Research and Economic Development

John's Journal (archive)

Note: Michael Nichols has replaced John Gardner as the Vice President for Research and Economic Development at the Unviersity of Missouri. John now serves Washington State University as Vice President for Economoic Development and WSU Extension.

How often do we speak of a specific time and place when despair suddenly becomes hope? When discouraging times are rapidly followed by great triumph? Rather than being celestial, I see this pattern as very human, very real, and very much the way progress is made. These are moments when a coalition of players find themselves with a common vision and work to quickly get things done.

We've experienced some of that regarding the University of Missouri and economic development. Through hard work, and a bit of luck, we've enjoyed an alliance of courageous officials in government, long patient leaders in business, and progressive University leadership – all working towards the same goal. We've seen the necessity of the research university being the foundation of a new, dynamic and long-lasting Missouri economy.

When such an alignment of interests happens, the results can be amazing. Consider St. Louis, where Express Scripts, a Fortune 150 company, now resides side-by-side with our urban campus. Here in Columbia, both the business incubator and the research park, long an ambition of the local community, are suddenly under construction. Plans also are well underway for similar developments in both Rolla and Kansas City.

Perhaps even more important than facilities, partnerships with the University have deepened and matured. In Columbia, the Missouri Innovation Center has expanded its board and is building a reputation for nurturing entrepreneurs into successful start-ups. Wait until they get in their new facility. Another leap has been the formation, by the Chamber of Commerce, of Centennial Investors, mid-Missouri's own bona fide angel investment group. Think of the city of Columbia itself and the planning being done to ignite the city/campus corridor. One can only imagine what mid-Missouri may look like in ten years.

Though Missouri's legendary humility and skepticism do serve important purposes, consider for a moment the progress being made. The raw talent and capability of our research has largely gone unharnessed. We have the ability to build upon these strengths in a geography central to the nation and proximate to a world made flat by technology.

It's been a privilege to work amongst the allied interests of government, business and academia here in Missouri. It's also re-taught me lessons learned long ago. We can only accomplish a vision when it is shared among partners, and you are only as strong and potent as the overall strength of that coalition. We have a fantastic group of leaders, organizations and affiliates in Missouri. If you are interested in what our future will be, count on it being determined by the strength of our collective vision and action.

John C. Gardner
6-15-07
 
Regards, John ~ 1:26 pm

(a summary of comments given last week at the University of Missouri Extension Conference)

Having returned to the state of my birth nearly eight years ago to work for the University of Missouri, I am honored to be asked to say a few words about my perceptions of the University of Missouri Extension, where we’ve been; where we are; and where we are going.

I even went back and dusted off my message to the agriculture/natural resource faculty after completing my six month review as the new Associate Dean and ANR Program Leader for Extension – dated July of 2000.

Then, as now, we are concerned with bold leadership for our Extension mission. Today we welcome Michael Ouart as our new Director. Positions such as his seem to have so many degrees of freedom, and have such diverse expectations. Taking on an academic curriculum or building a truly strategic research effort - these are challenging, but have benchmarks and metrics that are well understood. Crafting a vision and measuring progress with Extension has been an allusive task.

Extension came after the land grant’s founding purpose of education, and the later development of a research arm in the public interest. While all three land grant missions relate to the times, the Extension mission must constantly reshape itself to fill the gap, and form the bridge, between what we discover and what we practice. Now nearly 100 years old, my look back at Extension’s history suggests we’ve been through at least two eras, and today face the third wave of major change.

Begun in the heart of the industrial era, Extension was first put in place as we applied industrial thought to everyday life. Just as in the factories, we also put machines to work on the American farm. Easing the burden of manual labor and animal power with industrial ingenuity changed the face of America. These formative years of Extension created many of the organizational structures and programs that still exist today.

It is harder to peg an exact date of when Extension’s second wave began, but WWII was certainly a tipping point. Not only did technology help end the war, technology was now free to find the farm. We had created, and were receptive to, the benefit of big, publicly-sponsored science. Acronym agencies became a part of our everyday life. Formerly small institutes like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began to grow, and many other new ones were created, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF)and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Even the Department of Agriculture developed its own internal research agency, the Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS).

The impact of our belief in public science changed the scene for those involved in creation, invention, and development. In 1950, more than two-thirds of the nation’s basic research occurred within the confines of the industrial giants, with less than one-third on the nation’s university campuses. Within fifty years, the ratio was reversed, with the modern American research university firmly at the front end of a supply chain of ideas and basic research that has become what we today call the “new economy”.

Through this period, what some call the golden years of Extension, we successfully bridged the gap, and played a role in the public adoption of an incredible array of technologies from coast to coast. But, as our new economy grew in sophistication, the gap has grown ever wider. For the first time, signs began to appear that Extension was not (perhaps could not) cover all the bases. Here and there, our credibility came into question. This new economy public-private pipeline also brought with it private sector consultants who knew as much – or more - than our Extension faculty. While the need for the Extension mission seemed as real as ever across our society, we re-examined our role and our relevancy.

If you accept the notion that it was WWII that marked the end of Extension’s formative years, then I would submit Sept 11, 2001 accelerated the end of Extension’s golden years. Though new third-wave Extension programs were already evident across the country, the dramatic economic upheaval of 2001 now forced many states to speed the transition along. With public higher education one of the few areas of discretionary spending in many state legislatures, the burden of funding many of our land grant institutions suddenly shifted from that of the public to that of the student. Tuition rose rapidly, leading many to ask what ‘public good’ was left in ‘public higher education’.

