CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM: HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY

AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

Paul J. Madgett
Ph.D. Student
Warner School of Education
University of Rochester

Charles Bélanger, Ph. D.

Professor of Management
Faculty of Management
Laurentian University, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

C
ommercialization of university research is a contentious and prominent issue in
tertiary education. This paper will elaborate on the commercialization and
innovation strategies pursued by Canada and the United Kingdom with respect to
their research funding structures and their focus innovation systems, both regional and
national. Over the last two decades, these two countries introduced neo-liberal funding
agendas for the state as well as for higher education while offering incentives to stimulate
commercialization activities. These countries' policies and programs have targeted
Universities to help propel their economic performance, prosperity, and standard of
living.

Introduction

A
s Commonwealth countries, Canada and the United Kingdom have historical,
political, and economic ties dating back two and half centuries. Early Canadian
higher education institutions emulated the Cambridge model, while the
foundations of the Canadian political system were based on the Westminster model
(Dyck, 2007; Kernaghan, 2003).

Economically, the UK has a somewhat higher Gross National Income per capita
but a lower Purchasing Power Parity (Beamish et al., 2003). The end of the Second
World War marked Canada's gradual shifting of balance away from British influence in
favor of integrating itself politically and economically with the United States. The
 1

inception of the Charter of Rights and Freedom (1982) and the North American Free
Trade Agreement (January 4th, 1994) were the formal recognition of that new reality with
the U.S. presently accounting for 76% of Canada’s exports (McKibon, 2008). In spite of
this new realignment, the Canadian and British political systems continue to maintain ties
with the positions of Governor General federally and the Lieutenant Governors
provincially who continue to figuratively represent the Queen and monarchy. Our
common historical and political links allow for a valuable comparison of the innovation
strategies being implemented to nurture the transition towards a knowledge focused
economy.

This paper will undertake a descriptive analysis of the strategies being adopted by
both of these countries, which involves the shifting of publicly funded research towards
market-oriented research objectives. These countries are and have been undertaking a
neo-liberal agenda resulting in a cogent shift in government policy. Olssen and Peters
(2005) believe: “neo-liberalism has come to represent a positive conception of the state’s
role in creating the appropriate market by providing the conditions, laws, and institutions
necessary for its operation” (p.315). Associated with this political philosophy, the
government is limiting the role of the state by reducing expenditures, prioritizing certain
core programs and privatizing government services.

As this policy directly affects universities and colleges, it has been associated
with two university jurisdictions, namely teaching and knowledge creation (Olssen and
Peters, 2005; Besley and Peters, 2006). These higher education institutions have shifted
their teaching modules towards an emphasis on transferable skills and their research
towards knowledge transfer to industry (Olssen and Peters, 2005). Furthermore, these
market realities induce a greater employment of performance and management structures
similar to those employed by business as well as research quality measurements to
allocate funding (Regan, 2007; Olssen and Peters, 2005; Besley and Peters, 2006).

However, in the last few years, a slight reversal has transpired due to increased
global competition and the realization that tertiary education is a vital policy tool for
government and an equally vital component of the knowledge economy (Olssen and
Peters, 2005). Concurrently, this strategy is a competitive response to the policies
enacted by other western government and the corresponding exodus of manufacturing
facilities to developing countries (Audretsch, 2003), Canada and the United Kingdom are
attempting to further develop knowledge based industries to generate higher paying jobs
(Government of Canada, 2007; Industry Canada, 2006; Department of Trade and
Industry, 2003). Each country has a well-developed higher education system and
research expertise, both providing a unique advantage in sustaining a knowledge based
economy (Kitagawa, 2004; Conference Board of Canada, 2003; Lagendijk and Cornford,
2000; Advisory Council on Science and Technology, 1999; Canadian Council on
Learning, 2007).

In order to foster an innovative technology focused economy, two unique

government strategies are being adopted: a strong regional mandate in the United
Kingdom and a national focus in Canada. Consequently, to increase the probability of
success, both countries are attempting to increase their Gross Domestic Expenditure on
Research and Development (GERD) to GDP while emphasizing a long-term Return On
 2

Investment (ROI) strategy, mainly holding equity in new venture firms (Riddle, 2004;
Canadian Council on Learning, 2007). Thus, this shareholder focus may be the result of
limited financial windfalls realized from licensing (Feldman et al., 2002). An equity
stake does provide opportunities of long-term partnerships and ability to better align
revenue objectives which allow for universities to take full advantage of potential
revenue streams (Feldman et al., 2002).

This study focuses on five specific issues. The first looks at funding (or the lack
thereof) which has enticed universities to partake in a mission related to
commercialization and economic development. The second gives an overview of the
make-up, type and mandate of tertiary institutions in each country. The third and fourth
issues attempt to clarify the government policy environment and its effects on
commercialization. The fifth and final issue considers the clash between academic
freedom, ethical behavior, universities and industry. These five issues have enabled
innovation and research commercialization to be a strategic focus of universities in
western nations.

1. How did the reduction of public funding facilitate linkages between higher
education and industry?

The Canadian Scene. The Canadian higher education system is divided between
two levels of government, federal and provincial/territorial. The federal government
funds the public research councils and provides transfer payments to the provinces and
territories to help fund their public programs which include postsecondary education. In
the latter part of the 1980s, the Mulroney government initiated reduced transfer payments
to provinces, for health and higher education, with the objective of reducing government
expenditures (Swardson, 1993; Banting, 1992). After failing to control the deficit, the
Progressive Conservatives were replaced by the Liberals who promised to eliminate the
fiscal deficit. More cutbacks led to the reduction of government funding in many aspects
of the state, most notably in health care and education. This course of action may have
taken into account a noted decrease in the rate of return on invested capital for university
education in many countries during the 70s (Stager, 1996). Within a few years, these cuts
caused the reduction, on average, in university funding from a high 80% of direct public
funding to approximately 60% of their current operating budgets (Mount and Bélanger,
2001; CAUT, 2007). Consequently, this reduction forced Canada to bridge this gap, the
universities - and to a lesser extent the colleges - with permission from their provincial
governments, shifted some of the financial burden to the student through tuition fee hikes
(Quirke and Davies, 2002). Since 1990/91, university tuition in Canada has had an annual
growth rate of 7.3% (Statistics Canada, 2005).

Although this price increase should have affected the demand for postsecondary
education, Quirke and Davies (2002) surmised that higher education enrollment would
not be detrimentally affected because it is a condition for employment in the marketplace.
The impact of this type of tuition policy would not affect the affluent or those returning to
higher education for professional development but reduce the accessibility and attainment
opportunities of the least affluent members of society; thereby, causing deferred social
mobility (Newman et al., 2004; Morgan, 2005; Havemen and Smeeding, 2006) with
lower rates of unemployment and higher rates of poverty (Baum and Payer, 2005).
 3

In 2004, the Conference Board calculated a provincial/territorial budget deficit of

$1.3 billion and estimated this figure to increase to $11 billion by 2019/2020 (Conference
Board of Canada, 2004); unfortunately, these financial restrictions may limit future funds
available to higher education. Consequently, higher education must also compete with
other policy imperatives such as health, crime prevention, etc. which may be more
attractive to the aging baby boomer population (Duderstadt, 2005; Barr, 2004).
Furthermore, the federal Conservative government is being fiscally prudent about any
increased expenditures with greater emphasis on tax cuts, therefore limiting funds
available to tertiary education through transfer payments. In recent budgets, the federal
government has invested slightly more money in its research councils, but seems to be
more focused on developing a larger role for the private sector (Government of Canada,
2007). This ideal seems to be helping align university research in solving industrial
problems in order to improve innovation (Brzustowski, 2006a).

In an effort to provide higher education with additional research funding sources,

many provinces launched smaller research granting entities. To illustrate this point,
Ontario has created the Four Centers of Excellence. Unlike the federal tri-councils
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC -
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/index.htm ), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC - http://sshrc.ca/web/home_e.asp ), and the Canadian Institute for Health
Research (CIHR - http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html ), these four Centers of
Excellence fund collaborative projects with industry which provide capital to conduct
research and to buy the related equipment while also contributing 35% of the project’s
budget towards administrative overhead. These collaborative projects allow departments
to employ state-of-the-art equipment, to fund graduate students for research, and to get
students practical experience in their field; therefore, improve job prospects (Zieminski
and Warda, 1999). Similar provincial programs to improve commercialization are:
Valorisation-Recherche Québec and Ontario’s Medical and Related Sciences (Riddle,
2003). In addition, there are other benefits for both industry and tertiary education, the
following table illustrates the benefits for both the academic institution (students,
professors, image management, external funding) and those benefits to the private
collaborating entity (manufacturing and production issues, product research and
development, skills) (Lee, 2000):

Reasons for

Academic Collaboration with Industry Firms Collaborating with Academics

To supplement funds for one’s own To solve specific technical or design

academic research problems
To test the practical application of one’s own To develop new products and processes
research and theory
To gain insights in the areas of one’s own To conduct research leading to new patents
research
 4

To further the university’s outreach mission To improve product quality

To look for business opportunity
To gain knowledge about practical problems
useful for teaching
To create student internship and job
placement opportunities
To secure funding for research assistants and
lab equipment
To reorient R & D agenda
To have access to new research (via seminars
and workshops)
To maintain an ongoing relationship and
network with the university
To conduct “blue sky” research in search of
new technology
To conduct fundamental research with no
specific application in mind
To recruit university graduates

The federal government provides similar market-oriented funding with its

Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) that makes funding available for SMEs
through its research and technology development activities
(http://www.nserc.gc.ca/news/2002/p020321.htm). Meanwhile, the Canadian Foundation
for Innovation (CFI) uses a merit-based review by researchers, research administrators,
and research users to fund university and hospital research infrastructure (Doern, 2008;
http://www.innovation.ca/about/index.cfm). SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR have instituted
their own tri-Council Intellectual Property Management Programs to increase technology
and knowledge transfer at Canadian universities (Riddle, 2003). It is important to note,
however, that funding allocation from NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR continues to be based
on a peer review model where each project is independently evaluated; those proposals
ranked highly by peer reviews and review committees are granted funds (Doern, 2008).
This evaluation process is undertaken for all proposals during each funding cycle.

Within the growth of neo-liberalism, there have been many stakeholders who
have been affected by the increase levels of efficiency, knowledge capitalism and
economic significance of university research (Besley and Peters, 2006; Olssen and Peters,
2005; Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean, 2002). Consequently another stakeholder, faculty
associations believe the commercialization policies are aimed at achieving economic
benefits with increase research in applied studies, detrimentally affecting pure research
(CAUT, 2001) while some faculty believe industry liaison offices should always be
opposed (Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean, 2002). Moreover, the STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields are the major benefactors of
commercialization and increases of research funding (Hum, 2000; Kerr, 2001),
potentially devaluing the research conducted in the arts and humanities. This faculty
perspective, in some instances, has resulted in misgivings about the long-term trajectory
of commercialization vis-à-vis higher education with the CAUT illustrating these beliefs
by recently publishing “The Corporate Campus: Commercialization and the Dangers to
Canada's Universities and Colleges” and “Universities for Sale: Resisting Corporate
Control over Canadian Higher Education” (http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=443).
 5

Overall, Canadian universities are supportive of generating other revenue streams

and have invested more than $80 million in specialized infrastructure for
commercialization (AUCC, 2003). In the last few years, there has been an observable
increase in branding activities for colleges and universities relating to entrepreneurship,
industrial partnerships, and marketing of programs in an attempt to differentiate
themselves vis-à-vis other universities and colleges (Bélanger et al., 2007; Mount and
Bélanger, 2004). In response to these developments, most universities in Canada have
created their respective Intellectual Property Offices to commercialize the ground-
breaking research of their faculty and research centers (Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean,
2002). These offices provide identifiable university community contacts for industry. In
recent years, universities have invested in these strategies realizing that income plays a
vital role in maintaining one’s standing vis-à-vis its competitors, Kirp (2003) states the
following on the competitive market for revenue sources: “It’s no wonder, then, that
raising research money, negotiating patent rights, and establishing a presence on the
internet are contact sports” (p.5)

The UK Scene. The UK has followed a fiscal strategy relatively similar to that of
Canada. There was a revolution that caused a reduction in funding and an increase of
access to the masses for higher education in the late 80s with the passing of the
Thatcher’s Education Reform Act of 1988 (Green, 1995; Alexander, 2000). Until 1992,
there was separate funding for universities and polytechnics, which after all were
considered universities (Green, 1995). The decline in per student funding in the 90s had
been linked to the rapid expansion of students enrolling in higher education. Beforehand,
the UK government had funded its higher education students with grants, but these were
slowly replaced by loans. On May 1st, 1997, the Labour Party of Tony Blair was elected
replacing the long-standing Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher
and John Major (Jacobs, 1997). Blair’s Labour Party won a landslide victory that some
blamed on the Conservatives scandals during the election period and accusations of
accepting cash from lobbyists to bring issues to the floor for three years (MgGuire and
McKinney, 1997) which were heavily publicized by the media. Also, the party had
created a policy document New Labour, New Life for Britain that concentrated on five
main issues: education, crime, health, jobs and economic stability with a detailed
explanation of planned expenditures; therefore, avoiding the conservative attack of
raising taxes (http://www.labour.org.uk/historyofthelabourparty3?PublishKey=8bfabed3-
47f8-06c4-010a-b60ea9d7b1be).

