APPENDIX 7
Memorandum from the Centre for Sustainable
Urban and Regional Futures (SURF)
LESSONS FROM:
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY
AND HEALTH SECTORS: PRODUCTION, TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission has been prepared by the Centre
for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (SURF) based on work
conducted for a Strategic Health Authority. Its remit was to examine
the dynamics of knowledge transfer (KT) between universities and
the health sector, with specific reference to research-based activity.
1. KT is regarded as the transfer of ideas,
practices and skills between entities to facilitate and strengthen
links between them. Given the idea of the "knowledge economy",
KT is seen as essential for economic growth and productivity.
2. Government and funders rigorously claim
to support the transfer of knowledge, but face an absence of "know-how"
which is not solved by a simple resort to IT solutions.
3. There is a "dearth" of understanding
in relation to the "how to" of KT leading to a "missing
middle" in its practice.
4. Research activities vary in terms of
their scale and scope, from local and regional to national and
international, and this affects the form of the KT process.
5. The research-practice relationship is
influenced by a number of factors: for example, existing research
culture, institutional position, levels of funding and membership
of networks.
6. Research processes are shaped by institutional
and occupational research cultures and those, in turn, are influenced
by sources of funding: in particular, the Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) in universities.
7. There are a significant number of people
who regard current funding processes as unfair and the form of
assessment for the next RAE is still to be decided. With regard
to dissemination, there are differences in emphasis according
to what is encouraged within the research culture and the form
of funding itself. These differences are important to bear in
mind in formulating a strategy for more effective KT.
8. A lack of research funding over time
affects research infrastructure, as well as applications for external
funding and research strategies. It can also be the cause of fragmentation
and directly affects dissemination and the job security of research
staff. Good coordination, communication and collaboration are
essential for KT to work effectively.
9. All researchers interviewed believed
the research process is now inferior to past practices, due to
conflicting pressures upon the research process from organisations
with different interests. In particular, researchers in institutions
with established cultures drew attention to the lack of funds,
whilst those in institutions with less established research cultures
drew attention to the need to provide developmental funding.
10. Support for KT is not built into normal
Research Council funding, whilst institutional incentives and
occupational cultures often militate against its effective development.
11. Knowledge must be produced and communicated
rather than simply transferred. It must then be actively received,
understood, interpreted and acted upon.
12. The reception of research requires more
consideration than has been provided thus far. Without some understanding
of use in context, KT is an activity without substantial benefit.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The objectives of the work upon which
this submission is based were to: (a) provide an overview of national-level
research strategies in health and social care for the main funding
bodies, including Government departments and relevant Research
Councils and (b) to inform the development of a better understanding
of the research-practice relationship between universities and
health and social care organisations in order to contribute to
more effective knowledge transfer (KT).
1.2 National-level research strategies have
seen an increased emphasis on KT. KT has been associated with
university-industry collaboration and clustering and seen as a
mechanism through which regions could increase their competitive
advantage. Correspondingly, within the health sector there has
been an increased emphasis on reducing the research-practice gap
via, for example, evidence-based practice, translational research
and knowledge management.
1.3 Universities are now required to adopt
new roles in relation to the traditional functions of teaching
and research and this has led to "reach out" initiatives
to local communities, as well as businesses, promoting relevance
to societal needs and forming partnerships with a range of agencies.
1.4 Despite the promotion of such activity,
there is a dearth of what may be called the "how to"
elements of KT. A central purpose of the work was to contribute
to a greater understanding of the issues facing researchers within
HEIs and health and social care organisations and to provide a
platform upon which to build an effective "know how"
of a regional knowledge transfer strategy.
1.5 The work was divided into two phases:
a literature review—including a web-based review of current
policy—and 51 interviews with key actors, including researchers
across different disciplines and funders.
