Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences

The Honourable Julie Bishop MP
Minister for Education, Science and Training
16 June 2006 - Sydney
Knowledge Transfer and Engagement Forum

Thank you, Professor Snow Barlow, for that introduction.

Ladies and gentlemen, today I will speak about three key issues for the higher education sector. First, the Research Quality Framework - as a result of which the sector is heavily engaged in a debate on 'third stream funding', of which knowledge transfer and community engagement are but two possible examples. Second, I will outline my preliminary views on knowledge transfer - what I mean by knowledge transfer and what type of knowledge transfer may be supported through Australian Government funding. Third, I will discuss briefly the notion of the 'engaged university', which underpins some of your deliberations at this Forum.

The Australian Government announced its commitment to developing a Research Quality Framework in May 2004. To that end, the Government established an Expert Advisory Group led by the architect of the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise, Sir Gareth Roberts. Together with representatives of the Australian university and research sector, the group devised the basic principles of an Australian Research Quality Framework.

As many of you would know - some in great detail - the Expert Advisory Group determined an RQF that would measure quality through a combination of metrics and review by domestic and international peers. To this end, there would be twelve panels assessing work portfolios provided by the research groupings. Each portfolio would comprise:

• a statement about the context
• the four best pieces of research work for each eligible researcher
• a full list of research work, and
• an impact statement which provides evidence of outcomes, beneficiaries, and how the research was applied.

Uniquely, the Expert Advisory Group concluded that the Australian RQF should include an assessment of research impact. This has been the source of some contention, but also of great academic and intellectual interest. And rightly so, as it has never been done before. It is my view that if we are able to get right the measure of impact - in both its form and its recognition - then we will have created a research evaluation measure that will greatly surpass those of other nations. It will ensure that not only do we, as a country, reward high quality research, but also we reward research which makes a demonstrable change to the way we live or enjoy our lives.

Since I received the Expert Advisory Group's final advice at the end of March, I have brought together a group of research experts currently working outside the university sector to further develop the RQF. This Development Advisory Group had its first meeting on 1 June in Canberra and I am pleased to report that the meeting was not only lively, but also swift in getting to work. At that first meeting, the Development Advisory Group was tasked to examine a timeframe not only for its own work, but for the Australian Government's implementation of the RQF. The Advisory Group will be meeting regularly throughout this year and, in order to progress its work, has formed working groups in the areas of: Metrics; Impact; Information Technology; and Modelling. I anticipate that I will receive its formal advice on the precise form and operation of the RQF by October of this year.

The Development Advisory Group has already made a strong recommendation to me regarding the timeframe for implementing the RQF, and on this point, I have accepted its advice. As a result, I propose that the RQF will come into operation in 2008, with the next RQF exercise to be undertaken six years later, that is in 2014. Under this timeframe, data gathering would take place in 2008, with financial consequences to flow from 2009. 2007 will be a year for universities to refine the processes and finalise the detail of the data gathering. I agree that this time is also necessary to do more of the hard work required this year in developing and testing models for an RQF.

I believe that an RQF is vital for Australia. We need it to lift our overall level of research quality, and to shift our focus towards research which really does have an impact on day to day life. We must use it as a tool for greater diversity in the higher education sector, focussing universities' attention on their strengths, and moving away from the "one-size-fits-all" mould of universities into which they were collectively pushed in the 1980s. The Dawkins era is over.

Yet in developing the RQF, we must be sure to avoid the worst perversions of overseas equivalents. We must ensure that the RQF does not operate in such a way as to take the best researchers out of the realm of teaching, and that the work of research students is both regarded and considered towards RQF outcomes. We must also ensure that we do not take away from the important collaboration between university researchers and industry. I look forward to the Development Advisory Group's further advice on these points, among others.

Turning to my second point, which is the focus of your meeting here today: 'third stream' activity, knowledge transfer and engagement. All three terms are in frequent usage, although all mean quite different things depending on who you are talking to. Australia has a strong record in supporting third stream activity, some of which is related to research undertaken by universities, and some of which is not.

For instance, between 2005 and 2009, the Australian Government will provide around $46 million in funding to promote collaborative activity between universities, business, other tertiary education providers and the wider community through the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund.

Under this programme we have been able to fund collaboration between industries from the manufacturing heartland of western Melbourne, the Victoria University, the Australian Industry Group and Engineering Australia to combat professional and skill shortages in the engineering sector ($299,000 allocated for 2005 to 2007). Another example: almost $187,000 has been committed to facilitate collaboration between the Queensland University of Technology, the Brisbane North Institute of Technical and Further Education and a range of educational and community organisations in the Caboolture area, with the aim of extending opportunities and access to vocational and higher education to the Indigenous community.

