Partnerships for Impact- making research partnerships work

The Centre for Research on Families and Relationships in consultation with ResearchImpact in Canada and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) have developed a Manifesto for Partnerships between Universities and Non-academics. Here Executive Director Sarah Morton explains what’s in the manifesto and how it can be used.

There is broad agreement amongst research funders in the UK (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/pe/embedding/) that if academics work more closely with partners from outside the academy their work is more likely to have impact. It helps to embed research in real world issues, creates a group of willing and ready stakeholders, linked to wider networks and can help academics learn about the kind of language and methods required for effective take-up of research. At CRFR we often work together with range of public and third sector partners. We wanted to draw together what we have learned from this and make it more widely available. A partnership manifesto was the way we decided to do this.


Where did the manifesto come from?

In my own research (Creating research impact: the roles of research users in interactive research mobilisation) I investigated partnership and found that there were many ways in which CRFR working in partnership with ChildLine Scotland had led to the impact of that research. I presented these findings about impact to the Scottish Third Sector Research Forum in 2014, and the level of interest led to the idea for a manifesto for partnership research.

Findings from my research were discussed at a workshop at the NCCPE national conference in 2014, with a range of experienced researchers and KE professionals adding their experience. It was then discussed by the Scottish Knowledge Exchange Community of Practice and the ResearchImpact network in Canada:

"At ResearchImpact we were happy to be invited to collaborate on the Manifesto." says David Phipps, Executive Director, Research & Innovation Services, York University, Canada. "We shared it among our members who provided feedback to Sarah and her CRFR team. Working closely with partners creates the conditions for research to have an impact beyond the academy. The manifesto provides guidance and tips to help support community-campus collaborations."

The final version has taken on board all comments received and we are confident it is based on the most recent research and informed by the key experts in this field.


What is in the partnership manifesto?

The manifesto takes a process approach to thinking about partnership. It looks at identifying partners, and then goes through the stages of partnership research: starting partnerships, developing funding bids, developing partnerships, and sharing research findings. Advice includes being explicit about what both sides in a partnership can gain, and what commitment is needed, recognising knowledge and resources, and being clear about the difference between research, evaluation and commissioning. A few final comments suggest the need to choose partners carefully where possible, create spaces to reflect on what is and isn’t working, and to include impact assessment so that everyone can show what difference is being made.


How can the partnership manifesto be used?

We hope that the manifesto will provide a useful tool for people interested in research partnerships, whether from third or public sector organisations, or researchers themselves. Whatever stage of partnership people are in, we imagine the manifesto being a useful tool for discussion, development and reflection during partnership research. It can be a means of ensuring everyone is on the same page, by setting out key considerations for open discussion. When partnerships are not going well it might be a tool for reflecting together or separately on what the issues are and how they might be addressed.

Download a copy of the partnership manifesto

Understanding K* and what it means for knowledge exchange in Scotland

The CRFR KE reading group focus in August 2014 was to explore ideas of knowledge exchange through reading Expanding our understanding of K* - a concept paper emerging from the K* conference held in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, April 2012, that CRFR Co-Director Sarah Morton had attended. We wanted to explore how K* concepts relate to our roles as knowledge brokers here in Scotland.

What is K*? There are many terms used to describe the processes of getting research and evidence into policy, practice, there public or other action. These include knowledge management, knowledge mobilisation, knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer, knowledge to action and others. The idea of K* or KSTAR is that it embraces all of these terms through the use of the wildcard star or *

Understanding the K* spectrum
 The K* discussion document sets out what might be involved in different roles to increase these processes. It considers knowledge brokerage from informational, through relational to system functions. At the information end tasks might include improving access to research and knowledge, whilst at the system end roles would be more embedded in change in complex systems.

