Knowledge Exchange: A Toolkit for HERA Projects
Overview
The significance of humanities research to stakeholders outside the academy, variously referred to as ‘impact’ and ‘valorisation’, is of growing significance and importance throughout Europe. There is also increased expectation from humanities funders that projects articulate and demonstrate the impact of their research. Public engagement and knowledge exchange are considered to be core components of cultural, social and economic impact. Whilst the multiple European partners involved in HERA have differing national approaches to their definition, communication, capture and assessment, the HERA network is committed to maximising public engagement, knowledge exchange and the impact of research activity across Europe.
Humanities research plays a vital role in building relationships among a wide range of societal stakeholders, including academics, citizens, communities, civic organisations, industries, museums and memory sites, creative practitioners and policymakers. Projects funded under the HERA JRPs include a broad and impressive range of partners across the public, private, governmental and non-governmental sectors. These include policy makers, festivals and venues, military regiments, religious institutions, artist organisations and performing arts practitioners, heritage sites and historic buildings, museums and galleries, libraries and archives, media organisations, professional networking organisations, activist groups, academic bodies and societies, legal and financial institutions, businesses, professional societies, public sector institutions, voluntary and community groups, and charitable organisations. HERA does not seek to impose any one model of impact but embraces innovation, experimentation, sensitivity to the needs of project research and national contexts; there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. HERA values diversity and acknowledges the importance of basic research whilst encouraging researchers to identify the relevance of their work within contemporary Europe and beyond.
Developing best practice in public engagement, knowledge exchange and impact has been a key feature of HERA from its beginning. This toolkit is intended to support HERA projects in navigating and developing effective public engagement, knowledge exchange and impact in complex transnational environments, as well as capturing their outcomes. Based on the challenges and opportunities experienced by the three previous HERA JRPs (2010-2019), and present developments in the European research landscape, the toolkit aims to provide practical, humanities researcher-centered guidance to project members.
About this toolkit
This toolkit was created by Prof. Jo Sofaer (University of Southampton), Prof. Tony Whyton (Birmingham City University), Dr Craig Hamilton (Birmingham City University) and Elysia Greenaway (University of Southampton). We welcome feedback in order to make it as useful to projects as possible.
You can use the menu bar on the left-hand side to navigate to different sections
The toolkit is intended as a ‘living’ document. It will be updated with new elements over time.
During the course of creating this toolkit the team have also created an interactive, online application that provides visibility on outputs, public engagement, knowledge exchange and impact for all HERA projects. This will be available soon.
Alongside the text contained within this report there are also a number of case studies and introductions to practical ‘how to’ toolkit elements throughout. These are placed at relevant points throughout the report and are intended as additional resources. They will appear as follows:
Case Study
A pink Case Study box will provide some information about a specific aspect of an existing or previous HERA project that is intended as an example of best practice for a particular area of public engagement, knowledge exchange or impact.
How to…
The blue Toolkit boxes will provide a brief overview of a specific element of the Tookit that may assist you in activities related to public engagement, knowledge exchange or impact. A link in the box will take you to the more detailed section of the Toolkit that will provide further information.
Public Engagement
What is it?
Public engagement, also known as outreach, refers to the wide range of ways that researchers can share their work with the public outside the academy. It is a two-way process involving interaction, listening and developing understanding that aims to generate mutual benefit. This two-way dynamic distinguishes it from the one-way process of dissemination.
Why do it?
There is a wide variety of arguments for why scholars should engage with different audiences and, more specifically, for the particular role of the humanities in public life. If we do public engagement well, we are helping to improve research, making it more accessible and highlighting the importance of the humanities.
If we, as researchers, believe that what we do is important and valuable then we have a duty to communicate outside our own community.
The humanities are innately social and inclusive. They explore issues that matter to people and that speak to them on a human level. People are interested in the humanities because as members of humanity they directly benefit from our research - or at least they ought to!
The publicly funded nature of much humanities research (including HERA funding) means that the public have a stake in what we do. Engaging outside the academy is a matter of public accountability that forms part of our contract with society.
By contributing to the knowledge economy, public engagement with the humanities can stimulate debate on issues that are of critical importance to society. As the humanities promote the values of intellectual curiosity, innovation, critical thinking and tolerance, public engagement is therefore vital to democracy and well-being.
Many contemporary thinkers in the humanities claim that humanities have - or should have - a political impact on society (e.g. Marquard, Nussbaum, Rorty, Fish). The main goal of the humanities should be then a transformation of the social imaginary by making explicit the multitude of vocabularies used to describe human experience. This can only be done by engaging outside the academy.
The humanities distinctive focus on the past - and the many ways that they address fundamental challenges of human history, culture and identity - can inform present debates and transformations in Europe. The humanities offer insights into how pasts are actively and instrumentally used and re-used, (including their relation to issues such as solidarity, trust and imagined futures), which historically-informed discourses and actions in society are promoted, mobilised and legitimised, and which mechanisms lie behind the work of historical understanding. This knowledge enables us to see more clearly the complex ways in which our cultural diversity has been formed, and the dynamics by which it may be shaped and directed in the future. It explores and systematises exactly what it means to be a ‘reflective society’, enabling us to better understand processes of historical development, innovation, and social change that are fundamental to the human condition. The relevance and power of the humanities thus lie not only in what they can tell us about the past but in how they can help shape the present and the future. Public engagement enables us to fulfil this promise.
Effective public engagement makes a difference by changing the ways that people think and act. It thus forms part of a pathway to impact. This impact is qualitatively different from that of the sciences in that the possibilities for the humanities to shape the future need not always be immediately utilitarian, instrumental, or about the application of knowledge per se. Instead the humanities offer the possibility for a much deeper shaping: a shaping of thought, ideas and human actions.
How can we do it?
Effective public engagement makes a difference. It is by definition interactive. It is about finding ways to encourage active, enquiring ‘prosumers’ rather than simply delivering findings to passive ‘consumers’. It allows people to ask questions, create dialogue and get involved.
In designing a public engagement activity it can be useful to consider the following:
1. What are people engaging with?
A good starting point is to return to basics and to ask:
What is interesting about my research?
Where can it make a difference?
What are the overarching aims of my activity? What do I want to stimulate through interacting with people outside the academy?
What do I want to get through the process of engagement? For example, is the public contributing to, or co-creating the research in some way, for example by adding to an archive of oral history?
2. Who are the audience?
Although we use the phrase ‘public engagement’, the word ‘public’ is rather imprecise. Just as people are all different, not all publics are the same. There is a wide variety of different interest groups, stakeholders and visitor types. Thus although there is an implicit assumption that publicly funded research has universal public value in which all members of society have a shared interest, and many researchers desire to be inclusive in order to reach as wide an audience as possible, in practical terms it can be much more strategic and effective to segment potential audiences.
Segmentation is a well-established notion within marketing, the arts, culture, and heritage sectors. It is the process of dividing and organising the population into meaningful and manageable groups in order to tailor activities and communications to their preferences and interests. It can also be used as a tool to diversify and widen audiences by identifying under-represented groups. Defining your audience means that you can tailor communication to them rather than using a scatter-gun approach that hopes, or assumes, that people will be interested in your work.
There are many different ways of segmenting an audience. The Audience Agency works internationally and has some good advice on audience segmentation that is particularly relevant to projects that are partnering with arts and heritage organisations. It also offers sophisticated analysis tools that are aimed primarily at these sectors. These are likely to be more detailed than is required by most HERA projects but the principle of audience segmentation is worth considering. The Audience Agency suggests that the following variables may be useful in segmenting audiences:
Modified from The Audience Agency
Instead of aiming activities at ‘the general public’, consider whether your audience might be, for example, families, school children or young adults. Is it local residents of a particular area? Professionals in a particular sector? You might also consider targeting audiences that are socially marginalised or frequently excluded from academic contexts in order to widen participation.
It can be useful to have a scoping stage where you have some preliminary conversations with your target group(s) in order to understand your audience. This might include verifying why your topic is of interest to them and / or discussing what might be the best methods of engagement to get them interested in your research. Knowing your audience means that you can plan around them in order to best achieve your aims. This, in turn, means that your public engagement is likely to be much more successful and impactful.
You can refine or expand beyond your original proposal to HERA as long as this is justified in your annual report.
3. What Method of Engagement Is Most Suitable?
Choosing a method of engagement is a matter of selecting the most appropriate tool depending on the audience and purpose of engagement. Staff time, cost, duration and scale of engagement (how many people and geographical scale) are also important factors in selection. The Engage2020 project and National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement have useful resources that help researchers select an appropriate method based on purpose and audience.
The range of public engagement activities used by previous HERA projects includes: participatory art, art installations, exhibitions, films, concerts, festivals, pop-up stands at various events, fashion shows, community projects, co-created research, life-long learning activities, education packs for schools, interactive websites, bespoke apps, social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, blogs etc), podcasts, public talks, posters, newspaper and magazine articles, press releases, TV and radio programmes and other kinds of media appearances.
Many of the most successful projects have used these in combination, drawing on a spectrum of activities that vary in the intensity of their interactivity. Successful projects also frequently involve partnership working and have drawn on the expertise of non-academic partners in order to inspire, generate and tailor content, provide essential technical or linguistic insights, offer exciting venues, and reach target audiences.
For example, several HERA projects have museum, library or archive partners. Staff in such institutions are often strongly embedded in their community, have an excellent understanding of potential audiences and possess an established network and infrastructure for reaching out beyond the academy. Many also have specialist pedagogues or outreach officers who are experienced in working with children and community groups. They are experts in working outside the academy who and can help you to design and implement effective activities, and often welcome new content to add to existing programmes. Developing full and rounded partnerships that link research, collections and public engagement can be extremely successful and satisfying.
The transnational nature of HERA projects offers a unique range of options – and distinct challenges – in terms of the scale of public engagement, from the very local to the pan-European. At the small scale, projects have engaged with local communities, for instance to explore locally relevant issues such as the ways that people feel about place and identity. At the national scale they have sought to engage policy makers or governments to highlight awareness and create dialogue and change in health or environmental policy. Despite the advantages of transnational research, with some notable exceptions it has, however, often proved more challenging for HERA projects to develop effective public engagement on a large, multi-country, European or global scale. While there may sometimes be barriers in terms of cultural context, where appropriate, HERA welcomes attempts to develop forms of public engagement that capitalise on the benefits of transnational team working and that embrace audiences beyond national boundaries. The digital humanities and social media platforms have a particular role to play in this regard.
The multi-lingual nature of HERA projects means that language often presents a particular challenge for HERA projects. The translation of words and concepts into local languages can sometimes be difficult. Some projects have addressed this issue as a group and have developed their own dictionary or thesaurus for research and public engagement purposes. Others have taken the decision to create forms of public engagement that sidestep language as much as possible by relying on music or visual media. The appropriate use of language in relation to the target audience also needs to be carefully considered in order to ensure clear, jargon-free communication.
HERA is keen to encourage creativity, innovation, imagination and ambition in public engagement. Some of the most successful public engagement activities carried out by HERA projects have been experimental in nature. It may be useful to try out activities on a small scale to assess audience reaction and refine before scaling up to a larger (and more expensive) ‘big splash’ activity.
Radio.Garden: A Case Study in Transnational Public Engagement
Radio.garden is an output of the HERA project Transnational Radio Encounters: Mediations of Nationality, Identity and Community through Radio (TRE). The project took place from 2013-2016 as part of the HERA Cultural Encounters strand. It examined how radio as a medium fosters transnational encounters, and how it is shaped in and by transnational arenas.
Radio.garden is an online platform that allows users to explore an interactive globe filled with radio. It allows listeners to explore processes of broadcasting and to hear identities across the entire globe. It connects distant cultures, reconnects people with ‘home’ from thousands of miles away, and includes community radio stations which traditionally enrich the places in which people live.
Prof Alec Badenoch, PI University of Utrecht, Netherlands and Endowed Professor of Transnational Media (Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision) with award Winner, 2017 Best Use of Archive FIAT/IFTA Archive Achievement Awards
As a project engaged with research on radio, TRE clearly identified their audience as the global radio listener community. The aim of the activity was to engage the public with the connective potential of radio by creating the conditions for people to have their own transnational radio encounters. The project partner Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision commissioned professional design companies Studio Puckey and Moniker in Amsterdam to develop the platform. Having tested the platform and given it a soft launch, the project was confident in the technical and public engagement potential of the activity. They were then able to further build public engagement through a series of media appearances, including via national radio (BBC Radio 4). Importantly, these media appearances catalysed public engagement with the platform rather than standing as forms of public engagement on their own and allowed radio.garden to further grow its audience. Social media also played an important role in letting people know about radio.garden and in gaining feedback from users through analysis of tweets. The latter now offer further exciting opportunities for researchers to understand the roles of radio through the new digital archive created by the activity.
Since its launch in 2016 radio.garden has had over 900 million page views. In the first six months alone it had 100 million visitors. It is one of the most successful humanities public engagement activities ever carried out. Since the TRE project ended, the platform developer Jonathan Puckey has continued to run radio.garden, adding over 15,000 new stations to the ‘Live’ layer and adding a ‘favourites’ function to the platform. He has also made some changes to respond to the lower take up of the specialist archive layers and to increase capacity to accommodate the growing number of new stations. He has also created a phone app. The removal of the non-live layers highlights the need for projects to consider IP issues when working with external partners.
Dr Caroline Mitchell, Associate Professor in Radio and Participation, University of Sunderland UK describes how radio.garden came about and reaction to it:
In February 2016 we were entering the last stages of the project. Like most academics, members of our HERA project (Prof. Golo Föllmer Martin Luther University in Halle, Germany; myself from University of Sunderland and Professor Peter Lewis from London Metropolitan University, UK; Assistant Prof. Dr. Jacob Kreutzfeldt at University of Copenhagen and Associate Prof. Per Jauert Aarhus University in Denmark and Professor Dr. Sonja de Leeuw and Prof. Dr. Alec Badenoch from University of Utrecht in the Netherlands) all knew the value of telling the story of our research beyond refereed articles and published reports and books. Our varied interests in the radio medium meant that from an early stage we were excited about what our ‘exhibition’ would look, and importantly sound, like.
Peter Lewis and I had been conducting workshops in Britain, Canada, France and Spain, gathering stories of transnational radio participation by community radio broadcasters in collaboration with a wide range of social, ethnic and special interest groups, listening to what ‘transnational community radio’ sounds like and looking at the conditions that support transnational radio production, broadcasts and archives. People’s links with homeland and diaspora transcend the boundaries of national identity. In ethnic minority radio stations there were programmes made by and for long-standing minority ethnic groups, and increasingly it has become the role of community radio to give voice to more recently arrived communities. We had mused over how to display these connections, their histories and the huge range of community stations that existed worldwide. One of our community researchers had constructed a ‘listening table’ where people could hear interviews about radio’s transnational connections and this included lit up pathways connecting countries and stations. Peter and I had used geo-located digital mapping in previous projects (see for instance http://www.comapp-online.de and https://connected-communities.org/index.php/project_resources/map-your-bristol/).
School students explore radio garden as part of BBC Young Reporters and STEM Ambassador workshop, BBC Bristol 2018 (Photo Marvin McKenzie)
Together with our colleagues and our partner, the Netherland’s National Sound and Vision Institute in Hilversum, the project commissioned an online interactive platform from Amsterdam based designers Studio Moniker that would highlight key aspects of transnational radio experiences. Jonathan Puckey carried out the project with Studio Puckey, creating an innovative listening platform: a beautifully designed interactive globe without national borders that draws in listeners to surf the global airwaves.
After pre-testing and a ‘soft’ launch at the project’s final conference in Utrecht Radio.Garden went live on 13 December 2016.
The Live section allows you to explore a world of radio as it is happening right now. Tune into any place on the globe to explore over 15,000 stations (stations are still added every week) broadcasting live to your desktop or mobile phone. What sounds familiar? What sounds foreign? Where would you like to travel and what sounds like ‘home’? Jingles offered a world-wide crash course in station identification. How do stations signal within a fraction of a second what kind of programmes you are likely to hear? History offered clips from radio history, while in the Stories section listeners told how they used radio to make themselves at home in the world and described their radio journeys as they crossed borders and countries
Following its formal launch, the site received approximately half a million visitors in its first day and by the end of January over 18 million visitors. To date it has had more than 900 million page views. It has won major awards, including a ‘Webby’ for designer and site developer Jonathan Puckey and has been picked up by newspapers, journalists, news websites, social media platforms and broadcasters all over the world. The site developer has taken on extra staff to keep up with adding stations.
Since the launch I’ve been monitoring the thousands of tweets at #radio.garden that still come in on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis from every continent of the world. This is where it gets exciting in terms of the impact of the research. The tweets have been entirely and overwhelmingly enthusiastic; in many ways defining the impact of the research. They herald Radio Garden as new way of listening to radio, exploring music, languages and radio programmes.
“Radio meets Google Earth”; “I swear this is the most entertaining thing I’ve ever come across”;
“This is an amazing site that will change the way you listen to the world!”
“My first reaction to radio.garden was excitement ‐ it is so accessible ‐ radio at my fingertips”
The coolest link ever, radio from all over the world …Fantastic to use with our children from all over the world! Have a look together with your class! #ell #esl #eal #ellchat #langchat #exploreinyourclassroom
The best website ever to practise your language! Also, you can listen to the world radio at the same time. Follow the green dot to identify your selected location and tune in. You can learn a lot from listening to the radio…
Meet John, my 85 yrs young neighbour who has @ParkinsonsUK. He can now use http://radio.garden on his #iPad to find #radio stations in #Greece to listen to in his home language.#digitalskills helps John with developing his #motorskills @getonlineweek #inspiration #try1thing
In the two years since Radio Garden’s launch, Peter Lewis and I have carried out small scale impact workshops with a range of people and organisations to introduce them to the platform. This has included working with senior citizens in community settings, BME and refugee organisations and youth projects. In one workshop with school children in conjunction with the BBC we witnessed the expression on the face of one teenage ‘radio gardener’: we saw the thrill and wonder of being able to connect to her family’s homeland via a station from her grandmother’s home town in Cyprus where she heard her family’s language and music. In another encounter there were tears as an older women found the station in Italy that her son, who emigrated there, listens to – she said “we can listen at the same time!” This same person declared that she would set up ‘radio garden parties’ with her friends and neighbours so they could all make similar connections with family and friends through their beloved radios. These workshops have been largely unfunded although we hope this will change soon…
It is clear that as well as the viral spread of Radio Garden through social media, word of mouth within interest groups and family and friendship networks has also been powerful. With a touch of the screen Radio Garden offers an escape from the bubble of ‘likes’ to new musical and linguistic encounters, geographical difference and distance, perhaps even an escape from the bubble of nationality. Might this audio globe be as influential as the ‘Earthrise’ photograph taken from Apollo 8 in 1968?
For open access to the TRE project publication ‘Transnationalizing Radio Research click here
4. How Can I Let People Know About My Activity?
There is little point in organising a public engagement event if no one shows up! Likewise, many websites or social media initiatives flounder because nobody knows about them or wants to contribute. Projects often put a great deal of time and effort into organising public engagement activities but they don’t have the impact that they deserve because they don’t let people know about them. It’s very easy for your activity to get lost in the white noise of constant communication that people live in today.
In order for projects and audiences to derive maximum benefit from public engagement it may be useful to consider the following:
Identifying your target audience is vital to making sure that you are communicating effectively about your plans.
Leverage local partners and resources. They will know how best to reach your intended audience and can be very helpful in providing effective channels to do so.
Use a range of media and build between activities to advertise your activity. For example, a press release or media appearance can be used to promote public engagement, as the Transnational Radio Encounters project did for their Radio Garden app in the case study above.
If you are planning to use media appearances as a way of engaging the public then training in how best to get your message across and appear on camera can be very useful. This can often be organised through your institution.
Participate in large-scale events such as festivals where there is a guaranteed audience who may be interested in your work. This has the benefit of piggy-backing on established organisation and marketing, thereby lowering burden on project staff.
Invest in good graphics and professional design. Not only do they make a project look smart but they help to attract people.
Digital platforms and social media are very cost effective ways of reaching audiences and involving people beyond the local in order to both publicise and scale-up an activity. The ELMCIP project used social media to generate momentum for the creation of digital literature archives through contributions from user communities beyond the academy. The collection of digital literature was vital to the research and developed a critical mass such that the archive is now well known and continues to be sustained after the project end. Other HERA projects have put images or tours or their physical exhibitions on-line or have held exhibitions entirely online.
HERA is always happy to post activities on its website and to use its social media channels to help advertise project events. The HERA twitter handle is @HERA_Research and the hashtag is: #humanitiesmatter
Writing a Press Release
Media outlets – such as newspapers, radio and TV shows – are a popular method of public engagement for humanities projects. They offer a way of reaching audiences that may be interested in your research and who may engage with it given the opportunity. Although media practices have altered considerably in recent years as publics move towards consumption through Internet and mobile devices, a well-constructed and targeted press release remains an effective means by which those audiences can be reached. In the ‘How to’ section below there are some detailed hints and tips around writing and distributing a press release.
5. Evaluation
Evaluation of your activity is vital to understanding what difference public engagement has made and thus what effects (impact) you have had on your audience. Evaluation is not a description of your event but is an evidence-based analysis of its consequences (positive and negative). It involves a process of data collection and reflection that helps you to learn from your experience, and to assess its benefit and impact. Demonstrating the effects of your activities is important in terms of public accountability for funding and evidencing the value for money of humanities research. You will be expected to demonstrate the impact of your activities in project reports to HERA.
There are many qualitative and quantitative methods available for the collection of evaluation data and a range of resources available to help with this. In evaluating your activity you will need to consider reach (how many people participated; geographical scope in terms of locations from where you drew in participation) and depth (the extent to which your activity created impact). The nature of your activity, what you wish to find out about it, time available for the collection of data, expertise available for its analysis and ethical issues will also affect your choice. Some HERA projects have used short on-the-spot questionnaires to obtain audience feedback at an event. This can be done on paper or using free off-the-shelf smartphone or tablet apps. The latter are user-friendly and have the advantage of speeding up analysis as data do not need to be entered manually and such apps often have inbuilt analytics software. Interviews and various forms of social media analysis can also be useful. Quotes from participants can be particularly helpful in evidencing impact and reflecting upon your activity. Other potential forms of data collection techniques include focus groups, postcards, games or video diaries.
Evaluation questions are effectively research questions and should link to what you want to find out about your activity. For example, you might want to find out:
What have participants learnt or understood?
Have their attitudes changed as a result of the engagement? If so, how?
Would they like to find out more as a result of having participated in the activity?
Do they have feedback or knowledge that could contribute to your future research?
It can be a good idea to take photos of your activity that build into a project archive. Not only are photos are good for spreading the word about your project on social media, but they can also be included in reports to HERA as evidence of your activity.
Collecting and analysing tweets related to a project
Many research projects also have a social media presence, or else promote work related to projects via social media - often around a hashtag. In this section of the toolkit we present some resources that will enable you to collect tweets automatically across the lifetime of the project. In a further section of the toolkit we present some resources that will enable you to run some exploratory analysis and visualisation of those tweets using the R package.
Many institutions now require that all research with human participants pass through ethics review. This includes public engagement evaluation activities. European GDPR legislation also places an onus on researchers to be clear and transparent regarding the retention and collection of personal data and to seek consent. Publication of images may also require consent from people in them. It is advisable to seek advice from your institution in order to ensure compliance with relevant ethical and legal frameworks. You may wish to consider having project guidelines that all members can follow.
Common Concerns and Pitfalls
Concern: Public engagement can be time consuming and takes time away from the core business of research.
There is no doubt that high quality public engagement takes time to think through and to set up. The imperative to reach out beyond the academy is, however, strong. The benefits for projects, funders and society are substantial. It can also be very enjoyable. Many projects have integrated public engagement into their work as part of the research strategy, enabling them to collect forms of data that they would otherwise be unable to access. Partnership working can be beneficial in leveraging expertise or existing frameworks in order to enhance effectiveness. Be strategic. There is no need to reinvent the wheel! Doing public engagement badly is a waste of time and money and can incur reputational damage, so there is no point in tokenism.
Concern: Humanities researchers often deal with sensitive or controversial topics. I am worried that the media will misinterpret or sensationalise my research.
Dealing with the media is not necessarily easy but it does create important opportunities for communicating with otherwise hard to reach audiences. To be successful you need to have a good understanding of how media works, the needs of the particular medium, what you want to say and how best to get your story across. Do your research about the kind of outlet and who you are talking to. You are likely to be edited. If timelines allow, ask to check any copy or film before it goes out. If doing live broadcast then try to find out questions in advance. Professional media training can be very useful.
Concern: My research is too complex and important to ‘dumb down’ for public consumption. Public engagement is simply populism and I don’t want to be part of that.
Good public engagement is about communicating your research in ways that your audience can understand and respond to. You are not being asked to compromise your ideas or intellectual freedom. Academic elitism runs the risk of making the humanities appear out of touch and irrelevant.
Pitfall: A common misconception is that public engagement is just about education and that a few public lectures will do the job. Public lectures can be appropriate in some contexts but the best public engagement creates a dialogue outside traditional academic settings. Education has a part to play – HERA projects have made packs for schools, held arts based education interventions, engaged with adult learners, and developed programmes for continuing professional development – but public engagement is more than education alone. If education is part of your public engagement strategy then try to be imaginative and creative.
Pitfall: Public engagement is researcher-led but senior researchers are often very busy juggling a variety of commitments. It is tempting to devolve public engagement activities to post-docs or PhD students. Early career researchers can have a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and are thus excellent at engaging with the public. However, leaving all engagement to them can be a burden on relatively inexperienced researchers and they may need training, especially if dealing with sensitive topics. Similarly, younger team members can often be more familiar with social media than their older colleagues and there can be a tendency to make this part of their role. This is not necessarily problematic but dealing with social media and website maintenance can be a big job. Consider how your team works – the strengths, weakness and commitments of individual team members – and how you want to organise public engagement within your project. Is it shared between everyone or do staff have particular roles? It can be useful to designate public engagement as an agenda item in project meetings so that everyone is in the loop and you can be respond if staff change or new opportunities arise. Good public engagement is also a matter of good project management.
Pitfall: Many projects develop successful public engagement on a small scale in one local or national context but don’t follow it up or scale it up elsewhere. They are therefore unable to capitalise on their initial investment of time and resources and loose out on potential impact. It can be helpful to think about public engagement as an iterative process, rather than a series of one-hit wonders! Every project is different but consider whether you are likely to obtain more impact and use resources more wisely through a smaller number of scaled up activities rather than several individual smaller ones.
The HERA Knowledge Exchange and Impact Fellows are there to help support projects and talk through any specific concerns that you may have. They are both former HERA project leaders and so understand many of the issues faced by complex transnational research endeavours.
FAQs
Q: Can I add an associated partner to my project who was not in the original application?
A: Yes, you can add associated partners as long as there is no alteration to the financial arrangements. If you wish to alter any budget lines then you must contact HERA. Projects often grow partners as they develop, create contacts and identify project needs. Please contact the HERA Handling Agency to progress the addition of a new partner.
Q: An exciting new opportunity for public engagement has come up but it was not in my application. Should I go ahead?
A: If there is project benefit and you can afford it, go ahead! Unexpected opportunities often arise during the research process. HERA encourages projects to take advantage of this and to be flexible and agile in responding to new opportunities.
Q: My public engagement activity isn’t working as well as I hoped but I said that I would do it in my application. Should I persist?
A: Public engagement activities can bring surprises. If something is not working then you can either modify it and give it another go, or put it to one side. There is no point in persisting with a useless activity. You can indicate in your reporting to HERA that you are replacing activities on the basis that they are more effective than those originally indicated. Reflection and honesty are important.
Q: Is there any additional support for public engagement activities that I did not include in my original HERA application?
A: HERA recognises that activities can bring unexpected success or that new and unexpected opportunities can arise for public engagement. Small top-up awards have been made available for previous HERA JRPs on a competitive basis. It is likely that something similar will be available for Public Spaces projects but this is at the discretion of the HERA Board.
Q: I intend to write a number of books and articles during my project. Can I count these as public engagement?
A: No, this is dissemination not public engagement. If, however, you were to organise an event where you discuss the content of your book with an audience and invite people to engage in dialogue around it then this would be public engagement.
Useful Resources
General Advice
Engage2020 is a project funded by the European Commission (DG Research). It looks at research, innovation and related activities and explores how members of society are involved today, and how they could be in the future. It is not specifically orientated at the humanities but offers a series of useful resources for public engagement:
http://engage2020.eu/publications-page/
The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement is UK based but has lots of useful advice that is of wider relevance. It is user-friendly: https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about-engagement/what-public-engagement
Caddy, J (ed) (2005) Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making. OECD Publishing. Volume that discusses key issues and offers guidance for policy makers and government officials responsible for commissioning and using evaluations of public engagement. Includes examples from 8 OECD countries:
Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Sweden and UK)
Why Engage With the Public
Link to podcast on public engagement in the humanities: https://soundcloud.com/user-128350004/public-engagement-for-humanities-researchers
Jay, Gregory, “The Engaged Humanities: Principles and Practices of Public Scholarship and Teaching” (2010). Imagining America. 15. https://surface.syr.edu/ia/15
Writing a Press Release
Alongside using Social and online media channels to engage with different audience segments there are also opportunities to reach audiences through ‘traditional’ media channels, and in particular through press coverage.
Media outlets – such as newspapers, radio and TV shows – offer a way of reaching audiences that may be interested in your research and who may engage with it given the opportunity. Although media practices have altered considerably in recent years as publics move towards consumption through internet and mobile devices, a well-constructed and targeted press release remains an effective means by which those audiences can be reached.
If you are considering using a press release in order to reach audiences there are two important things to consider, which this section will deal with in turn.
Constructing a useful, ‘newsworthy’ press release
Disseminating that release to key media outlets
1) Writing a press release
A press release is usually a one or two page document that succinctly tells a story. It is intended to provide a media outlet with everything it needs to construct a news story or feature that will, in turn, draw audiences’ attention to your project or event.
Whether a media outlet is large or small, specialised or general, it is likely that they will receive many more press releases than they can use, or will even consider. Constructing a useful press release will increase the chances of it being used.
Consider a news angle or hook.
What is it about your story that people might find interesting? Does it involve something new, or extraordinary? Who will care?
An example: Your press release may concern a research event that is taking place at a museum. This is unlikely to be newsworthy in and of itself. However, the museum may have recently taken possession of a new collection, or have re-opened following a refurbishment, or else appointed a high-profile person as board member. Any of those could be used as the ‘hook’ around which the release is based, and the event could be mentioned alongside the ‘bigger’ story.
Choose an eye-catching headline
The headline for your release should attempt to convey the interesting ‘hook’ of your entire release.
“Academic publishes new book” – momentous as that may be - will not make a media outlet sit up and take notice. It would be far better instead to attempt to construct a headline based on one of the books’ main arguments. A headline such as “Art Galleries are the new Twitter” – an imaginary example - may seem to trivialise or devalue a serious academic work that explored social cohesion in publicly-funded cultural spaces, but it is more likely to bring that work to the attention of relevant audiences
The first paragraph is crucial
It is important to be concise in your release, and nowhere is this more important than in the first paragraph, which needs to convey both the ‘hook’ of the story and the main points of the rest of the release. In working on this paragraph ensure your hit the ‘5Ws’:
Who: the person, people or institution involved
What: the ‘hook’ or other newsworthy angle of the story
Where: where this interesting event took place
When: ..and when it happened
Why: what is so special about the ‘hook’ or ‘angle’
An example here from a press release constructed by the Songwriting Studies Research Network, a research project operating from Birmingham City University in the UK, illustrates the ‘5W’ rule:
Legendary musician and producer Nile Rodgers surprised a room full of songwriters, music industry workers, and academics on 8th August, emerging as the unannounced keynote speaker for the Songwriting Studies Research Network event held at The Ivors Academy in London, UK.
Here the focus of the story is Nile Rodgers (Who), delivering a keynote speech (What) in what was a surprise appearance at an academic conference (Why) in London (Where) on 8th August (When).
Include a quote
A press release should always include a quote from a person or persons involved. This allows the media outlet concerned to publish a press release – often almost verbatim – without having to take the time to chase down supporting quotes.
The quote you include should first refer to the news angle or hook the press release is based upon, but should then introduce the other element of the release – i.e. the one you hope will reach audiences.
In the example of the imaginary research event at the museum from above, a very simple quote may look something along the lines of this:
“The new collection of 15th Century ceramics is a fantastic addition to the museum’s offer”, said [project lead from University], “and fits perfectly with the theme of our event”
This quote keeps the focus of the story on the new collection, but introduces the research project within that context, allowing you to then expand on the research in later paragraphs, before bringing the release to a close with a reminder of the significance of the main hook of the release.
Other elements
At the end of the release remember to include a contact name, number and email address, should any media outlets wish to follow up.
Ensure you have print and web-ready images available online and include a link.
Try to keep the release to one-page if possible, and without fail fewer than three pages.
Try to format your release for email (HTML) as well as creating PDF/Word versions.
2) Finding the right media outlets
Depending on the nature of your ‘story’ there will be some media outlets that are more likely to use it that others, and so identifying those outlets more likely to use it will be crucial to its potential success. Since the majority of unsolicited press releases are ignored, being strategic will also save you a lot of time! A story with a very localised focus is unlikely to be of interest to a national publication, for instance.
Large media organisations - such as national broadcasts - offer the potential to reach very large, general audiences. Smaller, more specialised outlets (perhaps a magazine, or a podcast) will mean your potential audience reach is smaller, but increases the likelihood of relevance to ‘your’ audience. The likelihood of your press release or news story achieving coverage decreases as the size of the media outlet concerned increases.
Canvass your immediate research network to see if they have any likely or useful contacts at media organisations. Begin adding those contacts to a database.
Look at your own social media networks – either the networks of researchers, or those of the project itself – and try to see if there are any potential media organisations or contacts within those. An informal approach to a journalist in your network who may be receptive to your work can produce useful results.
If possible, try to cultivate new relationships with media contacts that may be receptive; if a journalist is specialising in an area of work that is linked to your research it is likely they would – at the very least – being made aware of your work.
