Running risks of gender inequity: knowledge transfer policy in Australian higher education

Abstract

Knowledge transfer (KT), or third stream activities of universities, has attracted attention from funding and regulatory bodies in recent years. While approaches differ from country to country, moves to improve measurement and monitoring of such activities with a view to encourage or better direct it have occurred in several settings. This article analyses some issues arising from moves to define and measure KT in an Australian university. There are tensions between approaches to definition and measurement that focus on research commercialisation and those that acknowledge the benefit derived from broader activities of universities. We argue that budgetary pressures which focus attention on commercialisation can lead to the adoption of KT policy that is likely to have harmful consequences for academic staff in the long term. In particular, policy with a priority on commercial benefit has the potential to reinforce the existing disadvantage of female staff by according lower value to work directed to public or community benefit, and focusing on successful outcomes rather than the time and effort needed for KT development. These issues need to be considered in developing policy to define and measure KT.

Keywords:

• research
• gender

Notes

1. The ‘KT spiral’ model proposed is described in detail in a separate article, see XXXX et al. forthcoming, XXXX.

2. XXX et. al. forthcoming outlines proposals for recognising and rewarding KT activity in a way that is sympathetic to the efforts that are made by all academics. It also involved creating representative categories of KT to assist individual academics in identifying and documenting their own KT activities for promotion, which is outlined in this companion article.

3. In its introduction to the fourth round of funding in the Higher Education Innovation Fund 4 for 2008–9, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009) referred to ‘knowledge exchange’ rather than ‘knowledge transfer.’

4. Although most of the materials mentioned in this section have focused on commercialisation in science and technology, we found repeated acknowledgement that innovative KT in other fields can be of significant economic as well as cultural value, and is intertwined with the usability of technological advances. Measuring Third Stream Activities made this point clearly (Molas-Gallart et al. 2002, 8), and Howard’s later report, Between a Hard Rock and a Soft Space: Design, creative practice and innovation (2008), focused further on the economic and other contributions of non-science disciplines.

5. For a review of the impact of the policies that were adopted, see PACEC (2009).

6. See for example Venturous Australia - building strength in innovation, Report on the Review of the National Innovation System (the ‘Cutler Innovation Review’ 2008) and the government response, Powering Ideas: An innovation agenda for the 21st century, Australian Government Innovation Policy Agenda to 2020 (2009).

7. Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workforce Agency, Census of Women in Leadership undertaken annually, and Industry Verticals covering Education (2005) and Finance and Insurance (2006), which identify the disproportionately low representation of women in managerial and higher executive positions. This is reflected in universities as well.