Frequently asked questions about HIBAR research

Is HIBAR research a new idea?

No, HIBAR is simply a fairly new name to help describe a time-honored kind of research that has yielded many research breakthroughs, such as, for example, the transistor. HIBAR signifies basic research that focuses, in special ways, on issues of importance to the non-academic world. HIBAR research projects strengthen society by integrating the following four important aspects of theory and practice: (1) motivations, (2) methods, (3) partners and (4) timeframe.

What is also fairly new is the idea of applying modern organizational change methods toward improving the academic culture in order to encourage HIBAR research. (See the next FAQ Section about the HIBAR Research Alliance.)

Is HIBAR research a clearly defined idea?

We believe it is. To be considered HIBAR research, a project must embody dual excellence in all four important aspects of (1) motivations, (2) methods, (3) partner and (4) timeframe. Excellence must not be compromised in HIBAR research projects: The standards of excellence for them are the same as those already upheld in highly regarded institutions. Naturally, it is more difficult to meet multiple standards simultaneously, but HIBAR projects do so, often by ensuring that their research teams, in combination, have the required broad body of expertise.

Is the name HIBAR meant to suggest that non-HIBAR research is inferior?

Not at all – to suggest that it would have to be named “higher bar”. HIBAR is mainly just a pleasant sounding, memorable acronym. In addition, it may correctly suggest that the quality standards for HIBAR research are every bit as high as the ones already established for fundamental research and for engagement with external partners. In other words, there should be no compromise on university standards of excellence when integrating basic and responsive research within the same project.

If HIBAR research is not a new idea, what makes it especially important today?

Over the last half century, numerous corporate labs have shifted away from HIBAR research, toward shorter-term work, while most academic researchers have continued in their important role of pursuing fundamental research. Meanwhile long-term problems have been a growing concern. By increasing the number of projects that integrate basic research with meaningful consideration of application, HIBAR research teams can better address these looming challenges, achieving immense practical and academic benefits.

Why is it important and beneficial to combine basic and responsive aspects of research?

Numerous major societal problems require new knowledge that only basic research can generate, but properly developing that research requires a deep understanding of those problems. History has shown that in addition to solving problems, HIBAR research also has a high rate of generating fundamental breakthroughs in basic research. It excels by integrating the thirst for discovery with a passion for helping the world. This is made possible by merging the points of views of real-world decision-makers with leading academics. Importantly, HIBAR research combines the deductive strengths of traditional academic research with methods for innovative design. This HIBAR approach is well suited to projects that operate over time frames that are long by business standards yet short from some academic perspectives. No one is suggesting that all university research should have a HIBAR character, but many believe universities can and should carry out more HIBAR research.

Isn’t almost all the research in university professional schools already HIBAR?

Excellent HIBAR research is already taking place to some degree in universities, especially in professional schools. However, it is not nearly enough. University-based research often falls outside the HIBAR definition in one of two ways: (1) the primary goal of the research may be knowledge creation alone—with little sense of urgency for real world application, or (2) there may be little intention of creating important new knowledge, with an emphasis instead on rapid results for the immediate needs of external partners. Projects the deeply integrate both perspectives are needed and less common than many think.

Doesn’t the prevalence of innovation hubs at universities show that HIBAR research is booming?

Not really, due to a time frame mismatch. For good reasons, entrepreneurship centers tend to focus on satisfying the short-term return requirements of most investors and helping to successfully launch young companies. Not all HIBAR projects are commercially relevant, and even those that are may not yield a return until much later. There are few quick fixes to grand challenges.

If businesses and investors tend not to fund HIBAR research, shouldn’t government agencies?

Definitely, although they have difficulty doing so. For research proposals with an application focus, funders often require corporate co-funding as evidence of quality. That disadvantages HIBAR projects because their time frame is too long for most companies. Alternative metrics of practical excellence are needed. Some good suggestions are available for consideration.

Since the time frame for HIBAR research is often too long for commercial investment, won’t that isolate HIBAR research from corporate involvement?

Interestingly, just the opposite may hold true, because companies can contribute to HIBAR projects in ways that do not deplete their cash reserves. Many companies have senior research leaders who can interact with HIBAR research projects with great mutual advantage. The HIBAR projects benefit from those experts’ visionary understanding of real-world problems and opportunities and, in turn, the company participants benefit from an early understanding of where the HIBAR work is heading. Since the outcomes will take longer than commercial and competitive time frames, there may be fewer difficulties in managing intellectual property, reducing the required complexity of partnership agreements, freeing energy for more positive and enjoyable interactions.

In order for HIBAR research to increase, will something else have to decrease?

Perhaps counterintuitively, that’s not a problem: University basic research would not be reduced by increasing HIBAR projects, because it lies at the heart of HIBAR work. Also, in countless cases, basic research, (such as, for example, astronomical imaging), has generated HIBAR projects with great practical value, and these projects in turn attract new funding.

If the value of HIBAR research is so clear, why is there a need to help it grow?

Currently, two primary factors inadvertently discourage HIBAR research:

First, there is a key challenge with the system of peer review. Of course, this system is critically important for ensuring excellence in the papers that are published, the research grants that are awarded, and the researchers who are promoted and granted tenure. However, for peer review to work well reviewers need to understand and appreciate the research they are appraising and this is sometimes challenging with HIBAR research. Just as it could be difficult for a botanist to assess a physics research project, it can be counterproductive if HIBAR work is reviewed by researchers who are not themselves familiar with its special character. Further, promotion committees need to understand that some important metrics of HIBAR research may differ considerably from those of basic research. These challenges can be addressed well, but since the system of peer-review operates diffusely throughout the entire university system, there is a need for widespread cooperation in developing support for and understand of HIBAR research.

Second, like almost anything worthwhile, HIBAR research requires the proper expertise for success. Compared to basic research or applied research alone, there is a greater level of complexity and a wider range of skills are needed. Generally, these requirements call for a diverse team of participants, which necessitates skilled project leadership and good teamwork. Overall, although the risks and challenges of HIBAR projects are significant, they are offset by the prospects for important benefits, more than justifying the effort. This can be accelerated by improved educational resources and HIBAR training experiences at the undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels.

Won’t the growth of HIBAR research take energy away from non-STEM disciplines?

This is unlikely; the opposite effect is more probable. First, the basic principles of HIBAR research are not restricted to STEM – for any field of scholarly research there are likely to be related societal problems and opportunities that could benefit from the HIBAR approach. For example, projects have been associated with political science, anthropology, law, business, etc. Furthermore, HIBAR projects often have participants from both STEM and non-STEM departments, helping to better integrate the academy overall.

Are such efforts really needed to boost HIBAR research? After all, universities already do quite a lot of it, and some successful HIBAR researchers say the current incentives are already adequate.

It is certainly true that HIBAR research is underway at most high quality universities, and some faculty members have been appropriately encouraged and rewarded for contributing in this way. This has always been true. However, three other key things are also true: (1) Many researchers would like to carry out more excellent HIBAR research but they find it difficult to do so within the current culture of peer review; (2) Experts agree that if universities were to do more HIBAR research, significant benefits would accrue to all concerned; (3) Bolstering HIBAR research also boosts basic and applied research. In other words, there is no downside and plenty of upside, so surely it is the responsibility of the university system as a whole to make a concerted effort to shift an appropriate amount in the HIBAR direction.