Journal of  APPLIED RESEARCH IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Progressive thought and action for practitioners, researchers, civic leaders,
and other citizens contributing to the regional economic development process

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION:
CRITICAL TOOLS FOR BIO-TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Lay J. Gibson
University Distinguished Outreach Professor, Economic Development Research Program, The University of Arizona

Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi
Senior Regional Scientist, Eller College Economic and Business Research Center, The University of Arizona

Raphael Gruener
Professor of Physiology, College of Medicine, and Director of Technology Initiatives, Office of Economic Development, The University of Arizona

Bruce A. Wright
Associate Vice President for Economic Development, The University of Arizona

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Summary
Regional development practice can be made more effective and efficient when it is built on solid research. In this article we argue that for the successful implementation of regional economic initiatives, new understandings are required—understandings that recognize first, that community engagement is essential and second, that meaningful  two-way interactions must be established between communities of scientists, developers and investors, and local residents. The two key elements in this new approach are “translation of knowledge/expertise” and “two-way communication” between researchers and community. To demonstrate benefits of this approach we use high tech/biotech projects—a popular strategy in regional E.D.— and explore opportunities and constraints associated with application in distressed urban communities.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
Both curiosity driven “academic research” and applied research can help us better understand E.D. issues and opportunities. At its best, “academic research” provides interesting insights; good applied research provides essential insights – insights that allow the development practitioner to do his/her job better. The need for the research discussed in this article grew out of discussion with colleagues including those who participate in the work of the AURP (The Association of University Research Parks) and our own experiences here at the University of Arizona in preparing for the development of a biotech research park.

Community relations are important in any E.D. initiative. When research parks were suburban “Greenfield” affairs, community relations meant one thing. Now that the emphasis has shifted to biotech and inner-city venues, the game has changed—and community relations has become community engagement. The tasks describing general benefits to the community are still here but there is now an added emphasis on showing how different socio-economic cohorts benefit.

The biotech challenge in E.D.
We are beginning to factor biotech into discussions of economic growth and development, just as we began factoring in traditional high tech activities four or five decades ago. Biotech is already an important source of jobs and income in U.S. regions such as San Diego, Boston–Cambridge, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Biotech also has become a high-priority target for other regions, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Chicago, which believe that they can compete (Chapple, K. et al. 2004, Markusen and Yu 2006).

But, differences between high tech and biotech go beyond just scientific focus and training. They can also exhibit conspicuous differences in their typical choice of location and in their space needs. In conversations about "high tech," people often visualize a research or production facility in a suburban, campus-like environment, surrounded by lawns and trees. This image is based on the familiar examples of California's Silicon Valley or North Carolina's Research Triangle Park area, anchored by the University of North Carolina, North Carolina State University, and Duke University. In contrast, conversations about biotech facilities often bring to mind images of inner-city locations and, indeed, most (though not all) biotech projects are characterized by urban renewal and reuse of land.

Biotech companies and bioparks have had much less time to develop viable, sustainable methods of doing business in their more characteristically urban or inner city settings. Because of this, traditional high tech facilities can offer only limited lessons for understanding the challenges faced by biotech. If this rapidly expanding sector is to be efficiently and effectively managed for the benefit of its employees, its investors, and the residents of its host communities, new understandings are required.

Importance of community engagement
The focus on community engagement is driven by the tendency for many biotech developments to be located in older, declining, and economically challenged areas that are often found close to university life science or medical campuses and teaching hospitals. A new approach is needed: one that recognizes that community engagement is not only a follow up step, but rather a process in which community engages from the very beginning and stays as an integral part of the entire process of implementation.

While the community engagement model can build on the understandings of these earlier stages, its different geographic realities call for a whole new series of understandings and outcomes. Suburban parks had well-educated middle-class neighbors; the neighbors of inner-city bioparks are often poorly educated with low incomes. They want to know what benefits they can expect to see from a redevelopment process that often levels existing neighborhoods and disrupts their day-to-day activities. Local citizens and leaders, who are often positioned to influence the pace and content of development, want information about the impacts and implications of biotech for their community.

Investments in cutting-edge, new economy, high-tech clusters appear to target educated and highly skilled workers. But they are often located in inner cities or regions with large populations of unskilled workers with low education levels.  An important focus of this  new model is to consider how high-tech developments can increase linkages to the economically distressed neighborhoods that house them. While all job opportunities that high tech parks can create are important, the focus should be especially on those that can provide for workers with lower education and training levels—as laboratory technicians or as service and support workers of various types, for example—opportunities which are important but not always obvious. 