The Labour government created the next major reforms by implementing fixed-
rate fees upfront of $1,600 (fall 1998) for each year on a means-tested basis full-time
students (Birchard, 2001; Guardian Unlimited, 2004; Barr, 2005); consequently, these
fees were suggested by the 1997 National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education
which recommended a quarter of the costs of higher education be paid in tuition fees
(Recommendation 79). These front end fees have currently been removed and student
loans based on income contingent repayment plans are presently limited to 25 years
(Harvey, 2004; White Paper, 2003). In order to respond to the changing world, the
Department of Education and Skills (2003) published a White Paper entitled “The Future
of Higher Education” (hereafter referred to as the White Paper). This paper proposes that
certain support mechanisms exist to allow students whose parents earn up to £20 000
pounds, to partake in tertiary education. The tuition fees have increased to help replace
 6

part of this funding gap in an attempt to subsidize universities. These universities have
lobbied for the removal of the £3000 pound tuition cap (in real terms), but the Secretary
of State maintains that this cap will be kept in place (Harvey, 2004; Ford, 2007) but there
have been recent discussions about raising the cap to £5000 (Lipsett, 2007).

The government’s endorsement of the 2003 White Paper was given Royal Assent
on July 1st, 2004 resulting in an increase in higher education funding by £10 billion
pounds/year in 2005-2006, which is over 6 per cent a year in real terms (White paper ,
2003; http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/hereform/whitepaperconsultation/index.cfm).
The UK distributes its funding for infrastructure using the following four organizations:
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Scottish Higher Education
Funding Council (SHEFC), Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), and
for Northern Ireland, the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and
Employment (DHFETE) (see A Guide to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise). The
government has also recommended that universities increase endowments in order to
compete with other major universities in the U.S.; meanwhile striving to develop some
criteria to match these financial contributions. Unlike many other countries, the
government has taken an ambitious step by committing substantial financial resources to
strengthening tertiary education. Recent policy documents have supported an increase in
business links with universities to garner more opportunities to access funding and
corporate sponsors (HEFCE, 1998; White Paper, 2003; Lambert Review, 2003).
Resultantly, this trend is enabling higher education to become more accountable in the
quality of its teaching and its research (HEFCE, 1998; White Paper, 2003; Lambert
Review, 2003). The UK universities have access to the following research councils
(www.hero.ac.uk):

1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC),

2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),

3. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC),

4. Medical Research Council (MRC),

5. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC),

6. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), and

7. Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB).

These seven councils have formed a strategic alliance to create a common

framework for research, for training and for knowledge transfer, and to promote science,
technology and engineering research. These councils do not allocate any funding to
compensate for administration and/or infrastructure costs relating to the funded project.
In the UK, the funding for these councils is linked to the Research Assessment Exercise
(RAE) which occurred in 2001 and is currently being conducted in 2008. Thereafter,
consultation has begun to replace RAE with Research Excellence Framework that will
have greater use of quantitative indicators and will gradually take effect for funding
 7

beginning in 2010-11 (HEFCE, 2007). Currently, the RAE evaluation uses a process of
peer review by experts in all the subject areas. Based on their 2001 results, universities
will divide the £1 billion pounds of research funding (http://www.rae.ac.uk). The UK
uses the following “dual support” funding role (A Guide to the 2001 Research
Assessment Exercise):

 Research infrastructure funding (staff, salaries, premises, computing and

library costs as examples) is given by the four UK funding bodies.

 The cost of individual research projects are funded by the above stated
research councils and board.

Therefore, the universities in the United Kingdom will receive funding to cover the direct
and indirect costs of a research project; consequently, this would decrease the
institution’s implicit cost of conducting research.

2. What are the main structural differences between the two systems?

There are significant structural differences between the two countries. The United
Kingdom transformed the Polytechnics into universities in 1992. Because of this change,
the UK has 90 universities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (CHEPS,
2003). The Canadian system has 93 universities that are regarded as this country’s
principal research engines. In addition, there exist some 200 community colleges, similar
to the Fachochschulen, dealing not only with vocational studies, specialized training and
applied skills but also with university transfer and preparation in specific provinces
(Skolnik, 2004). In a few provinces, Applied Degrees for colleges were legislated to
allow them to compete against other institutions through differentiation of their product
(ACCC, 2006; Skolnik, 2005). This differentiation strategy offers the community
colleges another marketing tool to compete with universities in their efforts to attract a
greater number of students. Furthermore, the landscape has begun to shift with colleges
wishing to participate in industrial applied research (Bélanger et al., 2005). With this
new focus, colleges are hoping to lessen the impact of provincial funding cuts and to
increase their reputation nationally and internationally (ACCC, 2006). Historically, in
many European countries, colleges have evolved to polytechnics and then later to
universities (Kyvik, 2001; Kyvik and Skodvin, 2002), similar to the path taken by
Ryerson University in Toronto.

