Making Knowledge Work Exploring Local Opportunities for Knowledge Valorization in Maastricht
Think Tank Report University College Maastricht
11 June - 5 July 2012
UCM Think Tank 11 June - 5 July 2012 Clients Gemeente Maastricht Maastricht University Supervisor Wilfred van Dellen Researchers Svenja Engels Anja Kubeneck Nora Lambrecht Florian L端dtke Sebastian Pf端lb Christian Scholz Maria Tenberge Insa Wiese Philine Zambon Layout Sebastian Pf端lb Pictures sxc.hu
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We, the UCM Think Tank Group â€œMaking Knowledge Workâ€?, would like to thank all contribu-
tors for their valuable input helping us develop this report. First of all, we would especially like to thank Wilfred van Dellen for his support, fruitful advice, wit and motivating guidance throughout the last four weeks. Secondly, we are very grateful for the enthusiastic interest and helpful insights we received from Ermo Daniels, Wim Groot, Rein de Wilde, Harm Hospers, Simone van der Steen, Rico Kamp, and Prof. Kees van Paridon. Furthermore, we highly appreciated the cooperation with both the municipality of Maastricht and Maastricht University. Throughout this Think Tank experience, our group enjoyed the chance to gain deeper insight into the University we study at and the city we live in. All of us embraced this experience with joy. Without the constant effort by, and support of, all group members, this report could not have been produced. Thus, we would like to thank everyone for their dedication to this project over the last weeks.
CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 3 PROBLEM ANALYSIS 3.1 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION 3.2 SWOT ANALYSIS 3.3 THE ISSUE IN A BROADER CONTEXT 3.4 STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH 4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 A COMMON VISION 4.1.1 PROBLEM 4.1.2 CREATING A COMMON VISION 4.1.3 BASING IT ON COMMON GROUND 4.1.4 CREATING OWNERSHIP 4.1.5 BUDGET ESTIMATE 4.1.6 FURTHER READING 4.2 THE SCOPE OF VALORIZATION 4.2.1 PROBLEM 4.2.2 SOFT APPROACHES TO VALORIZATION 4.2.3 INCLUDING HASS 4.2.4 BUDGET estimate 4.2.5 further reading 4.3 assessment of valorization 4.3.1 problem 4.3.2 recommendation 4.3.3 budget estimate 4.3.4 further reading 4.4 knowledge transfer 4.4.1 problem 4.4.2 recommendations 188.8.131.52 creation 184.108.40.206 diffusion 220.127.116.11 adaptation 18.104.22.168 utilization 22.214.171.124 creating a boundary organization 4.4.3 budget estimate 4.4.4 further reading 4.5 social network analysis 4.5.1 problem 4.5.2 recommendations 126.96.36.199 small world network 188.8.131.52 star network 184.108.40.206 icmc portal 220.127.116.11 network analysis 4.5.3 budget estimate 4.5.4 further reading 5 conclusion 6 bibliography 7 appendix
7 9 11 12 12 14 15 17 17 17 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 24 25 26 28 28 29 29 30 32 33 33 34 35 35 35 36 37 39 40 41 41 41 43 45 50
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is the outcome of a UCM Think Tank conducted over the term of four weeks. Both
Maastricht University and the municipality of Maastricht are the principal clients to whom this report is tailored. The assignment was to â€œdevelop a proposal for a comprehensive policy framework for collaboration between the City of Maastricht, Maastricht University and Hogeschool Zuyd, that allows for an optimal match between supply and demand in terms of knowledge, expertise, and professional development and opportunitiesâ€? (The Assignment, 2012). In agreement with the clients, Hogeschool Zuyd was factored out of the equation. So far, this report provides recommendations for both Maastricht University and the municipality of Maastricht on how to enhance cooperation in the realm of knowledge valorization. If cooperation should be expanded to include the Hogeschool Zuyd, further research should be conducted to check for the implications. In the context of establishing Maastricht as a knowledge city, the report disentangles the mismatch of knowledge supply by the university and the demand thereof by the municipality. We structured the issue by reasoning for an enhanced cooperation approach between the municipality and Maastricht University. The primary stakeholders, the municipality and university, as well as secondary stakeholders, citizens and private businesses, are analyzed. Subsequently a SWOT analysis concerning intensified cooperation between both principal entities is conducted. The issue is then placed into the broader context of current trends at universities that valorize knowledge. Finally, the product of this think tank is a pool of recommendations for the clients, based on the former analysis. Recommendations are made by way of four theoretical approaches: knowledge valorization and management, organizational theory, public policy evaluation and social network theory. Theses theories, in conjunction with existing documents and conducted expert interviews, yield proposals in five sections. First, the report advocates a common vision to be implemented for the two entities, focusing on the overlap in their respective visions. Furthermore, the understanding of knowledge valorization should be extended. It should include the fields of the Humanities and Social Sciences to endorse soft approaches of valorization. Moreover, the report proposes strategies to adapt research output of Maastricht University to the needs of the consumer, the municipality of Maastricht, and to create an inter-organizational computer-mediated communication portal (ICMP). Another vital part of the recommendations is the proposal to involve policy-makers in evidence-based policy making. Opportunities should be provided to incentivize the municipality to utilize evidence and the university to supply locally relevant research. In this context, formal and informal interaction between researchers and policy-makers is to be encouraged. Finally, a boundary organization is suggested as an institutionalized information hub that can act as a knowledge broker between both organizations.
Introduction The municipality of Maastricht (hereinafter: the
municipality) and Maastricht University started to cooperate in 2009 (Meetings on June 11th and 18th). Now, both partners want to drastically improve cooperation and use “the work of the Think Tank (...) [as] the first step towards successful collaboration.” (Assignment, 2012). In the course of this report, the concept of cooperation is understood as “the action or process of working together to the same end” (Oxford Online Dictionary, 2012). Despite the fact that some cooperation between the municipality and UM already exists and has shown to be successful in the past, it has only been on an ad hoc basis, so far. To fully use the potential of cooperation and to increase the efficiency of cooperation, both parties want a streamlined approach. At the heart of this approach should be the endeavor for knowledge valorization.
(...) local and regional knowlege valorization is not yet optimized (...)
Knowledge valorization refers to activities which ensure that outcomes of scientific knowledge gain value beyond the academic realm (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2009). This means that
cooperation between institutions aims at creating economic and social value from scientific knowledge, produced by and through expertise held by the university. Valorization thus includes better accessibility to academic work and co-production of knowledge with non-academic groups. The problem presented in this context is that local and regional valorization of knowledge in Maastricht is not yet optimized. Both parties feel that they miss full awareness of possibilities and opportunities for achieving continuous valorization of knowledge, embedded in an optimal framework of cooperation. This Think Tank has approached the topic by reviewing the documents of UM and municipality, by researching academic literature, and by consulting experts of UM and the municipality. After having structured the problem in terms of cooperation and identifying the stakeholders, a thorough SWOT (strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats) Analysis is conducted. The final step of this problem analysis is the positioning of the issue into the broader context of current trends. Furthermore, some guiding questions were developed to guide the research. These questions are: What does the status-quo of the cooperation on knowledge valorization currently look like? Why should cooperation between the actors take place? Up to which level (mission, vision, strategy, operations) should the actors cooperate? 9
Introduction How should this cooperation then be realized and structured? What are possible obstacles that one should be aware of? To answer these questions adequately, four areas addressing different problems, ranging from abstract to specific, were identified. At the abstract, visionary level, it became clear that, although there are projects in cooperation that underlie a Covenant written by both parties, it is tailored towards specific projects, in particular in the field of natural science, such as the Chemelot Campus. An explicit formulation of the general overlap between the partiesâ€™ distinct visions is missing. However, once this problem has been recognized, it can become a starting point for both parties to work towards a fruitful future cooperation. As our clients asked us to mainly focus on cooperation with regards to knowledge valorization, we further investigated the concept in question. By doing so, we became aware that, up to this point, valorization of knowledge was exclusively understood in terms of economic valorization and with regards to life science valorization by the UM and the municipality. This reveals a lack of awareness of or attention given to the great offer of research within the Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) that the University holds. Thus, more attention to the valorization of Humanities and Social Sciences and its possible societal and cultural impact should be given. Furthermore, there needs to be a way to assess valorization, to enable UM and the municipality to assess an enhancement in knowledge valorization.
To show on a more practical level how such a cooperation between UM and the municipality could look like, their cooperation is contextualized as a case study in the field of evidence-based policy making. The importance of the usage of evidence-based information in the policy-making cycle is stressed by paying attention to the development of a framework that assures a successful transfer of knowledge between those two institutions. Drawing from case studies and experiences, for example, in business cooperation, practical recommendations of the implementation of a cooperation on knowledge valorization between the municipality and UM are provided. Lastly, the usage of social network analysis serves as a suitable tool to practically assess the existing cooperation and draw from that scenarios for an envisioned, future cooperation. Moreover, it even delivers a tool that can serve both parties to assess their cooperation in the future and keep track of it. Concluding, a final framework consisting of the recommendations drawn from each area creates a blue-print tailored to â€˜making knowledge workâ€™ in the city of Maastricht. The common vision and the concept of knowledge valorization are the umbrella under which all recommendations are created. In the appendix, a suggestion for how this overlapping vision could look like, can be found. Going from this more general and visionary level, the knowledge transfer cycle and the social network analysis provide a framework structurally. Within this framework an inventory of possibilities and what has to be done to realize those is given.
Problem Analysis Establishing Maastricht as a “Kennisstad”, a city
where knowledge is utilized and flourishes, is at the core of the city’s vision (Gemeente Maastricht, 2008). In order to realize this vision, the municipality of Maastricht strives to expand cooperation on knowledge valorization with the local university. Both parties are concerned about the lack of a common framework to utilize knowledge in an efficient manner. They see it as an obstacle to achieve optimal valorization of knowledge in the city. As presented in the meeting of June 11th 2012, it became apparent that a key component of the problem at hand is the lack of a match and coordination between supply of knowledge by the research/teaching institutes on the one hand, and the demand of knowledge by the municipality of Maastricht on the other hand. According to both parties, cooperation started in 2009 but since then no structural framework has been launched that directs, supervises and facilitates this cooperation. Adequately structuring this enterprise thus becomes an important task in making knowledge work on a long-term basis. Acknowledging the mutual dependency between both the university and the municipality, a coherent strategy needs to be formed to cater to the needs of both entities. This includes the creation of a framework for knowledge exchange and effective channels for cooperation, coordination and collaboration. Both, the muncipality and Maastricht
University have approached this Think Tank to create recommendations “centered around 1) an inventory of possibilities and 2) a clear blueprint and check-list for each of the organizations involved as to how to organize and communicate this collaboration internally” (Assignment Text, 2012). The clients gave us clear instructions. We should form a strategy for cooperation. This assignment is indeed approached in a holistic and objective manner exploring the benefits of cooperation adequately. To do so, it is necessary to take all other options into account. How this cooperation should look like is thereby not solely founded on assumptions but on reasoned grounds. In general, four separate options can be discerned indicating different levels of cooperation between the two entities. These four options are: (1) retain the status quo (2) break all ties between university and municipality (3) enhance cooperation to foster strong collaboration between the respective two bodies (4) integrate all university policies into the municipality Case studies show that neither the first two options (Franz, 2008) nor the last option (Musterd & Deurloo, 2008) are viable. Case studies from Germany (Franz, 2008) and Amsterdam (Musterd & Deurloo, 2008) showed that cooperation and deregulation are necessary means but that the 11
Problem analysis level of cooperation needs to be dealt with carefully. It is only option three that has so far yielded visible and desirable outcomes. This investigation provides us with the result that it is indeed cooperation that is lacking and that building a coherent framework around it could make knowledge work. We therefore set the stage for investigations by determining the status quo: What strengths and weaknesses become apparent? What opportunities exist? What threats may come along with them? A SWOT analysis is deemed useful to analyze the problem accordingly. In this course, stakeholders that are involved are identified.
n general, two primary stakeholders can be identified, both with distinct and overlapping interests. These are Maastricht University (UM) and the municipality of Maastricht. Within the uni-
Primary (influential) stakeholders
versity, the following subdivisions can be made: the university consists of teaching/research staff, administrative staff and students each representing different parts of the institutions. Concerning the municipality, a distinction between the city council as the political organ and the civil servants representing the bureaucracy appears sensible to scrutinize their interests separately. The citizens of Maastricht and the private sector, i.e. industry and businesses, can be considered secondary stakeholders in the issue at hand. They do have a stake in the matter because they are influenced by any municipal policy the city makes and by pulling university research into the policy cycle, policy decisions which affect them may be altered. However, they are not involved in the cooperation process themselves. Therefore, they are implicitly affected as opposed to the city and the university.
