Assessing regional engagement and knowledge transfer – ranking or benchmarking? David Charles, EPRC, University of Strathclyde

KT and engagement Qualitatively different to assess than teaching and research Not same consensus over idea of quality Not simply in control of university Does not indicate institutional excellence Partly dependent on external demand and environment Subjective assessment depending on perspective

Different forms of KT and RE Different paths to KT – research exploitation or informal exchange KT as codified vs tacit knowledge – who benefits? Other forms of engagement – cultural, social, governance relationships etc Varied possible forms of excellence, some easier to measure than others

Ranking Comparison across diverse activities No sensible means of weighting activities Are we assessing university or regional environment? Balance of private and community benefit

Simple exploitation measures Patents, licences, spin offs, contract income Discipline-specific opportunities and partly demand driven Example of HEBCIS survey in UK, AUTM in US and Canada Different rankings of universities for different indicators

Benchmarking instead of ranking Comprehensive set of indicators Identify areas of strength and weakness University and partners to decide on prioritisation Benchmarking with other universities to learn how to improve those areas seen as important Differentiation as an objective to better meet needs of stakeholders

Engagement embedded in university vision and mission

Rewarding and valuing engagement

Issues for discussion Does it make sense to try and reduce engagement to one or two composite indicators? Why do we want to measure engagement, and how does this affect what we try to measure? What are the merits of benchmarking approaches that mix output and process indicators? Should we focus on mutual learning rather than ranking in this field?