Vancouver, British Columbia
May 15-17, 1996
David W. Strangway, President
University of British Columbia
Universities are often cited as among those institutions most unwilling to change. I thought first I would develop a slightly different theme—universities as agents of change that undergo continuous change. Are we on the receiving end of change or are we in significant measure the cause of change?
In thinking of continuous change, I asked myself what changes take place in one of our most important functions—teaching. What would the catalogue description of a course such as Introductory Physics 100 look like in 1996? It would probably say, “This course is an introduction to the principles of modern physics. These principles form the underpinning of today’s scientific method; they build on a knowledge of elementary calculus. Examples from the world around us are used to illustrate these principles.”
I then imagined what the description of that course might have been like 81 years ago, the year that the University of British Columbia (UBC) opened its doors. The course description could well be identical and it could have been the same in 1925, in 1935, and in every year to the present. And yet think of the changes in that time to the actual teaching in the course. Relativity, quantum physics, solid state physics, low temperature physics, the uncertainty principle, lasers, and on and on; all subjects that were not even on the horizon in 1915.
Even in a few years, the content of this course will change dramatically. It will be different every year and yet always based on fundamental principles. And the same could be said for every other discipline as the discipline moves ahead, sometimes changing in spurts, sometimes in leaps and bounds, but always continuously changing.
It has been estimated that 30% or more of the U.S. gross national product can be traced directly to the revolution in modern physics in the 1920s. Think, for example, of some of the major events that have been the basis for today’s information revolution. The first major step was the remarkable advances of the 1920s with the discovery of quantum processes and the development of wave mechanics as an alternate way to describe the nature of matter.
This fundamental and exciting period challenged all conventional thinking. The research certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the search for practical results. As time went on, the first glimmerings of solid state physics were developed and the energy band gaps that became the basis for such devices as the transistor. But these were not possible without the incredible progress made in the preparation of ultra-pure materials and the ability to dope these materials with controlled and very minute amounts of impurities. The metallurgical and materials developments of the ’40s made it possible to manufacture solid state devices.
In the late ’40s, a whole new field of communication theory was developed to try to get the maximum amount of information into radio or telegraphic communications. Thus was laid the foundations for the remarkable digital breakthroughs of the ’50s and ’60s. Whole new industries were built on these research developments, carried out initially without practical purpose or expectation of economic returns. In my own field of geophysics, the digital revolution that came out of the universities created whole new ways of sounding the earth for its resources. This revolution made Houston, London, and Calgary the largest computing centers in the world. And yet, today we take for granted our ability to communicate around the world instantly, and we have massive computing power in our own possession. All of these developments can be traced to research carried out in the universities of the world.
This research has become the basis for a massive share of the world’s economy and can all be traced through dozens of chains of seemingly irrelevant research carried out in university laboratories around the world. The roots of the revolution in information technology comes directly from the universities.
Today, we read almost weekly about new breakthroughs in biomedical research, based on our ever-improving knowledge of genetics. Major industries have been built on the new biotechnologies but again, all of this can be traced to basic research, carried out in hundreds, if not thousands, of laboratories around the world. None of the pioneers could have had any idea of what changes in our world would be unleashed by their work or that the economies of the world would be driven by them. Again, the biotechnology revolution is firmly based in university research.
But we need not restrict our thinking to scientific revolutions. New ways of thinking in the social sciences and humanities are causing us to reexamine our approach to policies, to values and ethics, to new ways of learning and to being sure we understand the best of yesterday to illumine today, and to help us be ready for tomorrow. Some years ago I was in a traffic jam behind a bus in England. A large billboard proclaimed “How like the British to preserve the best of the past while adopting the best of the new.” I thought, “What a good description of universities,” except I would have added, “while creating the best of the new.”
There seems to be a perception that universities are unresponsive, unchanging institutions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Through the centuries, and certainly through the 20th century, we have been the principal agents of change. It is our research and our faculty members and our graduates who have been, and continue to be, the cause of those changes that have driven us into the knowledge-intensive, interconnected world. Every time you use a portable computer or use a modern medical breakthrough or, for that matter, travel by car or plane, stop and think about the thousands of university faculty members and their students who made all this possible.
This province is very proud of its newly found bridges to the Pacific. There is no doubt of this significance. But in the 1930s, UBC started its first courses on Japan and China. Nobody told UBC that this was important. My predecessors at UBC understood very well that Canadians must be increasingly aware of other nations and become excited about the intellectual challenge of learning and understanding about Asia and its languages and cultures. Even here, we can see that universities have been the basis for the change driving us to focus on the Pacific. This knowledge came directly from the studies carried out by our predecessors in the universities.