Speak to project partners and explore their internal systems and media networks. It is likely, for instance, that organisations such as museums, art galleries, or other cultural organisations will have their own in-house PR or press teams. If your press release can be reconfigured to fit their agendas it may be the case that sending it out via partner networks brings better results.
Likewise, liaise with your own institutions. Most universities have a press office and they will already have developed media relationships, certainly with local media organisations.
Whichever method you choose to send out your release, ensure that follow-ups occur in a timely manner. A short email reminding a contact that an event (or similar) is approaching can sometimes jog a busy journalist’s memory. Be careful, however, not to bombard those contacts as this will almost certainly have a negative impact.
Knowledge Exchange
What is it?
Knowledge exchange (KE) is a dynamic, reciprocal process whereby researchers and external organisations come together to exchange ideas, data, experiences and expertise in order to create new knowledge for mutual benefit. It involves partnership and collaboration in research. It is sometimes also known as valorisation, knowledge utilisation or knowledge mobilisation.
KE can overlap with public engagement in that it may identify specific stakeholders within ‘the public’ and lead to a public engagement outcome through a collaboration (e.g. KE with educationalists leads to the production of an activity for schools, or working with a museum to create an exhibition or podcast). KE is, however, distinct from public engagement as knowledge exchange collaborations tend to focus on industry, policy and practice-led groups in public, private and third sectors. KE can respond to pre-existing needs outside the Academy (demand driven) or emerge from a need revealed by research or arise from a combination of these. Previous HERA KE includes collaborations with community groups, charities and NGOs, bodies representing specific industries, businesses (large organisations, SMEs and sole traders), artists, designers, policy makers, legislators, health professionals, schools, museums, galleries, archives, theatres and festivals.
KE differs from knowledge transfer (KT) where knowledge is delivered from expert to user in a one way direction, such as the exploitation of intellectual property through commercialisation and the creation of spin-out companies. In contrast to knowledge transfer, which is of limited relevance to the humanities, the term knowledge exchange recognises a much more complex and diffuse range of collaborative activity that may involve many voices with different strengths and knowledge in dialogue, and different directions in which the collaboration may develop. It can be understood as part of a system of knowledge flows, which Holm (2015: 85) describes as ‘translational research practice’ or the relationship between the production of knowledge and its appropriation, and the feedback processes that come with that interaction.
Why do it?
The reasons for engaging in knowledge exchange are wide ranging. They reflect the benefits of collaborative working for both researchers and non-academic partners, and how they can stimulate and add value to each.
Research can be enhanced by diversifying thinking though the cross-fertilisation, transdisciplinarity and access to expertise that KE and partnership working offer. Collaboration brings diversity and diversity allows space for more voices, which leads to better research.
Collaboration between academic and non-academic partners can give access to datasets, expertise or equipment that would otherwise be impossible or very expensive to obtain.
Working with non-academic partners who have different working methods and ways of looking at research problems can be a useful learning experience for both sides.
KE partnerships can include potential benefits to research training and the development of early career researchers by exposing them to different ways of thinking, involvement in research projects, access to case study materials, and opportunities to visit partner organisations. These can improve employability, both inside and outside academia.
KE is a means of democratising research by giving stakeholders outside the academy access and input into scholarly inquiry. This in turn makes humanities research relevant to more people.
KE collaborations accelerate creativity and promote innovation outside the academy through the development of new networks. This innovation includes social innovation, cultural and artistic outcomes, new practices or ways of doing things, and the development of new commercial products and services. Humanities research has an important but often unrecognised role in the ‘innovation ecosystem’.
Successful KE collaborations can make a substantial long-term difference to individuals and organisations outside the academy. They therefore form part of a pathway to impact.
Popular Music. Cultural Memory and Cultural Identity (POPID)
POPID was funded from 2010-2013 under the HERA JRP Cultural Dynamics, Inheritance and Identity.
Here you can find an interview with project leader, Prof. Susanne Janssen, Professor of Sociology of Media and Culture at Erasmus University Rotterdam, on her experience of integrating KE within research. This interview forms part of a resource on Knowledge Utilisation produced by NWO.
How can we do it?
A core principle of KE is that it is a creative, dynamic process that creates new knowledge through co-production, co-creation or co-design. The practice of KE therefore requires the setting up of partnerships in order to develop these kinds of interactions. The ways in which KE takes place depends on the type, size and aims of the partners involved and can take place at a range of scales from one-to-one relationships (e.g. between a single academic and a single artist or sole trader) to large multi-institutional collaborations (such as between representatives of academic institutions and governments or multinational organisations). It can be one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many. It can be short-term, or long-term. It can take place locally, nationally or internationally. It can be a single mode of interaction, or several over time. The outcomes may be defined, or it may be a more open-ended investigation. In practice, HERA projects are likely to lie somewhere between these various ends of the spectrum. Many projects have expanded their partnerships as the research has progressed and they have realised both the need and potential for involving external stakeholders in new ways. Others have decided to invest more energy in relationships that prove particularly beneficial. If done well, both these contrasting strategies enable projects to develop traction by gradually scaling up KE activities.
1. Making Connections and Engaging Stakeholders
The first step in KE is identifying who is likely to be interested in your research.
Who are the key stakeholders?
How could they contribute to, and benefit from, what you are investigating?
What kinds of knowledge are you exchanging?
All funded HERA projects will already have considered these questions in the application stage (you may have read the HERA Knowledge Exchange Guide at application stage). Nonetheless, as research progresses, as indicated above, it can be useful to review your collaborations, or to invest more energy in those that are proving particularly beneficial.
In addition to collaborations with individual non-academic partners, some previous HERA projects have found it useful to partner with industry representatives or associations (e.g. national film institutes, digital media organisations or regional tourist authorities). Not only are such organisations deeply familiar with key issues facing their sector but they are also able to act as brokers or intermediaries, putting projects in touch with their members. This creates efficiencies for projects inasmuch as they do not have to expend time and energy recruiting individual KE participants. Industry representatives can also be particularly useful in helping projects gain entry into heavily networked sectors that are likely to be linked to humanities research, such as the creative industries, publishing or heritage sectors. They may be able to broker relationships with individual organisations and to facilitate sector wide data collection. Furthermore, the outcomes of the research can be more easily pulled back into organisations if they form part of wider industry recommendations, thereby increasing project impact.
2. Approaches to Knowledge Exchange
Approaches to Knowledge Exchange include:
Collaborative research: academic research undertaken in partnership with other universities or research organisations, with business, with government and/or with the third sector (e.g. charities). All HERA projects are likely to engage in collaborative research although exactly how this is configured will depend on the nature of the research team. The transnational nature of HERA projects offers unique opportunities for humanities research in bringing knowledge and skills to teams beyond a national context, and to create new networks.
Collaborative training: enabling academic researchers and partners based outside the academy to share good practice, develop skills to undertake excellent research, to work effectively in non-academic environments, and to maximise the benefits of their research. Training opportunities include secondments, vocational courses, collaborative studentships between academia and non-academic organisations, and the development and delivery of continuing professional development (CPD) programmes in conjunction with external partners.
People and information exchange: exchange of researchers between academic and non-academic partners to stimulate collaboration between them, including supporting communities of practice to grow, co-create solutions, share successes and key resources, develop guidance and standards. This may include events with external audiences, networking activities, briefings, artists’ residencies, or academics spending time in non-academic partner organisations. As well as face-to-face interactions, online communication and social media platforms provide ways for HERA projects to create opportunities for regular information exchange. These can be particularly useful in transnational settings where travel time, cost and environmental concerns (particularly those linked to flying) might otherwise limit potential communication.
Research exploitation and development activities: this involves working in partnership to realise the social, cultural and economic potential of research. Although the commercialisation of research is frequently associated with the hard sciences, in the context of the humanities this kind of KE requires an understanding of the nature and value of humanities research beyond narrow definitions of utility and financial value to encompass the value of humanities in its broadest sense: its contribution to the lives of others, and role in the transmission of culture, practices and values. KE within the humanities contributes to an inclusive society, has benefits for well-being, as well as making an economic contribution (for example see Council of Europe Report on Cultural Participation and Inclusive Societies 2016; The Value of Arts and Culture to People and Society. An Evidence Review 2014). KE as research exploitation therefore includes innovations that are not based on intellectual property (IP) and have not-for-profit, as well as commercial, applications. In other words, unlike the hard sciences where innovations are considered IP and may be protected by patents or involve commercial transactions, the exploitation of humanities research tends not to have such legal protection attached and does not ‘belong’ to the researcher or their institution in the same way. Whilst humanities research tends to lack commercial advantage to the researcher, the relative absence of restrictions means that it is more easily shared with partners and the benefits of the research distributed widely. Humanities research is therefore suited to policy recommendations, consultancy and makes important direct and indirect social, cultural and economic contributions that may be one, two or more steps away from the researcher themselves.