As mentioned previously, the UK controls higher education funding through the

following government agencies: HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, and DHFETE. Hence, the
government is able to formulate the vision and the objectives to be sought throughout the
country. A national strategy mandates a shared vision and planning that allows for the
creation of system wide goals and objectives as well as has funding aligned with national
concerns in order to allow the country to react quickly to changes in the global
marketplace (Canadian Council on Learning, 2007). In Canada, the system is quite
decentralized with tertiary education falling under the jurisdiction of the Canadian
provinces. The federal government influences the research agenda by funding NSERC,
SSHRC, CIHR, IRAP, FCI and their Innovation Agenda. The federal government has
plans to create a private sector advisory board for these agencies to help develop business
 8

driven Networks of Centres of Excellence, Centres of Excellence in Commercialization

and Research, and the college initiatives to aid in reaching certain Innovation Agenda
goals (Government of Canada, 2007). These set objectives are aimed directly at
strengthening Canada’s economic competitiveness by emphasizing the creation of
industry clusters (Holbrook and Clayman, 2003; Madgett et al., 2005). Considering that
Canada has 13 jurisdictions for tertiary education, the prioritization of their respective
perspectives results in regional fragmentation mainly because Canada: “has never had a
formal, structured, federal–provincial–territorial mechanism or forum for discussion of
common or mutually interacting issues, goals and priorities” (Canadian Council on
Learning, 2007, p. 153). This constitutional jurisdiction of Canadian Federalism (Dyck,
2007), has the ability to limit the introduction of standardized national policies relating to
accessibility, industry collaboration, quality assessment, teaching assessment (Canadian
Council on Learning, 2007).

3. How are government policies stimulating commercialization?

Canada and the United Kingdom are initiating important policies and programs to
further increase innovation indicators in their economies. Improvements in these
indicators are needed to preserve their standard of living, improve their productivity and
maintain their real income levels (Department of Trade and Industry, 2003; Industry
Canada, 2006; Government of Canada, 2002). To help stimulate innovation, Canada
created “Canada’s Innovation Strategy” while the UK has followed suit with “Competing
in The Global Economy: The Innovation Challenge.” How is innovation linked to
commercialization? In both countries, the government has identified the need to integrate
university research with industry requirements through commercialization to implement
new ideas, processes and products into their economies which are needed to compete
globally (Department of Trade and Industry, 2003; Government of Canada, 2007;
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, 2007). Developing countries have an
opportunity to destabilize the manufacturing sector of many Western nations by
providing inexpensive human capital, government subsidies and other incentives. While
taking these factors into account, most corporations have three choices (Audretsch,
2003):

1. Realign production costs significantly which includes reducing wages in

the hope of competing with their international competitors.

2. Substitute equipment and technology for labor in order to increase

productivity.

3. Shift production to these low-cost countries.

For example, the topic of off-shoring of jobs in the manufacturing and service
sectors has become a very problematic political issue (Martin, 2005). For most
politicians, there is a need to increase productivity and innovation to limit off-shoring and
to compete globally with other countries (Sear, 2007; Lynch, 2007); especially those low
wage economies in the south (Jacobs, 1997). If governments have any hope of avoiding
options one and three, they must enlist the assistance of universities, public research
centers and industry consortia with a view to helping the industrial sector incorporate
 9

new technologies into its manufacturing processes. In that, Canada has a private sector
which spends a significantly lower percentage of their sales on R&D than companies in
Europe and the United States and we also have an export focused resource industry that
has a low level of investment in innovation and R&D (Bruztowski, 2006b).

In this circumstance, the government has little choice but to play a greater role in
providing policy and programs to support technology transfer and to help fund the
integration of new processes and products in order to mitigate the weakness of the private
sector. Also, this type of government funding would have the effect of revitalizing the
relevant research infrastructure, providing skills to our students, and funding for our
professors which could lead to greater social and personal benefits (Canadian Council on
Learning, 2007; Van Loon, 2005). To optimize new discoveries from public funds,
Canadian government should create intellectual property (IP) policies to implement the
required ownership (legal) frameworks to provide a standard process for external players
to access university research (Government of Canada, 2007). For example, in the United
States, the Bayh-Doyle Act (1980) gives Universities control of their professors’
discoveries, allowing them to market these findings to industry meanwhile in Sweden the
rights are awarded to the researcher (Goldfarb and Henrekson 2003). There has been
some debate whether to allow the researcher or the university in Canada to have control
of the discoveries or partnership agreement with both stakeholders; unfortunately, no
strategy has yet been implemented at the national level (Riddle, 2003). Contrarily, the
UK has agreed to the following (HM Treasury et al., 2004):

“The Association for University Research and Industry Links (AURIL),

the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Small Business
Service (SBS) should produce a small set of model research
collaboration contracts, for voluntary use by industry and universities.”

The above framework has allowed UK universities to control the research

outputs of their faculty (Riddle, 2003).

4. What types of commercialization strategies are being implemented?

The UK has taken a regional approach to strengthening its commercialization

capacity with a new strategy that is presented in the government’s 2003 White Paper. The
full context of this potential change is available in the Science & Innovation Investment
Framework 2004-2014, Appendices C, the government’s response to the Lambert Review
of Business-University Collaboration. The UK government has acknowledged the steps
needed to implement certain aspects of this document. This commercialization strategy
identifies the important role of various factors, especially research and industry, in
stimulating innovation. Furthermore, the government’s White Paper has made numerous
commitments towards helping the universities in the development of their research
findings by (HM Treasury et al., 2004):

1. Increasing the level of research funding in general.

2. Increasing the level of funding to £110 million a year by 2007-08 for the
Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF).
 10

The government is hoping that the increase in research funding will raise the level of tacit
knowledge leading to more economic ends while HEIF funding will increase the capacity
for knowledge transfer (Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, 2007; HM
Treasury et al., 2004)

The government policies are focused on balancing their research portfolio with
older fields of study and newer disciplines, such as nanotechnology. The HEIF fund,
with emphasis on including Small/Medium Enterprises (SMEs), will provide financial
support for most facets of knowledge transfer and supply capital for concept development
and demonstration. Recent literature endorses the economic advantages of integrating
research findings into SMEs (Audretsch, 2003). The UK government is prioritizing this
strategic focus for it is believed that the Regional Development Agencies may be able to
help form linkages between SMEs in emerging technologies and universities to increase
innovation and business growth (HM Treasury et al., 2006).

