Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship

Volume 9 | Issue 1 Article 4

May 2016 Advancing Innovation in and Labrador: Insights for Knowledge Mobilization and University-Community Engagement Heather M. Hall University of Saskatchewan

Jacqueline Walsh Memorial University Grenfell Campus

Rob Greenwood Memorial University

Kelly Vodden Memorial University Grenfell Campus

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces

Recommended Citation Hall, Heather M.; Walsh, Jacqueline; Greenwood, Rob; and Vodden, Kelly (2016) "Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for Knowledge Mobilization and University-Community Engagement," Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship by an authorized editor of Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. Hall et al.: Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for K Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for Knowledge Mobilization and University-Community Engagement

Heather M. Hall, Jacqueline Walsh, Rob Greenwood, and Kelly Vodden

Abstract In this paper, we provide insights for knowledge mobilization and university-community engagement based on the lessons learned from the Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador Project. Out hope is to provide a window into the experiences of academics as they navigate the complexities and politics of mobilizing research and engaging with diverse stakeholders. Despite the challenges of this work, presented by factors inside and outside the academy, it is crucial to enhance our capabilities if we are to maximize the impact of universities in linking theory, research, and expertise with critical social and economic needs, such as enhancing innovation.

Introduction literature that highlight the importance of learning In January 2013, the Leslie Harris Centre of and collaboration between industry, government, Regional Policy and Development (Harris Centre) postsecondary institutions, and communities. We at Memorial University, in partnership with the then provide an overview of the Innovation Project Navigate Entrepreneurship Centre (Grenfell Cam- and approach, which is followed by a discussion on pus), and the Canadian Regional Development: A the main challenges and opportunities that we en- Critical Review of Theory, Practice, and Potentials countered during the project. Our hope is to provide project team launched the Advancing Innovation a window into the experiences of academics as they in Newfoundland and Labrador project to synthe- navigate the complexities and politics of mobilizing size and share knowledge related to innovation and research and engaging with diverse stakeholders. ways it can be fostered with key innovation stake- Despite the challenges of this work, presented by holders in Newfoundland and Labrador. The project factors inside and outside the academy, it is crucial was inspired by the Contextualized Health Research to enhance our capabilities if we are to maximize the Synthesis Program (CHRSP) approach created impact of universities in linking theory, research, by Stephen Bornstein in the Newfoundland and and expertise with critical social and economic Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research needs, such as enhancing innovation. at Memorial University. This approach aims to synthesize and contextualize research for Knowledge Mobilization and Newfoundland and Labrador versus conducting University-Community Engagement new research on a particular topic. The Innovation Postsecondary institutions across , and Project included a team of researchers from Memo- internationally, are increasingly embracing knowledge rial University and an advisory committee made up mobilization and university-community engagement of key representatives from industry associations, through a variety of mechanisms (Hall, 2009; the provincial government, the federal government, Levin, 2011; Heisler, Beckie, & Markey, 2012). The the university, , and labour. The project deliv- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of erables included a series of reports, innovation case Teaching describes community engagement within studies, innovation workshops, a website, and an a post-secondary context as “collaboration between innovation summit. institutions of higher education and their larger In this paper, we provide insights for knowl- communities (local, regional/state, national, global) edge mobilization and university-community for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge engagement based on the lessons learned from the and resources in a context of partnership and project. We begin with a brief overview of some of reciprocity” (New England Resource for Higher the key challenges and opportunities identified in Education, 2016). This can often include the knowledge mobilization and community-en- service-learning, community-based experiential gagement literatures. In the next section we intro- learning, community-based participatory research, duce some of the key concepts in the innovation and community-based research (Hall, 2009; Heisler,

