APPENDIX 15
Memorandum from the CMU Universities Group
RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
BACKGROUND
1. The CMU Universities group promotes policies
on behalf of over 30 post-92 universities and welcomes the opportunity
to give evidence in respect of the Committee's Enquiry into Research
Council support for Knowledge Transfer. CMU institutions are sometimes
referred to as modern universities although the origins of many
derive from education provision which dates back to the 19th century.
These universities have long track records in providing creative
and lively learning environments for students, of being socially
and culturally inclusive and of providing different access and
progression routes to higher education and courses, including
postgraduate courses, linked to continuous professional development.
As a result, a much higher percentage of mature full-time undergraduate
students study at our universities (where the average age of students
is early to mid-twenties). Many of the 43% of undergraduates who
now study part-time also study at CMU institutions.
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
ACTIVITIES, MODERN
UNIVERSITIES AND
RESEARCH COUNCIL
FUNDING
2. Post-92 universities are also known for
relevant and applied research, in spite of the funding bias of
the Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) and the increasing concentration
of research funding on fewer and fewer institutions. In fact,
through HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Fund) and by accessing
other sources of funding (eg European Region funds) modern universities
have been innovative and proactive in promoting knowledge transfer
and university-business collaboration. They have developed considerable
expertise in:
— facilitating and promoting knowledge
transfer activities which are user-led and which add value;
— supporting SMEs as well as larger
companies;
— working with the creative industries
which are excluded from the RAE;
— evaluating results and performance;
and
— identifying issues key to the success
of knowledge transfer partnerships.
3. These key issues include the necessity
of appropriate marketing, the need to avoid concentration on the
graduate associate rather than on the needs of companies, the
disadvantages of complicated and long-winded application processes,
slow response times which may mean that a small company may have
"changed direction", the disadvantages for some companies
of knowledge transfer funding which requires, for example, a five
year plan and the possibilities of, and issues arising from, knowledge
transfer activities with companies that have between five and
30 employees.
4. Notwithstanding this expertise (in knowledge
transfer activities), Research Council funding is dominated by
peer group assessment and criteria for distribution which have
continued to favour the research-intensive universities to the
exclusion of post-92 universities. Research Council knowledge
transfer can itself appear to be an extension of funding for research
students. Furthermore, concentration by funders generally on high
technology, biotechnology and bioscience start ups has also disadvantaged
companies which do not fall into this category (and indeed regions
where there are not a large number of companies of this type,
at least at present).
SUMMARY
5. The CMU Universities group considers
that the Enquiry into Research Council funding and knowledge transfer
activities should consider the extent to which Research Council
funding has actually been informed by or promoted the knowledge
transfer activities and expertise of post-92 universities. Accordingly,
we would be pleased to expand on this evidence in an oral evidence
session before the Committee.
February 2006
| 
