# data[].attributes.headline
Paul Manners reflects on his experience chairing that panel, in this blog 'Creating an open, curiosity-driven knowledge culture'

# data[].attributes.subject
Paul Manners reflects on his experience chairing that panel, in this blog 'Creating an open, curiosity-driven knowledge culture'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's hard not to have noticed how the research community has descended into existential angst over research culture, linked to the proposed framework for REF 2028: the challenges of judging how good research culture is are argued by many to outweigh the benefits of increasing its relative weighting.

And so it was a welcome relief to chair a panel convened to support the Knowledge Exchange Concordat. This was an altogether more upbeat and positive affair, sharing lessons learned about building support for excellent knowledge exchange and engagement in universities. The NCCPE has been working hard for 15 years to identify how to build supportive cultures for public engagement - and it was a treat to compare notes with people working in other Knowledge Exchange domains.

The panel included PVCs and KE leads and we were joined by Sam Holland, a 'live scribe' who has just graduated from University of Plymouth. You can see a sample of Sam's summary of the discussion above.
Watch a recording of the webinar
What is KE culture and why does it matter?

The panel and participants in the webinar started by reflecting on what Knowledge Exchange culture is and why it matters. They agreed that KE has an image problem - being seen by many as a rather transactional 'add on' activity:
The real politic is hard. And it's hard because currently, knowledge exchange is not equally recognised in reward and recognition structures or promotion structures, in the same way that research is. Research is seen as the gold standard, and everything else is secondary to it. (Anne Boddington, Middlesex University)
But delegates shared in chat a much more positive vision of KE, emphasising creatively, collegiality and curiosity:
KE Culture for me is an open curious and enabling environment that simply supports a way of working that is collaborative It matters because academia too often risks being purposeless and self-indulgent, and a strong KE Culture challenges this and asks the 'so what?' question
KE is all about people
KE is centred on relationships and so the people, all university staff and externals, are crucial in building and maintaining these relationships. (Delegate)
A thread running throughout the session was the people-centredness of KE - something we have long argued for at the NCCPE. People described it as a 'mindset' that values learning with and from other people, inside and outside of the university - irrespective of what type of KE you are involved in:
It's really all about a culture of sharing and being open to the world and porous. Being prepared to have your preconceptions challenged and to learn from that. You have to be open. You are being influenced by the world, you want to understand the world, you want to shape it, but equally, you want to understand how the world uses your research and uses your educational output. And together, develop new things, break down barriers, solve problems. (Martin Davies, Kingston University)
The panel also reflected how 'closed' universities still are: Rory Duncan commented that 'Universities, by and large, I think are the only sector where people join 18 and never leave'.
We need to start to build in porosity, which says: you can go out into the world and be in industry for a while, then you can come back in. You can invite people in, and we can allow people to go out and come back in. And it can't be beyond the wit of institutions to do that. (Anne Boddington)
What else can we do to improve KE culture?

There was recognition that a KE and engagement mindset isn't something that is particularly well supported within most universities - something the NCCPE understands well:
I've always considered myself throughout my career to be an engaged academic. But KE is not something where there is a kind of a standard route and path that is easily followed. (Tim Vorley, Oxford Brookes)
So what can be done? The NCCPE has argued for many years that KE culture needs work, and that we need to tackle this collectively, raising the status and recognition afforded to people committed to engaged practice. Our EDGE tool is a really practical way of focusing attention on what really helps to create an engagement culture, like reward and recognition and training. As well as investing in 'formal' provision like this, the panel also celebrated more emergent' ways of supporting culture change, a key mechanism being through informal networks (like the NCCPE's PEP Network):
I'm always very keen on the role of innovation networks to bring people together, and to create the space where random things can happen. You can't necessarily design culture, but you can put in place things where self-directed design happens. That's the role of innovation networks. Innovation happens through people talking, building rapport, and sharing ideas. It's a social phenomenon. It's a social thing. (Martin Davies)
Measuring KE culture

Inevitably, discussion turned to the REF and the proposal to increase the weighting of People, Culture and Environment in REF2028. The prevailing mood was supportive of the changes. Of course, it will be challenging to implement, but the greater focus on people and culture is necessary to galvanise the changes needed - if we don't allow the tail to wag the dog:
The last thing I'd say is that we should use the things we have to answer to like the REF, TEF and KEF differently. Don't treat them as audits and set up parallel universes to do it, use the very devices that we're asked to answer creatively, institutionally. And I think this would take out an awful lot of bureaucracy and an awful lot of pain, for all communities actually, academic and professional. (Anne Boddington)
What does the future hold?