Local citizens and leaders usually want answers to questions about the
impacts and implications of biotech developments and are sometimes positioned to influence the pace and content of development.  Given this it is easy to see how it can be in every ones best interest to engage the community at a very early stage in the process. Community engagement should focus on both winning the local community over to support the biotech project but also on effectively utilizing the community's human capital.

When any new high tech or biotech project is announced, a variety of individuals will be interested.  But it is likely that those with a real and enduring interest will be a small subset of the larger community.  Similarly, what interested individuals want to know can cover a variety of topics.  But, at the end of the day, it is likely that a small number of the “usual suspects” will focus on an anticipatable handful of questions.  We identified eight types of “concerned citizens and professionals”: E.D. professionals; elected officials; community activists/leaders; city and regional planners; workforce professionals; science and technology park developers; transportation planners; and school and other facility planners. Table 1 shows the topics that are likely to be their primary focus.

Once the key stakeholders are identified, it is important to involve them early in the process. Because it may be time consuming and costly, it may be necessary to select a smaller group. However, a process of information sharing must be developed and agreed upon.

Translating knowledge: making sense of research findings in real-world community setting
Another important factor of a successful implementation of a high-tech/biotech initiative is the ability to translate research findings into practical applications. The translational approach, advocated originally in health and life sciences (Dusyk 2007), stresses the need to build bridges between basic researchers and those who apply science in a clinical setting. In the case of distressed communities, the bridges need to be built between the high tech/biotech communities and the E.D. professionals, elected officials, real estate interests, and engaged citizens who contribute to the leadership of the communities where high tech and biotech activities take place.

This translational approach has special significance for regional research professionals who must evaluate the consequences of the proposed project and then communicate these consequences to community interests. This means that regional economic modeling is not simply a one-shot deal, with the research findings being handed down to the development professional. Instead, the model findings are discussed and then revised in successive stages, as the researcher and the developer “drill down” and discover new questions with each iteration.

One of the key issues is how to strike the delicate balance between what is needed to understand a complex problem and what stakeholders perceive to be their immediate needs for making decisions (Lemos and Morehouse 2004). The big questions that community leaders want answered cover things like the direct employment associated with the development, changes in the nature and extent of local demands for private goods and services that will be stimulated by the new firm and its employees, changes in demand for specific public goods such as schools and police and fire protection and streets and roads, and impacts on the quality of life in the community. 

There are also a variety of workforce related considerations such as availability of new opportunities for those with low skills levels and levels of educational attainment and the need for training programs to encourage upward mobility by those already in the community who want to take the next step up the job ladder.  Whereas there may be a dozens different constituencies and cohorts in the community, they all have the same question: “what's in it for me and my folks?”  Specific goals and objectives may vary; the inner city leader may want low-condition-of-entry jobs for his constituents, whereas the E.D. professional may be focused on how to leverage new high tech or biotech investments into a full fledged cluster.  But in either case, it boils down to essentially the same thing—an understanding of the contributions that an establishment might make and the impacts that will follow and the result of regional dynamics.

There are a number of ways to develop these understandings.  A good starting point is the work by Goldstein and Luger (1990), who outlined types and dimensions of potential regional development impacts of science/technology parks and classified them into three main categories: (a) primary (economic growth) impacts, (b) distributive dimensions of primary impacts, and (c) secondary (economic structure) impacts. Primary impacts are defined as those that result in changes in the magnitude of economic activity, such as the number of establishments and jobs, personal income and value added. These primary impacts have relevant distributional dimensions, such as occupational, socioeconomic and spatial. Secondary or derivative impacts are those that derive from the primary changes, but result in changes in the economic structure of the region, and impact the region as a whole.

We use these basic dimensions as a starting point and emphasize those that are most relevant. For example, in our case study, we decided to use input/output analysis (Gibson 1997, Pavlakovich-Kochi and Charney 2005) to produce measurements of expected economic impacts.  Since the intent is to focus on the valuable outputs that can come from a technical approach rather than the technical dimensions per se, the focus stays on community engagement, not the operation of the mathematical model.  In discussing job creation from the occupational perspective, we look at the full range of occupations, but we pay special attention to those occupations that have relatively modest requirements in terms of skill and educational attainment.

