NCACE Knowledge Impacts Network (KIN): Hack KE Metrics

JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

NCACE Knowledge Impacts Network (KIN): Hack KE Metrics - Poll

In order to help focus the discussion, we have highlighted some key questions from the Research England KE funding review, please vote for up to THREE questions from this list, and we will take those that gain the most votes for discussion at the meeting. We will be approaching some people to ask them to offer a few opening thoughts on their nominated questions to get the discussions started. Or if you would like to volunteer to say a few words on the topic of one of your chosen questions, please do let us know.

Email *

Name:

1. KE review questions (please pick your top three questions). *

1. Is there a common understanding of how we define knowledge exchange? What should or should not be included in the definition?

2. Where – in the areas below - could we focus more to deliver better current Government priorities? (a) Improving research commercialisation and working with business: in recent years, we have taken particular action to address Government priorities in this area. What more could we do to help both improve and demonstrate success? (b) Place and levelling up. (c) Student benefits – both through involving students in KE, and in helping their development.

3. Metrics are valuable because they can be used in a range of different ways (for example in a formula, the KEF and in spending review evidence) and at institutional and sector levels and hence may be lower burden than, for example, narratives, if well specified. Narratives can provide increased detail and nuance but have limited use particularly for sector wide evidence. Have we got the right balance of metrics and narratives in our approach?

4. How should we measure and demonstrate success in KE?

5. What value is there in providing projects funding in addition to the HEIF formula? Would more or less project funding be valuable, and focussed on what objectives?

6. KE is intended to deliver external (to HEP) economic and societal benefits. How could we strengthen the voice and influence of economic and societal beneficiaries and stakeholders in our KE policies and approaches?

7. What steps could we take to improve equality, diversity and inclusion in KE?

8. What criteria could we apply to inform the balance between maximising measurable impact with sustaining a reasonable breadth and diversity of KE contributions – by HEPs, partners, places?

9. Is our approach to accountability proportionate in terms of burden? Could it be made more effective?

10. What purposes does KEF fulfil well? What purposes could it fulfil well - and what steps would be needed to develop the KEF to meet those purposes?

11. The sector-led KE Concordat is still in a pilot phase (with a development year recently completed), but is it showing promise to provide enhanced assurance of the HE sector’s commitment to continuous improvement in KE? What are its strengths – and weaknesses – so far?

12. RE has reduced the burden of its data collection for HEIF accountability by seeking evidence from the KE Concordat relevant to efficiency and effectiveness of use of public funds. Is this satisfactory? Could HEIF accountability and the KE Concordat action plan process be better aligned to reduce burden and increase effectiveness?

13. The current method aligns the way we provide evidence to Government on success of HEIF with drivers on HEPs – rewarding and incentivising “performance” which is used to demonstrate the return on investment of the funds. This makes the system pull together to deliver best/measurable as a composite whole. (a) Are there other objectives than rewarding/incentivising performance that we should consider in devising a model? (b) Are there better means to align allocations and evidence of success of the programme? (c) Income is the best proxy we have for the impact of KE activities on the economy and society (see Annex B). However, it has a downside that we might appear to incentivise HEPs to focus on income not outcomes. What means are there to increase focus on measurable outcomes?

14. There is clear value from some predictability in funding in order to enable HEPs to plan long-term (though this is dependent on stability in Government funding for KE). However, in a performance-based funding system, regular rewards for dynamism are also important. How should we strike the right balance between these factors? What implications should this have for our method?

Required

2. I would like to talk about something else (please give details).

Thank you for your responses! We look forward to seeing you at the KIN session on 16 June 2022! The NCACE Team

Submit

Clear form

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.

This form was created inside of The Culture Capital Exchange. Report Abuse

Forms