Industry & Businesses
University Maastricht City of Maastricht
Inhabitants of Maastricht Secondary (affected) stakeholders
Image 1: Stakeholders Stakeholder and SWOT Analysis
identify common ground and diverging interests between both primary stakeholders as well as to assess the potential opportunities and risks involved in any cooperation on local knowledge
valorization, a SWOT analysis is conducted subsequently.
First, it is noteworthy that both primary stakeholders are motivated to work together on the issue of local valorization of knowledge. Their mutual dependency is manifold and functions as a
Problem analysis driving force for cooperation. In the municipality’s Stadsvisie 2030, the role of the university in making the city more attractive for students as well as the industrial sector and international institutions is emphasized. With regards to Maastricht’s geographic location and its important regional ties, the university’s international focus is crucial to strengthen and maintain the city’s international profile (Stadtvisie 2030). Conversely, the university depends on the policies made by the municipality. Both stakeholders offer different potential contributions (i.e. strengths) to any cooperation in the field of knowledge valorization. UM possesses knowledge and a prestigious status both in the region and the city through its renowned educational and research facilities (Stadtvisie 2030). Therefore, the university is a potential source of scientific evidence for policy making in the municipality. Furthermore, it entertains relations with the private sector in Maastricht, an example of which being the service science factory (Interview with Ermo Daniels, 21st June, 2012). The municipality, in turn, holds a powerful position as the main political decision-maker in the city. For this, it depends on knowledge and thus the supply of scientific research to inform its policies. To a limited extent, this supply is currently catered to the municipality by external consultancies (Meeting with Simone van den Steen, 11th June, 2012).
At the moment, the cooperation between UM and the municipality is hampered by the lack of a structured, continuous framework promoting and facilitating cooperation (Assignment Text, 2012). Reasons for this are a lack of awareness as regards the possibilities for cooperation and a lack of coordination concerning joint undertakings. Some links already exist as for instance the Think Tank project which was mentioned by both parties as a classic example of joint venture for knowledge valorization. However, the size and complex structure of each institution complicates access to one another. Typically a bureaucracy such as that of the municipality tends to slow down cooperation with the university, thereby delaying innovation (Frenk, 1992; Landry et al, 2003). At the same time, UM is more innovative and flex-
ible than the municipality since they are built up more horizontal, are highly differentiated and departments can act more autonomously (Hatch, 2006). Another reason for the hampered cooperation is the not explicitly common vision of the two stakeholders for their cooperation.are discrepancies between the visions of the two stakeholders. To find common grounds, it is thus necessary to assess the visions and strategy sets that the institutions employ to implement their vision.
Concerning the university, its research staff expects research opportunities and funding and research valorization from a strengthened cooperation. On the administrative level, the university’s mission demands the valorization of knowledge. It has an interest in improving relations with the municipality which gives them a better standing and a more influential role in the context of the civic society in Maastricht. Potential opportunities are an increase of prestige and appreciation for both parties as aforementioned. As to the interests of UM’s students, cooperation provides several advantages. Indeed, fostering cooperation creates jobs, research opportunities, practical experience and application of knowledge opportunities as well as it makes a good reference for students’ job application. The city council of the municipality has an interest in facilitating cooperation to enhance the legitimacy of their policies as well as their effectiveness and scientific supplementation. Moreover, cooperation would save costs and create professional development opportunities. The bureaucracy’s interests are also manifold. While there is a reduction of the workload if the university partakes in the policy making process, there is also the opportunity to save money that would otherwise be spent on private consultancies (Meeting with Simone van den Steen, 11th June & 18th June 2012). Consequently, the bureaucracy profits from expert opinions and professional development opportunities.
Despite these benefits, cooperation between both parties also bears risks. For UM, cooperation with 13
Problem analysis the municipality could imply a deviation from their international focus in research and the supplement of more locally-oriented research. This shift might also lead to a decline in prestige of the research undertaken as well as of the international profile that the university describes itself with. Indeed, a local focus in UMâ€™s inherently international profile could be deemed paradoxical by external entities. Furthermore, there is a potential risk of politicization and bias on both sides. Whilst UM could possible be corrupted in the choice of research and interpretation of results, the city would in return be biased by having one main information source (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhart & Terra, 2000). Moreover, channeling communication between the respective bodies also implies additional work for both institutions.
Processes of valorization are recognized to increase societal and economic value of university research.
The city council may perceive scientific research as an inhibitor of carrying out policy decisions based on political convictions, since it presents the raw facts that may or may not support the ideology at hand (Bradshaw & Borchers, 2000). Additionally, there may be clashes over authority and bureaucratic rivalry with regards to decision making on the university. The bodies of the municipality might not take research done by students seriously enough and therefore do not consider it in the policy making and shaping processes. A mixing of responsibilities could lead to a decrease in transparency (Bradshaw & Borchers, 2000). Further, there is a danger of corruption (Funtowicz, 2007). On the one hand the university could lose its scientific independence through too close interaction with the municipality, while on the other hand a limitation of evidence recruitment to only UM resources could overemphasize the role of the UM in advising the municipality. Another problem for the municipality could be that the implementation of cooperation 14
on an operational level causes difficulties. Measures need to be taken to facilitate this change of organizational culture. Finally, there needs to be clarity about the costs involved in in the implementation of the recommendations, since the municipality expects to save costs by cooperating with UM. By the same token, the university expects reciprocity. No one-sided benefit will be possible.
The Issue in a Broader Context
Our problem analysis scrutinized the problem at
hand. The city and UM want to further improve their cooperation, which until now has stayed rather unstructured. The cooperation of two public institutions, the university as an education and research institute and the city as governmental institute have both distinct aims and strategies. Today, in the current structures of European higher education, universities often function as private companies concerned with competition and finding different money streams to increase quality of the university and especially to support research programs (Crosier, Purser & Smidt, 2007). In this context, valorization has increasingly become important. Processes of valorization are recognized to increase the societal and economic value of university research. It is more and more important to get the scientist out of its ivory tower and closer to business, industry and public institutions (Etzkowitz et al, 2000). Furthermore, universities link more and more with communities and thereby create local partnerships (Hart & Wolff, 2006). Our recommendations have to be seen in a broader discourse of valorization. Therefore, leading questions are: How does knowledge-based development take place? How does knowledge flow between institutions in light of innovation and knowledge-driven industries? How do we have to understand the concept of valorization and should it be broadened? Finally, the problem is to be embedded into processes of policy-making. The municipality is interested in making use of knowledge and evidence for certain political decisions. Reasons are to be found in financial matters as well as increasing complexity of urban development. While private consultancies often put additional financial burden on the policy processes, the co-
Problem analysis operation with local universities promises more evidence based policies with less costs (Prof. Kees van Paridon, personal communication, 20-062012). Furthermore, the cityâ€™s decision concerning increasingly important areas of sustainability, urban development, cultural elements as well as infrastructure are getting more complex. Therefore, expert knowledge is more and more needed. Thus, university knowledge is incorporated in local policies to back up political decisions.
Structure of Research
The assignment was addressed by an interdisci-
plinary approach. As Liberal Arts and Sciences students, we all came into this think tank with different academic backgrounds that helped us to look at the problem from different perspectives. Drawing from sociology, business and organization studies, the field of public policy, knowledge management and the humanities, we managed to paint a multifaceted picture of the problem at hand. During the first two weeks, in particular, research phases with on-going meetings to update each other dominated our work, It was a challenge in the beginning to isolate the problem and to decide how to tackle it accordingly. However, at some point, we managed to pin-point it down and decided to mainly focus on the valorization of scientific research. This was a stepping stone in the research process that helped the group to focus and move into one and the same direction eventually. After having conducted mainly research on the status-quo and the two institutions itself, we managed to take a step back and to analyze the
problem from a more informed perspective by conducting the above described SWOT Analysis. Besides providing a more practical inventory, we realized that also the visionary level has to overlap. Therefore, we decided to go from more general to specific to assure a coherent, complete and sustainable approach. By doing so, the four main areas (shortly summarized in the introduction) in which the following recommendations will be presented emerged: Vision, Valorization, Evidence-Based Policy & Knowledge Transfer, Social Network Analysis. Due to limitation of time, an actual social network analysis could not be conducted. However, a questionnaire has been developed and the presentation of this useful tool is hoped to become a continuous means of self-assessment of the cooperation between the institutions in the future. To, further, assure the feasibility of our recommendations, impact tables have been created. Those allow to assess and evaluate our own recommendations and therefore, show their feasibility in certain areas. This gives you a good overview and an idea on where to start and what to consider when implementing those recommendation. During the research, academic literature and expert knowledge from the University and the municipality as well as from other cities such as Rotterdam has been consulted. Moreover, we used our groupâ€™s expertise to merge and align the ideas and information we received. We relied on theoretical models and case studies that pushed our tailored idea for valorization of knowledge in Maastricht closer and closer to the final result. In the next section the final recommendations will be presented.
Recommendations A Common Vision AT ONE GLANCE • UM and the Gemeente should design an effective common vision for their cooperation to be successful. • An explicitly formulated common vision should focus on the overlap of the vision of each of the organizations • The common vision for cooperation should be the product of a working process including both organizations.
an organization or an endeavor structure (Dessler, p. 122-123). In order to do this, the coopDuring the initial meetings of June 11th, 2012 1995, erative venture of the two actors needs a formuand June 18th, 2012, the clients concurred with lated and explicit common vision of where the the preliminary finding that their cooperation cooperation is headed, which is missing so far. lacks an effective framework. There is currently cooperation between the two actors on an adCreating a Common Vision hoc basis. Yet, both clients deem it desirable to “shorten the lines and overcome unfamiliarity Unless cooperation is aimed at specific projects, between each other” as well as to foster “transpar- keeping it on an ad-hoc basis only, a common viency towards each other” (Kamp, R., June 11th, sion is a vital instrument to foster cooperation. 2012). In light of forming an “optimal framework However, both clients have explicitly asked for a for cooperation”, it is therefore crucial “to develop framework that goes beyond the scope of uncona more structural approach towards the local and nected singular projects. More so, our analysis regional valorization of knowledge” (Assignment has shown that cooperation on a broader level is text, 2012). A vision is the element that can give necessary to achieve the goals that are desired by 17
RECOMMENDATIONS the clients. Such cooperation requires an effective common vision in order to be successful. A vision statement describes what an organization strives to become (Dyk & Neuberg, 2009). Furthermore, this vision provides the general structure for integration and coordination of the single activities. Studies that prove the functionality of an explicitly formulated vision have been conducted by Mumford, Feldman, Hein and Nagac (2011). To a certain extent, successful cooperation does depend on a structure for integration and coordination: it provides direction and purpose for both stakeholders, enables effective control and it reduces fragmented decision making and allows for a better assessment of future opportunities and hazards, thereby reducing risk, and (Dessler, 1995, 122-123). Currently, there is only one document in the respective direction: the “Covenant Gemeente Maastricht en de Universiteit Maastricht” (hereinafter: the Covenant), ratified in 2009. This document is no effective common vision. Yet it does include visionary elements for each of the actors separately: “creating an attractive living and working environment, as well as reinforcing the position of the workforce in the labor market”, for the city, and “growth ambitions to further strengthen its leading position”, for the university. It further entails a declaration of willingness for
cooperation. However, the Covenant lacks appropriate reasoning for why cooperation is deemed necessary, which goes hand in hand with the lack of visionary elements in the document. The Covenant includes a summary of plans and strat-
a common, clear and effective vision (...) should be incorporated
egies for several projects which, however, undermines the clarity on cooperative endeavours on a meta level. Moreover, an abstract level of direction and purpose is missing so far. Namely, brief, clear, desirable, abstract, challenging and future-oriented visions have been created to yield positive effects on organizations and their performance (Baum, Locke, Kirkpatrick, 1998). Thus, a common, clear and effective vision for the cooperation should be incorporated into the existing document or into a new formulation thereof.
Basing it on Common Ground
The second core recommendation stipulates that the common vision, to be formulated, should fo-
Image 2: Strategic Planning Pyramid
COMMON VISION cus on the existing overlap between the visions of each organization respectively. The overlap between the vision statements of each organization can provide the basis for successful cooperation. This common ground on direction of the organizations ensures that the cooperation will go into a direction that is beneficial for each. In this way, a shared and effective vision is created which is imaginable, desirable, feasible, focused, flexible and communicable for both actors (Kotter, 1996, 72). Subsequently, both organizations will be able to identify with this vision, setting the stage for cooperation on a practical level. One of the overlaps, which this think tank focused on, is the joint ambition for an optimization of valorization.