1.6 The purpose of the interview stage of
the research was to gain a more in-depth understanding of the
dynamics of the research-practice process, including research
production, dissemination and research impact. Similarities and
differences in how research is conducted were discussed and interviewees
were asked to reflect on the research-practice process in order
to identify those elements that they thought were beneficial or
those which they would like to transform. The identification of
factors which both enable and constrain the research process provided
the basis on which recommendations could be made for the development
of a regional KT strategy.
SECTION 2: SUMMARY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The Missing Middle: "How To"
in Knowledge Transfer
2.1.1 It is widely recognised that we now
live in a "knowledge economy" where knowledge is key
to economic and social development, competitive success and the
wealth—and health—of the nation. The role of universities
as knowledge producers is increasingly valued and emphasis placed
upon their relationships with businesses, governments and society
in general. Accordingly, priority is being given to notions of
"social robustness", "relevance", "user
engagement" and "knowledge transfer". However,
there are no simple solutions to making it happen.
2.1.2 Tacit knowledge is embodied and embedded
in organisational, institutional and geographical contexts. It
represents the culmination of years of professional experience—"knowing
in practice". Explicit knowledge can be codified and documented
and is essential as a basis for information-sharing and accessibility.
In a knowledge economy, both forms of knowledge are vital, particularly
if knowledge is to be not only transferred, but also understood
and used in practice.
2.1.3 We now face increasingly complex relationships
between researchers, policy-makers and practitioners requiring
new methods of working, interacting, producing and disseminating
research. Policy-makers and researchers alike are still getting
to grips with what new knowledge production processes mean for
doing KT.
2.1.4 A review of Government policy highlights
the missing "how-to" of KT. Government departments all
state an increased importance attached to KT, but this is generally
seen in narrow terms, relating predominately to university-business
interactions rather than relationships with, for example, the
health, local government or voluntary sectors. As a result, many
other forms of knowledge, vital not only for wealth creation but
also social benefit, are omitted from consideration.
2.1.5 In terms of Research Councils, allocation
of funding to KT activities is often difficult to determine. Projects
tend to focus on licensing, commercialising research, protecting
intellectual property (IP) and the creation of spin-out or start-up
companies. Some indications of innovative practices do appear,
for example, in the transfer of "embodied" knowledge
via fellowships in Government departments or in seminars, such
as the ESRC "Getting Research Into Practice" events.
2.1.6 None of the Government departments
or research funders provide clear advice on "how to"
undertake effective KT and exhibit a tendency to oversimplify
the process.
2.2 Research in Practice
2.2.1 Reasons given for fragmented KT in
practice include: non joined-up funding streams; constant and
time-consuming organisational change; inadequate institutional
support; job insecurity; a lack of awareness of opportunities;
an absence of clear and consistent mechanisms and limited understandings
of what is meant by "research" itself.
2.2.2 Good research cultures are a necessary
condition for effective KT and depend upon the retention of good
research staff whose knowledge and skills are at a premium. Yet
this is difficult to achieve with funding streams that are both
short-term and reactive. The source and volume of funding is core
to understanding research production and transmission. Current
methods of funding allocation are contentious and often work to
undermine good work that takes place at different scales of activity
(local; city-regional; regional; national and international).
2.2.3 There is no commonly agreed definition
of KT within or between sectors. There are many activities which
have similar purposes and outcomes, but which are defined differently.
Views on KT are also narrow with a high value placed on articles
in peer-reviewed journals and low expectations of research outputs.
This results from the configuration of current cultures of inquiry
in which the RAE can work to militate against innovative practices.
2.2.4 Funders of research have little involvement
in the research process and mechanisms for evaluation and feedback
to researchers are limited. At the same time, funders do not build
in sufficient costings for dissemination activities that might
change such innovative practices and effective institutional divisions
of labour are not geared up to such expectations.
2.2.5 Partnerships and collaborations do
exist that work effectively and there is a clear need to develop
these in mutually beneficial ways and learn from them for wider
benefit. Those partnerships that are successful tend to be based
on a prior identification of mutual interest, as well as necessity
and informal social ties.
