D Challenge Fund (RDCF) has been viewed as encouraging by the research community, though important details are yet to be developed. In comparison to the federal initiative, Ontario's approach appears to give a greater opportunity to build human infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure and to be more inclusive across the broad spectrum of research activity. The proposed high ratio of matching funds to the provincial contribution will pose a large challenge.

The CFI extends the recently popular approach of partnerships with the private sector, as does the RDCF. One area of perhaps greatest challenge will be that of attracting private support to large infrastructure projects that have broad benefits for facilitating research but that do not have much potential for returns that can be captured privately.

Moreover, there will be a difficult challenge to universities to come together in consortiums on projects that bring great benefits collectively to the groups but that would not be in the interest of an individual university to promote on its own. There is the issue of getting the group together and the issue of who takes the ownership/responsibility in maintaining a successful consortium-sponsored investment. Universities have been better at individual than consortium initiatives. It may be that the Council of Ontario Universities will have to play a more active role in proposals for such system wide investments.

j) Coverage of overhead costs

Related to the issue of appropriate support for infrastructure is the issue of funding the overhead costs of research supported by governments and the private sector.

The charging of overheads on research contracts between universities and industry or government ministries has been the most straightforward to handle in principle, if not always in practice. It is widely accepted that these costs should be charged as part of the contract in order that universities not subsidize such work out of their operating budgets. The problem has been consistency in the application of this principle, as incentives can be strong to circumvent it. A part of any provincial research policy should be a strong reaffirmation of the principle and efforts to secure consistent adherence to it by the ministries.

An even more difficult issue to resolve has been the payment of overhead costs on peer adjudicated grants of the federal granting councils (and on a variety of other peer adjudicated research awards). Currently, an average figure of 40% is usually suggested as appropriate for the overhead charge, though that figure does not include items such as the costs of principal investigators' salaries. The granting councils, however, do not pay any overhead costs. A defence of this position has sometimes been based on the argument that coverage is implicit in the federal transfers to the provinces for postsecondary education, an argument that carries less force under the recently revised approach of a more general social transfer. In general, most commentators on Canada's research policies point to the distorting effect of this gap in coverage of research costs, but there is also a firm conviction now that the federal government will not change its policy and include overheads on granting council awards. The question has become whether provincial governments will provide assistance in this area to strengthen incentives for universities to draw a fair share of these federal research funds and to reduce the distorting effects on university operations.

In 1986, Ontario established a Research Overheads/Infrastructure Envelope (ROIE) of $25 million, distributed on the basis of a university's share of the federal granting council awards. In 1996, it had declined to about $23 million and in April 1997, it was increased to about $27 million. In the report of the Advisory Panel on Postsecondary Education it was argued that sums in this range are seriously inadequate and that an over-all figure approximately $77 million higher was needed. Since the Panel also argued that a large increase in the government base transfer was urgently needed, concerns developed if improvements in ROIE would be at the expense of base transfers. At the same time, the federal announcement of the Canada Foundation for Innovation has emphasized further the need for Ontario universities to have access to more infrastructure funds to match with the requirements of the federal program, and the need would be similar to the sum the Panel had proposed for an increase in ROIE.

k) Linkage between research and advanced studies

Efforts to raise Ontario's research strengths in universities will raise questions about the consequences for the quality of education. Arguments persist on the relation between research and teaching at universities. The issues are complex, but it is suggested the evidence is consistent with the following conclusions:

• in view of differences in pedagogical abilities and skills, it is not surprising that there can be outstanding researchers who received poor ratings on teaching from students and that there can be professors who receive excellent ratings on teaching from students but whose research is weak;
  
  
• the importance of the relation between research and teaching will depend in part on the type of teaching programs. At the university level, all professors should be active in integrative/interpretive research if they are to understand and convey significant developments in the body of knowledge on their subject. For advanced studies, particularly at the graduate level, professors must be active in basic or applied research, as well as integrative/interpretive research, because they are working with students who are learning how to do this research;
  
  
• the linkage runs not simply one way from research to education. Many eminent researchers point out that their research was greatly stimulated by teaching, as students' questions lead to a rethinking of ideas;
  
  
• the transmission of new knowledge from universities to industry and, more generally, to the community, occurs to a very large extent through the knowledge embodied in graduates. It is thus highly important for industry and the community that students have worked with professors who are on top of the latest developments in knowledge and who, along with their students, have worked with the modern equipment required to understand these developments.

This linkage provides further insights into the case for differentiation among universities which was discussed above under sub-section (g). Variations in the linkages between research and advanced studies occur among universities because some forms of research and advanced study require large investments in equipment and other facilities. Limitations on the over-all level of resources require the avoidance of the duplication of such investments among many universities. Another scarce factor is the outstanding researcher in a field, a rare item who also cannot be duplicated among many universities. Some universities will thus develop with larger investments in high cost research infrastructure and with advanced graduate studies associated with it. This differentiation does not imply that other universities with lower such investments are producing a lower value in terms of higher eduction, and many forms of research activity in them may also contribute just as much or more in other fields. All universities should emphasize integrative/interpretive research, and the funding of universities should reflect and support this emphasis.

l) Linkage between research, universities and the international flow of ideas

Through the flow of students, faculty and ideas, universities help link regions and countries. A research policy can facilitate this linkage and help increase understanding of research findings in other parts of the world. This understanding is fostered not just by the transmission of ideas through electronic and published form but, in addition, by ideas brought through faculty and students with advanced degrees. Similarly, research findings in Canada become transmitted internationally through various routes.

This exchange leads to international standards of quality that, in turn, are important for sifting the value of research work.

From this discussion of twelve key characteristics of a research policy, the paper now turns to a more specific examination of policies currently of great importance to research.

II. Current Provincial and Federal Policies

This section highlights features of provincial and federal policies that bear on the development of research in Ontario's universities. Consideration is then given in the following section to the measurement of research performance and to gaps and overlaps which affect the attainment of the objectives of a research policy.

a) Role of the Ministry of Education and Training

Among the wide range of public policies affecting the research performance of Ontario's universities, the policies adopted by the Ministry of Education and Training are the most important. The Ministry disbursed in 1996-97 about $ 1.5 billion in operating grants to universities, down from the peak of about $2.0 billion in 1992-93. These grants, along with revenue from tuition fees, are used to support both teaching and research. Also, the Ministry administers capital funds for renovations and new structures. It is responsible for provincial support of graduate students, as well as undergraduate student assistance. It ensures that appropriate accountability procedures are followed.

In the fulfilment of its responsibilities, the Ministry has not traditionally followed a highly regulatory or interventionist approach. Universities have been incorporated through separate acts which specify a large measure of autonomy, and, while reporting requirements to the government have increased and governmental measures, such as stipulating some basic features of governance structures, have been taken, universities have retained essential freedoms for determining their priorities on education and research. Periodic reviews of postsecondary education policy in Ontario have endorsed this general approach.

Within this context, a more active role by the Ministry in furthering the objectives of a research policy will require consideration of some organizational changes. The Ministry is large, covering all educational institutions from elementary to postsecondary, and there is a danger of advanced studies and research not receiving the attention they deserve. The present unit on postsecondary education could be given a stronger and clearer mandate for a research policy or, as in Alberta, for instance, a separate ministry for advanced studies and research could be established.

b) Role of other Ontario ministries

Other Ontario ministries are responsible for research activities that are relevant for a research policy:

• Ministry Economic Development, Trade and Tourism (MEDTT) has played a major role in the evolution of Ontario's Centres of Excellence program which brings sets of researchers from various universities together in partnership with industry and which was a precursor to the federal government's similar program entitled Networks of Centres of Excellence. Both programs have been extended as a result of highly positive reviews. MEDTT has also been working on the development of a science and technology policy for Ontario, which, at this time, is in formative stages, and it has been asked to work with MET on the implementation of the new R&D Challenge Fund.
  