I cannot predict the changes that we will face in the months, years, and decades ahead. If I knew what they were going to be, it would be too late to do anything about them anyway. Instead, what I do know is that what your and our faculty members are doing today will be the basis for the next generation of changes whatever they may be.
This is an interesting time indeed as companies and governments are downsizing. I was intrigued by the words of Matt Barrett, Chairman and CEO of the Bank of Montreal. He observed that any company that needed massive downsizing was a company that had not been well managed. We, at UBC, are especially proud of the fact that 40% of our faculty were hired in the last 10 years. This is massive change and yet it represents constant renewal and change. Four percent per year is a very sensible rate of renewal and we have not massively downsized for the simple reason that our people are all working hard and effectively.
I was also intrigued by recent words by Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline. He pointed out that companies are becoming more like universities as they de-layer their many layers of management, as they focus on their people and increasingly empower their people. I can’t think of anyone more empowered than a tenured faculty member.
But this is the very basis of creativity, the academic freedom to create change without fear of retribution, and to dedicate oneself to those esoteric subjects that will be the unpredictable basis for tomorrow’s change.
But none of this is to say that we do not have to continue to be sure that our people have the tools for the change.
A very interesting concept linking modern chaos theory to organizations was published recently. Chaos theory is quite technical but it describes the characteristics of self-organizing systems. Examples range from the microscopic in the physical and biological worlds to the giant. For example, it explains how galaxies, with their great orderly patterns, arise from random clouds of gas or how some of the wonderful biological systems become ordered. The key to deriving order from chaos to develop a self-organizing system is communication. If you think of this model then as applied to organizations, the common link that creates order out of all the things that faculty members do in their teaching and research, is communications. Here, of course, is the central role of the library and all the modern technologies that are required to create this needed communication. The network associated with the library is what empowers each individual and, in turn, this empowerment, linked by information and communication, is what creates order out of chaos.
What I find attractive about this concept is that it describes the characteristics of a university very well and ensures that we are not a top down organization as in a classic corporate command and control model. Rather, we already function as a delegate and empower organization; and what makes this work is communication. In turn, the library is the key element of this communication strategy in all of its manifestation. As I see it, this is the source of our agility and our responsiveness as the corporate world is only now discovering.
I was interested to see in the mission statements of both your organizations the focus on an effective agility strategy. I know that both ARL and CARL are proactive, looking to see what is coming, and working to shape the forces of change in a way that helps the university achieve order out of chaos. This is key to me and my colleagues (your presidents) in achieving our missions for our universities.
This understanding of this communication is being developed by librarians through consortial library groups that must include the various university community members—faculty, students, deans, department heads, and even presidents.
This discussion is beginning at UBC through a mechanism of Library Advisory Committees for each of the faculties, and through university-wide committees which focus on change. We now have committees looking at rights and responsibilities in the communication age and at infrastructure designed to make electronic materials available to all. Although this particular activity began within the confines of our own campus, as it has on many of your campuses, it began with a belief in the importance of broadening the communication beyond the university.
One concrete result already underway is the collaboration between the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, to co-sponsor a three-day national conference on scholarly communication, March 6-8, 1997. The purpose of the conference is to bring together the key players in Canadian scholarly communication including researchers and scholars, journal editors and publishers, technical consultants, CARL, AUCC, SSHRC, NSERC, Industry Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage representatives, learned societies, faculty associations, communications law scholars, senior librarians, and university administrators. The goal of the conference is to share knowledge, skills, and technology, and to provide the foundation for a national strategic plan for scholarly communication. A policy-drafting committee will be nominated by the conference. The strategic plan will be designed to enhance the primary function of scholarly communication: to share knowledge.
CARL and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) published a discussion paper, “Towards a New Paradigm for Scholarly Communication,” in September 1995. It focuses on the current “crisis” in scholarly communication based on print media arising from the following problems: copyright surrender to publisher; escalating cost of subscriptions for work done for free largely by the readership of the journals; long delays between research and publication; and a proliferation of print journals and limited library serials budgets. The paper proposes a number of actions to help alleviate these problems in the areas of copyright reform, intellectual property policies of universities, and tenure and promotion policies. It concludes that collaboration is a necessary component of reform, and advocates promoting “partnerships which apply new networking technologies” within universities as well as outside, and promoting “efficient resource-sharing between universities in Canada and abroad.”
Collaborative strategies such as these I’ve described are needed to build the understanding that is the first step to gaining acceptance of and support for change. Understanding is the basis of consensus building, which is needed for effective change to take place. It may even lead to enthusiasm! As for leadership roles—leadership has to be and can be everywhere and is everyone’s responsibility in a self-organizing system.
Copyright © 1998 by David W. Strangway