Examination of Witnessess (Questions 200-219)
PROFESSOR JOHN
O'REILLY, PROFESSOR
IAN DIAMOND,
PROFESSOR KEITH
MASON AND
PROFESSOR PHILIP
ESLER
19 APRIL 2006
Q200 Chairman: Okay. Why was the
panel criticised for not evaluating specific research councils'
knowledge transfer schemes? Surely that is your job, not theirs?
Professor Diamond: The panel looked
at the individual research councils and the panel responded to
the evidence that was given and then further evidence was given
in response to the panel. That seems to me an entirely appropriate
process to go through.
Q201 Chairman: The business of Science
in Society, to rule that out and say that that is nothing to do
with this particular piece of work: we found that strange.
Professor Diamond: That is an
interesting question and that is an area for discussion. It depends
on your definition of knowledge transfer. When the panel's terms
of reference were agreed between research councils and the now
Office of Science and Innovation, Science in Society was not included
in the terms of reference. Had it been included in the terms of
reference then, of course, much more evidence would have been
given by the research councils on the activities in that area.
The question you would then wish to raise would be whether or
not Science in Society was actually part of what we defined as
knowledge transfer. We would say that, while there is clearly
a grey area where they meet in the middle, the definition of knowledge
transfer would not include the way we look at Science in Society
although there has to be a continuum moving across.
Q202 Chairman: Has anybody any other
comments about the report? Have you all seen it now, gentlemen?
Professor Mason: Just to add one
brief comment, this was commissioned by the research councils
so that we could learn from it and go forward, and I think any
issues there have been with the report are because we want it
to be useful for us and we want it to be evidence based and we
want that evidence to be something we can build on. I do not think
there was anything untoward about the process at all. I think
it was a difficult exercise. The panel did a very difficult job;
they did it very well, but clearly in the short time available
it was not perfect and we tried to work with them to make it as
useful as possible.
Q203 Dr Iddon: Do you think anything
useful has come out of it? Are you going to take any notice of
the recommendations? Are there any major ones which are going
to change the way you work, Ian?
Professor Diamond: Again, speaking
for ESRC, it makes some helpful suggestions around the concordats
with industry, which I think is a way forward that we will be
considering very seriously given the huge success of our concordats
with government departments. It also makes some suggestions around
the way in which we might continue to develop our interface, if
you like, where more and more social scientists are spending time
in government, in industry and vice versa. Those are really helpful
suggestions which we will be considering how best to take forward.
Yes, I think it does make sense and I do think that for ESRC the
suggestions are incredibly helpful. Some of the RCUK suggestions,
if I may say so, do not quite understand the nature of RCUK; others
are very helpful and yes, we will be considering them very seriously
and I think they will make some differences.
Q204 Dr Iddon: In view of the difficulties
that have become obvious as the process has gone along, do you
think you will be repeating this process?
Professor Diamond: I think we
will be talking about the way in which the process went forward.
I think that to say there were difficulties is rather overstating
things. Basically the report came,—
Q205 Dr Iddon: It is a word you have
just used.
Professor Diamond: It has been
through a couple of iterations, but iterations around the factual
accuracy, not around the recommendations. We now have a document
which is factually accurate about what the research councils do
and makes some suggestions which we are digesting and which we
will respond to.
Q206 Dr Iddon: There is a current
review taking place of research council economic impact. Is there
going to be a lot of overlap between the two reports when the
second one is ultimately published?
Professor Diamond: I am going
to pass that over to John O'Reilly if I may because John sits
on that committee and would perhaps be best to respond to that.
Professor O'Reilly: There is an
Economic Impact Group. It involves people from the research councils.
Julia Goodfellow and myself sit as representatives in that sense.
