Knowledge Transfer and the Social Sciences

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’ funding 09 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Continuation HEIF 4 Third stream embedded? (HEFCE) HEROBC HEROBC Transitional HEIF 1 HEIF 2 ‘HEIF 3’ KTCF HEACF 1 HEACF 2 volunteering funding BUSINESS FELLOWS

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 METRICS (indicators) ‘THIRD STREAM’ ACTIVITY (KT/KE) FUNDING OUTCOMES KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE

BUSINESS COMMUNITY PRIVATE SECTOR PUBLIC SECTOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SOCIAL & CIVIC ARENA Resources & Opportunities Cultural Enrichment & Quality of Life Efficiency,Cohesion Competitiveness, Growth The Scope of Knowledge Transfer 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

Strategic Action Manage Knowledge Transfer Schemes

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

UK Economic Impact Reporting Framework • Research Council Activities Reported: • interaction with business and public services • collaborative research • commercialisation of research • cooperative training • people exchanges

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

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: • Individual professional standards and career development • Communications and collaboration • Good practice and enhancement of the profession • International engagement • Core membership recruited and committment demonstrated BF/KD February 2009 2009

The IKT offering • Guidelines and standards • Model agreements • Case Studies • Database of awards • Academic underpinning projects • Process accreditation BF/KD February 2009 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:

Knowledge Transfer and the Social Sciences