In South Korea, Chung (2002) discovered that the innovation level of the country
depended on the number and strength of its regional innovation systems. Previous British
reports recommend that the university business offices provide regional development
agencies (RDA) with current research findings, technology transfer, and technology
licensing opportunities (White Paper, 2003; Lambert Review, 2003). The RDAs are
integrated in local economies and are prepared to aid in further developing technology
clusters. For example, the RDA for Yorkshire has already launched six Centers of
Industrial Collaboration, giving businesses quick access to research specialization
through the region’s university (http://www.yorkshire-forward.com). This type of
interaction will benefit the region and will allow for the development of innovation with
pre-defined contact person(s) to increase university-business links (HM Treasury et al.,
2006; Department of Education and Skills, 2003). At this time, the RDAs’ Regional
Economic Strategies have created measures to increase innovation and commercialization
by investing £240 million in science, engineering and technology related activities in
2002-03. This represents approximately 15 per cent of their budgets (HM Treasury et
al., 2004). These types of projects can help the development of industry groupings which
has the effect of attracting more companies and specialized human capital and
infrastructure resulting in spin-off companies, higher paying employment for the
citizenry, and greater competitiveness with reduced costs and productivity (Laidler,
2002; Wolfe et al., 2005). There is an estimated £8 billion investment needed to sustain
their current infrastructure with £3.2 billion and £4.6 billion for research and teaching
infrastructure (White Paper, 2003). From 1997 to 2007, the government had doubled its
investment in the science budget to £3.4 billion (Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills, 2006). The UK has always been involved in mandating the accountability and
the efficiency of university research funding but it will be interesting to note what
changes occur with the Research Excellence Framework replacing the Research
Assessment Exercise.

The creation of an Arts and Humanities funding board is a good step towards
ensuring that this area is not overlooked in the UK. However, in Canada even with the
support of a similar fund, the arts and humanities are not getting the same funding
opportunities as science and engineering. In 2006/2007, the federal government agencies
expenditures on science and technology were: $628 million for SSHRC, $907 millions
 11

for NSERC, and $812 million for CIHR (Statistics Canada, 2007). In 1963, one of Clark
Kerr’s (2001) pathologies for the modern university was that the sciences would be of
greater economic value than the humanities and social sciences. The commercialization
prospects for the majority of Arts and Humanities departments are, unfortunately, not as
prevalent or as lucrative as their counterparts because it is estimated that 78% of spin-offs
come from the following fields: biotechnology, health sciences, engineering and applied
sciences, and mathematical and physical sciences the sciences and engineering (Hum,
2000).

There are four modes of technology transfer highlighted by Reamer et al. (2003):
cooperative research and development, licensing or sale of intellectual property, technical
assistance, and information exchanges which are all needed to improve technology
transfer. Currently in Canada, many university administrators have begun to emphasize
“partnership or perish” as strategic planning focus (Bélanger et al., 2005; Mount and
Bélanger, 2001). Furthermore, there has been more emphasis by upper administration to
support faculty who have taken advantage of commercialization opportunities (Mount
and Belanger, 2001). In universities, most of commercialization occurs under the private
sector label of applied research (Mount and Bélanger, 2001). This thrust has been further
discussed with the introduction of the Federal Government’s Innovation Agenda. Its
mandate is to bring forward Canada’s quality of life, innovation, productivity and
economic prosperity for future generations (Government of Canada, 2002). The federal
research councils are being utilized as implementation instruments for this innovation
strategy. A databank should be created for industry and academia to allow access to an
inventory of research projects, findings, and expertise in specific areas to provide a
connective entity similar to the RDAs in the United Kingdom. In Canada’s case, most
universities have their own Intellectual Property/Commercialization Office or industry
liaison offices. The federal government is attempting to make policy decisions to
support national innovation systems by hoping to improve national innovation targets
(AUCC, 2005). This top-down approach purports to conduct policies supporting
innovation that will hopefully improve national innovation indicators (AUCC, 2005).
There is lack of collaboration in developing a national strategy for higher education that
would allow for certain objectives, rules and standards to be put in place (Canadian
Council on Learning, 2007). The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
(AUCC), as an advocate for its university members has been producing marketing
material, for example: “University research: Canada’s strength in a changing world” that
highlights the benefits of university research to Canada while providing brief descriptions
of breakthroughs from Brock, University of British Columbia, etc. Nevertheless, these
policy imperative have caused the transformation and the emergence of academic
capitalism. The licensing of technology, findings and spin-offs has provided universities
with some financial equilibrium in the beginning phase to fund operational costs of this
endeavor with $14.6 million dollar net income ($51 million (revenue) – $36.4 million
(operational costs) (AUCC, 2005). Unfortunately, this net income is an extremely minute
part of higher education expenditures and will not provide substantial impact of capital
for other university operations. The following table illustrates some of the outputs for
2003 generated from commercialization efforts of Canadian Universities (AUCC, 2005):

• 1,113 disclosures
 12

• 1,252 new patent applications

• 850 number of spin-offs

• 422 new licenses awards

• $283 million value of industrial contracts

Although universities are the major research engines for Canada, for 2005 they
performed $9,841 (in millions) of research while the federal government performed
$2,138 (in millions) (Thompson, 2005). But it should be highlighted that the individual
universities combined have already grossed more revenue than most of the research
related federal government departments (Hum, 2000).

5. What are the potential harmful bi-products of commercialization?

The United Kingdom is known as being a public sector employer of New Public
Management (NPM). When this organizational strategy was implemented in universities,
certain human resource issues arose. Barry et al. (2000) have noted that professors
seemed to feel as if they were being dehumanized under New Public Management
indicators. Could the increase in interaction with private sector management models
further increase managerialism? What type of consequences fostered by these new
initiatives will be felt by the student and faculty? Will there be further breaches of
ethics? Or do our policy imperatives foster a deliberately ambiguous level of academic
capitalism, as noted by Slaughter and Leslie (1998):
the reality of the nascent environment of public research universities, an
environment full of contradictions, in which faculty and professional staff expend
their human capital stocks increasingly in competitive situations. In these
situations, university employees are employed simultaneously by the public sector
and are increasingly autonomous from it (p.9).