She is Chief Executive of BBSRC. It is chaired by a senior industrialist
who is also chair of one of the research councils. It has industrial
participants and so on. It includes, incidentally, John Murphy,
who is a member of that group, so in a sense that is a bringing
together where we can look at the economic impact that is being
achieved, gaining an understanding of that, a shared understanding,
I would say; I think we do have a good level of understanding
within the research councils. I view that rather as a learning
and understanding exercise as distinct from the External Challenge
where, if I might add to what colleagues have said, one of the
most valuable things of the External Challenge was not just that
it was independent but that we sent them information and then
they played it back to us, and the fact that the report that came
back contained factual errors, inconsistencies and so on tells
us something about communication, about how hard it is to communicate
the diversity and richness in this area. I think that is a strength
in the sense that, perverse though it may seem to you, the fact
that we had that dialogue was underscoring the diversity, the
strength and so on that is there. That makes it all the more appropriate
that we now have the Economic Impact Group that brings these different
facets together, allows these different perspectives to come into
play, and shares them.
Q207 Dr Iddon: But the question was,
is there going to be duplication?
Professor O'Reilly: I do not view
it as duplication. There is overlap, usefully so. It would be
inappropriate, if there was an Economic Impact Group working now,
given that we have just received that report, if some aspect of
that did not feature in it in just the same way that, when you
and your committee eventually publish your report from this hearing,
that will feature in the considerations of the research councils.
We learn from all the interactions and we will learn from this
interaction in the same way that we have learned from these other
two.
Professor Diamond: And economic
impact is but one facet of the wide and rich cornucopia of activities
which is knowledge transfer. That particular report is just focusing
on the economic impact and, as John says, absolutely rightly,
there will be some overlap but it will not be total.
Q208 Dr Iddon: Can I be a bit of
a devil and ask the question, do you think the Government is putting
too much pressure on the research councils to have an economic
impact and taking you away from blue skies more and more?
Professor Diamond: Again, if I
might speak for my own council, absolutely not. I do not feel
that pressure at all. I personally believe it is an absolute necessity
that anyone who wishes to take public money to do research should,
where appropriate, use the results of that research to have an
impact on the economic development and quality of life of the
people of the United Kingdom who funded it, and indeed further
afield. I think that is entirely appropriate and I think the research
councils' role is to act as a conduit where appropriate to identify
that and enable it to happen because it will not necessarily happen
everywhere. I do not feel any pressure from the Government to
do that.
Q209 Dr Iddon: Is that a general
view within the councils?
Professor Mason: I would pick
up on that and say that I see it as a positive thing because a
two-way flow of knowledge between the research communities and
the wider scene is good for everybody. It creates an environment
where innovation and new ideas can flourish and that is to the
benefit of everybody.
Q210 Margaret Moran: I am interested
in this non-tiff with the External Challenge Panel report. You
referred to problems being in relation to matters of fact, but
one of their conclusions was that the research councils' lack
of strategic vision and approach to knowledge transfer was pretty
fundamental. They said that they "had concerns about the
apparent lack of long term vision . . . at the highest strategic
level" and "there was little evidence of a coherent
and structured approach to knowledge transfer or knowledge creation
. . .". That is not a matter of fact. That lies at the heart
of what we are discussing here. What is your long term vision?
Professor Esler: As far as the
Arts and Humanities Research Council is concerned, we have only
been in existence for a year so knowledge transfer activity has
really only begun significantly since we came into existence on
1 April 2005. We have recently begun to redo our strategic vision
and a central aspect of that vision is knowledge transfer. At
the council meeting we had in March we spent an hour and a half
brainstorming the vision and central to it was knowledge transfer.
I think everyone there was absolutely delighted at the real passion
that members around the table expressed for knowledge transfer,
especially the view expressed by one of them that was widely adopted,
that we are really situated in relation to the creative industries
in what is a kind of new industrial revolution where content is
being integrated with digital media in many different sectors.
We are, if you like, the custodians and the impresarios of the
content in the UK and there was tremendous enthusiasm for that.
As far as our council is concerned, we are very excited about
knowledge transfer. That, of course, happened after the report
had been compiled but, commenting on it, it is not an accurate
reflection of where we are as a council.
Professor Diamond: We have already
said that we will be reflecting on it and responding and I think
as the ESRC we would not agree with that statement, but indeed
the section on the ESRC certainly does not make that view. There
is a long term vision and I have given it to you already.
Q211 Margaret Moran: Could you articulate
it very specifically for us?