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 19 1 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 Beckie, & Markey, 2012; Castledon, Sloan Morgan, tion centres (Hall, Walsh, Vodden, & Greenwood, & Lamb, 2012). While community engagement, 2014; Asheim, Boschma, & Cooke, 2011; Tödtling defined in this way, is focused on knowledge & Tripple, 2011; Nauwelaers, 2011; Rodrí- exchange, knowledge mobilization, on the other guez-Pose, 2013). This supports the argument that hand, includes “public participation, translating “innovation is increasingly recognized as a social ideas into accessible language, working with me- process” (Wolfe, 2009, p. 15) versus a linear process dia, social networking strategies, [and] podcasting” including the phases of invention, production, mar- (Hall, 2009, p. 19) among other means to bring keting, and diffusion (Sternberg, 2009). Simply put “knowledge, people and action together” (Bennet & “firms do not innovate in isolation” (Nauwelaers, Bennet, 2007, p. 17). 2011, p. 468). We share Bud Hall’s (2009) argument that the The term “quadruple helix” (Carayannis & collective resources of universities and Campbell, 2009; Leydesdorff, 2012) is often used represent the “largest accessible, available, and to describe the various innovation stakeholders underutilized resource for community change and including business, community, government, and sustainability” (p. 13). Likewise, Barbara Holland postsecondary institutions. Related to this is the and Judith Ramaley (2008) highlight “the urgent importance of innovation support systems often need to summon our collective wisdom to address called “regional innovation systems” (Cooke, 1992; critical social, economic, cultural, and environ- Cooke & Morgan, 1998) or “innovation ecosystem.” mental threats” (p. 334) by bringing together aca- For example, the Canadian Independent Panel on demic institutions and communities. Despite this, Federal Support to Capital Research and Develop- there are still a number of challenges confronting ment (2012, pp. 2–15) explains how the “innovation academics within postsecondary institutions when ecosystem” includes, they focus their efforts on community engagement and knowledge mobilization. In relation to the tra- not only firms, universities, colleges ditional trifecta of research, teaching, and service, in and polytechnics, but also a spectrum 1996 Boyer argued: “At tenure and promotion time, of intermediary players [technology the harsh truth is that service is hardly mentioned. transfer offices, college applied research And even more disturbing, faculty who do spend offices, public research institutes and pro- time with so-called applied projects frequently grams, incubators, angels and venture jeopardize their careers” (p. 13). More than a decade capitalists]…characterized by effective later, this is still the case in a number of postsec- synergies, connections, and flows of ondary institutions (Jackson, Schwartz, & Andree, knowledge and ideas. 2008; Moore & Ward, 2010; Jaeger, Katz, Jameson, & Clayton, 2012). While we recognize that this var- Given this emphasis on interaction and learn- ies among and within institutions, it still poses a ing between and among innovation stakeholders, significant challenge where it does exist, especially university-community engagement and knowledge for emerging scholars, as further discussed below mobilization can play an important role in support- in relation to our experience with the Innovation ing business innovation. Project. Other challenges include time, financial support, and building and sustaining relationships The Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland for engagement (Moore & Ward, 2010; Heisler et al., and Labrador Project 2012; Castledon et al., 2012). As noted earlier, in January 2013 the Harris We turn now to a discussion of some of the key Centre at Memorial University—in partnership with arguments emerging from the innovation literature the Navigate Entrepreneurship Centre (Grenfell that support and necessitate university-community Campus) and the Canadian Regional Development: engagement and knowledge mobilization. A Critical Review of Theory, Practice and Potentials project team—launched the Innovation Project Learning and Interaction to Promote Innovation to synthesize and share knowledge related to One of the major arguments emerging from innovation and the ways it can be fostered with the innovation literature in the last decade is the key innovation stakeholders in Newfoundland and importance of interaction and learning between a Labrador. In the following sections, we provide wide variety of actors including individuals, firms, a brief overview of the Harris Centre and the industry associations, and support institutions like CHRSP approach. We then turn to a discussion on government, universities, colleges, and innova- the Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 20 2 Hall et al.: Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for K Labrador approach including a description of the of concern in partnership with health system deci- advisory committee, the innovation workshops, sion-makers; (2) use research expertise to develop and the innovation summit. research questions based on these concerns; (3) synthesize international research literature on the A Brief Overview of the Harris Centre and the subject and contextualize it to Newfoundland and CHRSP Approach Labrador—this includes taking into account the The Harris Centre was launched in October unique provincial challenges and capacities; and (4) 2004, with a mandate to facilitate and coordinate quickly produce research results that are easily ac- Memorial University’s activities in regional devel- cessible and in usable formats. opment and public policy. It developed a series of In recent years, the Harris Centre has support- programs and supports to connect Memorial facul- ed a number of innovation-related research initia- ty, staff, and students with the needs of the province. tives (Table 1). The focus on innovation results from These include organizing regional workshops in the widespread understanding that innovation is partnership with community-based organizations, critical for economic growth and the recognition holding public policy forums, and establishing ap- that Newfoundland and Labrador businesses have plied research funds in partnership with govern- the potential to be far more innovative than current ment and private sector partners. The Harris Centre evidence suggests (Greenwood, Pike, & Kearley, also developed the online public engagement tool 2011). Given the widely recognized importance of called Yaffle. As the Harris Centre has built its brand innovation for economic development but also re- based on values of independence, integrity, and gional development more generally, the emphasis practical application, it has established a reputation on partnerships in fostering innovation in a region, within the university, the province, and internation- and the abundance of existing literature on this ally as a trusted knowledge broker and mobilizer. topic, innovation was selected as the theme for the Given the Harris Centre’s focus on knowledge Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Lab- mobilization, we were inspired to try the CHR- rador Project, the Harris Centre’s first CHRSP-like SP approach, created by Stephen Bornstein in the initiative. Newfoundland and Lab- Table 1. Innovation-Related Research Initiatives Supported by the Harris rador Centre for Applied Centre Health Research at Me- morial University. CHR- Title escrition SP provides systematic The Social Dynamics National project was led by David Wolfe reviews of topics identi- of Economic and Meric Gertler at the University of To- Performance in ronto fied in partnerships with City-Regions NL component was led by Rob Greenwood key decision-makers in Focused on three themes the social the health sector. More dynamics of innovation, talent attraction importantly, this infor- and retention, and civic governance and inclusion mation is contextualized to take into account the Networks for Led by Jose Lam (Memorial University Business Innovation: Grenfell Campus and included a team of unique issues, chal- Building Social individuals from government, post-second- lenges, and capacities Capital in Corner ary, business and community organiations in Newfoundland and Brook, NL Focused on investigating who people talk Labrador (Newfound- to and work with to map out these con- nections and networks and their roles in land & Labrador Cen- business innovation tre for Applied Health Research [NLCAHR], Canadian Region- Led by Kelly Vodden (Memorial University al Development: A Grenfell Campus, with Co-Investigators 2013; Memorial Uni- Critical Review Of ill Reimer ( ue- versity Faculty of Med- Theory, Practice And bec, David Douglas ( icine [MUNMED], Potentials Ontario, and Sean Markey (Simon 2013; Barrett, Bornstein, Fraser University ritish Columbia Focused on the following themes Kean, & Navarro, 2011). place-based development, collabora- In terms of process, the tive, multi-level governance, rural-urban CHRSP approach in- interactions, integrated development, and cludes several stages: (1) innovation and learning in four Canadian provinces identify pressing issues