There is an overall need in both countries to insure that the university, the faculty,
and the students maintain their own autonomy and academic freedom which includes
releasing publicly harmful results. In many western nations, universities have been
founded on the Humboldtian model that views universities as part of the cultural and the
social fabric of a nation with the freedom to be autonomous in their drive for knowledge
to improve the public and social good (Buchbinder and Rajagopal, 1996; Pritchard,
2004). Consequently, Bok (2003) states some of his concerns about the influence of
corporations on university research:

Universities and their hospitals have not always shielded their faculty from
corporate pressure to suppress unfavorable results and have allowed
companies to block publication, edit the results, or even write drafts of
articles and reports that later appear under the names of faculty
investigators (p.204).
 13

A Canadian example to illustrate this conundrum is the Olivieri-Apotex affair which

occurred at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. For the last few years, Dr. Olivieri
has been the focus of bioethical discussions. After Olivieri abruptly terminated the trials,
the drug sponsor, Apotex, threatened a lawsuit against her if she announced the
detrimental findings (www.caut.ca). Dr. Olivieri made the results public in the hope of
protecting consumers and accepted upon herself the potential legal repercussions. A
CAUT report supported Dr. Olivieri’s decision by stating that she did her ethical duty by
informing the public about the negative effects of the drug. Apotex officials, hospital
senior management and staff, and university administrators were found to be woefully
lacking in support and judgment in the face of upholding principles of research ethics
(www.caut.ca; Thomson et al., 2001). Another example is Dr. Healy who after
expressing his educated opinion about the detrimental effects of Prozac lost a position
offered to him by the University of Toronto (Bloch-Nevitte 2001). This lack of support
from administrations, fearful of losing funds, demonstrates the possible manipulation and
pitfalls of corporate financed research and development. Furthermore, the government-
mandated short-term outputs from pure research may undercut the future long-term
benefits and research integrity of higher education (Zussman, 2005).

Conclusion

C
ommercialization has become an important focus in today’s university research
agenda as a source of revenue and prestige as well as a way of attracting world
class experts. Both countries have a dual funding system with Canada having two
government funding levels (provincial and federal governments) and the UK being
“dually supported”, that is, with infrastructure and research project funding.
Notwithstanding, these support funds do not cover all the administrative and
infrastructural costs required in performing the associated research. What can be said for
sure is that a strong university may play vital role in strengthening their locality through
regional development (Wolfe, 2005).

The short-term future of Canada’s innovation agenda may take more time to
unfold as a result of the recently elected minority Conservative government. The
previous agenda had proposed the creation of 10 recognized research centers in Canada
which would nurture the growth of spin-offs and licenses (Government of Canada, 2002)
and provide internationally competitive industries to foster economic growth. In the UK,
Tony Blair, has resigned as Prime Minister with the mantle being passed to Gordon
Brown. Both of these governments continue to be committed to innovation with their
uniquely different strategies for commercialization and innovation with the greater need
of research to be useful to industry, government or society at large (Gibbon, 1998). The
commercialization environments have some similarities relating to the trigger role of
funding cuts and innovation related policies aimed at tertiary education. These strategies
differ in the following manner:

United Kingdom Canada

Strengthening its regional innovation system Strengthening innovation broadly by

 14

by building strong foundations or pillars of concentrating on improving its national

innovation in regions innovation system by providing some of the

infrastructure to benefit innovation in all its

geographical locations

Although, many of the changes that have popularized the implementation of

market principles are derived from neo-liberal policies which encourages the markets to
dictate many facets of their economy. Consequently, this political philosophy promoting
an increase in the global marketplace fosters the current role of knowledge capitalism for
technology transfer of universities as a policy tool to maintain a high standard of living.
These models employ two different approaches with the UK emphasizing research
beneficial to a particular region while Canada seems to be concentration on the end of the
research spectrum by implementing technology transfer mechanism. Canada is hoping to
benefit the country as a whole but the UK model may create an inequality between
regions because of its strategy; therefore, creating a greater two tier system for faculty
and students with certain regions being highly regarded because of their successes while
other are avoided. Unfortunately, a flaw with the Canadian measurement of licensing
and spin-offs is that it may not measure various other modes of technology diffusion
(Langford et al. 2006)

This paper has identified some levers that have initiated the creation of policies
supporting productivity and innovation and their direct relationship with research
capacity. The university systems in Canada and the UK are in the process of redefining
their mandates with greater emphasis on skill development, applied research and direct
partnerships with the private sector. However, by emphasizing development of
commercialization, the university may not fulfill all of its goals. Bernard Shapiro (2003),
former principal of McGill University, says that the university system may fall into the
following predicament: “We should worry that we far too easily and far too frequently
translate utility into market value. It is as if we actually knew or actually know for
example, what will be useful in the future.” The governments in the UK and Canada are
beginning to focus their funding on industry research with and for the private sector.
Davenport (2001) has expressed fear that once the important discoveries of basic research
have ceased, innovative companies from the private sector will have nothing in the
pipelines. We must not commit all our resources in education and research to fill these
apparent research gaps because they may not fulfill our future needs (Shapiro, 2003).
This type of stout devotion may cause the retardation of higher education and a country’s
economic competitiveness. We should show some degree of restraint in embracing this
prevalent trend and balance our research portfolio of pure and applied research to
mitigate the risk of failure on a longer term basis (OECD, 2003).
 15

REFERENCES

A Guide to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from
http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/Pubs/index.htm

ACCC (2006). Applied Research at Canadian Colleges and Institutes. Ottawa, Ontario:
Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

Advisory Council on Science and Technology (1999). Stepping Up Skills and

Opportunities in the Knowledge Economy. Ottawa, ON: Industry Canada.

Alexander, F. K. (2000). The Changing Face of Accountability: Monitoring and

Assessing Institutional Performance in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher
Education. 71 (4), 411 – 431.

AUCC (2003). Action File: Commercialization. Ottawa, Canada: AUCC Publications.

AUCC (2005). Momentum the 2005 report on university research and technology
transfer. Ottawa, Canada: AUCC Publications.

AUCC (2006). University research: Canada’s strength in a changing world. Ottawa,

Canada: AUCC Publications

Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Standing on the Shoulder of Midgets: The U.S. Small Business
Innovation Research Program (SBIR). Small Business Economics, 20, 129-135.

Banting, K.G. (1992). Neoconservatism in an Open Economy: The Social Role of the
Canadian State. International Political Science Review, 13 (2), 149 – 170.

Barr, N. (2004). Higher Education Funding. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20 (2), 264
– 283.

Barr, N. (2005). Financing Higher education. Finance and Development, 42 (2), 1 – 8.

Barry, J., Chandler, J. and Clark, H. (2000). Stressing the Subject: the Impact of the New
Public Management, 18th Annual International Labour Process Conference (University
of Strathclyde, Scotland), 1 -15.

Baum, S. & Payer, K. (2005). Education Pays 2004. The Benefits of Higher Education
for Individuals and Society. New York, NY: The Conference Board.

Beamish, P.W., Morrison, A.J., Inkpen, A..C. and Rosenzweig, P.M. (2003).
International Management. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Bélanger, C. H., Syed, S. and Mount, J. (2007). The Make Up of Institutional Branding:
Who, What, How? Tertiary Education and Management, 13 (3), 169-145.
 16

Bélanger, C. H., Mount, J., Madgett, P. and Filion, I.A. (2005). National Innovation and
the Role of the College Sector. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 35 (2), 27-
48.

Besley, T. and Peters, M. (2006). Neoliberalism, Performance and the Assessment of

Research Quality. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20, 6, 814 – 832.

Birchard, K. (2001, May 2). Sex, Please, We’re British: Many Students Strip to Pay
Bills, BBC Reports. Retrieved on January 30, 2008 at
http://chronicle.com/daily/2001/05/2001050205n.htm

Bloch-Nevitte, S. (2001, April 17). Addiction centre's hiring dispute ensnares University.
Retrieved on August 15, 2006 from http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin2/010417b.asp

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace, The Commercialization of Higher

Education. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.

Brzustowski, T.A. (2006a, Sept.). Innovation = Invention + Commercialization: A

Systems Perspective. Optimum Online, 36 (3), 1 – 8.

Brzustowski, T.A. (2006b, Dec.). Innovation in Canada: Learning From the Top 100
R&D Spenders. Optimum Online, 36 (4), 1 – 9.

Buchbinder, H. & Rajagopal, P. (1996). Canadian University: The Impact of Free Trade
and Globalization. Higher Education, 31 (3), 283-299.

Canadian Council on Learning (2007). Postsecondary Education in Canada Strategies for

Success. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Learning.

CAUT (2001). Policy Statement on Post-Secondary Institutions and Economic and Social
Development. Retrieved January 30, 2008 at
http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=287&lang=1

CAUT (2007). CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education in Canada. Ottawa, ON:

Canadian Association University Teachers.

Chung, S. (2002). Building a national innovation system through regional innovation

systems. Technovation, 22, 485 – 491

Conference Board of Canada (2003, July). Solving Canada’s Innovation Conundrum:

How Public Education Can Help. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada.

Conference Board of Canada (2004, February). Fiscal Prospects for the Federal and
Provincial/Territorial Governments. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada.

Davenport, P. (May/June 2001). University and the knowledge economy. Ivey Business
Journal, 65 (5), 64-69.
 17

Department of Education and Skills (2003). The future of higher education. Norwich:
The Stationery Office Limited (Referred to as the WHITE PAPER)

Department for Innovation, University and Skills (2007). Science and Innovation
Investment Framework 2004-2014. Retrieved January 30, 2008 at
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40398.doc

Doern, B. (2008). The Granting Council and the Research Granting Process: Core
Values in the Federal Government – University Interaction. In Doern, Bruce, & Stoney,
Christopher (ed.) (book manuscript under peer review). Research and Innovation
Policies: Changing Federal Government-University Relations.

Dudderstadt, J. (2005). A Roadmap to Michigan’s Future: Meeting the Challenge of a Global

Knowledge-Driven Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millenium Project.

Dyck, R. (2007). Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. 5th Edition. Toronto, ON:
Nelson Education Ltd.

Feldman, M., Feller, I., Becovitz, J. & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the Technology
Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities. Management Science, 48 (1).
105 – 121.

Fisher, D. & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the Boundary: Academic-

industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44, 449-467.

Ford, L. (2007, February 27). Blair claims tuition fees success. Retrieved on January 31,
2008 at http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,,2022675,00.html

Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century. UNESCO World
Conference on Higher Education, Paris.

Goldfarb, B. & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the
commercialization of university intellectual property, Research Policy, 32, 639 – 658.

Government of Canada (2002), National Summit on Innovation and Learning Summary.

Ottawa, Canada: Industry Canada.

Government of Canada (2007). Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s

Advantage. Ottawa, Canada: Industry Canada.

Green, M. F. (1995). Transforming British Higher Education: A View from across the
Atlantic. Higher Education, 29 (3), 225-239.

Guardian Unlimited (2004, January 27). Timeline: tuition fees. Retrieved on January 30,
2007 at http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,,1118543,00.html

Harvey, L. (2004). Personal communication, 24 February.

 18

Havemen, R. & Smeeding T. (2006). The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility.
The Future of Children, 16 (2), 125 – 150.

HEFCE (1998). Industry-Academic Links in the UK. Retrieved on March 14, 2004 from
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/1998/98_70.htm

HEFCE (2007, November 22). HEFCE consults on new way to assess and fund research.
Retrieved January 30, 2008 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2007/ref.asp

HM Treasury, DTI & Department of Education and Skills (2004). Science & innovation
investment framework 2004-2014. Norwich: HMSO, The Licensing House Retrieved
March 14, 2004 from Sept 6, 2004 from
http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/associated_documents/spen
ding_sr04_science.cfm

HM Treasury, DTI, Department of Education and Skills, & Department of Health (2006).
Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014: next steps. Norwich, U.K.:
HMSO.

Holbrook, A. J. and Clayman, B. P. Research Funding Key to Clusters. Centre for Policy
Research on Science and Technology, 1-37

Hum, D. (2000). Reflections on Commercializing University Research. The Canadian

Journal of Higher Education, 30 (3), 113 – 126.

Industry Canada (2006). People and Excellence: The Heart of Successful

Commercialization. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Jacobs, M. (1997, Sept 26). Deep or Shallow end: a choice. New Statesment, 10, 476,
16 -18.

Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as
centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63 (6), 711 – 719.

Kerr, Clark (2001). The Uses of the University (5th ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.

Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line: The marketing of higher
education. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.

Kitagawa, F. (2004). Universities and the Learning Region: Creation of Knowledge and
Social Capital in the Learning Society. Hototsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 36 (1), 9-
28.

Kyvik, S. and Skodvin, O.-J. (2001). Research in non-university higher education sector
tensions and dilemmas. Porto: 23rd EAIR Forum.
 19

Kyvik, S. (2002). Changing relationships between university and nonuniversity higher

education sectors. Prague: 24th EAIR Forum.

Lagendijk, A. & Cornford,, J. (2000). Regional Institutions and Knowledge – Tracking

New Forms of Regional Development Policy. Geoforum, 31, 209-218.

Laidler, D. (2002). Renovating the Ivory Tower: An Introduction Essay. In Laidler,

Scott. Renovating the Ivory Tower (pp. 1 – 38). Ottawa, Ontario: C.D. Howe Institute.

Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration (December 2003). Norwich:

HMSO, Licensing Division

Langford, C.H., Hall, J., Jotsy, P. Matos, S. & Jacobson, Astrid (2006). Indicators and
outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy,
35, 1586 – 1598.

Lee, Y. S. (2000). The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An

Empirical Assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25, 111 – 133.

Lipsett, A. (2007, June 27). Dearing call for tuition cap to be lifted. Retrieved January
30, 2008 at http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityfunding/story/0,,2112661,00.html

Lynch, K. (2006, April-May). Canada’s success is no accident, and it isn’t a given. Policy
Options, 12- 17.

Madgett, P., Bélanger, C. H. & Mount J. (2005). Clusters, Innovation and Tertiary
Education. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 337 – 354.

Martin, P. (2005, February). Globalization, offshoring, and American trade politics:

prospects for Canada-US trade. Policy Options, 82 -86.

McKibon, S. (2008). Canadian Economy Will Grow if No U.S. Recession, Conference

Board Says. Retrieved January 30, 2008 at
http://www.economicnews.ca/login.php?page=reportsDetails&goback=no&newsid=40992

MgGuire, S. & McKinney, P.C. (1997, May 12). How Tony Blair Won. Newsweek, 129
(19), p36, 4p, 4bw.

Morgan, S. (2005). On the Edge of Commitment Education Attainment and Race in the
United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mount, J. & Belanger C. (2001). ‘Academic Inc’: The Perspective of niversity

Presidents. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 31 (2), 135-166.

Mount, J. & Belanger C. (2004). Entrepreneurship and Image Management in Higher

Education: Pillars of Massification. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34 (2), 125 –
140.
 20

Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). “The Future of Higher Education
Rhetoric, Reality, and the Risks of the Market.” San-Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997). Higher Education in the
Learning Society. Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.caut.ca/

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.hero.ac.uk/

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.rae.ac.uk/

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved January 15, 2008, from

http://www.labour.org.uk/historyofthelabourparty3?PublishKey=8bfabed3-47f8-06c4-
010a-b60ea9d7b1be

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved January 15, 2008, from

http://www.nserc.gc.ca/news/2002/p020321.htm

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=443

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved January 15, 2008, from

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/hereform/whitepaperconsultation/index.cfm

N.A. (n.d.) Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.innovation.ca/about/index.cfm

OECD (2003). New Challenges for Educational Research. France: OECD Publications
Service.

Olssen, M. & Peter, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge
economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy,
20 (3), 313 – 345.

Pritchard, R. (2004). Humboldtian values in a changing world: staff and students in

German universities. Oxford Review of Education, 30 (4), 509 – 528.

Quirke, L. & Davies, S. (2002). The New Entrepreneurship in Higher Education: The
Impact of Tuition Increases at an Ontario University. The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 32 (3), 85 – 110.

Reamer, A., Icerman, L. & Youtie, Jan (2003). Technology Transfer and
Commercialization: Their Role in Economic Development. Georgia: US: Economic
Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
 21

Regan, B. (2007). Campaigning Against Neo-liberal Education in Britain. Journal for

Critical Education Policy Studies, 5 (1), 1 – 19.

Riddle, Chris (2004). Commercialization Strategy Performance. Commercialization

Strategies: Challenges at the University/College – Industry Interface. A Study for
The Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

Sears, R.V. (2007, July-August). Bridging the political productivity gap. Policy Options,
22 – 26.

Shapiro, Bernard (2003, September). Canada’s Universities: Quantitative Success,

Qualitative Concerns. Policy Options, 15-17.

Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism Politics, Policies, and the
Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.

Skolnik, M. (2004). “The Relationship of the community college to other providers of

postsecondary and adult education in Canada and implications for policy” Higher
Education Perspectives, 1 (1), 36 - 58.

Skolnik, M. (2005). “Reflections on the Difficulty of Balancing the University’s

Economic and Non-Economic Objectives in Periods When Its Economic Role is Highly
Valued” In Jones, Glen A., McCarney, Patricia L., & Skolnik Michael L. (ed.)(2005).
Creating Knowledge, Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role of Higher Education
(pp. 106-126). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Stager, D. A. A. (1996). Returns to Investment in Ontario University Education, 1960 -

1990, and Implications for Tuition Fee Policy. The Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 26 (2), 2 – 21.

Statistics Canada (2005, September 1). University Tuition Fees. The Daily. Retrieved Feb
1, 2007 from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050901/d050901a.htm

Statistics Canada (2007). Federal Spending Activities. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Swardson, A. (1993, March 17). Owe Canada: Debts Mount North of Border; Ottawa and
Provincial Cut Costs, Scramble for Revenue in Face of Growing Deficits. The
Washington Post, C.01/

Theisens, H. (2003). Higher Education in The United Kingdom. Netherlands: CHEPS -

Centre for Higher Education and Policy Studies.

Thomson, J., Baird, P., and Downie, J. (2001). Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the
Case Involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of
Toronto, and Apotex Inc., CAUT, 527 pages.
 22

Thompson, J.(2005). Estimates of Canadian Research and Development Expenditures

(GERD), Canada, 1994 – 2005 and by Province 1994 – 2003. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics
Canada.

Van Loon, R. (2005). Universities and Living Standards in Canada. Canadian Public
Policy, 31 (4), 405 – 411.

White Paper (2003). See Department of Education and Skills.

Wolfe, D. A. (2005). The Role of Universities in Regional Development and Cluster

Formation. In Jones, G. A., McCarney, P. L., & Skolnik M. L. (ed.). Creating
Knowledge, Strengthening Nations: The Changing Role of Higher Education (pp. 167 –
194). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Wolfe, D. A, Davis, C. H. & Lucas, M. (2005). Global Networks and Local Linkages: An
Introduction. In Wolfe, D. A. and Lucas, M. (Ed.) Global Networks and Local Linkages:
The Paradox of Cluster Development in an Open Economy (1 – 23). Montreal &
Kingston, ON: McGill-Queens' University Press.

Zieminski, J., & Warda, J.(1999). Paths to Commercialization University Collaboration

Research. Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board.

Zusman, A. (2005). Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. In

Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O. & Gumport, P.J. (ed.) 2nd edition. American Higher
Education in the Twenty-First Century Social, Political, and Economic Challenges.