We should keep in mind that our goal is not to make community leaders and elected officials sophisticated modelers—instead we want to make them “true believers” and enthusiastic and effective consumers of the understandings that can be produced by a thoughtful and objective modeling process – one that can be replicated.  There are good reasons for those concerned with community issues to not be good modelers (it is technically demanding and time-consuming work).  There are fewer good reasons for these same people to not understand the ways that their decision making can be enhanced by good modeling.

It is important to be aware that most community leaders, development professionals, and elected officials have neither a background in regional modeling and input/output analysis nor the inclination to learn much about it!  But we also argue that there are compelling reasons to use computer-type models and the findings produced by appropriate models and competent modelers!

Perhaps the “big lesson” is that when it comes to job opportunities that come with high tech and biotech developments, “there’s something for everyone.”  There are abundant opportunities for the highly educated although high tech and biotech firms are by no means dominated by these occupations.  There are abundant opportunities in the middle for those with more modest levels of educational attainment who want access to a pathway to upward mobility which is based more on work ethic and achievements than on degrees and formal certifications.  And there are solid opportunities for those with modest levels of attainment and ambition who are most concerned securing a foot hold in the modern economy.

Recommendations
By combining the above two aspects—community engagement and translational approach—we have developed a model for urban E.D., which we applied to a case study of using a biotech park project to bridging the high-tech-community gap (Gibson, Wright, Gruener and Pavlakovich-Kochi 2008). The model consists of six basic steps:

1. Identify key players and constituencies. There is a variety of individuals and organizations who can be expected to have an interest in a new high tech or biotech initiative.  Some local interests will focus on economic challenges and opportunities, but interest can also be tied to anticipated socio-cultural or political changes.  In some cases, strategic intelligence might head off opposition.  In other cases, well substantiated responses to vital questions can lead to efficient responses by local institutions.

2. A formal community engagement initiative is essential. Community engagement needs to be managed.  The process can be initiated by an E.D. partnership, a community, or a private company, but either way it must have two key ingredients: a menu of questions to be answered and a responding party (or parties).  Existing and new employers as well as local individuals and organizations will have some sort of vested interest in regional growth and development.

3. Start with the basics before moving on to the more complex.  Give community leaders plenty of background information on your industry and proposed project, starting with the information in this report. Just because community leaders are bombarded with references to high tech and biotech doesn't mean that they know much about what sort of companies fit into these categories, what they do, or what actual companies could provide useful examples of high tech or biotech enterprises.  They need good information on fundamental topics like these before discussing what high tech or biotech firms look for in a community and what they might in turn contribute to a community.

4.  Rely on formal analysis to understand potential regional impacts of high tech/biotech initiatives. Regional systems are complex and dynamic.  Computers turn out to be ideal tools for crunching the masses of data needed to produce good models of how such systems are likely to act. Collaborating with specialists whose expertise lies in understanding and using these tools can provide community leaders with authoritative observations and estimates, rather than just anecdotal evidence, on which to base their decisions.  

5.  Base your analysis on models but be sure to communicate findings widely. The surest way for a research scientist to discourage the use of modeling is to obscure the significance and usefulness of findings. When modelers only talk to each other, both the region and the potential tenants of the proposed high-tech/biotech park are the big losers, deprived of insights, understandings and actions that are authoritative, reliable, and that can be replicated.  These are understandings that can help regions take full advantage of new demands for goods and services (including labor) and assure that essential factors of production are available to the company’s supply chain.

6. Maintain a two-way flow of communication. Transparent and straightforward communication is essential from the beginning.  Experience tells us that if proponents of new economic activity—be it as simple as a new company or as complex as a high-tech/biotech park—do not actively engage with their host communities from the start, community optimists will sometimes overstate the positive impacts of the new development and pessimists will often exaggerate the negative impacts. Needless to say this can lead to disappointed expectations on both sides.  Community meetings at regular intervals are essential both to identify and address emerging concerns and to assure that the community is kept abreast of new developments and changing project time lines.

Conclusions
The discussions in this report are focused on procedures associated with new high-tech/bio-tech initiatives. In most cases these initiatives are undertaken by private-public partnerships such as regional E.D. entities in collaboration with universities and/ or other institutions of higher education, and private companies. Our recommendations are written with these specific initiatives in mind, although the procedures are applicable to companies and communities interested in developing projects on a smaller scale. Early in the development process, the initiator(s) of high-tech/bio-tech initiatives should initiate steps to answer questions that will sooner or later be asked by local interests—and community leaders should start asking questions early, too.  No matter who starts the ball rolling, for all stakeholders, the potential payoffs of early community engagement in terms of efficient initiation of the project into the region and effective responses from the region are enormous.

We also emphasize a need for translation of academic research findings into usable information for all stakeholders involved in a given E.D. project. Implicit in this translational approach is a need to develop and sustain a two-way framework in which feedback from stakeholders plays a critical role.

References and for further reading
Chapple, K., A. Markusen, G. Schrock, D. Yamamoto and P. Yu. 2004. Gauging metropolitan “high-tech” and “I-tech” activity. Economic Development Quarterly 18: 10-29. Retrieved February 20, 2008: http://edq.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav.

Dusyk, N. 2007. Towards a definition of translational science: a review of literature. Retrieved October 22, 2007:  http://gels.ethics.ubc.ca:8213/collaborative-projects/ip2/shared-documents-private/working-papers/microsoft-word-nd-jag-edit-translational-science-june-2007.pdf/view .

Gibson, L. J. 1997. Using economic base analysis to solve development planning problems. A best practice approach. Applied Geographic Studies, 1(3): 169-186.

Gibson, L.J., B. Wright, R. Gruener and V. Pavlakovich-Kochi. 2008. Closing the industry – community gap through community engagement: high tech/biotech’s new frontier. EDA Project No. 077905928 prepared under an Award from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration.

Goldstein, H. A. and M. I. Luger. (1990). Science/technology parks and regional development theory. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(1): 64-78. Retrieved January 10, 2008: htpp://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/1/64.

Lemos, M. C. and B.J. Morehouse. 2004. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessment. Global Environmental Change 1(3): 1-12. Retrieved October 6, 2007: www.sciencedirect.com.

Markusen, A. and P.Yu. 2006. High-tech activity and urban economic development in the United States: implications for Shanghai in Chen, X. and H. Jianfu (eds.). Global aspirations/local actions: Shanghai’s renaissance in comparative perspective. Shanghai: Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. Retrieved February 20, 2008: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/img/assets/6158/156HightechShanghai106.pdf.

Pavlakovich-Kochi, V. and A.H. Charney. 2005. Economic and Tax Revenue Analysis of The University of Arizona Science and Technology Park, FY 2003-2004. The University of Arizona Office of Economic and Policy Analysis, March 2005.

Authors
Lay J. Gibson, University Distinguished Outreach Professor, Economic Development Research Program, The University of Arizona (mailing address: The Office of Arid Lands Studies, PO Box 210184, Tucson, AZ 85719-5524; e-mail: ljgibson@ag.arizona.edu)

Vera Pavlakovich-Kochi, Senior Regional Scientist, Eller College Economic and Business research Center, and Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Regional Development, The University of Arizona (mailing address: Economic and Business Research Center, PO Box 210108, Tucson, AZ 85721-0108; e-mail: vkp@email.arizona.edu)

Raphael Gruener, Professor of Physiology, College of Medicine, and Director of Technology Initiatives, Office of Economic Development, The University of Arizona (mailing address: P.O. box 210458, Tucson, AZ 85721-0458; e-mail: rgruener@email.arizona.edu)

Bruce A. Wright, Associate Vice President for Economic Development, Office of Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies and Economic Development, and COO, The University of Arizona Science and Technology Park (mailing address: P.O. box 210458, Tucson, AZ 85721-0458; e-mail: wrightb@email.arizona.edu)

LATEST ISSUE:
vol 6, no 1, 2009
Click & log in for FULL TEXT & ENHANCED
ONLINE VERSIONS of articles from
the current issue: available to
C2ER & SEDC members and
ARED subscribers
Click here for EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES
from the current issue: available to
all readers

Homepage

About ARED & its
editorial board

ARED Archives

Call for papers &
author guidelines

Forthcoming issues &
articles 

Immediate past issue:
Vol. 5, no. 3, 2008
TOURISM & E.D.
SPECIAL ISSUE
Available to all readers

Subscription information

Contact us: click on logos or emails below

Mark M. Miller, editor
Economic Development
The University of Southern
Mississippi
Email: mmm4ed@gmail.com
Homepage

Judson Edwards,
managing editor
Troy University
jcedwards@troy.edu