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 21 3 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 The Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland as of 2011 (Vodden, Gibson, & Porter, 2014; and Labrador Approach Statistics Canada, 2012). The team included Rob Greenwood (execu- tive director – the Harris Centre), Heather Hall The Innovation Project Advisory Committee (postdoctoral fellow – the Harris Centre and The Innovation Project team invited key Department of Geography project coordinator), innovation stakeholders in the “quadruple helix” Kelly Vodden, (associate professor research – En- (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Leydesdorff, 2012) vironmental Policy Institute), and Jacqueline Walsh to become members of an advisory committee. The (assistant professor – business), together with an advisory committee included 15 representatives honours undergraduate student (Kyle White) and from industry associations, the provincial govern- Ph.D. student (Ken Carter), both focusing on inno- ment, the federal government, the university, the vation in Newfoundland for their thesis research in college, and labour. The roles of the advisory com- the Department of Geography. The composition of mittee, which were outlined in a terms-of-reference the team, with backgrounds in business, geography, document, were to: provide feedback on proposed and political science, reflected the interdisciplinary workshop locations; provide advice and comments approach to the complex issue of business innova- on the workshop reports; identify existing relevant tion. The team also included members at varying data and resources; identify key local contacts in stages of their academic career. This proved to be a each of the workshop locations; highlight import- very useful method of introducing and embedding ant local or stakeholder specific issues for consider- new researchers into existing relationships with ation; review emerging themes and lessons and pro- community members. vide advice to the project and research teams on the The project team prepared a four-page back- final report; and assist with publicity for all events ground document outlining the key objectives and reports. From the start, it was emphasized and three-phase approach, including a knowledge that the final project report would reflect the synthesis, a series of innovation workshops, and independence of the research team and that the final an innovation summit. Like the CHRSP approach, content for the report would be the responsibility of the knowledge synthesis summarized in a succinct the project team. fashion the latest research on innovation with in- We held five advisory committee meetings in sights for advancing innovation strategies in the March, April, and September 2013 and January and context of Newfoundland and Labrador. The in- March 2014. The March 2013 meeting provided novation workshops, on the other hand, ground an introduction to the project as well as an over- truthed these insights and reported on how the re- view of the advisory committee terms of reference. search findings from the knowledge synthesis could In the April 2013 meeting we discussed workshop help foster innovation in Newfoundland and Lab- locations, times, possible local stakeholders and rador. As well, the workshops were used to report research for the knowledge synthesis. The September back to community partners on related research findings Table 2. Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador Project that had been previously ex- Deliverables plored in that particular re- A Knowledge Synthesis on innovation, summariing the latest gion in the province. The in- research on innovation and insights for advancing innovation novation summit then distilled strategies in Newfoundland and Labrador lessons for policy and practice Five Innovation Workshops in Kittiwake, Labrador Straits, (Table 2). The team was careful Northern Peninsula, St. Johns, and Corner rook as well as a to include both urban and series of Innovation Workshop Reports rural parts of the province in A series of Innovation Case Studies on in Newfoundland and all aspects of the project to Labrador in partnership with the Canadian Regional Development counteract the urban bias project

in the innovation literature An Innovation Summit and because Newfoundland and Labrador is one of Can- A final report based onthe key findings from the AINL project ada’s most rural provinces, that provides recommendations for policy and practice with more than half of its The httpinnovational.ca website to host innovation-related population residing in rural research studies in Newfoundland and Labrador and small town communities https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 22 4 Hall et al.: Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for K 2013 meeting was focused on preparing for the Figure 1. Workshop Sites innovation summit with the advisory committee providing feedback on the knowledge synthesis and findings from the workshops as well as recom- mending participants for the innovation summit. At the January 2014 meeting we discussed the final report and insights for policy and practice while the March 2014 meeting was focused on next steps for the advisory committee and ideas for disseminating the Innovation Project materials.

The Innovation Workshops Throughout May and June 2013, we held five Innovation Workshops in Kittiwake, Labrador Straits, the Northern Peninsula, St. John’s and Cor- ner Brook (see Figure 1). These locations reflected urban, rural, and remote regions from across the province, which was essential for understanding place-based challenges and opportunities as well as combating one-size-fits-all policy approaches. These locations also reflected places where previous community-based research had been undertaken related to innovation in the regional on related issues. The workshops provided an ex- economy by a project team member cellent opportunity to report back to the stakehold- • Question and answers ers in each region. We used a variety of methods to • A presentation on firm-level innovation in try and encourage participation in the workshops. Newfoundland and Labrador by a project For example, prior to the workshops we traveled to team member some of the locations where we had limited research • Questions and answers connections to meet with local stakeholders to dis- • A panel discussion with regional repre- cuss the project, select dates for the workshops, and sentatives from business, the community, tour innovative companies identified by the adviso- government, and/or postsecondary to ry committee, local stakeholders, and previous re- respond to earlier presentations and speak search. By visiting the regions in advance we were about what strategies were needed to ultimately trying to show our interest in building enhance innovation in their region relationships within the communities as well as our • A breakout discussion on challenges, willingness to be engaged at a very practical and opportunities, and strategies, and meaningful level. Another recruitment strategy in- • A survey using TurningPoint technology cluded contacting individuals who had previously (voter keypads) to select the top challenges, participated in one or more of the research projects opportunities, and strategies according to highlighted in Table 1. participants We decided on a half-day format to encourage more businesses attendance. We know it is difficult Seventy-six people attended the workshops in- for small business owners, in particular, to be away cluding 16 representatives from business and social from their businesses for long periods of time. We enterprises and the balance from community-based also tried to hold the workshops in conjunction organizations, industry associations, postsecond- with other meetings. For example, in Kittiwake we ary institutions and all levels of government. The held our workshop in conjunction with a Canadi- workshop attendance breakdown was as follows: St. an Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) business John’s, 23; , 17; Kittiwake, 16; North- network meeting. The format for these workshops ern Peninsula, 11; and Labrador Straits, 9. included: • A brief overview of the Innovation Project The Innovation Summit by the project coordinator In October 2013, we held a full-day Innovation • A presentation based on prior research Summit in St. John’s (the provincial capital). We undertaken in the region and on themes invited innovation stakeholders from each of the