In reflecting on what might happen next, the panel were resolutely optimistic - but realistic too about how changes to university culture will never happen quickly, illustrated by Sam's KE snail. What came over again and again was the need to stop thinking in silos. One delegate reflected:
This is truly a whole system approach and begins with engaging between differing strategies and removing silos
Anne Boddington provided a vivid call to action for many people in the virtual room: she shifted the conversation from the means (KE culture) to the ends: working in more engaged ways to build 'impact intensive' universities:
We get 'research intensives'. I think we need to see more 'impact intensives'. And I certainly work in one, where actually, if you read the narrative of the strategy, it's an impact led institution. It doesn't say that but that's what it is.
Joined up, people-centred and curiosity-driven engagement strategy

So what does this all mean for KE champions and experts, and for public engagement professionals? The session closed with a plea for people to raise their sights beyond the REF and the KEF and other external instruments, and to start from first principles.
What I'm taking away from today is the importance of the language that we use to discuss KE: the need to see research, teaching and learning and knowledge exchange as part of the same thing within a relational context so that everyone (academics, professional services, non-academic groups) understands the benefit and impact of KE activity and no-one feels that they cannot undertake KE activities. (Delegate)
We need universities that are open, curious, engaged and people centred. That's what KE culture invites us to be - and who wouldn't want to work in institutions who are committed to these principles?
As a dean of a business school, we're very much trying to develop a KE culture, but not as something that is distinct from research culture, or teaching culture. It's about having excellence in engagement become embedded with teaching and research and research and teaching become embedded with engagement. And I think from that perspective, thinking about engagement as strategy is a really interesting question and challenge. (Tim Vorley)
Focusing on 'excellence in engagement' is what gets NCCPE staff out of bed in the morning - and forging links with others who are similarly committed is hugely energising.

We're looking forwards to hosting Engage Live 2024 in May where we will be celebrating excellent culture, practice and leadership in public, civic and community engagement. Do come and join us to carry on the conversation, and we'd love for you to send in your contribution ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating an open, curiosity-driven knowledge culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NCCPE works with universities to build inclusive knowledge through public engagement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Centre for Arts and Cultural Exchange (NCACE)'s key research reports, case studies, four essay commissions, four mini 'top-tips' style toolkits and a number of blogs on many aspects of Cultural Knowledge Exchange can be found in our NCACE Collection. The Collection is searchable by resource type, as well as by theme, keyword and [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research, Innovation and KE culture webinar recording

# data[].attributes.headline
What is KE culture? Live Scribe illustration

# data[].attributes.subject
What is KE culture? Live Scribe illustration

# data[].attributes.body
Sam Holland @SAMIAMILLUSTRATIONS University of Plymouth graduate live scribe output from the panels' discussion on 'what is KE Culture?'

# data[].attributes.headline
How can we improve KE culture? Live Scribe illustration

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we improve KE culture? Live Scribe illustration

# data[].attributes.body
Sam Holland @SAMIAMILLUSTRATIONS University of Plymouth graduate live scribe output from the panels' discussion on 'how we can improve KE culture'.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Can you measure KE & Research?' Live Scribe illustration

# data[].attributes.subject
'Can you measure KE & Research?' Live Scribe illustration

# data[].attributes.body
Sam Holland @SAMIAMILLUSTRATIONS University of Plymouth graduate live scribe output from the panels' discussion on 'can we measure KE & Research?'

# data[].attributes.headline
Padlet responses 'what is KE culture? and why does it matter?'

# data[].attributes.subject
Padlet responses 'what is KE culture? and why does it matter?'

# data[].attributes.body
PDF of the responses collated during the webinar

# data[].attributes.headline
Mentimeter responses from during the webinar

# data[].attributes.subject
Mentimeter responses from during the webinar

# data[].attributes.body
Questions posed where ' How valued is KE culture?' and 'How optimistric are you about the future of KE?'

# data[].attributes.headline
Padlet response 'what are you taking away from today's discussion?'

# data[].attributes.subject
Padlet response 'what are you taking away from today's discussion?'

# data[].attributes.body
PDF of responses collated during the webinar

# data[].attributes.headline
The Knowledge Exchange Concordat principles

# data[].attributes.subject
The Knowledge Exchange Concordat principles

# data[].attributes.body
The aim of the KE concordat is to give universities and their staff, students and partners a clarity of mission that allows them to succeed in knowledge exchange in a

supportive environment.