We recognise that many humanities researchers are uncomfortable with the instrumentalisation of their research, which is frequently identified as part of commercialisation. It is important to recognise that the commercial value of humanities research lies not just in the ‘discovery’ or research outcome but in the benefits, inspiration or new thinking that it can stimulate in others outside the academy. For instance, many HERA projects have developed exhibitions in collaboration with external partners. Here, the KE leads to a public engagement ‘product’ (the exhibition) which attracts visitors to the partner’s venue. Visitor numbers can be important in financial terms for the partner (demonstrating a need for continued state support or contributing through ticket sales). We also have evidence from some HERA projects of ‘down the line’ benefits of KE. For example, research on prehistoric textiles studied by the HERA-funded CinBA project contributed to the development of a new permanent exhibition at the Natural History Museum in Vienna. The tablet-woven textiles on display inspired some visitors to make their own pieces, which can now be found on sale in craft markets. In this case, visitors to the exhibition were inspired by what they saw and took it into unpredicted areas of commercial activity. The creative, cultural, environmental and social sectors have so far been the primary areas for the commercial exploitation of HERA project research including in contemporary craft, festivals, music, the tourist industry, publishing, museums, galleries and archives, and art works. Several HERA projects have also engaged in research exploitation by working directly with artists, film makers or composers; a grant or commission forms an important element of business activity for creative practitioners and may feed into further work and career development for these groups. HERA projects have also found that their research outcomes or ideas have been adopted by commercial organisations or external agencies and that they are in a position to consider whether they wish to license technologies, tools or training material, or whether they wish to make them freely available as part of a commitment to open access.
3. Modes of Knowledge Exchange
Recent analysis of KE processes points to the existence of both informal and formal modes of KE (Monroe 2016).
Informal KE refers to elements of the process that occur within everyday interactions with partners, including the cumulative effect of small, informal discussions with individuals and the sometimes unexpected ways that knowledge becomes useful (Monroe 2016). The notion of informal KE is of particular importance for the humanities where KE does not tend to be IP-based, is relationship-based in nature, and is frequently less easy to quantify than more transactional forms of knowledge exchange based around IP, ‘technology transfer’ and ‘research commercialisation’ in the hard sciences.
Formal KE refers to a range of activities or tools that enable researchers to work with external partners or to take research outcomes into external contexts. It includes deliberately constructed events and user-engagement strategies. These include tools for fostering in-person (face-to-face) exchange as well as platforms and software that enable online networking and knowledge sharing across geographic boundaries and between organisations, supporting communities of practice to grow, co-create solutions, share successes and useful resources.
There are several sources that provide advice on how to select an appropriate KE tool. These include the UNICEF Knowledge Exchange Toolbox which lists more than 20 different formats for KE activities that can be used to design and deliver a KE event. The Irish Research Council (IRC) and Irish Universities Association (IUA) has a very useful booklet Engaged Research. Society & Higher Education. Addressing Grand Societal Challenges Together (2017) which includes a glossary of methods and approaches that can be used in KE.
Engaging with Industry: Mediating Cultural Encounters through European Screens (MeCETES)
From Scandinavian crime dramas to Spanish horrors, from British period dramas to contemporary French comedies, Europeans are increasingly engaging with films and television dramas from other parts of Europe. The MeCETES project set out to research this phenomenon.
Involving humanities researchers from the University of York, University of Copenhagen and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, it examined: (1) which European films and television dramas travel well within Europe; (2) how audiences engage with these screen fictions; and (3) how these films and television dramas shape our understandings of other Europeans and sense of European identity. The project took place from 2014-2016 as part of the HERA Cultural Encounters strand.
Dr Huw Jones, a post-doctoral researcher on the project at University of York and now a Lecturer in Film at University of Southampton, describes the project’s approach to KE and offers some useful tips for working with industry partners.
Industry engagement:
Engaging with the film and television industries formed a core part of the MeCETES project. As well as interviewing directors, producers, screenwriters, film distributors and policymakers about their work, we invited media professionals to participate in our annual academic-industry conferences. These included knowledge exchange discussion panels on:
- Producing the Oscar-winning film Ida – with Ewa Puszczynska and Sofie Wanting Hassing
- Writing television fiction for European audiences – with Ingolf Gabold (producer, The Killing), Katherine Winfield (director, The Bridge), Tasja Abel (ZDF, Germany)
- Supporting European co-productions – with Rebecca O’Brien (producer, I, Daniel Blake), Emmanuel Joly (European Commission) and Petri Kemppinen (Nordic Film and TV Fund)
- Creative Europe: The Digital Challenge? – with Lucia Recalde (Head of EU Creative Europe)
- How Brexit will affect the UK film industry – with Amada Neil (British Film Institute), Tim Bevan (Working Title Films) and Hugo Heppell (Screen Yorkshire)
- Distributing film and TV in Europe – with Rikke Ennis (Trust Nordisk), Helene Aurø (DR International Sales) and Jon Sadler (Arrow Films)
- The convergence between film and television – with Alex Agran (Arrow Films), Tim Highsted (Channel 4) and Jeanette Steemers (University of Westminster)
- Audiovisual policy in Europe – with Agnieszka Moody (EU Creative Europe), Christine Eloy (Europa Distribution) and Michael Gubbins (Sampomedia/Ffilm Cymru Wales)
- Producing historical drama – with Nick Wild and Alistair Maclean-Clark (360o Media);
These events were an opportunity not only to learn from experts about the changing media landscape in Europe, but also to share the findings of our research with media professionals and policymakers – a two-way knowledge exchange process.
How to make connections
Making connections with industry can be difficult. Media professionals and policymakers may not have time in their busy schedule to do interviews or attend conferences. Some connections were made through our Associate Partners, who included the Danish Film Institute, Flanders Audio-Visual Fund, British Film Institute, and the Council of Europe. Other links came about simply by emailing or telephoning potential industry contacts. It helps to remind media professionals that participating in an academic research project can be a chance to:
- Reflect on their own creative practice
- Network with other media professionals and academics
- Influence academic debates and teaching curriculum
- Gain intellectual kudos
Always be polite in your dealings with industry partners, and make sure you make the process easy for them by organising and paying for their hospitality, travel and accommodation.
Discussion panel on Scandi crime drama Bedraget/Follow the Money (2016) with writer/creator Jeppe Gjervig Gram and Head of DR Drama Piv Bernth at the 2nd MeCETES academic-industry conference, September 2015
Influencing the debate
The logistics of engaging with industry can be challenging. But it is well worth it for the chance to exchange knowledge and ideas, make connections and influence the wider debate – as the news coverage of our academic-industry conferences demonstrates:
“Brexit Poses Challenges to Independent European Distributors”, Variety, 8 July 2016. Link
“University of York -Industry experts debate impact of Brexit on UK film industry”, ENP Newswire, 12 September 2016. Link
“Netflix, Amazon dominate discussion on film distribution in the UK”, Cineuropa, 15 June, 2016. Link
“Europæisk Nordic Noir”, Information, 19 February 2015. Link
4. Developing a Successful Partnership
At its heart, KE is about relationships between people. It is therefore important to be conscious of how you manage these relationships and are responsive to developments in them.
Guidelines on developing a successful partnership, such as the Handbook on Responsible Partnering often tend to be aimed at the hard sciences and engaging in corporate relationships. Nonetheless, there are a series of common sense principles that can be extracted as relevant to all KE partnerships.
Intent – In developing a partnership it is vital to explore and agree what you expect to accomplish. Your aims may be concrete or quite open ended. In either case it is important to be transparent and ensure that there are no hidden agendas.
Interests – Successful KE depends on being able to identify shared interests. It is worth spending time and effort to understand these. They can include shared spaces, people, or priorities and can sometimes surprise.
Resources – Consider the resources that all sides can offer and how they are distributed between them. Be transparent and ensure that sufficient resource is put into supporting non-academic partner participation where they cannot contribute this themselves, for example, by paying travel costs. In addition to financial resources, you may want to include data, staff time, access to skills, materials, venues for events, provision of accommodation or other contributions in kind.
Trust – It is important to ensure that you deliver what you say you will. In other words, that you do not ‘over-promise’ and that results match expectations.
Build Together – Test collaboration strategically and find out how your collaboration works in practice. That way you can iron out any issues and understand the best ways to develop your partnership going forward.
Listen – Successful partnerships are about bringing together complementary knowledge, skills and understandings. Transdisciplinary working requires listening to your partners and benefitting from different world views.
Intellectual Property (IP) – IP is a complex area, especially in large collaborative projects. Even if you are committed to open access and open innovation, your non-academic partners may have IP considerations. Previous HERA projects have come across IP issues when working with external providers (e.g. app developers, software providers and creative practitioners). It can be a good idea to discuss IP with partners in advance and draw up a collaboration agreement to avoid misunderstandings. Most academic institutions will be able to provide professional advice in this area.
