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 19 th 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’ funding HEROBC Transitional HEIF 1 HEIF 2 HEACF 1 BUSINESS FELLOWS HEACF 2 KTCF ‘HEIF 3’ Continuation HEIF 4 Third stream embedded? (HEFCE) 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 & PRODUCTIVITY DELIVERING 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 Schemes Strategic 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 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 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 standards  Model agreements  Case Studies  Database of awards  Academic underpinning projects  Process 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 index.aspxhttp:// index.aspx Lambert – collaboration treasury.gov.uk/lambert_review_business_university_collab.htmhttp:// treasury.gov.uk/lambert_review_business_university_collab.htm Sainsbury – science and innovation HE-business interaction metrics

References (2) RCUK KT Portal Saraga – collaborative research ns/S/streamlining_august07http:// ns/S/streamlining_august07 Wellings – IP ebate/intellectual_propertyhttp:// ebate/intellectual_property PACEC/CBR – evaluation IKT/CBI video

To finish… …an aside from across the pond. Ned Landon (GE) is reputed to have said, about measuring what we do: