Research and Knowledge Exchange Governance
Author: Dr Paul Roberts
Working as a Business Advisor to the GrantsNow team at Fusion Practices requires reflecting on all aspects of research and knowledge exchange activity.
Research and Knowledge Exchange activities are imbibed with risk and Research and Enterprise Divisions regularly provide seminars, webinars and pages of guidance to help researchers consider these risks. Effective management of this risk requires universities to have good governance in place, with clear leadership and robust processes underpinned by investment in both staff and systems. Universities’ governance structures should empower individuals, helping to promote a culture that enables staff and students to pursue research and knowledge exchange whilst mitigating potential risks to the institution.
This is a particular concern for the UK Higher Education Sector, which even before the turn of the century, was described as the most audited higher education system in the world (Cowen, 1996). Despite, recent drives to reduce administrative burden (e.g., Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy, led by Professor Adam Tickell and work by UKRI on its Simpler and Better Funding programme), the need for robust research and knowledge exchange governance remains. This is because it is underpinned by a range of legislation and guidance to protect the safety and rights of research/knowledge exchange project participants and ensuring projects are robust and fit for purpose. There is a growing burden on universities to ensure research and knowledge exchange compliance. Since the turn of the century the pace of legislative activity appears to have increased, with recent examples including the Medicines and Medical Devices Act (2021), Subsidy Control Act (2022) and Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (2023) and more legislative requirements are expected e.g., the National Security Bill (2023 tbc). The costs in responding to this legislative environment appear to be growing for the sector (ARMA, 2023). However, its implementation within a University should not be a barrier to activity. It needs to avoid being cumbersome, time consuming and/or overly bureaucratic.
So what does good research and knowledge exchange governance look like?
Here are a few prompts when reflecting on your own institution:
Remit – Clearly defined responsibilities and terms of reference are key. Can you provide greater clarity on roles and responsibilities for your staff?
Leadership – Research and knowledge exchange governance not only needs senior level advocacy (such as a Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Research and Knowledge Exchange) but needs senior managers throughout the approvals processes to be engaged. When was the last blog or communication piece demonstrating senior level advocacy?
Awareness – Being able to explain the approvals process to faculty and staff and helping them appreciate the time needed to assess proposals is critical. There is a often a cultural challenge with higher education with proposals arriving far too close to deadlines for submission. A greater understanding of and guidance on the institutional risks. How is the increasing challenge of research governance communicated to faculty and staff?
Flexibility – Research Governance issues mean greater cooperation between departments and units within a University (e.g. Legal, Governance, International Office teams as well as Research and Enterprise staff). There is a challenge to keep on top of guidance and often this requires reconfiguring workflows/approvals so that the correct department can review. Do you have the flexibility to adjust your research governance processes/systems to react to either internal or externally driven change?
Capacity – Does your institution have the professional services staff and systems to operationalise the legislative requirements? Software systems that can provide and account for workflow/approval processes and ensure all requisite documentation is stored are crucial. Investing in such systems is a key means of reducing the burden on professional services staff. By reducing staff time through the investment in software there is more capacity for staff development (e.g., engaging with the Association of Research Managers and Administrators) and investing in their expertise.
References:
ARMA (2023). Complex Collaborations: Efficiency, Equity, Quality and Security in International Research
Retrieved on 25th May 2023 from: https://arma.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Trusted-Report_Booklet_v7.pdf
Cowen, R. (Ed.). (1996). The World Yearbook of Education 1996: The Evaluation of Higher Education Systems (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203080283