# data[].attributes.body
NCCPE’s EDGE tool – a self assessment framework that many universities and departments have used to reflect on and benchmark their support for public engagement. It identifies various kinds of investment that make a difference

# data[].attributes.body
Slide shared by Rory Duncan during the webinar

# data[].attributes.body
Slide presented in the webinar

# data[].attributes.headline
Innovation & Research Caucus -Informing the research and innovation system through academic insight

# data[].attributes.subject
Innovation & Research Caucus -Informing the research and innovation system through academic insight

# data[].attributes.body
Using robust evidence to support UKRI, the Innovation and Research Caucus develops evidence-led research and innovation policies, strategies and decision-making, providing insights into what works, where and why. Working with the wider academic community and our funders to create a thriving innovation ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using robust evidence to support UKRI, the Innovation and Research Caucus develops evidence-led research and innovation policies, strategies and decision-making, providing insights into what works, where and why. Working with the wider academic community and our funders to create a thriving innovation ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evaluating non-financial impact, University of the Arts London

# data[].attributes.subject
Evaluating non-financial impact, University of the Arts London

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.keconcordat.ac.uk/evaluating-non-financial-impact-university-of-the-arts-london/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating non-financial impact, University of the Arts London |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UAL designed a process to help secure buy-in from across our staff in the development of a range of non-financial metrics and KPIs to help better measure, value and improve KE performance. Examples include gathering qualitative feedback from partners (through surveys), and quantitative data on non-i…

# data[].attributes.headline
Ethics Review College, Bath Spa University

# data[].attributes.subject
Ethics Review College, Bath Spa University

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.keconcordat.ac.uk/ethics-review-college-bath-spa-university/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The University has an Internal Ethics Review College, made up of representatives from across each of the academic Schools, who are trained in mentoring and supporting staff and students in applications for ethical approval for projects and research. There are clear processes and procedures for staff and students to follow, that cover the range of our activities from traditional research to working with children in schools, creative practice and co-collaborative community work.

Please provide a brief description of the KE project/ case study and why you believe it is considered good practice or innovative (and for whom). What challenge were you trying to address?

We restructured how our Ethics Peer Review College worked so that each of our academic departments had their own ethics review systems and reported upwards. We realized though that we were lacking the cross disciplinary support and we were missing opportunities to make linkages across departments and share good practice.

We wanted to make our approach to ethics consistent across the university and allow that cross curricular thinking. Each of our academic schools has a designated ethics team of reviewers within their units to independently review applications and this allows them to have those initial conversations up front informally. Each of the ethics leads sits on our institutional wide Ethics panel and they come up with a series of themes to drive our activity collectively. They also do a lot of cross school reviews- so if a school is doing an educational review, they can get a psychologists take on it, for example.

Initial ownership at the departmental level has really enhanced the culture to allow departments to informally assess applications before it goes formally to our ethics panel. It also allows us to take a lighter approach for very small scale projects so we can manage and identify risks appropriately.

2. Where did the idea for the project/ programme come from? Was this related to a strategic objective? How did you secure senior buy in?

We're signatories to the UUK Concordat for Research Integrity and Ethics. We were achieving our requirements against that, but more in a slightly heavy-handed way. Our academics felt that the process was slow and bureaucratic and it was holding them up. That's a private sector/ public sector difference. It was really important for our partners to see things happening quickly. We aligned our ethics process with what we did for research to really try to build in some of those academic concerns- consent, data protection etc. So it meant we could iron things out up front and it sped up the ethical approval process. It meant we could maintain the strength and rigour of our research culture but still be more outward facing with our business partnerships.

When we had the liaison about restructuring, those conversations were leading this. We also wanted to make it less formal to speak to externals about ethical approvals etc. so our academics could signpost to our partners in a way that is proportionate. Our approach helps our partners to see the benefits beyond just paperwork and box ticking. And for our academics, they realise the benefits can make their projects stronger, allowing them to get what they need out of it.

3. What impact/ outcome has this project/ activity had on your university? Students? Local economy? Staff? Other external parties, e.g. businesses.

