Policymakers want to get maximum value from the science system. Government invests in science and research, much of which, in the UK, is conducted in universities and in public sector research establishments (PSREs). A good return on this investment would be research which contributes towards a growing economy, supports technological innovation and industrial activity, and supports more effective services. One of the levers government has to incentivize research activity along these lines is funding, such as through the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) – amongst others. Although the impact of these funds is not completely clear, many positive claims have been made about the economic and social benefits which have arisen.
Knowledge exchange funding, such as the HEIF, has been used by universities to vastly expand their scope of activities around commercialization, licensing and knowledge transfer. For example, a recent review identified over 1900 separate initiatives aiming to promote academic-policy engagement. Yet many of the dissemination, training, networking, or similar knowledge exchange activities primarily served research interests, rather than addressing policy agendas. We also find good evidence that the huge expansion of knowledge exchange activity wastes time and effort across the science system. Policymakers are bombarded with requests to participate in researcher-led projects – in effect universities are competing with each other for access to policymakers with scarce time and resource to be able to effectively triage offers. There is much duplication of projects with multiple universities offering similar or repeated engagement opportunities, often reinventing the wheel.
My research into effective science-for-policy systems suggests that the different components of the system (funders, universities, brokering organisations, government) all have their roles to play in strengthening the overall system. At present, then, we have good intent on all sides, with provision of resources to enable useful activity, but little guidance about how this energy can be usefully directed. The potential benefits universities have to offer are certainly not being realized fully. How can this situation be addressed? What would universities have to do differently if they were to fully contribute towards the value of the investment in science and technology?