While our members are involved in slightly different aspects of knowledge exchange work - from strategic planning, knowledge brokering, dissemination to supporting evidence to action, we found the discussion of what K* is to be a helpful peg on which to hang our, sometimes many, hats. The concept of K*, as described in the paper, is the collective term to describe what needs to happen to share knowledge and to enable change to happen. From our round-the-table discussion, it seems that good knowledge exchange requires involvement in the full range of activities, a sentiment supported by the authors. Trying to rank the importance of activities, or to see activities in a linear way, really misses the point. At CRFR, we are involved on a daily basis in dissemination activities: writing research briefings, posting on social media (@CRFRTweets), creating visualisations of research findings. From this we create opportunities to bring people together to share and talk about research and what the findings mean to different sectors and different organisations. Within specific projects we are then able to build partnerships to raise questions about what research topics are most needed, who can contribute to the research and how the resulting evidence can be used. Any one one of these functions can not happen on its own - we invest time at all levels.

The relationship between supply and demand for knowledge
The section exploring the relationship between the supply and demand for knowledge had the greatest resonance with our group members. They appreciated an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the many tasks they do, and sometimes the complexity of what is asked of them. We within social science research, we can be faced with gaps in the evidence - this may be because the nature of qualitative data makes it hard to generalise across wider populations, or because the specific question being asked has not been the focus of existing research or service evaluations. As the paper suggests, the boundaries between what knowledge is wanted and what knowledge we have is fuzzy. We discussed the ways in which we tailored our approaches, to either link people with similar interests but potentially different backgrounds, to support organisations to apply evidence to their own work or to find creative ways of sharing complex ideas.

The difference between knowledge exchange and communications
It seems there have been various conversations between our own colleagues, and within the global K* group, of the difference between knowledge exchange and communications. Within our setting we agreed that the roles are different, with reasonably different specialist skill sets, yet there is a large degree of overlap between the two. My own title includes both - as a way, when it was created, to recognise the increasing value of knowledge exchange within academia but also acknowledging that it was a term still relatively unknown by the wider public, where this type of function may have typically been carried out by a communications or policy professional. What did our discussion add to the debate? Perhaps just to record that within our University setting, the breadth of knowledge exchange activities, particularly the brokering, impact analysis and research synthesis seems to extend beyond typical a communications role. Similarly, our communications colleagues would have greater specialist skills in journalism, marketing and public relations.

Creating knowledge exchange roles within a University setting
Another key point made in the paper is that K* needs to focus on the function, rather than the organisation or individual person who performs them. Our members are all employed by the University of Edinburgh, yet each of us have a different job title and different remit - and we know from our membership of other networks and research by Knight and Lightowler, that the variation in knowledge exchange roles is becoming ever wider. Yet, there are overlaps in many of the tasks and activities we do. We wondered of the feasibility for an organisation such as the University to take a proactive role in creating standardised knowledge exchange roles and descriptions as a way of professionalising what we do, and capturing the breadth of activities involved within knowledge exchange. This is something we as a group will be exploring over the coming year.

Kirsten Thomlinson
Knowledge Exchange and Communications Co-ordinator
CRFR


Refs:
Knight, C., & Lightowler, C. (2010). ‘Reflections of “Knowledge Exchange Professionals” in the Social Sciences: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges for University-Based Knowledge Brokers.’. Evidence & Policy, 6(4), 543-556. 10.1332/174426410X535891

Universities creating impact: the next five years

It may not be visible from outside, but currently UK universities are in a frenzy of activity to demonstrate the impact their work has had on non-academic audiences as part of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The REF is a 5 yearly exercise that monitors and rewards the quality of research, and includes a measure of non-academic impact for the first time in the current round. This has created a much higher level of interest in how universities engage with communities, decision makers and others outside the institution.

I was recently asked to think about how universities might embed research impact over the next five years.  I started by thinking about what CRFR has been able to achieve over ten years (See KE at CRFR, Past present future), and what I observe in other parts of the university. There were two key building blocks in CRFR’s success in engaging with non-academic audiences and undertaking knowledge exchange activities (KE):

1)      Commitment and leadership: The original Directors of CRFR were committed to KE and provided leadership within the Centre that valued engaging with a range of non-academics, acknowledging that this could increase the quality of research. There was an underlying commitment that it was the right thing to do, an openness to trying new approaches, and a willingness to put potential academic barriers to one side

2)      Support: There was recognition of the limitation of their expertise, and the need for skilled support staff who understood the needs of the external stakeholders and who had events management experience. This raised CRFR’s engagement activities to a highly professional level – making for a better experience for those who come along to events. There was also a commitment to funding and supporting KE professionals in these roles.