Since 2019, when it was established, our approach has increased our university's collaborations. We've reduced the bureaucracy and there are now informal routes into the university with the right kinds of dialogue at the right levels. It's enhanced our ability to do those kinds of projects more quickly. Before, things were getting delayed and now that we have those support structures we've been able to minimise the bureaucracy. That's seeping into our academic culture and making these partnerships stronger and more workable.

4. How did you measure impact?

We're still early in the stages of this. In the first year or two, we developed our narrative slightly. Now, we measure it through our HEBCI data and the strength of our KEF narratives. The first obvious sign is quantity. There are a lot more partnerships, and the type of collaborative applications we're seeing has increased - suggesting we've reduced the levels of bureaucracy.

One our measures is to do an annual compliance statement so we're now seeing more ethics applications coming in. We're also seeing more collaborations with ethics applications, and more willingness for academics to have informal conversations about ethics - so we've seen that as a positive.

5. What types of resources were required to implement this project?

In 2019, we set clear parameters for workload commitments for ethics leads alongside commitments from faculty leads and ringfenced time in their workload for ethical review. It wasn't a huge amount and probably doesn't reach the full amount of time they spend on it but we did need to recognise that this is important and does take time.

In terms of administrative resource, it's just two people, one part time and one full time who looks after post award functions and contracting and serves as secretary for the university ethics panel to coordinate the process and steer the agenda.

Given we're a small institution, having a named person recognised for their role in each department has been really key and we are also looking to invest in an online ethics system to help us manage this- thanks to our QR uplifts from REF - to help us facilitate the bureaucratic side of things and focus more on nurturing those important informal conversations and enhancing our suite of guidance.

6. How did you ensure your project aligned with further key ethical/ inclusion policies?

We have built in ethical principles to the business engagement team and their contracts and then we deal by exception with any particular issues.

7. What are the governance structures in place to oversee it?

Each departmental Ethics Panel handles day to day applications and makes recommendations to the University Ethics Panel. The University Ethic's Panel is a sub committee of the research committee that reports to our executive level. We have an external who sits on both of those, (usually a professor at another university) and we occasionally invite in other externals. For example, we brought in a biologist to talk about legal recognition of animals. We've also invited in representatives from our EDI group or the SU to bring in different voices to help us inform and break down some of those barriers.

8. Describe any challenges that you have had to overcome either before, during or after implementing this project?

The biggest challenge originally was to secure engagement from our academics- negotiating fixed time and fixed people for each Ethics Review College. There was a sense that research ethics was separate and wasn't overseen by the university so we were forced to have an open dialogue about what research ethics really means.

Once it was clear how it feeds into the work of the university and academic's individual work, for example, we broke down what research integrity is and how this should permeate into our teaching process.

9. Next steps?

We really want to continue to ingratiate the idea that integrity and ethics is about principles and good practice and want to see those principles spawning into our academics' processes more- like public engagement and commercialisation.

We really want our ethics policy to develop into a suite of resources to allow us to create quality partnerships and to make these conversations happen organically - and of course keep it evolving so that it continues to support the strategic direction of the work we're doing as a University.

To find out more, get in touch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics Review College, Bath Spa University |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The University has an Internal Ethics Review College, made up of representatives from across each of the academic Schools, who are trained in mentoring and supporting staff and students in applications for ethical approval for projects and research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bristol’s Translational Research Hubs, Bristol University

# data[].attributes.subject
Bristol’s Translational Research Hubs, Bristol University

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.keconcordat.ac.uk/bristols-translational-research-hubs-bristol-university/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The University of Bristol's Translational Research Hubs are particularly notable for embedding innovation and entrepreneurship into core disciplines and as models of good practice from which other institutions can learn.

Please provide a brief description of the KE project/ case study and why you believe it is considered good practice or innovative (and for whom). What challenge were you trying to achieve?

Bristol's first Translational Research Hub is largely built around biomedical research, working with researchers in this area to develop their fundamental research findings into new medical interventions such as drugs and diagnostics. We've since replicated this activity in social sciences and law. Both Hubs were set up to focus effort in places where we were either seeing a lot of or not seeing enough translational R&D occurring where there was huge potential, and this needed dedicated expert support.

From about 2010 onwards, we have wanted to do more translational research. The Wellcome Trust became interested in this space and through a combination of us securing a Wellcome Trust Translational Partnership Award (TPA) and using UKRI impact acceleration account funding this allowed us to kick it off. It was also important that the Dean was a strong advocate for this initiative, which gave it credibility with researchers. We have recruited a team of people with industry and translation experience and brought in Royal Society Entrepreneurs in Residence who can advise academics based on their own experience developing and commercialising technologies. We managed to get 150 academics, early career researchers and PhD students involved in our Biomedical Hub and now there is growing activity around commercialisation, including spinouts.