Organisation – Non-academic partners often work on different timelines to academics. Consider these and build them into your research from the start.
Communication – Consider how you will develop lines of communication with your partners in order to maintain dialogue and that they are kept informed of project progress. How frequently are you going to meet? Are you going to visit another organisation or are external partners going to be embedded in your team? How are you going to capture the contents of KE activities and act on them?
Review – Agree periodic reviews of your partnership so that you can reflect on progress, move forward together and head off any potential issues.
Share - Find out what has worked in the past, either with your specific partners or draw on the experiences of other HERA projects. Sharing good practice or established working methods can help smooth the path to effective collaboration.
5. Evaluation
Evaluation of KE processes, activities and outcomes is vital to understanding their effectiveness and thus what effects (impact) your collaboration has had. Evaluation is also important in terms of public accountability for funding and evidencing the value for money of humanities research. You will be expected to demonstrate the impact of your activities in project reports to HERA.
It is important to recognise that KE is a means of creating impact but it is not in itself the impact or outcome. Thus evaluation is not a description of your KE but is an evidence-based analysis of its consequences (positive and negative). It involves a process of data collection and reflection that helps you to learn from your experiences and to assess their benefits.
The evaluation of KE is not, however, always straightforward. KE evaluation relies on both partners knowing that knowledge has been exchanged. In the case of humanities research where informal, relationship-based KE may form a large part of the process, this kind of KE may be less visible and thus less recognised, making capturing impact problematic (Monroe 2016). Furthermore, the outcomes of humanities KE may include intangible outcomes such as new ideas, changes in practice or implementation of policy recommendations, which are not as easily measured as the development of new products. In addition, some partners may be eager to claim outcomes as their own and to downplay the effects of academic input as they are concerned about the IP implications. This has occasionally been the case for some HERA projects when working with artists or other creative practitioners. It is therefore important to capture an evaluation of the process as well as its outcomes by all participants in order to identify what has been exchanged and why it is important.
There is no ‘catch all’ method of evaluation for KE and methods for the evaluation of KE in humanities are the subject of debate (see Crossick 2009, Moreton 2015). Humanities KE tends to be less readily monetised and to resist the metrics that are applied to the hard sciences. The latter have a tendency to decontextualize the processes of knowledge production and exchange, focusing instead on how knowledge is rendered ‘technical’, and mobile across a range of contexts (Monroe 2016). Thus many of the existing models or metrics for evaluating KE simply do not recognise the wide variety of approaches to KE and their outcomes that exist within the humanities. Timescales for the impact of KE also frequently extend beyond the official project end date, continuing for up to a decade after the original research has taken place (Kings College London and Digital Science 2015). Appropriate evaluation of KE for your project therefore needs to take into account both how knowledge is understood and how knowledge exchange is implemented (see Fazey et al 2014). In order to develop ‘humanities friendly’ KE evaluation for your project it may be useful to consider the following aspects:
What is the context of your KE?
What are the tangible and intangible outcomes of KE?
Did KE lead to direct outcomes for partners and / or can you identify ‘down the line’ effects of the collaboration?
What new skills, knowledge, data and expertise have been gained by each of the different partners?
How did partners engage in the KE process? To what extent did they engage in the process – do they feel positive about the process and did they enjoy it? How stimulating were its different elements? What was the balance between formal and informal KE?
What was the reach (who and how many partners / people) and depth (the extent of co-operation) of the collaboration? It is possible to engage in extremely successful KE with different degrees of reach and depth depending on the mode and aim of the collaboration.
To what extent did the KE result in new research networks?
How sustainable is the collaboration going forward?
Were there any surprises or unexpected outcomes? This is often the case.
Is it possible to put in place light touch monitoring of project outcomes beyond the official lifetime of the project?
Given the complexity of evaluating KE in the humanities, qualitative and quantitative methods for evaluation tend to work best in combination, as can formal and informal evaluation. The AHRC has produced Understanding Your Project a Guide to Self Evaluation and the ESRC has produced guidelines on how to develop an effective evaluation plan. In practice, it is likely that many evaluation methods will be shared between public engagement and knowledge exchange (e.g. questionnaires or interviews), although the kinds of information that you gather will, of course, differ (see section on the evaluation of public engagement in this toolkit).
Working with Policy Makers
Humanities researchers have an important role to play in supporting policy-makers across a diverse range of subject disciplines and government activities. Research in the humanities can inform the design and implementation of public policy, both directly and indirectly. Directly, academics can contribute to consultations, formulate new policy, or develop guidelines for its delivery. Indirectly, they evaluate the effects of existing legislation, provide historical perspectives on current policy debates and interrogate the principles and premises that underpin areas of policy. HERA projects have made direct contributions to policy in a range of areas including health care, heritage, tourism, human rights, legislation, education and the environment. They have made indirect contributions by providing important reflections in fields as wide ranging as public health, migration, banking and cultural property from which policy makers may learn important lessons.
The AHRC has produced a guidance document on planning and demonstrating effective policy engagement.
Gavin Costigan, Director of Public Policy|Southampton prepared this helpful powerpoint presentation for the HERA3 Uses of the Past mid-term conference in 2018.
The MELA project. Working with policy makers to influence legislation
The MELA Project (Memory Laws in European and Comparative Perspective) was funded from 2016-2019 under the Uses of the Past HERA JRP. It undertook both an interpretive (descriptive) and a normative (prescriptive) study of memory laws. Through its collaborative research it proposed a European code of best practice for the drafting and implementation of memory laws – a ‘Framework Declaration on Historical Memory’ as a set of legal and policy guidelines to aid national governments, European and international bodies, and non-governmental organisations in adopting critically-minded images of the past within the spheres of education, media, and civic life.
Dr Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias, Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and Dr Grażyna Baranowska, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, describe how their research influenced legislation at a critical time.
It goes without saying that the gauging the impact of projects in the humanities is usually a tough job since rare is the case when a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer is available to a question as to whether a given project produced a tangible change or contributed to the achievement of specific goals. However, the MELA project certainly achieved more than was originally envisaged. Namely, it firmly planted the concept of ‘memory laws’ in the scientific and public mainstream, not only bringing these laws to the attention of scholars but also prompting social and public analyses of the phenomenon.
The international research consortium, composed of Queen Mary University of London, Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, T. M. C. Asser Instituut – University of Amsterdam and Department of Law, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, found itself involved in MELA at a very special time. It quickly turned out that the expectations voiced in the grant application stage did indeed materialise: memory laws emerged as a prominent feature in the legal and social landscape in many countries. What MELA offered was not just in-depth analyses of the various memory laws in existence, but also an extensive theoretical and methodological background to aid discussions of the kinds of memory laws that do not cross the red line of inadmissible interference in human rights and freedoms, and those that do cross that line, sometimes becoming dangerous tools in the hands of the powers that be. MELA investigators took an active part in discussions of the notorious amendments to the Polish law on the Institute of National Remembrance (eventually discarded in line with calls from MELA), the controversial European Court of Human Rights judgment on the negation of the Armenian genocide, and the memory laws in place in Turkey and Ukraine.
The book Law and Memory. Towards Legal Governance of History, edited by two of the principal MELA investigators and published by Cambridge University Press late in 2017, was the first comprehensive legal treatment of the issue of memory laws, becoming a reference point in nearly all of the later discussions on the subject. Also going to MELA’s credit are dozens of other scientific publications, countless blog posts, media interviews, social media activity, a Wikipedia entry on memory laws, and dozens of contributions at scientific, political and media events around the world.
MELA also came up with a feasible model procedure for countries implementing legislation in the area of history and remembrance, outlined in the Model Declaration we offered to the public, policy makers — and to political dissidents. In it we proposed a number of guidelines, advising extreme caution in dealing with history and interpretations of history while using legal instruments. At the MELA conference wrapping up the project, staged in Brussels in May 2019, representatives of leading international organizations and NGOs discussed the Declaration, acknowledging its wide-ranging social impact. We hope to be able to continue our promotion of the Declaration, thanks also to the additional support provided by HERA, such as at the United Nations.
In these difficult times we live in, the risk of memory of the past being manipulated and abused is on the rise. We are confident that MELA helped highlight these risks and indicated specific ways of mitigating them. Thanks to the KE strategy it developed and implemented, MELA projected the results of its research across a broad audience, including individuals and organisations with the greatest say in the process of developing laws which determine the ways in which we approach the past.