2.2.6 Even where KT takes place, an absence
of cultures of knowledge reception and learning reduces its effectiveness.
The extent to which positive cultures of reception exist is determined
to a large degree on funding streams which in turn affects infrastructural
organisation and support provision. Organisations must see knowledge
as valuable to practice and provide time for its consideration
as a precondition for effective KT.
2.2.7 Both cultures of knowledge production
and reception need to be better understood in order for KT to
be effective. Understandably, Research Councils tend to focus
upon the production, not reception side of the process.
2.2.8 New forms of Research Council support
are required that take account of the transmission and reception
of knowledge. Knowledge must be received and acted upon, not just
transferred, with due consideration given to the necessary changes
in organisational contexts for knowledge to be effectively deployed.
2.3 Research in Universities
2.3.1 KT processes are influenced by institutional
and cultural contexts. Prime among these are sources of funding
which have clear influences on the nature of activity. Some academics
clearly benefited from the RAE and that enabled the funding of
research infrastructures. Others felt that the RAE stifled research
and downgraded local and regionally relevant activities in favour
of the more abstract idea of international excellence.
2.3.2 Depending upon the area of expertise,
funding derives from very different sources at different levels
of scale from local, through regional to national and international.
Lack of success from the RAE and Research Councils causes resentment
amongst researchers and was also felt to undermine collaboration
and beneficial development.
2.3.3 Funding plays a key role in influencing
methods of dissemination. The dominance of the RAE explains the
high priority attached to traditional methods of KT through peer-reviewed
journals. Less importance was attached to more interactive relationships
between the funders, producers and users of research. A very narrow
idea of KT predominates.
2.3.4 The idea of measuring research impact
or influence is also problematic and varies according to the context
in which the research itself is, or is not, taken up. Research
impact is often seen to relate to the quality of journal articles,
place of publication or number of citations or else seen as irrelevant
and not the responsibility of individual researchers.
2.3.5 Funders control much of what enters
the public domain, as do the editorial decisions of journals and
the companies that own them. It should also be noted that only
successful research is often reported because research activity
is also about the status of the researcher in their community.
Yet much can be learnt from so-called failure, as well as success.
2.3.6 Culture, context, track record and
likely sources of funding all inform the direction of research.
There is variation both within and between institutions in terms
of research intensive practices. Funding concentrates in centres
of excellence and this has a self-reinforcing dynamic and influences
institutional hierarchies, staff movements, retention of personnel,
as well as the relative ease of establishing new research areas.
2.3.7 Other considerations are also important
to the research and KT process, including degrees of job security,
short-term contract versus longer term systematic work, the time-consuming
nature of ethical approval systems, issues of internal communication
and institutional support and the teaching/research balance.
2.3.8 Differences in KT practices vary according
to disciplinary, as well as institutional and cultural contexts.
For instance, a clear difference emerges between the fields of
biosciences and genomics and social care research. The former
is largely characterized by a one-way, linear and "arms-length"
KT process, where publication in peer-reviewed journals is valued,
despite the recognition that this is not particularly "user-friendly".
2.3.9 User involvement also varies according
to the disciplinary field and institutional context in which the
research is conducted. Similarly, it was noted that collaboration
between institutions and researchers is variable according to
disciplinary area, with greater competition for large-scale Research
Council funding tending to act to the detriment of partnerships.
2.3.10 Differences are clearly related to
those factors identified previously, namely funding amounts, funding
sources, and length of contracts, methodologies deployed, roles
of academics and new versus established areas of research. The
opportunities for a meaningful KT process are heightened or diminished
according to particular cultures of inquiry, as well as the institutional
conditions in which knowledge is produced.
2.4 Effective Knowledge Transfer in Action—The
"Missing Middle"
2.4.1 Knowledge transfer is not a one-way
process (see Table 1). It does not have a clear start and end
point or fixed boundaries between funders, users and producers
of research. It is about the translation of work from information
to intelligence according to the needs, in context, of particular
groups of policy-makers, practitioners and the public at large.