Professor Diamond: I have already
given it to you, if I may say so, and that is that research from
ESRC, where appropriate, should impact on the economic development
and quality of life of the people who funded it. In addition there
should be activities to ensure that there is an interface of people
moving in and out of policy and of industry so as to be able to
maximise the evidence base on which industrial and government
policy at both local and central level is made in this country.
Q212 Margaret Moran: And that applies
across all of the research councils?
Professor Diamond: That is the
ESRC mission and I am going to ask Keith and John for their views
as well.
Professor Mason: As we said earlier,
the whole point of the report was to learn from it and if the
report concludes that there is no long term strategy we have to
take note of that, and I think that is again a communication issue
because I think that in each research council there is a very
good strategy. Certainly within PPARC our whole programme is based
on the fact that we have to take a long term strategic view because
we are engaged on programmes that extend over many years and the
knowledge transfer aspect of those programmes is fully integral
to that long term strategy. We actually operate in a forum where
we have both to commission the knowledge that we use in our programme
and then to propagate it back to the industries that are supporting
the programme. That whole thing cannot exist without long term
planning so it is integral to what we do from the very beginning.
Professor O'Reilly: First of all,
you will find differences between the research councils; you should
not be surprised. We are very different entities. Some are directly
involved in knowledge creation themselves and others are exclusively
involved in funding those who create the knowledge. So you will
find, rightly, that a council that has its own institutes will
engage in certain aspects of knowledge transfer differently from
councils that do not. In the case of EPSRC, we are a pure funding
research council. All the knowledge creation takes place in the
universities and our role is to support, foster and enable that.
That said, we have a vision for knowledge transfer which we say
is the EPSRC vision but in a real sense it is a vision for the
UK and it is for the UK to be as renowned for knowledge transfer
as it already is for knowledge creation. We have a long established
pattern in the UK of absolute excellence around the world, and
acknowledged, and I underscore the word "renowned".
It is recognising the excellence. There is excellent practice
of knowledge transfer in our universities; that can be made yet
more effective by bringing it out—and sharing that best
practice is where we are from our perspective.
Q213 Dr Harris: Can I ask on Margaret's
question, do you think that these business people that you appointed,
the External Challenge Panel, were disappointed that each research
council had not paid a vast amount to consultants to advise it
on its mission statement that it should put on the letterhead,
because that is what business sometimes does which is less interested
in the specifics? Do you think that is a possible explanation
of why there is this disjunction between their report on this
area and what you feel you are actually doing and saying you are
doing?
Professor Diamond: You would have
to ask them that.
Q214 Dr Harris: But you would recognise
that there is a difference in cultures, that everyone in business
is into mission statements, whether airy-fairy or otherwise, whereas
people in the world of science are actually into getting on with
it and not navel-gazing and coming up with arguments about which
adjective or verb to put in a mission statement?
Professor Diamond: I think you
would find that the great majority of research councils—and
I say "the great majority" only because I admit that
I could not speak to every research council but those that I know—have
statements about knowledge transfer in their mission. I simply
do not know also of a research council that has spent any money
on developing that mission statement.
Q215 Dr Harris: The point about your
mission statement, which you have said twice, is that the opposite
of what you have said is pointless, is ridiculous, so it is hardly
worth saying that your research council should, where appropriate,
make sure that economic gain is maximised because that would imply
that if you did not do that you would want them, where appropriate,
not to maximise economic gain.
Professor Diamond: No. I am terribly
sorry, but the use of the word "appropriate" is because
there are parts of the research base which it would simply be
silly for people to rush around trying to maximise the economic
impact of because it is developing and underpinning theory, for
example.
Q216 Dr Harris: I was not arguing
with those words: I think you are right to include them, but what
does that add, that mission statement? It is a statement of the
obvious, is it not, because not to do it when it is appropriate
would be ridiculous?
Professor Diamond: But surely
one should be making an effort to make sure that that is happening
and have an underpinning set of strategic activities and objectives
which do make that happen, and both the report of the ESRC for
the last few years, and indeed the External Challenge report,
say that this is being done pretty effectively.