On the research side, in 2005-06 the Australian Research Council has allocated over $260 million for Linkage programmes - including among other elements, Centres of Excellence, Infrastructure, and Linkage Projects. This funding supports research that develops new knowledge and involves risk or innovation. To be successful, Linkage Project proposals must demonstrate real partnership with and a financial commitment from industry. There are incentives to encourage proposals which will benefit regional and rural communities.

Similarly, the Cooperative Research Centres Programme, to which the Australian Government has directed more than $2.6 billion over 15 years, supports collaborations between the research sector and Australian industry. The CSIRO National Research Flagships and the Flagship Collaborative Research Programme are further examples of third stream funding within the education, science and training portfolios.

In the Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio, there are many further examples of third stream funding: the Pre-Seed Fund; the Innovation Investment Fund; the Commercial Ready programme; the Commercialising Emerging Technologies programme; Renewable Energy Development Initiative; and the Renewable Energy Equity Fund.

Beyond this, there are further third stream funds in the health and ageing portfolio, including the National Health and Medical Research Council's Development Grants Scheme and Centres of Clinical Research Excellence programme, just to name a few. Clearly, Australia is no stranger to third stream funding.

The question becomes whether, as a result of the RQF, we will need to look at any further third stream activity. I have read varying views on what knowledge transfer might be. Thus far, I am attracted to the starting point adopted by the UK Office of Science and Technology last year when it said that:

"knowledge transfer is about transferring good ideas, research results and skills between universities, other research organisations, business and the wider community to enable innovative new products and services to be developed."

I am also indebted to Gavin Moodie of Griffith University for the following reference in the Griffith Review earlier this year to the work of Michael Gibbons of the Science and Technology Research Unit at the University of Sussex. Moodie states:

"Knowledge and information abound; it is the capacity to use them productively that is in scarce supply. As distinguished science policy expert Michael Gibbons argues, much innovation - and hence economic development - depends less on original discoveries and more on the timely take-up, modification and marketing of knowledge solutions that already exist but need to be adopted to local environments... This is a radically different orientation to cultivating research esteem that is more often judged by the interests and values of other researchers, not those who may use it."

Today, I am releasing a report that my Department commissioned from PhillipsKPA regarding knowledge transfer. I compliment David Phillips and his team for their work.

In their work, PhillipsKPA were asked to:

• consider the definition and scope of knowledge transfer,
• examine current policies and programmes, to see what gaps there are in the system, and
• present a number of examples or case studies of knowledge transfer.

The resulting report, Knowledge Transfer and Australian Universities and Publicly Funded Research Agencies, was completed earlier this year and provides a number of useful recommendations and observations for our consideration in this debate. I do not necessarily agree with all the findings but I value the report as a constructive and timely contribution to the sector's, and my, deliberations on these issues. I appreciate the effort of those who took time to make submissions or take part in consultations for the study.

The report focuses on two types of knowledge transfer and I will outline both to you.

First is knowledge transfer as the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business, government or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance material, human, social and environmental wellbeing.

The second is knowledge transfer for commercial benefit. This is defined as the process of engaging, for mutual benefit, with business or government to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible the knowledge needed to enhance the success of commercial enterprises.

I do not consider that our preferred approach to knowledge transfer - should we eventually adopt one - needs to be one or the other of these.

To my mind, one is overly focussed on the commercialisation of research, which is supported elsewhere through other mechanisms; while the other is too broadly concerned with the general engagement of universities with their external stakeholders.

I believe that it is preferable to consider a middle course between these two alternatives. In adopting a middle path, knowledge transfer would be the process of engaging with business, government or the community to generate, acquire, apply and make accessible knowledge for quantifiable economic benefit for the community.

This economic benefit can be quite explicit and direct, for example by enhancing the success of commercial enterprises. As the PhillipsKPA report says, knowledge transfer should address:

"... perceived shortfalls in support for commercialisation infrastructure and support in the early stages of the commercialisation process where institutions are most exposed to the risk of making investments with little or no financial return."

On the other hand, economic benefit can be indirect. Research in preventative medicine, for example, may produce no direct or large commercial benefits, yet it can result in a healthier population and thus a more productive workforce and a reduction in both private and public expenditure on health.

The application of appropriate research may also result in reduced expenditure on welfare, incarceration and remedial learning. By achieving a healthier, better educated and more employable population, such activities have the potential to produce tangible, measurable, economic, as well as social, benefits.

In one example cited by PhillipsKPA, the University of South Australia has established a number of partnerships with local agencies, service providers, industry associations, and non-government organisations to address skills shortages, improve health and nutrition and raise school retention rates in the Northern Adelaide region. This is an encouraging example of specific, innovative knowledge transfer activity that is, in this case, aimed at improving matters for an economically disadvantaged region. Let's take a few other examples, a university with a particular strength in environmental and agricultural research working with communities and a collection of local governments to plan the response of small towns to a predicted significant decline in rainfall. Through its expertise the university assists the towns to change its treatment of crops and to better manage its water waste to avoid the negative economic impact of extreme water shortage.