  
• Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) has long had an extensive agricultural research program closely linked to the University of Guelph. This linkage has become even closer in 1997 with MAFRA moving its entire research operation (with its administration of about $54 million) to the University of Guelph.
  
  
• Ministry of Health (MOH): It administers about $34 million in research funds, most of which is directed to research in universities and teaching hospitals. Recently the emphasis on this distribution has shifted more to research on the delivery of health care services. On occasion, the matter has been raised that Ontario, as in some other provinces, should establish a health research council. In view of the concentration of health research in a limited number of universities and hospitals and the special sources of funds from donations, there is much to be said for a new careful review of this option.
  
  
• other ministries have sponsored research in many areas, including the following Ministries: Environment and Energy; Transportation; Community and Social Services; Natural Resources; Northern Development and Mines.

The reductions in Ontario's public sector recently have reduced research expenditures and staff in ministries, but issues remain about the appropriate coordination of research activities.

A review of the government's policy towards research in its own ministries would include the following questions:

1. should there be a more centralized, coordinated research policy with respect to Ontario's ministries? If so, should the development of this policy be located in a line ministry or in a central agency?
2. should there be, in general, a greater emphasis on the importance of research in many of the activities of the ministries?
3. in principle, should ministries emphasize a competition in the external allocation of research funds and normally try to allocate research activity externally to a ministry?
4. while there has been agreement to pay overhead costs on research contracts between ministries and universities, are there more effective mechanisms to gain adherence to this policy?
5. does the general objective of strengthening Ontario's research performance require a change in the processes through which advice flows to the Ontario Cabinet?

c) Provincial interest in federal government policies

Canada's distinctive constitutional arrangements have led to placing responsibility for postsecondary education policies at the provincial level, but federal government policies have influenced the development of universities through four routes. First, the federal government has transferred funds or tax points to the provinces to assist them in programs such as postsecondary education and health. The provinces have asserted their right to determine how these funds are used, and, over time, the transfer has become smaller and less specific with respect to its use. Second, the federal government has taken an interest in student assistance, and through the Canada Student Loan Plan provides complementary support to provincial plans, such as the Ontario Student Assistance Plan. Third, the constitutional arrangements do not exclude the federal government from research policies, and, since 1916 when the National Research Council was established, the federal government has taken an active interest in a national research policy that has influenced universities. Fourth, the research activities of various federal government departments and agencies have been a substantial source of research funds.

An important consideration for designing a provincial research policy is the extent to which it should relate to federal research policies. The current perception in the research community is that Ontario has generally taken little interest in this relationship, while other provinces, such as Quebec and Alberta, have taken a greater interest. Moreover, it is suggested that the weakness of this relationship between Ontario and the federal government is one reason Ontario has not done as well recently in accessing federal research funds.

Whatever the realities lying behind this perception, there is a case for Ontario to work effectively in representing research interests nationally and, indeed, to take a leadership role in Canadian research initiatives. At this time, it is not clear which individual or agency should take responsibility for advancing research interests at the national level.

d) Federal programs of particular importance for research policy

Because of the wide spillover effects of research, particularly of the basic or fundamental form, one would expect the higher the level of government the greater the appreciation of its importance. It has sometimes been argued that, for this reason, the federal government should concentrate more on the support of basic or fundamental research. In fact, its influence has been on both basic and application oriented research with more emphasis recently, as noted above, on the support of application oriented research. Federal programs of particular significance for the province's research activities are the following:

• The Federal Granting Councils, MRC, NSERC and SSHRC: These granting councils have achieved a very high level of importance and credibility in the research community; they have developed widely respected methods of adjudication of applications for research funding; it is in the research interests of Ontario that these councils are strengthened financially and that Ontario universities are encouraged to compete successfully for a reasonable share of the funds.
  