final recommendation with regards to a common vision for the cooperation of both entities concerns the working process between these actors. The final common vision of cooperation should be a product of a joined working process that includes the municipality and the university (and possibly even other actors, like the Hogeschool Zuyd, which should take part in the cooperation). There are several arguments motivating this recommendation. First, the common vision to be established is supposed to appeal to (the organization’s) members’ ‘hearts and minds’. People in general are more likely to fully embrace goals set
CRITERIA* Efficiency Effectiveness Political feasibility Budgetary feasibility Administrative feasibility Social feasibility Implementation ++ = very good + = good o = neutral
out in a vision statement if they have formulated and worked on them themselves (Werther, 1989). Hence, a participatory approach is vital to not only create a common vision but to also utilize it in the working process for creating a cooperative framework between the organizations in the long run.
To realize the given recommendations, a small
team of workers should draft a specific plan on how to write the final version of an effective common vision for cooperation together. The planning should involve at least one person from each institution, who would work on this project for one day a week for about one semester (including planning, proceeding and evaluation). This adds up to a total of 400 working hours (25 weeks X 8hrs X 2 persons = 400 hrs). Of course, other people would also be involved, but this could happen on a voluntary basis.
For an example of a common vision for cooperation between the city and university, please refer to the appendix.
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. CIP: United States.
++ + o ++ + ++ - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 1: Creating a Common Vision
The Scope of Valorization AT ONE GLANCE • The city and university should extend their understanding of knowledge valorization. The inclusion of humanities and social sciences (HASS), as well as the expansion of knowledge valorization to so-called soft approaches to valorization, should be considered. Such broader definitions of valorization can then constitute an essential field for the future vision and strategy of the cooperation.
important component of the cooperation ambitions of both the municipality and UM are education, research and knowledge transfer. The already existing “Covenant Gemeente Maastricht en de Universiteit Maastricht” (hereinafter: The Covenant) between the clients of this Think Tank group clearly states this. In the following recommendations, we focus on the concept of knowledge valorization, which constitutes a field in which the municipality and the UM can form a shared vision. The clients of this Think Tank group, as well as official statements by the university, indicate a strong interest in the enhancement of such knowledge valorization. Thus, it became clear that especially the university has a great interest in knowledge valorization (first client meeting, 11-6-2012). The problem we disentangled in this context, which already has been hinted at by an earlier Think Tank, ‘Sustainable
city’ (2011, 26), is that the potential of valorization is not yet fully understood and explored. In general, we disentangled two problematic areas. First, valorization has been mainly understood in the context of life sciences. Thus, the city has not yet fully realised the potential of HASS in Maastricht. Although ‘Gezondheids-, medische en levenswetenschappen’ (health sciences, medicine and life sciences) are explicitly mentioned by both actors (the convenant), HASS valorization is still less considered. This shows that a general discourse on valorization is not yet fully aware of the potential of HASS valorization. Benneworth and Jongbloed (2009) identifiy three problems in this context. First, hegemonic discourse of academic capitalism puts emphasis of private benefit over public. Second, valorization is driven by success. HASS are not able to present clear-cut results such as in the life sciences. Third, there is an emphasis on simple solutions and quick responses. There
SCOPE OF VALORIZATION is potential in both economic and in societal use of HASS knowledge (Benneworth and Jongbloed, 2009). The concern for a broader application of the concept of valorization has furthermore been raised by the Dutch Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT, 2007). In a report in 2007, the AWT asked for an increase in possibilities of the societal and cultural impact of the Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS). The second problematic area concerns the rigidity of the way valorization is understood. The webpage of UM states the following: “Research ‘valorisation’ gives social or financial value to research findings. Our researchers work in multidisciplinary teams with representatives of trade, industry and socially relevant partners.” (Universiteit Maastricht, 2012). The aforementioned definition of valorization of knowledge excludes certain fields of valorization. A more flexible definition should include education, which can give social and financial value. Such a broader definition of valorization that this Think Tank group has chosen, states that valorization is the process
by which knowledge is used beyond the academic realm (Benneworth and Jongbloed, 2009).
