When a new TBED project comes to town, the TBED practitioners inside know the long-term benefits of technology-based economic development: they can see and understand their progress in building a strong economic foundation for their host region. But for community-based and workforce development organizations and K-12 education systems in the surrounding area, the TBED project might appear to be an opaque operation that operates independently of its neighbors.
This dilemma of the gap between TBED organizations and the communities they serve was the subject of a recent research project to investigate the perspectives of people working and living in regions connected to two NSF Engines: the Florida Semiconductor Engine and the Regenerative Medicine Engine in North Carolina. The researchers—Sarah Crane, PhD, executive director of Restorative Economics Group, and Swati Ghosh, vice president of insights and innovations at NGIN—interviewed people in the areas surrounding each engine. They asked participants about their perspectives, priorities, and questions related to the engine’s goals. The authors note in their report, Investigating Regional Engagement and Broad-Based Outcomes of Tech-Based Economic Development, “The purpose of this work was not to produce statistically representative results, but to collect and analyze a broad range of perspectives that can inform how TBED can conceptualize and produce broad-based outcomes for their region.”
The research results confirmed that there is a Catch-22 for TBED practitioners communicating about what they are trying to accomplish. The researchers note, “… technology development timelines are long—often running more than a decade—and uncertain—with most startups closing before they reach sustainability. In this context, many regions find the benefits of broadly communicating initiatives, which may not produce employment or investment opportunities for years, insufficient against the risk of attracting attention to efforts that may yet fail. Many TBED practitioners communicate their efforts only to their core partners.” But the authors assert that this challenge can be addressed “…by identifying outcomes that resonate with the community, reviewing efforts to engage the community in regional TBED strategies, and making practical suggestions for future initiatives.”
It would be impossible to engage a community that is not aware of your existence, and the authors acknowledge that “(m)any TBED efforts struggle to achieve broad community awareness.” And, as emphasized in their report, “…awareness should function as a trust-building activity rather than a marketing exercise—one that helps communities understand how development is occurring, who it is intended to benefit, and how it connects to their lived realities.” The report provides examples of how each of the two engines took a unique approach to creating this awareness; a companion action guide helps practitioners implement strategies step by step.
Beyond awareness, say the authors, TBED practitioners should focus on helping community members “…understand why a technology or industry matters to them, how it connects to local priorities, and where meaningful opportunities for engagement exist.” However, translating technical information to lay audiences can be difficult. The report mentions SSTI survey research that found that much of the language used within TBED does not connect with the public, making it difficult to convey the value of these investments. The report cites several examples of differences in how terminology is perceived. For example, fewer than 50% of people view "commercialization" positively. Better to say "converting research," a term viewed positively by 80% of respondents.
The report provides ample research-based advice on community building, but its solutions are not presented as one-size-fits-all tactics. The authors draw distinctions between the North Carolina and Florida engines for effective community-based activities, based on the unique characteristics of each community. In North Carolina, research participants consistently related the technology to their own health, and this personalization deepened their interest in the engine. In contrast, semiconductors are not connected to personal well-being, and TBED practitioners must work harder to make benefits visible and relevant.
According to feedback from study participants, TBED programs must do more than align with regional economic development priorities: they must also align with and support local priorities and programs. The report instructs its readers by delving into specific concerns regarding the initiative's alignment with local priorities and by providing representative comments from study participants. In addition, the authors have provided their Regional Engagement for Tech-Based Economic Development Action Guide to help TBED practitioners and stakeholders as they implement strategy recommendations.
"Our research really cements with proven data that the economic opportunity from large tech-based economic development (TBED) investments can remain isolated without intentional strategies to engage the community and regional stakeholders,” said Ghosh. “The good news is that TBED professionals and economic developers can use our newest action guide as a tool to engage with the community at different stages of the TBED investment and truly make them a part of shaping the economic opportunity rather than a checkbox."
Crane commented that “innovation investments that intentionally integrate into the local social fabric through sustained presence, effective engagement with local intermediaries, and targeted initiatives with partners are better positioned to achieve broad-based impacts."
The report and action guide were developed through a National Science Foundation-supported research project led by Ghosh and Crane, with support from SSTI and the University of Michigan Economic Growth Institute.