1 / 11

Assessing regional engagement and knowledge transfer – ranking or benchmarking?

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

elana
Download Presentation

Assessing regional engagement and knowledge transfer – ranking or benchmarking?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

  3. 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

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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Engagement embedded in university vision and mission

  8. Rewarding and valuing engagement

  9. 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?

More Related