fCompartir

Tweet

The Cambridge Business Dictionary defines strategy as: “the way in which a business, government, or other organization carefully plans its actions over a period to improve its position and achieve what it wants.” [1] When it comes to science, it often can seem like a difficult task to combine long-term institutional planning with the Realpolitik of individual researcher needs, interests, goals, and achievements. After all, no institution wants to see itself dictating what an academic must research, and yet at the same time, it can’t be held hostage to every personal whim associated with such work.

So, what are some guideposts that an institution may set as an overall science strategy? While an exhaustive list is beyond the scope of this article, what follows are a set of important guiding principles, though not in any order of importance:

1.    Prioritize Knowledge Transfer

Edler and Fagerberg summarize decades of innovation policy research by stating that for innovation to truly contribute to economic and social change, we need to see beyond the innovation and novelty of an idea itself and thoroughly study the adoption and exploitation of the same. [2]

UPAEP’s guiding principles include a focus on Socially-Pertinent Academic Systems (SAPS), which are intended to provide such a focus for work being done at the University. However, it is not enough for the work to merely be aligned with the needs of society; we must actively pursue the knowledge of how to bring at least some of the ideas within each SAPS category to adoption and exploitation in our society, culture, and economy. This is not a blind focus on wealth building and market share of a product, but rather an actively supported and entrenched principle that the work being done can have enough of a beneficial impact upon society that striving to put it in society’s hands is an unavoidable responsibility.

This is not necessarily an Office of Technology or Knowledge Transfer, but such an office is absolutely within the scope of such a focus. While not always a primary incentive for research, this focus provides the strong incentive of having a researcher’s work make an important impact in the lives of those around us, with the help and support of the University in bringing this to fruition.

2.    Active Attrition of Mediocrity

Few things can be more detrimental to society than the celebration and propagation of mediocrity. At an educational institution, this injunction is even more pressing. We are at the core of preparing the next generation of citizens, leaders, families, educators, etc. As such, we have an ironclad responsibility to strive for continuous improvement.

As a scientist and educator, I have a mindful focus on giving my students every opportunity and platform with which to eclipse me. No matter how great I may hope to be, it is my fervent hope that my student’s achievements relegate my own to the dustbin of history. This is not defeatist, because in preparing them to outshine me now or in the future, I am generating my true greatest achievement, and one that has staying power throughout the generations.

Unfortunately, I have heard from time to time in academic conversations around our beloved University the antithesis to this focus. Versions of “how dare you question the methods/results/focus of so-and-so, the greatest thinker in that field!? You may not pursue that line of research” or “If it’s not done or published following this published prescribed set of boilerplate methodology it can’t be considered science”. I concede that in the broader world of science there may be a need in very specific circumstances for such thoughts or words from an educator to a student. However, as true academics we must be willing to question everything and challenge conventions to test new ideas. Most often these challenges will fail against long-established science, and this is great! It serves to bolster the strength of those scientific concepts. Every once in a while, these challenges stick…and transform the way we view a single concept or a whole discipline.

Unchallenged and untested “truths” are an excellent way for mediocrity to accumulate. The Bereans were called noble for being unwilling to take the Apostle Paul at his word, instead studying the scripture to test the truth in his words. (Acts 5) Let us strive for that same nobility, actively bringing attrition to mediocrity in all of our university pursuits.

3.    A Culture of Transformational Leadership

For UPAEP to be a crucible that generates the leaders that will transform society, we must establish a culture of transformational leadership, and do our best to eradicate transactional leadership models from being used in areas where transformational models belong. Bass states that transformational leadership requires a higher moral development and inspires, intellectually stimulates, and is individually considerate of collaborators. [3]

For our researchers to have the opportunity to shine, educate the next generation of thinkers, and innovate in ways that benefit society, we must actively seek to restrict transactional interactions exclusively to the areas in which they are required by the activity or regulation. It is all too easy to default to a transactional model in our culture and assume that the unwatched, unmeasured, un-hounded employee must always be an unproductive collaborator. Innovation does not play by the same rules as a fast food chain or widget factory. The professor sitting under a tree having a conversation with a couple of students or quietly pondering a problem is not automatically more or less effective than the one sitting in an office racking up face time with everyone working in the building.

UPAEP has done an incredible job of recruiting amazing talent. It is a shame to limit and demoralize that talent within an improper leadership framework and incentives. Instead, let’s make sure that this tremendous asset we have collected is inspired by and transmits that transformational leadership on down to the students we are preparing.

4.    SWOT

While these guiding principles can provide a broad framework within which our scientists can prosper and thrive, without becoming a more granular strategy they can fail to provide a positive impact. Helms and Nixon provide a good overview of a decade of research on SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats). [5] Over the years this methodology has gained and lost favor, but it provides an interesting starting point for understanding self-reflection at an individual, departmental, or institutional level. The methodology itself is not what’s important here, but rather the commitment to and act of self-study. Within our guiding principles, every area of the university has the opportunity to actively contribute to a socially-beneficial scientific and innovation culture. However, due to different priorities, responsibilities, or circumstances, “one size fits all” is likely doomed to failure.

With a culture of transformational leadership, we can inspire each area of the institution to actively self-study (SWOT or other) and determine how they can contribute to the fulfillment of the vision and strategies they have internalized from their respective leadership – succeeding at knowledge transfer and diminishing mediocrity.

This is a marathon, a lifelong journey, a daily commitment. There will be successes and failures, joy and frustration. But in the end, there is no greater gift we can leave mankind than a new generation of citizen-thinkers who had the opportunity to be more than we could have hoped or dreamed.

References

x

x

Dr. Juan Manuel López Oglesby, Director, Graduate Biomedical Engineering Sciences UPAEP

Esta dirección de correo electrónico está siendo protegida contra los robots de spam. Necesita tener JavaScript habilitado para poder verlo..