APPENDIX 14
Memorandum from the 1994 Group
RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
1. GENERAL POINTS
Knowledge transfer is an area of increasing
interest and activity on the part of the Research Councils, but
there is considerable variation between them in effort, approach
and success. One reason for this is that there are numerous and
potentially competing initiatives which must all work in harmony,
for example, Research Councils, Regional Development Agencies,
City Councils (ie Science City), HEFCE, DTI etc, not forgetting
the Treasury encouraging knowledge transfer schemes on a more
international basis (MIT/Cambridge). The Research Councils (and
all the others) must take cognisance of these existing schemes
and work within a coherent framework. Often, too much energy goes
into understanding how all the layers may work together (or not)
rather than in delivering clear outcomes that are well resourced.
It is important not to create new layers just to demonstrate an
initiative has been taken. Finally, it is essential that the Research
Councils do not become too distracted from their primary mission
to fund long-term research. It is important that scarce resources
are not spread too thinly over too wide a remit of activity.
2. PROMOTION
OF COLLABORATIVE
WORKING BETWEEN
RESEARCHERS AND
PARTNERS IN
INDUSTRY, INCLUDING
IN THE
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
AND IN
SMES
In the past, the focus has been on academia
going out into industry, rather than encouraging industry into
the academic community. Apart from studentships, most Research
Councils do little actively to promote and reward collaborations
between academic researchers and business. The new Arts and Humanities
Research Council Knowledge Transfer Fellowship proposals, however,
are an interesting new development in this area. There is clearly
a role for Research Councils to encourage business to make use
of university facilities, for example Research Council Fellowships
and secondments for business to allow staff to work in Universities
to undertake research projects.
In this context, it is important that the breadth
of potential engagement is recognised. The establishment of the
AHRC has provided the opportunity for a broadening of the understanding
of knowledge transfer to include the impact of research on areas
that include not only business but also museums and galleries,
the heritage sector, the cultural sector, broadcasting and public
policy, as well as a basis for attending specifically to the creative
industries. This broad approach is welcomed, and it is important
that it is maintained in the future. There are, however, challenges
in relation to knowledge transfer in the creative industries because
existing business models are of only limited help. It is very
important that the DTI and OST continue to be open to the approaches
being developed by the AHRC to address these challenges.
Despite this support, there remains an overriding
concern that there will be no new money for knowledge transfer
awarded to the Research Councils forcing them to divert sums away
from basic research grants. Knowledge transfer cannot happen unless
the basic research in being done in first place.
3. STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATION
Not surprisingly, the Councils appear to consult
primarily with those on their Councils and Boards. We understand
that they hold high-level discussions with the RDAs, but there
does not seem to be much exchange at senior working level between
those delivering RDA support and those managing Enterprise and
Innovation offices in the universities. The result is that coordination
between the various funding streams is poor, with the universities
being expected to join up and make sense of sometimes disconnected
policies. Multiple funders and stakeholders make management and
accountability complex and in some cases unnecessarily burdensome.
The engagement of academic staff in knowledge
transfer activities is one of the primary goals of university
HEIF-funded staff. The Research Councils have a role in stimulating
that engagement by emphasising the Knowledge Transfer element
of their awards—requiring evidence of commercial or societal
need, possible applications, and future benefits to society from
research, if funded. We have observed that in the case of Research
Councils (such as BBSRC) where questions are explicitly asked
at the time of a grant application, we have had an opportunity
to educate and engage with academic staff with respect to the
Knowledge Transfer agenda. We would support Research Council policies
that required the anticipated or hoped-for Knowledge Transfer
routes to be explored and articulated as an essential part of
the funding application process.
4. RESULTS AND
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
If knowledge transfer is to become genuinely
a core business of UK universities alongside teaching and research
then the RAE needs to clearly recognise and reward academic engagement
with the enterprise and innovation agenda so that it is not seen
as a distraction. Without this, it will be difficult for universities
to change their internal reward and recognition systems so that
knowledge transfer sits as an equal alongside teaching and research.
Is it possible for the Research Councils to show leadership here?
On one detailed matter, Research Councils essentially
place the onus on HEIs to commercialise or otherwise transfer
new knowledge, and this is as it should be. It is especially helpful
that Research Councils make no claim to ownership of resulting
intellectual property, nor do they expect to share in any income
that HEIs might enjoy from licensing or equity deals. However,
we would welcome a clearer directive from the Research Councils
regarding their expectation that the proceeds of commercial success
should be shared with the HEI generating the new knowledge. This
could help HEIs to better-manage the expectations of commercial
partners, would simplify and speed up commercial negotiations,
and might allow more licence and option agreements to be concluded.
Finally, we would like to see all Research Councils
adopt the same approach to Follow-on-Funds as that embraced by
the BBSRC—ie a call open to all, to support development
from any former research that was funded by that Research Council.
5. CO -ORDINATION
BETWEEN THE COUNCILS
AND THE ROLE
OF RCUK
Co-ordination and, more importantly, joint working
across the councils must be improved. Many opportunities to link
the university research base with business lie across the responsibilities
of the Councils. There are isolated examples of joint programmes
but in general, their work in this area does not give enough attention
to joint approaches. For example, the recent call by the EPSRC
for Integrated Knowledge Centres is an interesting development
but since it was issued by the EPSRC on its own and not in collaboration
with other councils, it rules out some of the most innovative
and exciting possibilities such as Biorefining.
February 2006
Annex A
THE 1994 GROUP
The 1994 Group of internationally renowned universities
engaged in leading-edge research and high-quality teaching is
committed to meeting the diverse needs of students, staff and
policy makers. The 1994 Group provides a framework for collaboration
between research-intensive universities in the UK. The aim of
this collaboration is to enhance the ability of member universities
to act collectively where appropriate whilst maintaining their
individuality and thriving in the highly competitive higher education
sector.
The Group's main aims are to:
— secure widespread recognition that
enables it to influence decision and policy making groups;
— achieve awareness and profile that
underpins the ambitions of member universities in global markets;
— promote the need for diverse and
distributed centres for research and teaching excellence;
— share good practice that enhances
the staff and student experience; and
— provide services that enable members
to respond flexibly and rapidly to developing market conditions.
Group members are committed to shared values.
These are that:
— institutional identities and tradition
can be respected and aligned with innovative thinking;
— research intensive universities should
play a full role at local, regional, national and international
level;
— high quality research and teaching
are mutually supportive and should reinforce each other; and
— students and staff from diverse backgrounds
should be enabled to maximise their potential in a well-maintained
environment that provides a stimulating choice of academic, cultural,
and social opportunities.
The current members of the 1994 Group are:
University of Bath, Birkbeck College, University
of Durham, University of East Anglia, University of Essex, University
of Exeter, Goldsmiths College University of London, Royal Holloway
University of London, Lancaster University, London School of Economics,
University of Reading, University of St Andrews, University of
Surrey, University of Sussex, University of Warwick, and University
of York.
| 