Each Hub includes a significant training element in translational skills and entrepreneurship. Within the Biomedical Hub, we targeted 40 early career researchers and 50 PhD students early on. We also reached out to more established PIs to offer 1:1 advice . We also developed a mentoring programme and a number of collaborative fellowships so that people could spend time outside of academia.

Where did the idea for the project/ programme come from? Was this related to a strategic objective? How did you secure senior buy in?

A core element of the University of Bristol's 2030 Strategy is "World-leading Research and Innovation with Global Impact". Our Knowledge Exchange plan includes a plan to grow enterprise activities and we have invested in Bristol Innovations. Ideally, several translational research hubs will exist, aligned to strategic investments; for example, the University of Bristol is investing in a significant Enterprise Campus at Temple Meads which will further expand our Engineering and Social Sciences capability.

What impact/ outcome has this project/ activity had on your university? Students? Local economy? Staff? Other external parties, e.g. businesses.

The relevance and conversation around these Hubs has improved and become easier, leading to more business engagement and collaborative research. Bristol Innovations represents our overall aspiration to invest in translational research and Biomedical research is a key strength within UoB.

There's a general sense that there needs to be a shift across the piece. In rolling the Hub model out to social sciences and law, we started to call more people towards translational research, recognising that the REF and the external funding environment is helping to move that cultural shift towards impact and translation.

Bristol from quite a cold start is quickly developing as a hot spot for biotech. We are now fifth in the country for biotech investments and we'd like to think this is related. University of Bristol spinout Ziylo, which created a new technology with potential to treat diabetes more effectively was bought by global healthcare company Novo Nordisk in a deal which could be worth around $800 million and the founder is starting to invest in other startups and spinouts.

Historically, the HEBCI metrics have been important, e.g., collaborative R&D income, the number of disclosures and licenses as well as total R&D income and number of spinouts created. We also count the numbers of researchers engaging with us in translational projects. Translation can be a long process and ultimately we want to see impact from new products- for example in the biomedical space, new medicines which improve people's lives.

What types of resources were required to implement this project?

Following on from the success of the Wellcome funding we have used our HEIF allocation to retain and expand staffing for the Biomedical Hub to 4, embedding a new function into business as usual . It has been seen as successful within the university in providing the support and expertise to progress translational projects. The Biomedical Hub has been catalytic in combination with 1-2 other activities.

What are the governance structures in place to oversee it?

The relevant Dean acts as Executive Sponsor for each Hub, meeting regularly with all those involved. There is a board/ group which regularly reviews activities.

Describe any challenges that you have had to overcome either before, during or after implementing this project?

We have had to tackle how we embed a culture of translational research in areas where people haven't done it before.

The second related challenge is how we persuade academics of the value of translating their research and to invest their time in translation activities, in particular training. To address this , two years ago we included an explicit set of essential requirements around engagement and impact into our promotion criteria. We do have a workload model where this work is occasionally captured and at other times falls within the research bucket.

What advice would you give others in trying to engage with hard-to-reach groups? Have you considered EDI within your strategy?

Through the SETSquared incubator we run specific programmes and accelerator activities for under-represented groups, including leadership and enterprise initiatives for female founders and tech founders from minority ethnic backgrounds . These have been very transformational in terms of increasing the number and diversity of founders.

For our internal translational funding schemes, we build inclusivity and diversity in our governance and management structures, including embedding equitable peer review in our Funding Panels. We monitor the diversity of award holders we are supporting and address inclusion and diversity during the development of partnerships and projects. We have designed secondments and challenge-led workshops to be open and flexible for part-time and virtual working.

We have definite ambitions for growth of our Translational Hubs and development of the suite of services they offer; this in turn will allow us to support the translation of more research, but we need to find new sources of funding for this.

Exploiting the upskilling angle is also critical for us. Training up early career researchers allows us to help others when they are more senior to embed this in five years' time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bristol's Translational Research Hubs, Bristol University |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The University of Bristol's Translational Research Hubs are particularly notable for embedding innovation and entrepreneurship into core disciplines and as models of good practice from which other institutions can learn. Please provide a brief description of the KE project/ case study and why you believe it is considered good practice or innovative (and for whom).

