The document discusses the context for broader impacts and societal value creation in Flemish research institutes. It provides background on the relevant legislation and policy that shapes research priorities and funding models. The key drivers outlined are knowledge transfer, valorization (making knowledge valuable), and science communication. However, the funding and assessment models primarily reward publications and citations, not broader societal impacts. This presents challenges for changing research culture and incentives. The document raises questions about how to better support and assess societal impacts through appropriate metrics, career paths, resources, and cooperation across different support areas.

1. Do you also feel occasionally that you’re part of a bad joke, as I do? It goes
something like this.
Three people walk into a bar: a scientist, a politician, and a citizen. The scientist
says: „Show me the money, I’ll show you impact“. The politician says: „Show me
the impact, and I’ll show you the money.“ And the citizen just stands by and
wonders who will be providing the real answers to his problems.
Let’s see what this room can do to get us out of this situation!
1
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

2. By now we all know that policy drives behaviour. So what drives Flemish research
institutes?
First the legislative context.
The Flemish HE Codex lays down the mission statement of all universities and
university colleges, which is threefold: teaching, research and socio-economic
service.
2
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

3. This resulted in the 1995 Decree on the Provision of Scientific and Societal Services
further detailing this concept.
3
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

4. So we now know the overarching ‘service’.
Two more sets of concepts followed – each with their legislative and policy context.
The dynamic duo ‘knowledge tranfer’ and ‘valorisation’
And ‘science communication’
Now to be clear: neither is yet ‘impact’ but both can lead to impact.
4
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

5. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER – VALORISATION
It is a concept which has been greatly misunderstood, often hijacked and even
condemned. In essence it means ‘making something valuable’. It should be
understood as a process of doing something with (scientific) knowledge so it
becomes something of value, of use to someone. Ideally this someone is not part
of the close-knit scientific community. Through the act of valorisation research
can have an impact.
CLICK
But in Flanders valorisation has been claimed to mean first and foremost ‘having
economic or monetary value’.
It is almost exclusively used in the context of the university’s Industrial Research
Fund. This approach has led to the rise in and professionalization of Technology
Transfer Offices.
5
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

6. SCICOMM
Here’s the Flemish definition.
Yes, it is more than science marketing and advertising the results of research or
promoting individual scientists. SciComm is also the science of the process of the
scientific endeavour, and the science awareness.
If valorisation is the Frank Underwood of impact, scicomm is the Phil Dunphy.
For most people it remains a more softer version of working towards impact. I
attended a recent conference of scicomm people: their favourite tagline was
‘scicomm is fun!’ but they were slightly devoid of the reality of academia in which
I work.
There’s a separate – albeit very modest - funding scheme (to pay for scicomm units in all
HEI’s) + 5 year policy plan
The R&I Department’s policy on science communication has changed over the
years and is now based on three goals: STEM education, support for R&D (esp.
STEM disciplines) and the international recognition of Flemish research.
6
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

7. And hey-ho, there’s even a STEM Action Plan to go along with it (joint remit of R&I
and Education)
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016 6

8. That was terminology. Going back to the overarching context.
Closely linked with these concepts and the underpinning legislation is the funding
mechanism, one of the most important of policy tools and drivers of behaviour.
Flemish research institutes roughly depend on four funding streams – and if you
remember anything from this presentation it’s that Flemish policy makers really like
their allocation keys and sets of indicators:
1. Governmental Block grant from Education Department – closed envelop, based on
metrics: hiring of staff
2. Governmental Block grants – competitive, based on metrics: Special Research Fund
+ Industrial Research Fund (valorisation)
3. External funding: FWO (dissemination paragraph, not a selection criterion) + VLAIO
(strategic research) + BELSPO + EU
4. Private funding (contract research)
Needless to say, the presence of this allocation model has a huge impact (or
should I say ‘choke hold’) on the academic system and how research policy is
being thought out and implemented.
It is also clear that although a university might have a threefold mission by law,
this is not being reflected in these models since the metrics are only twofold.
Research: publications, citations, number of PhD degrees
7
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

9. It would be a very brave university indeed that deviates from these top-down
principles.
And a final important element: Research institutes can autonomously decide if
and how they evaluate their research quality (not like education).
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016 7

10. That is – in a nutshell - the context in which I as a research policy advisor have to
come up with a strategy at my university and support our research community.
Needless to say, we have already invested in publication and PhD incentives, but
also in technology transfer and interface activities.
The avenue of ‘societal value creation of research’ still feels like uncharted but
promising territory.
Sadly, as a result of this Flemish context our strategy implementation is
somewhat lacking in funds, staff and bold action.
So my role on this panel is testifying on how you get your researchers to care
about impact when the will for structural/systemic change is lacking, when taking
the easy way out and developing metrics or setting up a separate fund is not
something you want to do, when you really want to change the criteria for career
progression or research assessment but don’t know where to start.
8
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

11. I’m convinced that creating the ideal setting for this does not depend on a magic
bullet solution.
It is a puzzle of coexisting tweaks to the system that go beyond the confines of
research policy – although that’s often the starting position I use when talking to
researchers.
It is about finding and building synergies with other policy and support areas
within the university such as HR, Legal and Communications.
9
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

12. Essential in our policy is educating our research community but also
decision makers about what societal value creation/valorization are.
We want them to dare to discuss responsibilities.
We are putting forward the building blocks for quality assurance and
assessment based on a description of the most common types of societal
value creation rather than an exercise of bean counting by way of
quantitative indicators.
But it is not just a need for clarification: the next step is empowerment through
training and the provision of structural support.
Intermediaries are essential as well as setting up networks where researchers
and external stakeholders can find each other. These need to be safe yet
professional environments.
And hopefully the reward system will follow.
10
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

13. That brings me to my bucket list of issues.
What are the questions that still baffle or challenge me?
11
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

14. How do we deal with the inherent vicious circle? Indicators and quantification
would probably kill the wealth and creativity of social valorization types but in
our very quantified environment this seems like only way to ensure impact of
policy and change mindsets. And if we do choose a new approach to research
quality assessment, how do we deal with the fact that this may be very time-
consuming and that the efforts might seem redundant?
How do we change an assessment model which is centered around the individual
to one which looks at group level and allows diversified career tracks? In what
way do structures need to change to allow for more and better interdisciplinary
research and thus tackle the grand challenges of our time?
How do we deal with the data on all these valorization activities? Can we build
research information systems that are sufficiently user-friendly?
How do we guard ourselves from reducing societal value creation to societally
relevant research topics? How do we strike the balance between curiosity-driven
research and this constant need for accountability? How do we involve and target
all disciplines? How do we avoid that ‘societal value creation’ is exclusively SSH’s
12
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

15. knowledge transfer?
How do we deal with dwindling resources and fast-market research needs? How
do we build in societal value creation into most funding mechanisms without
resorting to indicators or without establishing separate funds?
How and where do we build up the necessary ethical and legal expertise? Working
with/for stakeholders often brings very specific challenges on how to structure the
collaboration, safeguard the scientific endeavour, create the best possible impact.
And finally, a personal favourite of mine: what is the best model for institutional
support? How do we get cooperation throughout the community of support and
policy staff (on central and faculty level), create a shared responsibility? E.g. how
do we get communication experts working together on impact?
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016 12

16. In conclusion: I know Flanders is just a speck on the map but our researchers, policy
makers, HEI’s, and all our local and global beneficiaries of science have the same
concerns and aspirations. So it looks to me like we’re in this together and I look forward
to hearing your experiences. Let’s start the sharing of knowledge here.
13
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016

17. 14
Esther De Smet - Broader Impacts Summit
- 20 April 2016