In these times where information is so important, companies are sharing more information than ever before. Companies are working together in groups, conducting their own research. What does this mean for academia, which has traditionally made its money from research?
Most companies have their own Research and Development (R&D) departments. The first point of note here is that there are not two separate departments, as the two activities, when performed as companies like them, are inextricable. Where research is conducted without development, the results are often of no practical use. Where development is conducted without research, the results can seem ad hoc, or unplanned.
To a typical researcher, perhaps a PhD student, the implementation of their ideas is not as important as the research itself, as it is the demonstration of the process of research which gains the student a PhD.
To a member of a corporate R&D department, the implementation of their ideas is most important; the profits of their company directly affect them. The mini-conclusion here is that the motivation is more relevant to a corporate R&D department.
A further, and possibly more important point is that the ability of a corporate researcher is likely to be greater than the ability of an academic. This is due to their proximity to the problem, the ease of communication and the lack of sensitivity towards trade secrets. Also, an academic may have limited knowledge of implementation, so their designs and suggestions may prove to be unrealistic in implementation.
In the past, receiving and sending out information was expensive, both in terms of time and money. With the advent of the Internet, and its convention for freely accessible information, it is trivial for a company to see what its competitors are offering. Often this results in the simple copying of ideas, such as the shopping basket idea on e-commerce websites, but increasingly companies can see common goals and work on these for their mutual benefit. Consortia are formed, the results are often freely available and entire industries benefit.
Contrast this with the more traditional model whereby intercorporate research involved academia, who would publish their findings. This is less direct, and in an age of instant global communication, is much less efficient. No longer are academics effective mediators between companies.
University education is, quite rightly, being promoted more and more as a route into employment. Employees are demanding more and more from graduates, and hence students are demanding more and more from universities.
Successful universities will be universities whose graduates are properly prepared for the workplace, rather than those which make the most breakthroughs. This will result in a change of ethos, a shift towards greater professionalism in teaching, which is already evidenced in the UK by the introduction of the PGCert, a teaching qualification specifically for University lecturers.
Titles such as Dr. and Professor serve to elevate the social class of an individual, yet have little real meaning. These titles show a period of study and research, rather than a particular quality. Moreover, the titles are self-serving, and less respect is afforded by such titleholders to those without titles. As academic research fades out these titles will become less important. The social climbers will, and already are to a large extent, not the academics but the practitioners.