# data[].attributes.headline
Targeted innovation support for SMEs, Cardiff University

# data[].attributes.subject
Targeted innovation support for SMEs, Cardiff University

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.keconcordat.ac.uk/targeted-innovation-support-for-smes-cardiff-university/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cardiff's innovation support has recently received a boost from HEFCW innovation funding, which has enabled the university to enhance the ways in which it is reaching out and giving back to SMEs and larger organisations within the locality. Within its suite of innovation support, it provides opportunities for SMEs to come together, network and benefit from the academic expertise within the university.

1. Please provide a brief description of the KE project/ case study and why you believe it is considered good practice or innovative (and for whom). What challenge were you trying to achieve?

Our region has a high concentration of SMEs, so our programme of work includes interventions relevant for specific industries. For example, with the help of Strength in Places (SIP) funding, our Media Cymru project provides research, development and innovation (RD&I) funding to SMEs, micro businesses and freelancers in the media industry.

We established the National Software Academy to help increase the supply of software engineers in the region to meet demand. The local SME and startup community is a major beneficiary of this programme. Key features of our degree programmes at both undergraduate and post graduate level include extensive engagement with industry through client-facing projects and a focus on teamwork and industry working practices. Our Data Science Academy is based on the same model, supplying postgraduate degrees designed to meet the need of industry for highly skilled, work ready graduates.

As part of our HEFCW-funded Research Wales Innovation Fund (RWIF - equivalent to HEIF in England), we ran a seed funding programme supporting over 150 small-scale impact and innovation projects enabling academics to work with external partners, several of which were SMEs. We have also been working hard to broaden the range of academics involved in commercialisation and have developed a comprehensive knowledge exchange development programme to support academics, particularly those whose disciplines might not traditionally consider commercialisation, e.g., arts, humanities, and social sciences, to consider how commercialisation and business development might be appropriate for their research outputs.

At the heart of Cardiff University's mission is our contribution to the social, cultural and economic development of Wales and the United Kingdom. This involves recognising the need to support collaborative activity with both small and large organisations.

Historically, European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) played a big part in Cardiff's engagement with SMEs. Now we are working with UK funders as well as regional actors, for example, increasing capacity to deliver KTPs.

One of our tasks has been to understand the nature and sectors of the companies in our locality and match them with academic expertise. Alignment of strategic aims (Research & Innovation with Civic Mission) had helped achieve senior buy in. Externally, developing the local economy through research-based innovation approaches aligns well with the Welsh Government's Innovation Strategy and Cardiff Capital Region City Deal's Regional Economic Industrial Plan.

We were part of the SETsquared Scale Up programme funded through the Connecting Capabilities Fund in England, and HEFCW in Wales. This supplied an opportunity for a range of SMEs to engage in innovation in more ways than they have in the past. It has also helped us to introduce companies to the application of academic research in their context.

The opening of Cardiff Innovations, the university's business acceleration centre, alongside our life sciences incubator, Medicentre, has helped us connect with the SME community. Our tenants and members are introduced to the opportunities provided by the university through research collaboration to access skills and talent. This is building an ecosystem which in turn should attract more businesses to the region.

Our main evaluative frameworks are external assessments such as our HE-BCI survey return, which feeds into HEFCW's National Measures formula used to calculate RWIF funding. Some of the key metrics that we monitor for this, which help us plan strategy are spinouts, licensing income, collaborative research income etc. Historically, we have also demonstrated how we work well with businesses through our REF impact case studies.

We also commissioned a report from London Economics on the university's overall contribution to the local UK and Welsh economy. This found that, for the 2020-21 academic year, for every £1M invested in Cardiff University research (excluding activities that have a knowledge exchange element), £4.89M is generated for UK companies. Further, £59M was generated through active spinouts and staff and student start-ups, supporting 1,285 full-time jobs, 665 of which are in Wales. The report provides us with a strong baseline for future analysis of new interventions over the coming years.

RWIF funding was introduced in Wales in 2020 creating a boost for the university and its ability to dedicate resources into managing and developing activity in this space. Prior to that, we had not received strategic innovation funding since 2014, putting us at a disadvantage to HEIs outside Wales. All activity was funded centrally or through competitive project-based bidding.