2.4.2 KT is not the `dull thud' of a report
at the end of the research period. The product of research is
only as good as the process that has informed its production.
This means a continuous relationship between research participants
and interactive user involvement in which differences in divisions
of labour are recognised and negotiated. KT is not a hypodermic
process that involves the injection of knowledge into recipients.
2.4.3 KT is complex and needs active commitment,
work and institutional support to be effective in ensuring that
good research feeds into practices. There are no short-cuts or
simple remedies. Demanding changes at one end of the research
spectrum is not a solution for the credibility of research, which
can easily be undermined by demanding that it is immediately applicable.
Table 1
KNOWLEDGE AND ITS TRANSFER
(Source, authors, drawing on previous work)
2.4.4 Much research becomes of importance
only after time because its value is seen in a different context
according to a different purpose. Equally, there is a great deal
that can be done to render current research of far greater applicability
and value. This process should be informed by the changing role
of knowledges in society according to the needs of different stakeholders
and communities.
2.4.5 Key to effective KT is an understanding
of cultures of inquiry and cultures of reception. Knowledge must
be produced and communicated rather than simply transferred. It
must then be actively received, understood, interpreted and acted
upon.
2.4.6 The reception of research requires
more consideration than has been provided thus far. Without some
understanding of use in context—which is not a one-way relationship
of research to practice, but also of practice informing research—KT
is an activity without substantial benefit.
2.4.7 Core constraints on the KT process
have been identified. These relate to: funding sources, volumes
and expectations; staff recruitment, retention and skills; institutional
support and divisions of labour; infrastructure enabling development
and the building of capacity; the implications of deploying different
methodologies; issues of scale in knowledge production; degrees
of partnership and collaboration and the embeddedness of organisational
learning mechanisms.
2.4.8 If KT is to be effective, it needs
to be taken seriously. This means recognising that there is no
single model that can be applied to ensure that good research
leads to improved practice. A key issue is improving both cultures
of inquiry and cultures of reception in relation to KT and appreciating
that context-sensitivity is central (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
TOWARDS A CONTEXT-SENSITIVE FRAMEWORK FOR
KT
2.4.9 KT does not take place between two
separate spheres of activity, but is a space of communication
where different cultures of inquiry and reception can engage.
Importantly, this framework also points to a continued degree
of independence between research and practice or "zones of
non-interference".
2.4.10 The "missing middle" in
KT is the expectations placed upon all stakeholders in research
without a mutual understanding being developed. Whilst this framework
can be seen in action more clearly in certain fields of research,
this should not be overstated. Different methods of KT continue
to co-exist. What is important in moving forward is an understanding
of what methods of KT work in different contexts, for different
forms of knowledge and to meet particular objectives and at what
time periods. There is no single model or one size fits all solution
to KT.
2.4.11 An effective KT strategy is needed
that is meaningful at different levels (local, regional, national
and international), using realistic time-scales, of what will
be achieved and by when.
2.4.12 An effective strategy cannot be simply
imposed through, for example, Research Councils, but must also
be "bottom up" and continually address questions such
as: what should be transferred, by whom, how and with what intended
effects?
2.4.13 "Knowledge intermediaries"
are needed to add value to existing activities, identify spin-out
opportunities that are not normally part of everyday practices
and add to those in significant ways. Knowledge should be transmitted
and deployed in a way that is useful to clients and this includes
non-codified knowledge. A precondition for this is to provide
practical help to address those limitations and barriers in current
cultures of inquiry and reception that hinder KT.
2.4.14 There needs to be promotion and incentives
for HEIs and organisations undertaking and funding research to
work more systematically together in order to learn from each
other. This means that institutional reward and incentive structures
will need examination in the light of such expectations.
February 2006
| 