The result? We are undergoing a new awakening of the American research university’s role in our economy. From science to the arts and humanities – our universities not only represent an ever important gateway for our youth, they represent what could be our only edge in a future American economy pegged on innovation.

Our nation, and most of our states, are now focused on filling the gap between discovery and practice. It is now a key strategy for many Governors, and certainly many university Presidents. Let’s look at three of this nation’s leading examples:

The Wisconsin “Growth Agenda” is the plan cited by Kevin Reilly, now President, former Chancellor for UW Extension. It is his modern manifestation of Extension that serves the state, keeps the Wisconsin ‘Covenant’ as a public good, and gives Wisconsin the ‘brain gain’ they desire to stay competitive in the future.

Purdue’s “Office of Engagement” quickly formed after Martin Jischke took over as President coming from Iowa State. It is a broad agenda linking Indiana’s land grant university missions to that of local communities and their economic development. (Prior to Iowa State, Martin was Chancellor at University of Missouri - Rolla).

Arizona State University is not a land grant, but a self-proclaimed “New American University”. Its notoriety comes from not being bound by the history, or expectations, of the land grant university. Instead, they created their third wave principles around eight ‘design imperatives’ such as ‘leveraging place’, ‘societal transformation’, and ‘knowledge entrepreneurs’. Sound familiar? Their President, Michael Crow, a product of Iowa State, is a widely sought-after speaker and writer among university Presidents for what we might call Arizona State’s ability to close the gap between their research and the marketplace.

These are marks of a new brand of Extension, what I’ve called today the third era or wave. It is one that finds Extension challenged to be both broad, but also specific. And certainly one that closely links the Extension mission to that of fostering the contemporary public research university to be an engine of economic development.

For Missouri to adopt such a new brand of Extension, it will take leadership. And we all welcome and look forward to Michael Ouart’s contributions in the days ahead.

It will also force us to take a closer look at Missouri, and our own way of dealing with change and ...“risk”.

And lastly, it will take us all, the faculty and staff of the University of Missouri, to help lead this effort. We have the legacy of a frontier spirit – let’s rediscover this trait which has served us well before, and put it to good use for the future of Missouri.

 
Regards, John ~ 2:07 pm

In these dynamic times, mid-Missouri has much at stake in the decisions being made by our political, university, community and business leaders. We haven’t lacked bold plans, passionate debate, or the ability to compromise. But it has made me wonder – is the vision many are working toward across Missouri achievable? Do rank-and-file Missourians have an appetite for a future within the new economy, dependant on knowledge-based businesses, and a willingness to risk what it takes to get there?

Being from a long line of Missourians, I have always admired our savvy skepticism. You don’t fool too many of us, as proven in our ability to select presidents, respond to crisis, or reflect national trends. While our wisdom may be great, another part of our legacy is one of split opinions. Little did we know the “Missouri Compromise” in 1820 would foreshadow a history of often bitter differences of opinion, even among kin. Despite the disagreements, Missouri has fared well for more than two centuries, and today finds itself with amazingly efficient and strong institutions, businesses, universities and economies.

I suspect the future will continue to reward the kind of self-made survivors we’ve seen in the past. While reassuring, I’m also convinced the future will put a premium on old traits we’ll need to rediscover. Missouri has become used to taking calculated risks, the kind you can measure, quantify, hedge against, and bet on. But the future may again belong to those willing to take the uncalculated risks, the uncertainty that comes with the influence of new people, ideas and ways of doing things. My interpretation of the dynamic times around us suggests concern. Where’s the forgotten legacy of the Missouri frontier?

The university, especially a public land-grant university like the University of Missouri, was founded to explore the unknown. It was and is a special place to prepare our young people to meet the future, to ask the unthinkable questions, and probe new ideas. While perhaps not the only place such creativity happens, certainly the American university has proven to be the most promising place for such innovation.

Increasingly, however, we are faced with the risk of allowing such a place to happen. There are risks in exploring itself; are we unknowingly endangering ourselves or our environment? There are financial risks; who pays, and how much growth opportunity can we afford? There are risks in acknowledging leadership; who has the best vision, and whom can we trust? There are risks in reputation; can we stomach losing?

Facing all of these risks would be much easier with a slightly different attitude. We need to spend more time acknowledging and accepting risk rather than in denying it exists. Beyond openly accepting the risk we’re willing to take on, we also need to be accountable if we fail. Most leaders have only solidified our trust in them during trying times that reveal their courage.

There is at least one other trait that we may need to rediscover – an appropriate level of confidence. When facing the incalculable risks, the risks of the unknown, it’s dangerous to be over-confident. We should seek ideas, projects and markets where we have some experience or track record. It only makes sense to play in a field we know something about; it’s our competitive advantage. Missouri is fortunate to have many fields of study and business where our experience runs deep, including a wide array of life sciences, engineering and financial services.

The biggest risk of all, however, is what happens with a total lack of confidence. Such insecurity comes masked in many ways, including stubbornness, intolerance, fear, anxiety, suspicion and a lack of trust. None of these are valuable traits, especially when combined with our Missouri skepticism in the first place. We find ourselves working to keep things the way they are for fear that change will only make it worst.

What’s the ultimate risk for Missouri? The risk that allows us to slip among the ranks of states in the new economy; the risk that keeps a lid on our success? The risk of doing nothing at all.

(a similar version appeared in the Columbia Business Times)
 
Regards, John ~ 8:43 am

Archives