assessing regional engagement and knowledge transfer – ranking or benchmarking? david charles,...
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing regional engagement and knowledge transfer – ranking or benchmarking?
David Charles, EPRC, University of Strathclyde
KT and engagement
• Qualitatively different to assess than teaching and research
• Not same consensus over idea of quality• Not simply in control of university• Does not indicate institutional excellence• Partly dependent on external demand and
environment• Subjective assessment depending on perspective
Different forms of KT and RE
• Different paths to KT – research exploitation or informal exchange
• KT as codified vs tacit knowledge – who benefits?• Other forms of engagement – cultural, social,
governance relationships etc
• Varied possible forms of excellence, some easier to measure than others
Ranking
• Comparison across diverse activities• No sensible means of weighting activities• Are we assessing university or regional
environment?• Balance of private and community benefit
Simple exploitation measures
• Patents, licences, spin offs, contract income• Discipline-specific opportunities and partly
demand driven• Example of HEBCIS survey in UK, AUTM in US
and Canada• Different rankings of universities for different
indicators
Benchmarking instead of ranking
• Comprehensive set of indicators• Identify areas of strength and weakness• University and partners to decide on prioritisation• Benchmarking with other universities to learn
how to improve those areas seen as important• Differentiation as an objective to better meet
needs of stakeholders
Engagement embedded in university vision and mission
1 2 3 4 5
Vision and mission does
not recognise
engagement as a key role
for the university
Some reference to the
need to engage with
the region is placed in
the vision or mission,
usually in terms of
identifying a regional
community as being of
interest. Vision is
developed from a top-
down position and is
not driving strategy or
seen as an influence
on staff behaviour.
Engagement is a central
element of the vision and
mission and is the result of
a sophisticated debate
within the institution
involving staff from various
levels of the institution.
Engagement is seen as
part of the DNA of the
university and is considered
as important in everything
they do.
Rewarding and valuing engagement
1 2 3 4 5
No staff incentives for
engagement – positive
discrimination against
engagement in
promotions processes
with an emphasis on
research.
Formal recognition of
engagement in
promotions procedures
as one of the areas of
performance that can
be recognised, but
little evidence of it
having major impacts
on behaviour. Little
recognition elsewhere
in the system.
Engagement is
tolerated and possibly
rewarded where
excellence is achieved
but not systematically.
Clear and well
communicated recognition
of engagement in a wide
range of staff policies.
Engagement is supported
through workload and line
management and good
performance is recognised
in promotion and through
salary. Resources are
available to help staff
develop engagement skills
including study leave.
University recognises
scholarship of engagement.
Issues for discussion
• Does it make sense to try and reduce engagement to one or two composite indicators?
• Why do we want to measure engagement, and how does this affect what we try to measure?
• What are the merits of benchmarking approaches that mix output and process indicators?
• Should we focus on mutual learning rather than ranking in this field?