RWIF has gone some way to start to bridge this gap and we have been intentionally strategic about investing in staff to support bid writing, business engagement, and commercial research translation, as well as non-commercial impact and public engagement activities. We have also used some of the funding to support our Innovation Institutes to enable them to enhance their R&D through bespoke initiatives that are appropriate to the sectors with whom they collaborate.

The Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Innovation has overall responsibility for innovation, commercialisation and business engagement. He chairs a strategy group that covers research, enterprise, and innovation, which provides a mechanism for high-level discussion with senior professional services colleagues leading on the full breadth of our innovation activity plus senior academic deans for R&I who represent our three colleges, as well as our Dean for Research (& Innovation) Culture and Environment. This group feeds up into our University Executive Board, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and into other active groups, one of which focuses on knowledge exchange, innovation and external relationships.

One of the challenges for us is the lack of an institutional CRM system so capturing data across the whole university is hard. We have access to data through our costing and pricing system and through localised use of a CRM system and we are exploring possibilities around CRM systems, which would enable us to further enhance our targeted activity with external partners.

There is also a challenge with the variability in how academics approach working with external partners. The knowledge exchange and impact development programme aims to address this through upskilling researchers on engaging with external collaborators to support more productive bi-directional relationships. Another way we are addressing this is the support we provide around KTPs. Working with SMEs can create practical challenges, e.g., around payment systems, so we are working to develop our processes to be more dynamic and flexible, whilst maintaining robust governance.

There has been a significant investment by the university in our flagship Innovation Institutes which cover Digital Transformation, Net Zero, Neuroscience and Mental Health, and Security Crime and Intelligence. We will be working with these institutes to help them further develop their relationships with industry and seek out opportunities to develop new clusters in the region building on our successes with the SiP fund with our CSconnected and media.cymru projects.

In January, we welcomed a new Head of Research, Commercialisation and Impact who is developing a new commercialisation strategy, which will include a focus on SMEs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Targeted innovation support for SMEs, Cardiff University |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cardiff's innovation support has recently received a boost from HEFCW innovation funding, which has enabled the university to enhance the ways in which it is reaching out and giving back to SMEs and larger organisations within the locality. Within its suite of innovation support, it provides opportunities for SMEs to come together, network and benefit [...]

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.keconcordat.ac.uk/strategic-partnerships-policy-coventry-university/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategic Partnerships Policy, Coventry University |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coventry University operates a Strategic Partnerships Policy that clearly defines account management and governance structures for major industry partners and is supported by processes across the organisation.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Institute for KE Practice (IKEP), Nottingham Trent University

# data[].attributes.subject
The Institute for KE Practice (IKEP), Nottingham Trent University

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.keconcordat.ac.uk/the-institute-for-ke-practice-ikep-nottingham-trent-university/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IKEP's workplan is co-designed by an Advisory Board comprising members of each academic School. Board members champion KE development within their School and across the University. They also advise on HEIF pump-priming investment for innovative KE.

1. Please provide a brief description of the KE project/ case study and why you believe it is considered good practice or innovative (and for whom).

The Institute for Knowledge Exchange Practice (IKEP) was established in 2022 to support capacity building and professional development for academic and professional service staff. Through IKEP we help our staff commercialise intellectual property and to develop new commercial products and services. IKEP also supports our professional engagement with business and the community, including policy makers and influencers.

IKEP is creating an innovative, co-designed approach to growing KE at NTU and we are talking to other universities about sharing good practice.

2. Where did the idea for the project/ programme come from? Was this related to a strategic objective? How did you secure senior buy in?

There were already two institutes at NTU supporting development in teaching and research. However, there was no focal point for the development of knowledge exchange. A proposal for a new Institute was discussed at the University's Extended Executive Team, which includes our Executive Deans of School, and it received unanimous support.

3. What impact/ outcome has this project/ activity had on your university? Students? Local economy? Staff? Other external parties, e.g. businesses.

While it's still early days IKEP, alongside the development of individual School KE plans based upon the KEF, has started a new discussion about the role that KE can play in enhancing teaching, research and practice. It also supports our strategic commitment of enriching society.

As a large modern university, with nearly 4500 employees, it's sometimes difficult to meet people with common interests or to find potential collaborators. An early win is that colleagues are working across disciplines and getting to know each other better. This has led to the development of KE Practice Networks, proposed directly by staff who want to engage across themes, regardless of discipline. IKEP supports the networks with a small budget and provides support to help them develop their annual programmes, sometimes including external stakeholders.

