1. Process and Impact Review
Engaging Scottish Local Authorities
Sharing knowledge: building impact
Process and Impact Review
Investigators: Irene Hardill and Tony Kelly (Nottingham Trent University, Sue Baines and Ryan Woolrych (Manchester Metropolitan University)

2. Review Aims
To review the processes and procedures carried out by the KE projects, and to document their achievements;
To work closely with the KE projects across Scotland to support their work with timely and relevant feedback;
To provide the means by which the scheme as a whole can reflect upon and maximise learning from the processes of knowledge exchange between HEIs and local authorities;
To collate key learning points from the scheme for a wider audience of national stakeholders;
To develop indicators of success in knowledge exchange that are meaningful across local government, national government and HE, and that will demonstrate impact on services, professional work practices and citizens.
Not an evaluation of the 5 projects

3. Activities
Phase One: Baseline and metrics (months 1 – 3, October-December 2009)
Desk research
Interviews with project leaders
First learning workshop (February 12th 2010)
Online collaboration but ….
Phase Two: Process and implementation (months 4 – 9, January-June 2010)
Monitor the processes of engagement, and observe and record how KE is made sense of within the five funded projects and across the scheme. We are:
Undertaking about 30 Interviews
Observing/participating 5 project events
Second learning workshop (June 11th) – worked with Coordination team

4. Work in progress to date
Phase 1 – interviewed PIs, attended one event, organised first workshop, met with key stakeholders
Phase 2 – observed 3 events (2 more planned); 13 interviews thus far
Synthesis of existing research: a scoping study of existing research on the theme topic with implications for local government in Scotland to be presented at a seminar/workshop within three months of the award commencing.
Impact generating activity: projects which promote the impact of new or existing research by engaging with at least one Scottish local authority organisation.
Placements: funding to permit academics working on projects within a local authority setting and individuals working in Scottish LAs to do likewise in an academic unit for a short period – of at least one month, not necessarily in one block of time.
Seminars: funding for at least two seminars or workshops aimed at encouraging interaction between Scottish-based researchers and potential users of research within the LA sector in Scotland.
Building Capacity: activity that improves the capability of staff within Scottish LA organisations by obtaining and developing a range of skills and experience not normally acquired during their work.

5. Emerging issues to discuss
The changed economic climate; workloads of practice staff (juggling day job and project), timescales (planning and preparation time)
The wide geographical reach of the Scheme – some involve more than one LA partner, some projects see neighbouring LAs engaging
Some projects involving other stakeholders – voluntary sector, community groups, residents
Partnership working – clarity, mutual understanding, negotiating timescales, trust – AND practical benefits emerging
Dissonance between academic theory and practical application; use of language
Information sharing – keeping partners informed on progress
Delivering the placements flexibly (time demands) when they work they really do demonstrate – tangible commitment rather than once off event
Demonstrating impact, capturing impact – what does success look like?
Possible themes and provisional thoughts
The workload of practice staff was felt to be an issue in those projects that involved staff with a busy client caseload. This included issues of competing demands and the practicalities of the ‘day job’ with subsequent time constraints and workload considerations. The linkages between project and practice were therefore felt to be important in terms of clarity of communication and setting out expectations at an early stage.
Timescales – the bid timetable or aspects of project implementation may not always have left sufficient time for the necessary planning and preparation.
Importance of a good working relationship and ‘clarity’ between partners was seen as a key ingredient of success. A good relationship with the academic partner was felt to be particularly important. The engagement of those key stakeholders involved in the project also came across, for example, senior and operational staff should have ‘ownership’ of the bid. This might derive from involvement with the bid process itself and not just reading it. A consequence of failing to engage with such stakeholders is the possible failure to allocate the necessary ‘frontline’ resources to particular activities with subsequent resource implications for practice staff.
Use of language – ‘Research’ is an ethically loaded concept in the context of practice. This was seen to have practical implications where the perceived need for ethical approval for particular activities appeared to threaten those activities.
Some participants arguably identified a perceived dissonance between academic theory and its application in practice. The absence of front line practice staff from the process was, for example, seen to have implications for the validity of research in terms of how it might be accepted by practice staff. The small scale of some projects was also felt to have a potential impact on their validity / generalisability.
The availability of updates and progress information on projects was identified by at least one participant. He wanted to know how those who manage or coordinate projects keep stakeholders up to date with progress. This also linked to a question about how project success was being measured – what might success look like and how are impacts being measured.
Practical benefits were generally felt to derive from partnership with an academic institution. All participants appeared excited by the prospects of collaborative working.

6. Acknowledgements The project teams and partners Co-ordinating team
The Funders