Academic Funding

Whats Next for National Impact and Knowledge Exchange Policies?

May 20, 2019 3326
Knowledge transfer

This is the sixth article in a series on impact and the second focusing on recent national policies, especially in the US and the UK.

How should research be funded? How do you know if it’s having an impact? And how can you improve the return on your investments in it?

All governments are struggling with these questions and watching each other’s metrics and policy moves carefully. Stian Westlake’s famous rant highlighted the often longstanding views in different countries that although they may think they’re good at science their peers are better at innovation and commercialisation, effectively stealing their ideas. The UK thinks the US is better, US thinks Germany is better, and even Germany thinks the UK is better, etc.

Playing the long game

This may be a question of timescales as well as metrics. If you invest in research you are likely to see success in high-quality research outputs such as publications, as the UK has demonstrated in the past couple of decades. But it’s harder to demonstrate innovation and it takes longer.

As Sean Fielding of the University of Exeter (and chair of PraxisAuril, the UK’s knowledge exchange association) explains, you not only have to do the research, but then attract investment, develop a product or service, and take it to market, often raising several rounds of investment funding in the process. Even after all that, you might fail. Typically, it takes 20 years to develop a new medicine.  Even with the quicker timescales in tech, there’s always a lag between the initially funded research and the resulting ‘impact’.

Learning together as we go

No definitive answers have yet presented themselves to those three tricky questions, nor are they likely to given different national contexts. You can’t just pick-up MIT or Stanford’s ecosystem and drop it in East Yorkshire. But that doesn’t always stop people trying to tackle these thorny problems, with a range of initiatives over the years.

Successful regional innovation economies have been deliberately established around Cambridge, London and Oxford (the “golden triangle” as it’s sometimes known), as well as specialist centres such as Cranfield for aerospace, Sheffield for advanced manufacturing, and South Scotland for computer gaming.

A two-way partnership between MIT and Cambridge grew into a national training programme, which then grew into PraxisAuril, the UK’s association supporting knowledge exchange professionals with training, accreditation and more.

Later came the Alliance of Technology Transfer Professionals (ATTP), an alliance of 12 knowledge and technology transfer associations around the world, collectively seeking to agree on what makes a good knowledge transfer professional, with training and professional accreditation.

A recent US/UK tech transfer roundtable saw eight research-intensive universities on both sides of the pond take the lead, agreeing to share commercialization strategies with each other.  

Hamish McAlpine, of Research England, highlights live discussions about the right ‘balance’ for funding between fundamental and applied research, as well as growing interest in challenge-based (or mission-oriented) funding.


Louis Coiffait is a commentator, researcher, speaker, and adviser focused on higher education policy, with a particular interest in impact and knowledge exchange He has worked with Pearson, Taylor & Francis, SAGE Publishing, Wonkhe, think tanks, the Higher Education Academy, the National Foundation for Educational Research, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Teacher Training Agency, an MP, and a Minister. He has led projects on how publishers can support the impact agenda, the future of higher education (the Blue Skies series at Pearson), access to elite universities, careers guidance, enterprise education, and the national STEM skills pipeline (for the National Audit Office). He is also committed to volunteering, including over a decade as a school governor and chair of an eight-school federation in Hackney in East London, and recently as vice-chair of a school in Tower Hamlets. He spent three years as chair of Westminster Students’ Union. He studied at York, UCLA and Cambridge. Louis is an RSA Fellow, amateur photographer, “enthusiastic” sportsman, proud East London citizen and Yorkshireman (really).

View all posts by Louis Coiffait

Related Articles

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures
Impact
September 23, 2024

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

Read Now
Paper to Advance Debate on Dual-Process Theories Genuinely Advanced Debate
Impact
September 18, 2024

Paper to Advance Debate on Dual-Process Theories Genuinely Advanced Debate

Read Now
Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact
Event
September 4, 2024

Webinar: Fundamentals of Research Impact

Read Now
Paper Opening Science to the New Statistics Proves Its Import a Decade Later
Impact
July 2, 2024

Paper Opening Science to the New Statistics Proves Its Import a Decade Later

Read Now
A Milestone Dataset on the Road to Self-Driving Cars Proves Highly Popular

A Milestone Dataset on the Road to Self-Driving Cars Proves Highly Popular

The idea of an autonomous vehicle – i.e., a self-driving car – isn’t particularly new. Leonardo da Vinci had some ideas he […]

Read Now
Why Social Science? Because It Can Help Contribute to AI That Benefits Society

Why Social Science? Because It Can Help Contribute to AI That Benefits Society

Social sciences can also inform the design and creation of ethical frameworks and guidelines for AI development and for deployment into systems. Social scientists can contribute expertise: on data quality, equity, and reliability; on how bias manifests in AI algorithms and decision-making processes; on how AI technologies impact marginalized communities and exacerbate existing inequities; and on topics such as fairness, transparency, privacy, and accountability.

Read Now
Digital Scholarly Records are Facing New Risks

Digital Scholarly Records are Facing New Risks

Drawing on a study of Crossref DOI data, Martin Eve finds evidence to suggest that the current standard of digital preservation could fall worryingly short of ensuring persistent accurate record of scholarly works.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments