Two way process –Research not just disseminated to stakeholders, but stakeholders also feed into and inform the research. And circular process – where research and stakeholders are continually informed by each other. Paper aims to explore how KE process leads to impact – not only what activities are important, but what conditions, contextual factors effect how they work. Does this by analysing three case studies, which it maps using two knowledge exchange frameworks – the Knowledge Exchange and Impact matrix, developed as part of our own analysis of our work, and the K* spectrum developed by the international K* conference in 2012.
This model maps KE roles and activities by what function they fulfil. From infomational – dissemination, to relational – translating and co-producing knowledge, to systems – influencing wider context. The below the radar case study relational function was particularly important. It involved coproduction of research and learning, through a reference group, fellowships, joint events. Fact that knowledge was coproduced allowed it to be embedded within the stakeholder communities and therefore directly influence the thinking of community practitioners, funders etc. In the Social Enterprise case study the informational and relational was important. The KET activities concentrated on sharing information, publicising research, organising events to share findings. They also facilitated relational functions, organising meetings with policy makers for example. But here, the researchers role was particularly important – using their own networks to coproduce research and work with policy-makers. These relational activities were important in affecting thinking within government policy – (systems function.) Quantitative case study was highly focused on the informational function – through press, website, events which allowed the research concepts such as the ‘civic core’ and distribution of public funding to be shared widely, and influence thinking within the third sector and policy. Concentrated on sharing and publicising the information, rather than coproducing it. The spectrum isn’t always linear – in qualitative case study, for example, informational activities helped to have a systems impact by influencing the wider context of public and policy debate. The research was referenced a number of times in media and by politicians. All case studies involved activities across the spectrum, although some focused more on one part. E.g. The process of disseminating knowledge in the conceptual case study was helped by coproducing events and using networks, and dissemination activities such as media and social media helped to broaden the reach of co-produced knowledge in the below the radar case study.
Managing the KnowledgeExchange ProcessInnovation through Knowledge Transfer 2013Razia Shariff & Naomi LandauThird Sector Research Centre
An intro to TSRC• National research centre set up to researchvoluntary, community and social enterprise• Broad spectrum of research, including:– service delivery, ‘below the radar’, social enterprise– Policy context, economic and social impact, workforce and volunteers– Qualitative and quantitative - new data sets, longitudinal case studyresearch• Funded by ESRC, Office for Civil Society and BarrowCadbury Trust• Universities of Birmingham and Southampton
The impact of Knowledge Exchange?Knowledge Exchange Team:• Set up to help research to have an impact• ‘Exchange’ approach: achieve impact by involvingstakeholders throughout the research, two-way/circular processAims of paper:• How KE process leads to impact: activities,conditions, contextual factors• 3 case studies
K* spectrumBelow the radar: processimpactQualitative: conceptualimpactSocial enterprise: instrumental impact
Variables to think aboutNeed to know the existing networks of researchersand their level of engagement with stakeholdersNeed to understand the appetite in policy andpractice for the research findingsDifferent types of research lend themselves well todifferent types of KE interventionsWe need to consider:relational processes,conceptual problematicsmechanisms to generate impact.
ReflectionsNeed to Understand:the nature of the research, what and who itwants to influenceThe researchers propensity to engage withstakeholdersThe current context and appetite for theresearch knowledge
ConclusionsRelational activity and co-production keyKE must be inter twinned throughout theresearch process in order to generate impactNeed to think about how to influence action,the TSRC Futures Dialogues offers possibilitiesfor the future