  
• The Canada Foundation for Innovation: As noted earlier in this paper, this program to build the scientific research infrastructure in universities, colleges and research hospitals was announced in the February, 1997 federal budget. It provides a great opportunity for Ontario to be supportive in remedying grave deficiencies in this infrastructure and to adopt complementary policies that might extend the program to human, as well as physical, infrastructure and to important areas of the social sciences and humanities that badly need improved infrastructure.
  
  
• National Science and Technology Policy: The federal policy has been undergoing review and revision. In some respects it appears to have been weakened by becoming less open in its reporting and less clearly attached to senior levels of government decision-making processes. Ontario's long standing interest in this area needs to be clarified and related to the federal developments.

III. Judging Performance and Correcting Gaps and Overlaps in Policy

This final section examines some issues in measuring performance in research and some approaches to correcting gaps and overlaps in research policies.

a) Measures of overall research performance

As noted earlier, research can be measured in terms of inputs, outputs and impacts. There is much work to be done on developing better data spanning these various measures, but, if measures of input or expenditure are used to examine inter-provincial performance, two major conclusions can be drawn:

1. Ontario is the provincial leader in university based research. Thus, for example, in 1994-95:
   • the highest provincial percentage – 36 % – of the total awards of the three federal granting councils were made to Ontario;
   • the percentage– 40% – is also the highest in Ontario among the provinces if total sponsored research is used in the calculation;
   • on the basis of a variety of measures of research, 10 universities in Canada have been identified as leaders in research performance and 5 of those universities are in Ontario;
   
   
   
2. This leadership position, however, has slipped in recent years. Thus, for example:
   • the provincial share of the three federal granting council awards has fallen from about 42% in the first half of the 1980s to about 36% in the first half of the 1990s.
   • it appears from extensive consultations that Ontario's universities are having greater difficulty in attracting and keeping top researchers than used to be the case and that this deterioration in competitive position has occurred relative to some other Canadian provinces as well as some other countries.

b) Use of performance indicators for evaluating research strengths in the aggregate and by institution

Difficulties in measuring research performance directly mean that indirect indicators of performance are often used. These indicators can be classified into three types:

1. Input indicators: these indicators use data on inputs to research activity such as size of research funding, amount of capital equipment, number and stature of researchers. Such indicators are not satisfactory by themselves because they give no indication of the value of the results of the research activity.
   
   
2. Output indicators: these indicators attempt to measure output of research activity through such data as the number of research publications (or the number in leading peer adjudicated publications), the number of times research publications are cited in other publications, the number of patents awarded as a result of applied scientific research, and the number of Ph.D. degrees awarded (as a measure of the results of the research training function). These indicators are also not satisfactory by themselves. They do not provide a full sense of the value of the research findings, though, when measures of peer review of the output are used, an indication of the significance for knowledge is provided.
   
   
3. Impact indicators: indicators of the impacts of research would remedy some of weaknesses of input and output indicators, but they are extraordinarily difficult to develop as quantitative measures. In this area much reliance continues to be placed on case studies of the effects of research, and important as this approach must be, it does not readily lend itself to aggregation and comparisons.

Further work is needed on various types of indicators, involving both better data and careful analysis. Yet problems of measurement mean that no single set of performance indicators will be entirely satisfactory. Basic research, in particular, has unpredictable, indirect and very long-term consequences that make simple quantitative measures of performance highly unreliable. Nevertheless, the search for better performance indicators is likely to continue in response to pressures to justify the allocation of scarce funds for research.

c) Challenge of differentiation with high quality in research and education

Reference was made earlier to the need for differentiation among universities, if resources for research are to be used most effectively. It was pointed out that much differentiation has taken place without a regulated master plan for Ontario's universities. It is suggested here that the framework for further evolution of this differentiation should have four primary characteristics: (i) positive incentives for universities which choose to emphasize an undergraduate learning environment with limited, selective graduate teaching and large scale frontier research programs but with ongoing, base operating support and general encouragement for integrative/interpretive research; (ii) rigorous standards for the approval and continuation of graduate study programs particularly at the Ph.D. level; (iii) institutional mechanisms to assist universities with their restructuring; (iv) stronger incentives for high quality research activity in research intensive universities. A brief explanation is given of each:

(i) Positive incentives should be provided for universities which choose to emphasize an undergraduate learning environment with limited, selective graduate and frontier research programs. Ongoing base operating support and general encouragement for integrative/interpretive research would be important in all areas.