Another example may be a university with particular research strength in tourism and hospitality works with local industry and community to develop sustainable regional tourism, promoting the region to tourists and bringing economic rewards to the area. In its report, PhillipsKPA argues for a broad recognition of the sources of knowledge transfer, taking into account the transfer of knowledge gained through not only research, but also scholarship and learning and teaching.

While scholarship and learning and teaching are fundamentally important in Australian universities, I believe that these priorities are appropriately addressed through other policies, programmes and funding, such as the three year, $250 million Learning and Teaching Performance Fund, which rewards excellence in teaching.

At a later stage we may wish to consider the transfer of knowledge relating to scholarship and teaching, but for now - given our focus on the Research Quality Framework and its impact on the sector - the priority remains the application and impact of research.

To this end, I note that this is not just the research of the university in question, but should also encompass the research of others, adapted and applied to new and beneficial uses.

If there is a case to be made for additional public spending on knowledge transfer, we need to identify the gaps in the current system and show that addressing them will produce sound, quantifiable benefits for Australia. In order for knowledge transfer to occur, it is necessary to ensure that the knowledge produced by research can be identified and located by potential users.

That is why I believe that a case could be made to include within the scope of knowledge transfer the development of national information resources and intermediary mechanisms that enable business and community to locate sources and sites of knowledge within the university system.

Finally, I believe that any funding for knowledge transfer for economic benefit must be competitively based rather than formula funded.

I believe, like the RQF, and other mechanisms such as the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund, knowledge transfer has the potential to be a powerful driver of diversity in the higher education sector.

This is because knowledge transfer requires three specific elements to work:

• first, it needs a demand side: one or more partners in the wider community who have specific needs and characteristics that research and research-based capacities could help
• second, it needs a supply side: one or more universities that have particular areas of strength, that are recognised and able to be deployed in practical settings
• and finally, it needs engagement: effective mechanisms for the demand and supply sides to meet, understand one another and develop their strategies and actions together.

Each of these elements necessarily drives a diversification in the higher education system, so that it can respond to the rapidly changing and increasingly competitive global knowledge economy.

Greater diversification is, in my mind, the next important undertaking of the higher education sector to ensure its ongoing relevance not only to domestic and international students, but to communities, industries and the broader international market for knowledge and innovation.

Allow me to make some brief observations about the notion of "an engaged university". In reading through many of the papers and submissions to government prepared in relation to the issue of third stream, knowledge transfer and community engagement, I have been surprised to observe some of the activity which the sector has considered part of its 'third stream', or non-core activity.

The Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee has released a proposal calling for a funding programme to support engagement with business and community. It suggested that:

"Australia needs a separate, identifiable funding program to support universities' engagement with business, governments, professions and regional and other communities."

Similarly, the PhillipsKPA report refers to activities such as:

• staff presentations to business and community groups
• involvement in government and professional association committees
• continuing professional education
• alignment of curriculum with needs of industry, business and communities, and
• contributions via public commentary and debate on topical issues.

Surely, much of this activity is already integral to the core purpose of a university - central to its reason for being, for which it is adequately funded through the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, the Institutional Grants Scheme and block research grants.

After all, what is the value of a university which does not work hand in hand with business to build economic growth in that university's region? What is the value of providing professional degree courses which do not reflect contemporary practice? What is the value of a university which does not strive to strengthen regional economic and social capacities?

Such activity is indeed the hallmark of an engaged university: one which is relevant to its economy and its students, and which ensures that its services are indeed demanded by its broader social and economic community.

If a university is going to engage effectively with its surrounding businesses and communities, then it needs to adapt its structures, processes and operations to the needs of its particular stakeholders. This process of adaptation by each university will lead to a more diversified higher education sector.

We have established the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund, and the various other linkage programmes available under the Australian Research Council and CSIRO, to further such adaptation. I am looking at broader options for the diversification of our higher education sector. This is particularly necessary in a time of declining or indeed nil unmet demand. For the first time in decades, universities have more places than students. The paradigm has shifted, we are in new territory here.

I have outlined my opinion on the issue of knowledge transfer, I encourage you to put forward your considered views to help build a strong economic and policy case for effective further investment in knowledge transfer.

To that end, I greatly look forward to the outcomes of this Forum.

 

The Hon Julie Bishop MP
16 June 2006

Download this speech   [PDF file size: 46.90 kB]   REF: SPE20060616JB

 

For more information, please contact:

Toss Gascoigne

Executive Director

Council of the Humanties, Arts and Social Sciences

Phone: +61 2 6249 1995

director@chass.org.au