Q217 Margaret Moran: I want to look
to something which Professor O'Reilly mentioned, which was the
university funding. Obviously, I am sure you are all very pleased
at the ongoing commitment that the Chancellor announced in the
Budget to funding for knowledge transfer, but you appear to be
suggesting that more effective use could also be made of or greater
value could be gained from the existing money spent on research
in universities and that that was not happening currently.
Professor O'Reilly: That was not
what I meant to say, so let me clarify. I think very good use
is being made of the funds that are made available to universities.
I think in the UK the universities are very impressive organisations.
What we want to do is maximise the value that comes from that
work. There is a process that goes from knowledge creation right
the way through to economic impact, and there is a part that is
very strongly in the domain of the research councils through the
universities and then through into business. If again I were to
take it to EPSRC; what do I think is the most important thing
for EPSRC and where we are channelling our efforts to improve
the effectiveness? It is to do what we can to stimulate and increase
the appetite of business for engaging in research and associated
training and in knowledge transfer. It is that coupling and playing
a part in maximising that. And many of the innovations that we
have put in place over the last two or three years are very much
focused on that. I believe it is the case now that over 40% of
EPSRC grants involve collaboration with business directly: substantial
in-cash and in-kind contributions. That has been brought about
in large measure by us talking with the universities and them
responding. We talk with business as well, but I am very clear
in my own mind that simply shouting more loudly at the universities
is not going to increase that further. What is going to be much
more effective is if we can communicate much effectively to business
the importance of that and do what we can to increase their appetite.
In the case of EPSRC that is achieved largely by empowering the
universities and fostering it.
Professor Diamond: I think the
EPSRC does this extremely well and there is also an imperative,
certainly for ESRC, that what we do is make this a country where
it is much easier than it is at present for people to move in
and out of academia and business, or indeed government. The people
transfer is something that is not always seen as being as important
as it actually is in this area and I think that is a real challenge
for the next few years, to really increase the opportunities and
activities in that area.
Q218 Margaret Moran: I take it from
that that you are content with the value that is being offered
by the universities. Could you say the same thing about the research
councils? How would you measure whether the work the research
councils are doing on knowledge transfer is actually adding value?
What is your measurement?
Professor O'Reilly: We have recently
agreed a set of metrics, stimulated, I have to say, by the ten-year
framework. The ten-year framework for investment in science and
innovation is a really positive thing that has been done and it
stimulated us. When that was articulated down—you take the
vision that is in there—there are two key outputs that have
been identified, which are what the science vote is about really;
that is what it says. The first is a healthy science and engineering
base. Because if we do not have that—and to some extent
this is a response to Dr Harris, which is that we have to make
sure that it is healthy and productive,—whatever else we
do is lost. And the second—and these are equal—is
better exploitation. What we have done as a family of research
councils now is to agree a set of performance metrics that you
could put on to those two outputs and say, "Can we have leading
indicators on them?" and so on. So those are available, and
if they have not been sent to you we would be very happy to send
them to do so.
Q219 Chairman: We are going to raise
the issue of the metrics later on because it is a very important
issue and we were somewhat, I would not say confused, but we need
a greater understanding of how they have come about and indeed
what is involved in them and how much agreement there is across
the research councils.
Professor Esler: We have a very
distinctive approach to this. We see the benefit of some metrics
but we do not think metrics alone can measure the impacts that
we have. One of our issues with the External Challenge definition
was that it was good as far as it went but it did not quite go
far enough. It did not, for example, cover knowledge transfer
which is simply the production of social capital. For example,
when people go to a significant exhibition, such as the Michelangelo
exhibition which is on at the British Museum at present, things
happen to them. Those things are difficult to demonstrate but
they can be demonstrated. Lives can be changed, for example, careers
can be amended and so forth. We are working on ways to measure
that kind of impact, which may not necessarily be quantitative,
so it is a rather different challenge as far as we are concerned.
We have, as you will have seen in the information we provided,
four impact fellowships that we are at present funding to explore
this rather new area.
Professor Diamond: It is also
worth saying, although we will return, as you say, Phil, to the
metrics a little later, that metrics are not always quantitative
and within the cells of the matrix which John O'Reilly has described
already, there are a number of metrics for different research
councils which are both quantitative and qualitative, and I think
it is terribly important going forward that we do that.
| 
