Knowledge Transfer and the Social Sciences

ESRC Regional Knowledge Exchange Network NE

Adrian Hill 11 June 2009

KT Unpacked

• History and context

• KT elements, mechanics and trajectory

• Beauty and the beast(s)

• Policy and reports

• Where are we/you now?

• Questions

• Links

History and Context

• A reason for many HEIs

• (from 19th century)

• The political birth of ‘TT’ (‘The white heat of technological revolution’, 1963)

• ‘Realising our Potential’, 1993

• LINK, Teaching Company Scheme, HEROBC, first measures…evolving

• Core funding and formulaic metrics

10 years of ‘third stream’ funding99 0200 01 03 04 05 06 07

HEROBC

HEROBC

Transitional

HEIF 1

HEIF 2

HEACF 1

BUSINESS FELLOWS

HEACF 2

KTCF

08 09

‘HEIF 3’

Co

nti

nu

atio

n

HE

IF 4

Th

ird

str

eam

em

bed

ded

? (

HE

FC

E)

volunteering funding

Questions

• Who generates and who applies the ‘K’?• Should R funding depend on usefulness?• What would happen in a real free market?• Are Universities ‘businesses? • Which sector should take the lead for KT?• Social Sciences different from other KT?• How can KT actively inform Gov’t policy?• We shall return……….

KT essential elements

INFORMED DEMAND

OUTCOMES

KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE

FUNDING

METRICS(indicators)

‘THIRD STREAM’ ACTIVITY

(KT/KE)

The Scope of Knowledge Transfer

COMMUNITY

PUBLIC SECTOR

CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

BUSINESS

Competitiveness, Growth

Efficiency,Cohesion

Cultural Enrichment & Quality of Life

Resources & Opportunities

PRIVATE SECTOR

SOCIAL & CIVIC ARENA

ENHANCING INNOVATION & PRODUCTIVITYDELIVERING ECONOMIC & SOCIAL BENEFIT

NB This represents scope not scale (HEFCE)

The HE Trajectory

• Tech Transfer to Knowledge Exchange• From inputs (resources, structure and

policy), to activity targets and outputs, thence outcomes and impact

• From marginal/part time staffing to professional career (IKT/UNICO/AURIL)

• From incomplete logging of remote proxy data to robust measurement of what matters

Manage Knowledge Transfer SchemesManage Knowledge Transfer SchemesStrategic ActionStrategic Action

Beauty and the Beast(the policy makers and the

practitioners)• Government

• Research and Funding Councils

• Major charities and ‘great and good’

• UKSPA, AURIL, UNICO/PRAXIS, IKT

• Companies

• Academic staff

• KT offices or similar

Aims of HE knowledge transfer and exchange

• Demonstrate value from public funding• - Delivery of benefit, not just maximising

income to the publicly funded ‘K’ base• Develop economic and social impact• - Needs valid practical indicators for

both• Unlock resources of diverse HE sector• - Need and scope for all HEI’s (also all PSR

Establishments) to be engaged

Knowledge Transfer and Impact StrategyKnowledge Transfer and Impact Strategy

Purpose

● Achieve and demonstrate a step change in the economic impact of the Science Budget

● Knowledge transfer to take centre stage for the research councils

● To take forward with the other research councils, with the social science community and with its user communities

● Specific emphasis on engagement with the business sector

Some recent publications

• The Lambert review; 2003 • The DTI Innovation Report; 2004 • Sci/Innovation investment framework• The ESRC Delivery Plan(s); on-going• The Sainsbury review; 2007• Saraga report; 2007• Wellings report; 2008• Third stream evaluation; (HEFCE 2009/15)

Policy statements

• Government

• Major stakeholders

• Sponsored reports

• Guru sources

Research Council Activities Reported:

●interaction with business and public services

●collaborative research

●commercialisation of research

●cooperative training

●people exchanges

UK Economic Impact Reporting FrameworkUK Economic Impact Reporting Framework

Effectiveness and evidence

• Metrics and targets

• - HEFCE’s & Research Council metrics

• Input from the market/demand side

• - Who are your customers?

• Reputation and quality effects

• - Citations/peer review, objectivity, integrity, influence + ‘repeat business’ from stakeholders

BF/KD February 2009

Institute of Knowledge Transfer

• Launched May 2007 with grant from Higher Education Funding Council for England

• Focus on individuals and a broad interpretation of KT• Positioned in Innovation and KT space around four

themes:1. Individual professional standards and career development

2. Communications and collaboration

3. Good practice and enhancement of the profession

4. International engagement

• Core membership recruited and committment demonstrated

2009

BF/KD February 2009

Guidelines and standardsModel agreementsCase StudiesDatabase of awardsAcademic underpinning projectsProcess accreditation

The IKT offering

2009

Questions re-visited

• Who generates and who applies the ‘K’?• Should R funding depend on usefulness?• What would happen in a real free market?• Should Universities see themselves as

‘businesses? • Which sector should take the lead for KT?• Is Social Science different from other KT?• How can KT actively inform Gov’t policy?

References (1)

• ESRC KT Portal• http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Support/

knowledge_transfer/index.aspx

• Lambert – collaboration• http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

lambert_review_business_university_collab.htm

• Sainsbury – science and innovation• http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sainsbury_index.htm

• HE-business interaction metrics• http://www.hefce.ac.uk/econsoc/buscom/hebci/

References (2)

• RCUK KT Portal• http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/innovation/ktportal/default.htm

• Saraga – collaborative research• http://www.dius.gov.uk/reports_and_publications/~/media/

publications/S/streamlining_august07

• Wellings – IP• http://www.dius.gov.uk/higher_education/shape_and_structure/

he_debate/intellectual_property

• PACEC/CBR – evaluation• http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_15/

• IKT/CBI video• http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Dmgv1f65fNY

To finish… …an aside from across the pond.

• Ned Landon (GE) is reputed to have said, about measuring what we do: