Professor David Shephard and Helen Parrott, University of Sheffield
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.wun.ac.uk/ideasanduniversities/seminars/2008_programme/shepherd.html
The Implications of Knowledge Transfer for Universities: the Case of the Arts and Humanities
June 2, 2008 by ideasanduniversities
Just a note to repeat Helen’s and my thanks for a very stimulating discussion this afternoon: we learned even more from the seminar than we had expected to, and are grateful to everyone at all sites for being so forthcoming, constructive and purposeful. We look forward to continuing the discussion via the blog.
I’d like to take this opportunity to do what I didn’t have time to do during the seminar, which is to thank Helen for suggesting that we should base things around a short initial presentation and an agenda of possible questions. It was characteristically shrewd of her to spot that this was a particularly appropriate format for the topic at hand; and this was borne out by the way that the discussions developed.
David and Helen,
Very many thanks for a splendidly clear, informative and stimulating presentation.
In Bristol the discussion continued for some time after the links went down.
One of our questions concerned the origins of the term ‘knowledge transfer’. Is it an adaptation of ‘technology transfer’? Who first coined it? When I first came across it, I was thoroughly alienated by it. We tell our undergraduates that we aren’t simply going to give them knowledge, but rather we’re going to challenge them to think. The term seemed to suggest a process running counter to fundamental beliefs about what we’re doing and how we seek to benefit others. Clearly the term is now meant to embrace critical thinking and everything else that we might consider valuable, but it still makes me flinch!
The discussion brought out very clearly the huge range of activities that can be deemed to constitute ‘knowledge transfer’. Many of the ones I found most exciting would probably be described in Bristol as examples of ‘public engagement’. There remains, however, a sense in which we are being directed to activities that will be recogised as examples of ‘knowledge transfer’ by funding bodies, and we’re doing them at least in part to secure funding from them. It struck me that Sheffield has looked much more carefully than other universities at how to work with business in this regard, and you’ve done much more than others to set up an infrastructure to encourage and support this. The infrastructure must cost money. So I wondered if you had done a cost benefit analysis. Do you think the infrastructure has brought in enough extra income to cover the cost and take the university into profit on this activity?
Very best wishes,
Ian
Dear Ian
Please forgive the long delay in responding.
We agree entirely that ‘public engagement’ is a more capacious and appropriate term for much of what we discussed; a key point is to ensure that ‘knowledge transfer’ doesn’t become fetishised as a particularly or uniquely acceptable form of such engagement.
It’s early days for a robust cost-benefit analysis. However, you may wish to note that here at Sheffield we have someone funded jointly by ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) and HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Fund) to assess the impact of social science research. This is evidence of the timeliness of your question!
All good wishes
David and Helen