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 23 5 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 workshop locations and from across the province. and provincial governments announced that they In total, 46 participants attended from all three lev- were discontinuing the funding for the Regional els of government, business and labour, Memorial Economic Development Boards (REDBs) in New- University and the College of the North Atlantic, foundland and Labrador. The REDBs were created and community organizations. The summit start- in 1995 in response to growing economic chal- ed with a brief overview of the Innovation Project, lenges impacting communities across the province which was followed by presentations on the key and were designed to be the ‘facilitators of regional findings from the knowledge synthesis and key les- economic development’ (Report of the Ministerial sons from the innovation workshops. The morning Committee, 2005). As we have noted elsewhere, also included a panel discussion with representa- “the REDBs acted as a ‘matchmaker’ between di- tives from business, the community, government, verse regional interests and provided a point of con- and postsecondary who responded to the key find- tact for information about government programs ings from the knowledge synthesis and innovation and policies in many rural regions” (Hall, Vodden, workshops. The afternoon consisted of facilitated & Greenwood, forthcoming). The demise of the breakouts on the critical gaps that needed to be REDBs impacted the Innovation Project in several considered for advancing innovation and how these ways, including: the loss of a key partner and the in- critical gaps could best be addressed. Each group troduction of a contentious policy issue into project reported back with their top three gaps, which were design and stakeholder dialogue and relationships. identified through a dotmocracy1 exercise. These The structure of the REDBs included profes- critical gaps were then entered into the Turning- sional economic development staff and a volunteer Point technology to select the top gaps that need- board of directors made up of representatives from ed to be addressed. A closing panel followed this municipalities, business, community development, with representatives from business, the communi- education and training, labour, and other organi- ty, government, and postsecondary, responding to zations (Hall et al., forthcoming). As a result, they these critical gaps and how the various stakeholders were well connected to many of the key innovation could address them. stakeholders within their respective regions. More importantly, the REDBs had provided a quick and Insights for Knowledge Mobilization and Com- efficient “one-stop-shop” to disseminate informa- munity-University Engagement tion and gather contacts. Team members had ben- During the Innovation Project we encountered efited from this function played by the REDBs in a number of expected and unexpected challeng- previous related research initiatives. However with es and opportunities. The challenges included: the their demise, the Innovation Project lost this point demise of the regional matchmaker; the politics of contact in the region. We also lost a key region- of timing; working in the business and not on the al development partner that would have played an business; academic independence versus co-produc- integral role in advancing a number of the recom- tion; and the academic publish or perish mentality. mendations from the Innovation Project. The deci- Opportunities, on the other hand, included: sion to close the REDBs was done with little con- hope, optimism, and networking; reporting back, sultation and took many organizations by surprise. validating research findings and building rela- As result, it became a fairly contentious policy issue tionships; exploring new research topics; student especially in a number of rural regions across the engagement; and informing policy. province in the period leading up to and during We turn now to a discussion of each while the Innovation Project. In many of the innovation highlighting how they offer insights for knowledge workshops, participants were keen to discuss the mobilization and community-engaged research. REDBs and what regional development could look like after their closure. The Demise of the Regional Matchmaker Just as regional economic development agen- The Politics of Timing cies were being abolished in the UK (Kitagawa, Related to this, several members of the 2013) and across Canada (Hall & Greenwood, 2013; Innovation Project team were labeled “political” by Gibson, 2013), in May and June 2012, the federal certain government stakeholders because of our critical discussion of the decision to close the 1 Participants were provided with 10 dot stickers and voted (by REDBs in other research reports and for discussing placing one or more stickers) on a flip chart listing the critical gaps. The three with the most stickers went forward from the the REDBs at the innovation workshops. This issue breakout groups to the larger discussion. was exacerbated by deep provincial budget cuts and https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 24 6 Hall et al.: Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for K layoffs in early 2013 that resulted in further cuts the Kittiwake innovation workshop where we part- to regional development organizations along with nered with a CME’s Central Continuous Improve- dramatic reductions in government staff and pro- ment Network (CCIN). This business network vincial spending, which precluded some govern- formed three years ago and includes seven manu- ment officials from attending the innovation ses- facturing firms that meet regularly to share business sions. Also complicating (and politicizing) matters, advice and ideas. The CCIN network also receives the governing provincial political party was losing one-on-one coaching/mentoring from CME. For support in public opinion polls (CBC, 2014). Thus, the innovation workshop, the CCIN held their own the demise of the REDBs, the deep cuts and lay- meeting in the morning and participating business- offs and this weakening in public support, created es were encouraged to stay for the workshop, while a perfect storm of political sensitivity that presented workshop participants were encouraged to arrive a number of unexpected challenges for the Inno- early and join the CCIN and Innovation Project vation Project, including the loss of financial sup- teams for innovation tours of several local firms. port and participation from some key provincial The Innovation Project team then provided lunch government actors. and we continued with the innovation workshop Ward and Jones (1999) refer to this issue as throughout the afternoon. the mode of entry, which is shaped by the politi- cal-temporal contingency of research. Simply put, Academic Independence Versus Co-production they suggest that the political timing of research has The Harris Centre brand of integrity and inde- significant implications for the research project. In pendence has provided a means to ensure scholars their paper, they discuss the secretive nature and that the projects and funds brokered with com- political sensitivities with researching training and munity, industry and government partners will enterprise councils in the United Kingdom when not compromise their findings, conclusions, and they were in the political limelight. As a result, re- recommendations. The Harris Centre has a policy searchers experienced issues with access and polit- of not responding to Requests for Proposals, as it ical sensitivity (see also Hall, 2012). Likewise, Des- will not compete with the private sector, and clients mond (2004) discusses the politics of time and the paying for consulting reports usually own the intel- impacts on quality and access to information. She lectual property. If an external partner comes to the argues, “as any stand up comedian knows, timing Harris Centre with funding or to broker a project, it is everything, and it is particularly relevant when is with the explicit understanding that there will be interviewing elites during moments of political sen- consultation and engagement during the research sitivity” (p. 266). In the Innovation Project case, it process, which is often driven by a need identified impacted collaboration and stifled critical and in- by the partner, but the university researcher(s) re- formed discussion on pressing policy concerns fac- tains independence in what is in the final report. ing rural areas across the province. It also highlights For most stakeholders, this has value, as they often the importance of recognizing and responding to are conflicted within their own organization to ex- political sensitivities when trying to inform policy amine difficult issues. The relative independence of and practice through research. university researchers provides the means to access research and expertise that may pose difficult an- Working in the Business Versus Working on the swers. The partner may wish to distance themselves Business from the conclusions, in whole or in part, but they We also experienced challenges with getting now have research to inform their decisions. business owners or managers to attend the innova- The Innovation Project Advisory Committee tion events. This is largely because many small- and understood this. As the research progressed, howev- medium-sized business owners are often too busy er, and the ground truthing workshops took place, “working in the business” and they lack the time to some partners heard negative comments about their step back and attend events or what we call “work- programs or policies. In some cases they welcomed ing on the business” (see McGoff, 2012). Members this information as a way to improve, but in others of the Advisory Committee also brought this issue they were defensive or failed to appear at the sum- to our attention. To contend with this challenge we mit or some of the final committee meetings. As used the innovation case studies as a way to gath- long as the integrity of the research was maintained, er feedback and information from businesses. We and the workshops and summit offered means for also sought to partner with existing industry events. clear and balanced input from stakeholders (such as In particular, we had excellent business turnout at dotmocracy and voting keypads), the project team

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 25 7 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 was comfortable with the process results. Signifi- to department P&T committees has been inconsis- cant revisions were made to the final document and tent, with peer reviewed publications and funding its recommendations based on the Advisory Com- remaining as the dominant criteria. Considering mittee’s feedback—their expertise and perspectives three of the project team members were emerging made for a better result. When the project team scholars (one postdoctoral fellow, one recent facul- failed to respond to their suggestions, it was based ty hire, and one faculty member undergoing tenure on an informed dialogue, building on the research review), this posed some challenges. and process. Advisory Committee members were Community-university engagement and knowledge not always happy, but most respected the integrity mobilization efforts also take time (see also Castledon of the process and of the project team. et al., 2012). In the Innovation Project Team, time was required for booking the venue and catering, sending Publish or Perish out invites, organizing panels and supplies, and One final challenge is the “publish or perish” making travel arrangements in the lead up to the mentality that confronts many individuals within innovation workshops and summit. Because our academia, which can act as a deterrent to commu- chosen communities included both rural and nity-engaged research and knowledge mobilization. urban regions spanning the entire province, the Similar to our discussion earlier in this paper, the team traveled in excess of 3,900 kilometres over the “publish or perish” mentality often refers to how ac- course of six weeks in May and June 2013. After the ademic hiring, tenure, and promotion committees workshops and summit, our priority was getting only recognize (or place more value on) peer-re- the reports out to the public while the momentum viewed publications. Jaeger et al. (2012) suggest, was there and the discussion was fresh. Our next “community-engaged work is still perceived as an priority was then spending time on producing peer- ‘add-on’, rather than integrated into faculty roles” reviewed publications. However, in the “publish or (p. 160). In a study of faculty engagement, Moore perish” environment time spent on community and Ward (2010) explain how participants in their engagement and knowledge mobilization is often study were labeled as outliers within their depart- viewed as secondary to peer-reviewed publications ments and academic institutions. They also felt the (and in some cases even wasted time that could pressure to accumulate the so-called “‘coin of the have been better spent on the latter). Interestingly, realm’: peer-reviewed publications and grant fund- innovation stakeholders at the summit identified ing” (p. 52). Similarly Jackson et al. (2008) argue this mentality as one of the critical gaps impacting that in Canada, “One of the major challenges to the innovation in the province (Hall et al. 2014). growing movement for community-university en- Despite these challenges, we experienced several gagement is the nature of traditional academic ten- positive outcomes in using this approach. We turn ure and promotion (T&P) procedures, which tends now to a discussion of these opportunities. to reward disengagement” (p. 133). Publish or perish is increasingly playing a strong Hope, Optimism and Networking: “It’s Like Having a role in grant applications and university rankings Wedding after a Funeral” (van Dalen & Henkens, 2012). While we recognize As noted earlier, rural regions across the prov- that this varies between institutions and within in- ince were significantly impacted by the closure of stitutions, it still poses a significant challenge where the REDBs and the deep provincial budget cuts and it does exist, especially for emerging scholars. This layoffs. In the Northern Peninsula, one participant pressure to publish leads to the mentality that “it no commented, “There’s only so many bullets a man longer matters what you write, but only how often, can take before he dies,” while another in the Lab- where and with whom you write” (p. 1283). While rador Straits described how the last year was one of business leaders and government officials have re- the most depressing times she had ever worked in viewed our knowledge synthesis and final report (see also Hall et al., forthcoming). The innovation (including recommendations to enhance innova- workshops were seen by many regional develop- tion), these manuscripts are not traditional peer-re- ment stakeholders as an opportunity to come to- viewed academic outputs and may or may not be gether and discuss the impacts of these cuts and new “counted” on our academic CVs. While Memorial strategies for the future. One participant even ar- University’s senior administration has expressed a gued: “It’s like having a wedding after a funeral.” The commitment to engaged scholarship, most recently innovation events also brought together a diverse through the establishment of a Public Engagement array of stakeholders from business, postsecondary Framework, the extent to which this has transferred institutions, government, and the community. This https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 26 8 Hall et al.: Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for K provided networking opportunities, some of which nity for the research team to meet a commitment to have continued beyond the innovation project. report back to each of the regions on project results, For example, participants in several regions have with the valuable assistance of the project coordi- held their own follow-up meetings to discuss the nator and other project resources. Further, through research findings and next steps. This also empha- a combined effort between the research project sizes the need for findings and recommendations to and team, case studies of innovation within small be disseminated in a manner that allows commu- and medium sized firms and social enterprises in nity partners to gain maximum follow-up benefits these regions were completed, providing addition- from their participation in the project in the spirit al insights for both groups. Finally, the Canadian of knowledge mobilization as a process of “moving Regional Development project received provincial new ideas and shared understanding into the hands level exposure, increasing the project’s knowledge of the people at the point of action” (Bennet & Ben- mobilization impact. net, 2007, p. XIII). Exposure to New Research Topics Reporting Back, Validating Research Findings and Community engagement provides an opportu- Building Sustainable Relationships nity to interact with a variety of stakeholders and to Project team members were each involved in build a researcher’s capacity and reputation in spe- at least one of the innovation-related research ini- cific areas. It also exposes the researcher to a variety tiatives outlined in Table 1. Most of the innovation of issues and challenges that are outside the scope of workshop locations were also case study regions in the project being undertaken. Research ideas arise one or more of these research projects. The innova- organically and can easily be validated as important tion events, therefore, provided a platform for the to community stakeholders. From the Innovation researchers to report back and in some instances Project findings, one team member developed a validate initial research findings. These repeat -en Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council counters with the same community members raise of Canada proposal and was able to use the final some key issues for success in community-based re- report as evidence to support the research ques- search. The importance of reciprocity and partner- tion being addressed in that application. As well, ships when building sustainable relationships were through the project a member of the team learned highlighted in the introduction to this article as part about a mining firm with innovations in both hu- of the framework for meaningful engagement ini- man resources management and mineral explora- tiatives. The necessity of collaborative arrangements tion and processing technology, forming the basis is also often highlighted in the academic literature. of subsequent case study research. Finally, knowl- For example, Fisher et al. (2004, p. 29–30) report edge and relationships built during the Labrador that university researchers have historically creat- Straits workshop helped to advance a subsequent ed a negative impression by using their perceived federally-funded research initiative to identify de- dominance to take advantage of external stakehold- velopment assets in that region. ers without giving them back something in return. Establishing partnerships built on trust and integ- Student Engagement rity become even more integral when the research Two students—Kyle White (Geography un- team wishes to continue to engage with the same dergraduate student) and Ken Carter (Geography stakeholders on multiple levels for various research Ph.D. student)—were also engaged in the project. projects over time. The research team has a com- Kyle was the note-taker at all five innovation work- mon interest in economic development, particularly shops. He was also a co-author on each of the work- in rural areas. There is no quick fix and short-term shop reports and lead author on the innovation relationships would not be beneficial to either party. case studies. Ryser, Markey, & Halseth (2013) cite For example, the Canadian Regional Devel- a number of benefits to introducing undergraduate opment project included two case study regions in students to community-based or community-en- Newfoundland and Labrador: Kittiwake and the gaged research. For example, it can “expose them to Northern Peninsula. In the Northern Peninsula the the complexity of community development issues, research team had placed particular focus on the build support and career networks and foster stu- project themes of innovation and governance. Both dent interest in graduate studies or a research ca- primarily rural regions were sites for Innovation reer” (p. 13). With the project, both students were Project workshops. This provided previous connec- just starting innovation-related research of their tions as contacts for the team as well as an opportu- own. For Kyle, his participation on the Canadi-