So how do we create a culture where activities aimed at ensuring research impact are embedded into the way universities do things? We are not alone in considering this question. The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) has been tasked with embedding culture change across universities and has developed some tools to assist with this process. Their tool ‘the edge’  suggests universities need to consider a range of questions about purpose, people and process. I have picked up on some of these here.

Where is the leadership in developing an institutional approach to ensuring research impact?

In my opinion leadership is still lacking and a lot of the best knowledge exchange activity occurs on the fringes of universities, passing under the radar of the institutions. There is a gender issue here too, with the majority of KE roles being filled by women, and the majority of leadership roles within universities by men. Rewards and promotions are slow to catch up with the impact agenda, with traditional academic activities still holding the higher status.

What are the community needs and how do we assess them?

Recently I have been fortunate enough to develop links with the Knowledge Mobilization unit at York University, Toronto. Their outward focus includes a helpdesk and helpline asking the local community ‘what do you want from our university?’ I find it hard to imagine a traditional UK research-led university being this open. Thinking more strategically about what external stakeholders might want requires a rethink about what a university is for. If we want research to have an impact we really need to understand better the issues facing our communities, practitioners and policy-makers.

What is the role of students?

Students, both undergraduate and postgraduate often have a huge interest in how their research is relevant to the wider world. Some overseas universities, particularly in the US send thousands of students to engage with local community groups, particularly around small projects sometimes linked to dissertations. I have some reservations about the ethics of such programmes, but I think it is important to consider the role of students in engaging with non-academic stakeholders and the huge potential that they represent

What can researchers get involved in rather than having to initiate themselves?

There is a lot of concern about the reinvention of the wheel. How can we embed processes of knowledge exchange so that researchers can link with skilled professionals to develop the highest standard of activities? The reputation of the university rides on this engagement, and there is a need to build on the goodwill of non-academic stakeholders to develop this agenda. If people come along to something which is boring, or not well designed, or which ignores their needs (and I have been to a lot of these!) then will they ever want to engage again? There is a need for learning communities, such as CRFR’s newly initiated KE Community of Practice, to allow supported experimentation as this agenda develops.

What recognition is there?

The REF is highlighting some of the excellent and exciting activity that staff within universities are engaged with that was previously less visible. The need for rewards and recognition for engagement activities seems clear, but is slow to develop within university systems. For example, how about including the opinions of external stakeholders in promotion panels?

How will this be coordinated?

Universities tend to be hugely bureaucratic with systems for teaching, research and support which have developed over many years. This is yet to be replicated in terms of the diverse activities that create research impact across an institution. We need better systems for coordinating engagement activities, but these need to be flexible enough not to stifle the creativity and responsiveness that is at the core of good quality engagement between academics and others.

So how do we create a culture where activities aimed at ensuring research impact are embedded into the way we do things? As the NCCPE acknowledge, culture change is hard. There is a need for training in communication, creating and evaluating impact, and the development of standards of practice that raise the game. Enthusiastic researchers who want to engage can still be stifled by line managers who are wedded to an older model of academia, so we need to build mentoring capacity and learning communities to bypass those who will never be interested in this agenda. We need to build an experimentation, learning, evaluation and sharing cycle which will help to ensure the quality of this emerging area. My own work using contribution analysis to assess impact is one way of starting to do this.

Lets hope that the legacy of the Research Excellence Framework 2014 will be that university research is no longer seen as an isolated intellectual activity, but one that is enriched by wider engagement with experts from the public, communities, policy and practice. Looking to the next five years can help universities include research impact as a key component of their business.

Sarah Morton

Co-Director, Knowledge Exchange