4. How did you measure impact?

We seek to demonstrate the return on investment of IKEP and this is relatively straightforward for commercial income. It is more challenging to measure non-commercial impact and it's sometimes difficult to evidence qualitative impact and benefits such as social value, for example. One of the key objectives of IKEP is to develop our skills and capability to evaluate knowledge exchange and to pilot new methods of evaluating KE within NTU. Through expert workshops and the creation of a resource bank, IKEP is supporting colleagues to articulate their own impact ambitions and develop appropriate plans to capture the difference that their KE makes.

5. What types of resources were required to implement this project?

IKEP is resourced through HEIF and its activities are coordinated by two team members, with the support of others within the Knowledge Exchange Department. Academic colleagues and professional support staff across the University also play a crucial role in the delivery of its programme. An example of a great team effort is the support provided by the IKEP Annual Conference organising committee who have developed an exciting and imaginative programme for this year.

6. What are the governance structures in place to oversee it?

IKEP is the development arm of the University's Knowledge Exchange Department, which is led by me and overseen by Sarah Want, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for KE and Civic Engagement. It's workplan is developed and governed by the Advisory Board which also ensures that the activities of the Institute are aligned to aims of the School Knowledge Plans.

The Head of KE Development and Evaluation provides the day-to-day leadership and co-ordination of IKEP, supported by our Knowledge Exchange Development Officer.

7. Describe any challenges that you have had to overcome either before, during or after implementing this project?

We soon learnt that there wasn't a shared understanding of 'knowledge exchange' and for many people KE was equated solely to IP Commercialisation and consultancy. IKEP has enabled us to develop a broader and more inclusive understanding of knowledge exchange and the many ways this is manifested in teaching and research.

8. What advice would you give others in trying to engage with hard-to-reach groups? Have you considered EDI within your strategy?

Engaging with underserved groups is a feature of many aspects of our knowledge exchange. For example, through the European Social Fund we have worked with those disadvantaged in the labour market. In one of our skills programmes, we have attracted 31% of participants from Ethnic Minority Backgrounds. In this case, partnership with a leading local business network was key to this engagement.

At the end of our first full academic year, we will be undertaking an Equality Impact Assessment of IKEP to ensure that we are not inadvertently creating barriers that prevent people accessing training and development opportunities.

9. Next steps?

We will continue to grow IKEP's engagement with university staff and we are ambitious to grow the influence and impact of the Institute. We will explore how IKEP can create new opportunities to share good practice with other institutions and to support collaboration.

The role of student and graduate knowledge exchange is often overlooked. Therefore, we have invested in a new evaluation approach that seeks to understand the benefits to student and graduates to beneficiary organisations. This is a theme we will explore further.

We will continue to develop our growing on-line resource bank of KE training materials.

Most importantly, we will continue to listen to colleagues and partners to support knowledge exchange that makes a lasting impact upon the economy and society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Institute for KE Practice (IKEP), Nottingham Trent University |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IKEP's workplan is co-designed by an Advisory Board comprising members of each academic School. Board members champion KE development within their School and across the University. They also advise on HEIF pump-priming investment for innovative KE. 1. Please provide a brief description of the KE project/ case study and why you believe it is [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Supporting innovation through social science insight. The Innovation Caucus supports sustainable innovation-led growth by promoting engagement between the social sciences and the innovation ecosystem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our members are leading academics from across the social science community, who are engaged in different aspects of innovation research. We connect the social sciences, Innovate UK and the ESRC, by providing research insights to inform innovation policy and practice. We champion the role of social science in innovation and enhance its impact.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Nuffield report was referred to by panelist Rory Duncan during the webinar

# data[].attributes.subject
The Nuffield report was referred to by panelist Rory Duncan during the webinar

# data[].attributes.body
The culture of scientific research: the findings of a series of engagement activities exploring the culture of scientific research in the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The culture of scientific research - The Nuffield Council on Bioethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The project aimed to explore the effects of a wide range of influences on scientific research, including funding mechanisms, publishing models, career structures and governance processes. This report summarises the findings of the project activities, which included a survey of almost 1000 scientists and others, and a series of discussion events at universities around the UK.

# data[].attributes.body
Through the NCUB Researcher Career Mobility Taskforce, we have sought to understand what more the UK needs to do to capture the full potential of our researcher workforce by encouraging and enabling diverse careers across sectors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
National Centre for Universities & Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCUB's Pathway to Success - National Centre for Universities & Business