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 27 9 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 an Regional Development and Innovation Project to a federal consultation on science, technology, and influenced his desire to focus on sustainable innovation. Several members of the project team innovation for his undergraduate honours thesis. are planning follow-up sessions in some regions It also inspired him to pursue graduate studies in and with key government innovation departments public policy. As members of the project team, and other innovation organizations to discuss the both students benefited from opportunities to pres- major findings for innovation policy and practice. ent their work, gain knowledge, and strengthen relationships in their study areas. We strongly Conclusions believe that undergraduate and graduate The goal of this paper was to provide a window students build research and networking into the experiences of academics as they skills, gain valuable research experience, navigate the complexities and politics of mobilizing and develop confidence through knowledge research and engaging with diverse stakeholders. mobilization and community-university engagement. We presented the Innovation Project as a practical example of university-community engaged research Informing Policy and knowledge dissemination as complimentary One of the major benefits of knowledge techniques for addressing economic challenges (in mobilization and community-university engage- this case advancing innovation) in Newfoundland ment is the opportunity to inform pressing policy and Labrador. This recount of this project, including concerns. As Boyer (1996) argued: “The academy the methodology and the researchers’ perceptions, must become a more vigorous partner in the search adds to the growing body of literature on good for answers to our most pressing social, civic, eco- practices and challenges in this area. As we noted in nomic and moral problems” (p. 13). From the onset the introduction, understanding both the benefits we were committed to offering insights for poli- and the challenges of knowledge mobilization and cy and practice, which were provided in our final community-engaged research is crucial to maxi- report. As noted earlier, our advisory committee mizing the impact of universities in linking theory, included government policymakers and the work- research and expertise with critical social and shops engaged with representatives from all levels economic needs, such as enhancing innovation. of government. It became clear at our final advisory The success of projects like ours should committee meeting in March that the committee not be measured solely based on the number of wanted to continue beyond the project. The final peer-reviewed articles published. Success for this report was well received with plenty of discussion project must be measured by its overall impact about where to go from here, which is one of the on the communities involved; the mobilization of major goals for this type of community-engaged key stakeholders to achieve a common goal; the project. Many of the stakeholders also acknowl- validation of methods used in community-engaged edged their role in advancing innovation, which research; the capacity building opportunities for they did not previously seem to accept. the researchers and students; the exposure to new In May 2014 we publicly released the report networks and new research ideas; the dissemination through a media campaign organized by the Har- of collective knowledge and reports containing the ris Centre. Copies of the report were also mailed voices of community participants to influential to every participant who was engaged throughout stakeholders and policy-makers; and the strength the workshops and/or summit. One outcome thus and longevity of the relationships being nurtured far was Innovation Week, organized by a number with every interaction. Every research project of innovation-support organizations involved in involves challenges, but few provide the opportunities the project. We were invited to present our major and rewards found in community-engaged research. findings for policy and practice at two events during Innovation Week. We also organized a live webcast References of the presentation made at an Innovation Out- Asheim, A., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). look event through the Harris Centre to make the Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies presentation accessible to all project participants. based on related variety and differentiated knowl- The final report and findings were referenced sev- edge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904. eral times during Innovation Week by senior pol- Bennet, A., & Bennet, D. K. Farfard, M. Fon- icy-makers, leaving us optimistic that some of the da, T. Lomond, L. Messier, & N. Vaugeois. (2007). recommendations will translate into new policies Knowledge mobilization in the social sciences and and approaches. We also submitted our final report humanities: Moving from