These incentives should include special support for infrastructure that provides:

• easy access for students and faculty to major research libraries elsewhere
• electronic linkages that permit a faculty member in a remote or small campus to work effectively with research colleagues at major research centres (unless it is the type of research that requires people working together in physical proximity in a laboratory).
• support for the use of technology that would allow professors to insert into their lectures, special lectures (or parts of lectures) by eminent scholars on the subject of their courses.

Thus, such steps would be designed to enhance the quality and attractiveness of primarily undergraduate learning institutions: (i) by making more readily available to their faculty and students the library resources of major research universities; (ii) by providing their faculty with greater opportunities to work on joint research activity with colleagues elsewhere; (iii) by assisting their faculty to enrich their lectures with the meshing of visual presentations of eminent authorities elsewhere. These steps would require a minimum level of wiring for electronic communication and consortium arrangements among universities that will probably require the leadership of an organization such as the Council of Ontario Universities.

(ii) Rigorous standards for the approval and continuation of graduate study programs, particularly at the PhD. level, should be maintained.

Ontario established an internationally respected system of graduate program appraisals through a division of the Council of Ontario Universities. This system should be continued, but it faces new challenges in appraisals as a result of the recent policies of early retirement and downsizing. The research capacity and its distribution have undergone significant changes in Ontario universities recently.

The processes for appraisals should continue to be buttressed with links to funding eligibility and with regular monitoring to ensure high standards.

(iii) A body that could assist universities with their restructuring, in a facilitative rather than directive way, is needed.

The scarcity of resources has caused closer assessments of areas of academic strength within universities. It is generally best to leave the adjustments that should follow to the normal interplay of competitive and cooperative forces among universities. Yet, there are some areas where it may be particularly difficult for institutions to make these adjustments without the assistance of an intermediary body. For example, if it becomes clear there are too many faculties of a particular profession in Ontario universities, an intermediary body could help in bringing about an appropriate reduction in number without usurping the autonomy of universities in their academic programs.

(iv) Stronger incentives are needed to meet international standards of quality in research intensive universities

It has been emphasized in this paper that research is an essential activity in all universities. But those that choose to have extensive graduate and research programs that meet international standards of quality will have special needs. They must compete for the outstanding research scholar in international markets where such appointments are particularly expensive both in terms of compensation and also – and often more substantially – in terms of levels of research infrastructure and support that normally accompany such appointments. They must be able to fund the infrastructure and overhead costs that accompany high levels of research activity and graduate study. All universities must undertake both research and education, but the differentiation discussed here is based on incentives that foster high quality in the response of institutions to their chosen mix of characteristics of education and research.

d) The need for new agencies

It is not a popular time for the establishment of new governmental agencies. The Government has been concerned to reduce the number substantially. Yet, there are aspects of the development of a research policy, discussed here, that would be better covered through some form of new agency.

The Panel recommended an advisory body to deal with a number of issues that cannot be handled as well by the Ministry, COU or the universities and colleges. One of the functions proposed for it was to assess overall performance of Ontario's set of universities and colleges and this function would be of great importance for a research policy.

Ontario needs a funding foundation that could assist in closing gaps in the support of research. Although Quebec has developed councils similar to the federal granting councils, it probably does not make sense for Ontario to try to duplicate those councils. If a council were to be established for a particular area of research, a special council for health research would have the strongest case, in view of the size and special characteristics of research in health sciences.

An effective research policy requires a broad base of understanding and enthusiasm from leaders of the private sector, and some institutional form for developing this base is needed.

If research policies are to have a higher priority in government decision making, processes through which an understanding of the needs and of the options flow to Cabinet will need further assessment.

Conclusions and Summary

The conclusions and summary to this discussion paper are in the above Executive Summary.