Challenges of Knowledge Exchange
Effective knowledge exchange can be extremely rewarding but the process can also raise a series of challenges. These may include:
Partners working to different timelines. Universities often operate on significantly longer time scales than outside collaborators. External organisations may also have annual business cycles that differ to those of academic institutions. There may therefore be periods when knowledge exchange can take place and periods when this is more difficult. It is important to establish where potential pinch points may be in the lifecycle of the project and factor this into your work plan. For example, the CinBA project worked with contemporary makers and designers to explore the role that prehistoric creativity can play in inspiring creative practice today. Markers and designers are small businesses whose busiest time of year is September to December when they are preparing products for Christmas. Although the CinBA researchers would have liked to collaborate in their autumn term, in practice the availability of non-academic participants meant that the majority of knowledge exchange activities took place at other points in the year.
A mismatch between the drivers and timescales of academic research and partners’ expectations of outcomes and impact. The currency of academics is publications while that of non-academic participants is the effect of the collaboration on their organisation. It is not always clear to partners what academic research entails – particularly when it comes to humanities research – and non-academic partners may expect more immediate impact than academics are able to provide (Pickerill 2014). Consider what your different drivers are.
A mismatch in the identification of what counts as useful knowledge to be exchanged. In their examination of KE in the music industry Williamson et al. (2011) note that a mismatch between participants’ demand for relevance and applied knowledge, and academics’ demand for methodological rigour and replicability can lead to tension. These authors argue that what ‘counts’ as useful knowledge for KE partners in the music industry is usually knowledge that enables individuals or firms to gain competitive market advantage or, alternatively, knowledge that can inform policy (Monroe 2016).
Understanding what will happen at the end of the project is a particular issue for humanities KE where close personal and organisational relationships have been developed. This is especially the case where projects engage in social innovation with community or volunteer organisations who may recognise benefits from the relationship and will be unable to sustain them at the project end. It is important to have open and honest conversations about this in order to develop plans for post-project sustainability and that partners recognise that the HERA collaboration is time limited.
Academic and non-academic partners may speak different ‘languages’. It can help to have someone in your project who is a designated ‘go between’ who can translate between the partners and make sure that communication is maintained. Developing this kind of intermediary role forms one of the recommendations in the Heritage and Creative Industries Report (2019).
Financial constraints can become a challenge, especially when non-academic partners are not budget holders and / or KE has unexpected positive outcomes that you want to scale up in order to increase impact. If you have project-specific issues of this kind please seek the advice of the HERA handling agency (IRC). In previous rounds of HERA funding there has been a competitive call for small amounts of top-up KE and Impact funding. The award of such funds is at the discretion of the HERA Board.
Sometimes knowledge is not successfully exchanged. It may be resisted, ignored or taken up in unexpected ways. You may also find that partners are unable to deliver on agreements made during grant preparation. In such situations it is important to be honest, flexible and responsive. It may be useful to add or replace a partner, in which case you should contact the HERA handling agency (IRC) who will be able to help you.
The humanities often work without formal IP and it can be difficult to decide to whom data, ideas or innovation belong. It may be useful to consider your attitude to IP in advance and to draw up a collaboration agreement with your partners.
Traditionally, humanities researchers are not trained to work collaboratively with non-academic partners. If they have not previously worked in this way, there will inevitably be a steep learning curve. Not only do they need to understand the ways that non-academic organisations work and ensure that partners feel valued, but they have to balance this with their desire to carry out high quality research, institutional systems of recognition and academic culture. Building an effective KE relationship may involve stepping outside recognised, established research pathways. It thus requires considerable emotional investment (Monroe 2016). The HERA Fellows can support projects in KE and help point them to a reservoir of skills and experiences available from other HERA projects.
Common Concerns and Pitfalls
Concern: I’m working with artists in my project but none of this is relevant to KE.
Many projects engage in KE without realising it! Many HERA projects have worked with artists and every artist has to make a living. They are effectively small businesses where exhibitions and grants are important sources of income, profile raising and new products. Working with artists is a form of KE.
Concern: I object to the instrumentalisation of research.
HERA does not take an instrumental approach. It funds basic research (rather than applied research) and does not require that your research is carried out to serve any particular group.
Concern: KE is for scientists. I don’t do spinout or commercialisation.
As indicated above, HERA recognises that Humanities KE is qualitatively different to that in the sciences. It takes place in a variety of ways and has significant benefits for research and society that go beyond models of purely commercial application of research.
Concern: KE is too time consuming and an unhelpful addition to research commitments.
KE can offer positive benefits that improve the quality of research. It should not be seen as an additional burden on researchers but rather as a means of developing unique insights and understandings that could not otherwise be gained.
FAQs
Q: One of my non-academic partners has gone quiet and is not responding to my emails. What should I do? Can I find someone else?
A: KE often brings unexpected challenges as well as rewards. Sometimes partners become busy and their priorities shift. Try to keep lines of communication open so that they can tell you if the timing is difficult. But sometimes partners do have to pull out unexpectedly. Although this can feel like a blow, it can provide opportunities to develop new partnerships with other people or organisations. If you decide to do this (or an unexpected opportunity arises to develop a partnership that was not in your original application) you can indicate this in your reporting to HERA. Do talk to the handling agency (IRC) if you alter or add to your list of non-academic partners.
Q: What am I allowed to pay for in order to help a non-academic partner take part in KE? Can I move between budget lines to facilitate their involvement?
A: Contact the HERA handling agency (IRC) for advice. Explain what you would like to do. They will let you know what you can and cannot pay for, and what the rules are around budget lines.
Q: Is there any additional support for KE activities that I did not include in my original HERA application?
A: HERA recognises that KE can lead to unexpected outcomes or that new and unexpected opportunities can arise for KE. Small top-up awards have been made available for previous HERA JRPs on a competitive basis. It is possible that something similar will be available for Public Spaces projects but this is at the discretion of the HERA Board.
References
Arts Council England. 2014. The Value of Arts and Culture to People and Society. An Evidence Review. Arts Council England.
Engaged Research. Society & Higher Education. Addressing Grand Societal Challenges Together. 2017. IUA.
IRC Council of Europe Report on Cultural Participation and Inclusive Societies 2016.
Crossick, G. 2009. So who now believes in the transfer of widgets? Goldsmiths University of London. https://www.theculturecapitalexchange.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Who-Now-Believes-in-the-Transfer-of-Widgets.pdf
Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J. Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A., Lambert, E., Hastings, E., Morris, S. and Reed, M. 2014. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 25: 204-220
Holm, P., Jarrick, A., and Scott, D. 2015. Humanities World Report. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kings College London and Digital Science 2015. The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. Research Report 2015/01. HEFCE
Moreton, S. 2015. Rethinking ‘knowledge exchange’: new approaches to collaborative work in the arts and humanities. International Journal of Cultural Policy 22(1) 110-115.
Munro, E. 2016. Iluminating the practice of Knowledge Exchange as a ‘pathway to impact’ within an Arts and Humanities Research Council ‘Creative Economy Knowledge Exchange project. Geoforum 71: 44-51.
Responsible Partnering. Joining forces in a world of open innovation: guidelines for collaborative research and knowledge transfer between science and industry. 2009. EIRMA, EUA, EARTO, ProTon Europe.
Upton, S. 2013. Guidance on planning and demonstrating effective policy engagement. AHRC
Williamson, J., Cloonan, M., and Frith, S. 2011. Having an impact? Academics, the music industries and the problem of knowledge, International Journal of Cultural Policy 17(5): 459-474.
Useful Resources
DFG
DFG Knowledge Exchange Funding
FWF
Top Citizen Science Funding (TCS)
Science Communication Programme (WissKomm)
NWO
NWO Knowledge Utilisation Resources (English)
NWO Knowledge Utilisation Resources (Dutch)
UKRI
Gateway to Research a UKRI website, contains information such as who, what and where the Research Councils and Innovate UK fund, konfer, created by the National Centre for Universities and Business in partnership with UKRI, can help businesses, of all sizes, connect with universities. An online tool that help businesses find opportunities for collaboration including research, researchers, facilities, equipment, funding and support
Many UK universities are members of the national centre for universities and business http://www.ncub.co.uk and of Praxis Auril which helps members to work in partnership with businesses.
European Commission
The Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP) is a concept jointly developed by the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) and DG Research and Innovation of the European Commission (DG RTD). It is aimed at presenting new R&I solutions, innovative products and best practices in response to societal challenges facing the regions and cities of Europe. The focus on cities and social innovation is of particular relevance to several HERA projects.
Global
iKEN – a global co-creation and ideas platform that harnesses the power of human connection to innovate new solutions for cities to improve lives and build fairer, more inclusive societies. iKEN connects Europe’s leading cities of innovation to researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs, policy-makers and investors world-wide to develop fresh ideas, share best practice and unlock the power of co-creation to transform innovation policy and practice around the world.
UNICEF Knowledge Exchange Toolbox. Of interest to projects working in development contexts and with NGOs.