research to action. Frost, https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 28 10 Hall et al.: Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: Insights for K West Virginia: MQI Press, Knowledge Series. Hall, B.L. (2009). Higher education, community Barrett, B., Bornstein, S., Butler, J., Kean, R., engagement, and the public good: Building the fu- & Navarro, P. (2011). Supporting health deci- ture of continuing education in Canada. Canadian sion-makers with contextualized research evidence. Journal of University Continuing Education, 25(1), In J. Bascu and F. Macqueen Smith (Eds.), Inno- 11–23. vations in knowledge translation: The SPHERU KT Hall, H.M. (2012). Stuck between a rock and a casebook. Saskatchewan: SPHERU. hard place: The politics of regional development ini- Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarships of engage- tiatives in Northern Ontario. Doctoral dissertation ment. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), submitted to the Department of Geography, Queen’s 11–20. University. Carayannis, E.G., & Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). Hall, H.M., & Greenwood R. (2013). The state of “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st regional development in Canada: What the hell is go- century fractal innovation ecosystem. International ing on? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201–234. the Canadian Association of Geographer’s, St. John’s, Castledon, H., Sloan Morgan, V., & Lamb, C. August 13. (2012). “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Explor- Hall, H.M, Vodden, K., & Greenwood, R. ing Canadian university researchers’ perspectives (forthcoming). From dysfunctional to destitute: The on community-based participatory research involv- governance of regional economic development in ing Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer, Newfoundland and Labrador. International Planning 56(2), 160–179. Studies. CBCNews. (2014). Kathy Dunderdale resigna- Hall, H.M., Walsh, J., Vodden, K., & Green- tion: ‘It is time to step back’. Retrieved from http:// wood, R. (2014). Challenges, opportunities, and strat- www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/ egies for advancing innovation in Newfoundland and kathy-dunderdale-resignation-it-is-time-to-step- Labrador. St. John’s: Harris Centre. back-1.2506233. Heisler, K., Beckie, M., & Markey, S. (2012). Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: Expectations and realities of engaged scholarship: Competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geofo- Evaluating a social economy collaborative research rum, 23(3), 365–382. Partnership. Journal of Community Engagement and Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1998). The association- Scholarship, 4(1), 25–35. al economy: Firms, regions, and innovation. Oxford: Holland, B., & Ramaley, J. (2008). Creating a Oxford University Press. supportive environment for community-university Desmond, M. (2004). Methodological challeng- engagement: Conceptual frameworks. Conference es posed in studying an elite in the field. Area, 26(3), Proceedings, HERDSA Annual Conference, pp. 33–47. 262–269. Jackson, E.T., Schwartz, K., & Andree, P. (2008). Independent Panel on Federal Support to Re- Aligning tenure and promotion procedures for com- search and Development. 2012. Innovation Canada: munity-university engagement: Dialogue for action. A call to action. Review of federal support to research In D.E. Clover and C. McGregor (Eds.), Proceedings and development—Expert Panel report. Ottawa: Gov- of the Third International Community-University ernment of Canada. Exposition (CUexpo 2008), (p. 133–134). Victoria, Fisher R., Fabricant, M., & Simmons, L. (2004) . Understanding contemporary university-commu- Jaeger, A.J., Katz Jameson, J., & Clayton, P. nity connections. Journal of Community Practice, (2012). Institutionalization of community-engaged 12(3–4), 13–34. scholarship at institutions that are both land-grant Gibson, R. (2013). Collaborative governance in and research universities. Journal of Higher Educa- rural regions: An examination of Ireland and New- tion Outreach and Engagement, 16(1), 149–167. foundland and Labrador. Doctoral dissertation sub- Kitagawa, F. (2013). City-regions, innovation mitted to the Department of Geography, Memorial and universities. In P. Cooke (Ed.), Reframing region- University of Newfoundland and Labrador. al development (pp., 341–358). New York: Routledge. Greenwood, G., Pike, C., & Kearley, W. (2011). Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix, Qua- A commitment to place: The social foundations of druple Helix, ..., and an n-tuple of helices: Explanato- innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador. Re- ry models for analyzing the knowledge-based econo- treived from https://www.mun.ca/harriscentre/ my? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35. reports/research/2011/CommitmenttoPlace_Har- Levin, B. (2011). Making research matter. Edu- ris_Sept2011Web.pdf. cation Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56), 1–20.

