Conclusions and recommendations
Role of the Research Councils
1. The
Research Councils have an important role to play in adding value
to the research supported across the UK and we welcome the Research
Councils' commitment to support knowledge transfer. (Paragraph
19)
Co-ordination of UK support for knowledge transfer
2. We
are not convinced that measures put in place to facilitate national
co-ordination of knowledge transfer are sufficient and we believe
that there is a need for co-ordination between all UK funders
of knowledge transfer to be enhanced. We recommend that the Government
takes the necessary steps to ensure a co-ordinated knowledge transfer
strategy. We recommend that the Research Councils lead the development
of a strategy through which engagement between all organisations
currently involved in support of knowledge transfer can be enhanced.
We consider that there is a particular need for increased engagement
between RDAs and the Research Councils. We call on the Research
Councils to develop effective working relationships with all RDAs,
strengthening links where necessary, disseminating good practice
and supporting RDAs in building up their expertise. (Paragraph
25)
The Research Councils view of knowledge transfer
3. We
welcome efforts to develop a clear, cross-Council understanding
of what the term 'knowledge transfer' should mean to the research
community. We urge the Councils to clearly communicate what is
and isn't included within their view of knowledge transfer. (Paragraph
29)
4. Whilst we accept
that the Research Councils may sit at the 'push' end of the research
chain, we are concerned by the perception that they are not interested
in the requirements of industry. We urge them to address this
perception and to ensure that user requirements are fully considered
when determining funding priorities. (Paragraph 32)
5. We welcome the
effort made by the Research Councils to set out future knowledge
transfer priorities within their Delivery Plans. We find that
some of the Research Councils have taken a narrow approach and
that consequently, their Delivery Plans do not reflect the wider
view of knowledge transfer. (Paragraph 35)
Engagement with stakeholders
6. We
are concerned by negative perceptions of Research Council communication
and engagement with their stakeholders. We urge the Research Councils
to take steps to engage business users more effectively. It is
important that the Councils clearly consult and act upon the views
of all stakeholders, addressing the perception that they are only
interested in informing them. (Paragraph 38)
7. We believe that
there is a need to enhance SME-Research Council engagement considerably.
We recommend that the Research Councils are more proactive in
their engagement with SMEs, recognising that very distinct challenges
must be overcome if SMEs are to be successfully involved in knowledge
transfer, for example in collaborative work with universities.
(Paragraph 40)
Balancing priorities
8. The
Research Councils knowledge transfer agenda, whilst important,
should not detract from their main priority, the funding of basic
research The Research Councils should challenge the perception
that research funding is at risk by clarifying and clearly communicating
future financial allocations and plans for knowledge transfer.
(Paragraph 45)
9. We remain convinced
that the main role of the Research Councils is in the support
of basic research. We accept that there is a blurred line between
basic and applied research and we acknowledge Research Council
use of the term 'frontier research' to describe the research they
support. We still think there is value in use of the terms 'basic'
and 'applied' research. The Research Councils need to take steps
to ensure that they are recording sufficient information about
the research they are supporting to enable them to rapidly respond
to concerns about funding levels for basic and applied research.
(Paragraph 47)
Embedding a knowledge transfer culture
10. We
commend PPARC for its efforts to promote the importance of applicability
and knowledge use to researchers. We urge PPARC to actively communicate
its intentions where knowledge transfer is included within grant
proposal evaluation criteria and to clearly convey the message
that knowledge transfer will not determine the success of a grant
application. We recommend that the other Research Councils consider
this approach as a mechanism for embedding a more result-orientated
culture. (Paragraph 53)
Performance measurement
11. We
welcome the publication of Research Council performance assessment
metrics but consider that refinement is required. We are particularly
concerned that the Output 2 metrics, as they stand at present,
measure activity rather than output and that they may influence
the activities of the research community. We recommend that the
Research Councils and RCUK regularly review the assessment metrics
and the impact they are having, reporting back periodically. (Paragraph
55)
Cross-Council co-ordination
12. We
have found little evidence of Research Council co-ordination or
sharing of best practice in the context of their knowledge transfer
activities and we have not been persuaded that the Knowledge Transfer
Group has achieved much in the two years since its formation.
Also, despite their clear remit to co-ordinate and harmonise,
we have not seen any added value from RCUK in this area. We urge
the Research Councils and RCUK to take the necessary steps to
enhance the effectiveness of their co-ordination in knowledge
transfer. (Paragraph 59)
Knowledge transfer schemes
13. We
were impressed by the evidence we have received and welcome such
clear Research Council successes in supporting knowledge transfer.
(Paragraph 62)
14. We commend PPARC
for the approach that they have taken to develop a single, flexible
scheme. We recommend that the other Research Councils, with support
from RCUK, apply this simplification to their own knowledge transfer
funding strategies. Communication of Research Council knowledge
transfer funding strategies should be improved. We recommend that
RCUK develops a single, simple web portal through which information
on all Research Council knowledge transfer schemes can be easily
accessed. (Paragraph 65)
Capacity for knowledge transfer
15. Since
effective knowledge transfer may encompass many different stakeholders
including academia, policy makers and industry, it is important
that the Research Councils fully consider the expertise they need
to build to operate successfully. (Paragraph 72)
16. We commend EPSRC
for the strategic approach it has taken in developing a broad
skills base. We encourage the other Councils to use recruitment
and secondments to strengthen knowledge transfer expertise. (Paragraph
73)
17. We commend the
steps taken by MRC to actively exploit the research resulting
from their investment and we urge RCUK and the other Councils
to follow the example of MRCT where appropriate. (Paragraph 74)
Performance management
18. It
is difficult to see how the Research Councils can effectively
allocate funding to different knowledge transfer activities in
the absence of comprehensive data on their impact. We recommend
that the Research Councils proactively seek out information required
to evaluate impact and that, once such data has been obtained,
full impact analysis of all Research Council knowledge transfer
schemes is conducted. In addition, we recommend that Research
Council funding for knowledge transfer is neither increased or
decreased until more is known about the impact of the schemes.
(Paragraph 79)
External challenge
19. We
welcome the idea behind conducting an External Challenge of Research
Council activity in support of knowledge transfer. We consider
that the processes employed led to a report with questionable
independence. RCUK did not fully consider the resources required
for a full review of this area, giving the External Challenge
Panel a near impossible task. We recommend that the Councils conduct
a detailed review of the processes involved in this External Challenge.
Such a review should take account of problems such as provision
of appropriate resources and timescales, and should enable the
development of best practice to inform future exercises of this
nature. (Paragraph 83)
Further encouraging exploitation
20. We
welcome recognition by the Research Councils of the importance
of enhancing business skills and we encourage them to further
develop training activities in this area, making them available
to as many researchers as possible. (Paragraph 84)
21. We believe that
the Research Councils should maintain a 'hands off' approach to
management of Intellectual Property within universities. (Paragraph
88)
| 