Published by NighthawksVol. 9, No. Open 1 ­—JOURNALInstitutional Repository, OF COMMUNITY 2016 ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 29 11 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 4 McGoff, C. (2012).The primes: How any group politics and policy in Newfoundland and Labrador can solve any problem. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & (pp. 213–230). McGill-Queens University Press. Sons, Inc. Van Dalen, H.P., & Henkens, K. (2012). In- Moore, T.L., & Ward, K. (2010). Institutionaliz- tended and unintended consequences of a pub- ing faculty engagement through research, teaching, lish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal and service at research universities. Michigan Jour- of the American Society for Information Science and nal of Community Service-learning, 17(1), 44–58. Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293. MUNMED. (2013). A unique approach to ev- Ward, K.G., & Jones, M. (1999). Researching idence-informed health care decisions. MUNMED, local elites: Reflexivity, ‘situatedness’ and politi- Faculty of Medicine, 25(1), 10. cal-temporal contingency. Geoforum, 30, 301–312. Nauwelaers, C. (2011). Intermediaries in re- Wolfe, D.A. (2009). 21st century cities in Can- gional innovation systems: role and challenges for ada: The geography of innovation. The 2009 CIBC policy. In P. Cooke, B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Mar- Scholar-in-Residence Lecture. Ottawa: Conference tin, D. Schwartz, and F. Tödtling (Eds.), Handbook Board of Canada. of regional innovation and growth (pp. 467–481). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Acknowledgments New England Resource Center for Higher We would like to thank the research teams, Education. (2016). Carnegie Community Engage- advisory committees, and funders from the NL ment Classification. Retrieved from http://nerche. ISRN project (Social Sciences and Humanities org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti- Research Council of Canada), the Rural-Urban cle&id=341&Itemid=618#CEdef. Project (CRRF, MNL, the Canada-Newfoundland Newfoundland & Labrador Centre for Applied and Labrador and Labour Market Development Health Research (NLCAHR). (2013). CHRSP: Agreement), the Canadian Regional Development Evidence in context: Contextualized syntheses to project (Social Sciences and Humanities Research support decision making — an innovative New- Council of Canada Grand No. 410-2010-2273), the foundland and Labrador approach(presentation). Navigate Entrepreneurship Centre, and Industry St. John’s: Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Canada. We would also like to thank Kyle White Applied Health Research. and Ken Carter for their research assistance on Report of the Ministerial Committee on the this project. Process to Renew Regional Economic Develop- ment. 2005. Final Report. Government of New- About the Authors foundland and Labrador. Heather M. Hall is a postdoctoral fellow in the Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do institutions International Centre of Northern Governance and matter for regional development? Regional Studies, Development at the University of Saskatchewan. 47(7), 1034–1047. Jacqueline Walsh is an assistant professor of Busi- Ryser, L., Markey, S., & Halseth, G. (2013). De- ness at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial Universi- veloping the next generation of community-based ty. Rob Greenwood is executive director of the Leslie researchers: Tips for undergraduate students. Jour- Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development nal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(1), 11–27. at Memorial University (St. John’s Newfoundland). Statistics Canada. (2012). Census Profile. 2011 Kelly Vodden is an associate professor in the Envi- Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 98-316- ronmental Policy Institute at the Grenfell Campus XWE. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. of Memorial University. The Grenfell campus is in Sternberg, R. (2009). Innovation. In R. Kitchin Corner Brook, Newfoundland. and N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography, Vol. 1 (pp. 481–490). Oxford: Elsevier. Tödtling, F., & Tripple, F. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34, 1203-1219. Vodden, K., Gibson, R., & Porter, M. (2014). A brighter future for whom? Rural and regional de- velopment in the Williams era. In A. Marland, and M. Kerby (Eds.), First among unequals: The premier,

https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol9/iss1/4Vol. 9, No. 1­—JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP—Page 30 12