Soft Approaches to Valorization
In an interview with Ermo Daniels (personal com-
munication, 21-06-2012), he shared his expertise regarding knowledge valorization with this Think Tank group. The framework he suggested, which helps to understand what knowledge valorization encompasses, is a model created by Wedgwood. In this model, Wedgwood (2006) indicates four areas of university activities. It is used to show the variety of possible valorization areas. The areas indicated by the model are separated into education and research. Those areas in turn are divided by academic and societal focus (see image 3). The four areas are: education relevant to employment/work (societal teaching), academic research base, academic education, and translation of knowledge into innovation (societal research) (Wedgwood, 2006). Ermo Daniels claims that valorization should be understood more flexibly and thus incor-
Image 3: University Activities with Potential for Valorization
RECOMMENDATIONS porate so called soft approaches to valorization (personal communication, 21-06-2012). Out of the four areas, the area most frequently used in terms of valorization by UM is where research knowledge is directly transferred to society: translation of knowledge into innovation. We are aware that the think tank project is a prime example of such a university activity. Yet, it also includes academic teaching. The contract research centre and UM hold work in this area. Spin-off companies such as Brains Unlimited, patents, direct contracts with industry and
(...) a broader approach to valorization would fill the gap (...)
or EU-funded projects, such as DECODER, are examples of projects aiming at successfully translating knowledge into innovation. For this area, valorization is clearly defined. For the other areas, it is unusual to refer to the process as valorizing knowledge. Projects in the other areas are PhD programs, regular study programs of Bachelor and Master, the Teachers Academy, as well as the Kidzcollege. It should neverthelessbe accepted that valorizing knowledge can have different facets, including academic education and research, as well as externally focused education. Thus, it is recommended to take soft approaches to valorization into account. Thereby, the Wedgwood model can be of great importance to keep track of the different activities of UM, which have to be taken into account. Furthermore, such a model would highlight the importance of the realm of education and research for the concept of valorization. Bachelors, Masters and PhD students can valorize the knowledge of the university through human capital, possible labor force and innovation throughout their studies and research career. Such a broader approach to valorization would fill the gap of a more limited understanding to knowledge valorization.
Valorization includes better accessibility to ac22
ademic work and co-production of knowledge with non-academic groups. Yet, valorization should be seen as more than economic ‘commercialization’. HASS valorization is manifold and exists in several instances in Maastricht. Core disciplines of HASS are political science, economics, sociology, cultural studies, social psychology as well as social scientific work in fields of behavioral medicine, education and communications (adopted from Weiss, 1995). FASOS received high scores concerning their research program’s relevance and its application of knowledge through the education of students (personal communication, Rein de Wilde, 25.06.2012), as well as through conferences concerning academic topics and cooperation with the city on a professorship (Prof. Graeme Evans). The Centre on Urban and Euregional Studies (CUES) is financially supported by the city Maastricht and the province of Limburg. Furthermore, University College Maastricht’s project ‘Think Tank’ is an example of the valorization of social science knowledge. Nevertheless, projects concerning valorization in Maastricht focus on natural sciences, including bigger projects such as the Health Campus and Chemelot. Other valorization projects incorporated in the Contract Research Centre mostly focus on the economic value of technology and natural science knowledge. Furthermore, a specification of the inclusion of HASS in the covenant of the cooperation between UM and the city is missing (Ritzen et al., 2009). In the document, earlier valorization projects of the natural sciences are precisely mentioned. It lacks a broader scope of valorization. It is recommended to consider broadening this scope and consequently include the HASS in vision and strategy documents, which focus on the field of knowledge valorization. Broadening the scope is necessary because there is a potential benefit for both actors. In cooperation the actors should consider those actions and policies in which both have an interest. Next, the question of why it is in the interest of both actors to broaden the scope will be clarified. First, the university repeats in public statements (UM webpage, other promotional webpages) that research focuses on issues critical
SCOPE OF VALORIZATION to societal development. It is therefore safe to say that UM is also dedicated to the practical application of this research. Valorization of HASS does exactly that: applying research that is concerned with societal development. Thus, if the university states its dedication to this, it should also have an interest in fulfilling it. Second, the university explores many research fields. One way of achieving more recognition of this variety is the acknowledgment bythe municipality. Valorizing the HASS recognizes a field maybe underestimated until now. Third, by giving this think tank the assignment to explore valorization and cooperation, the municipality showed its interest in knowledge valorization concerning policies. Weiss (1979, 1995) pointed out in several studies that social sciences have an indirect impact on public policies. Thus, the valorization of HASS is a core interest of government institutions. Lastly, society profits from the application of knowledge that is concerned with societal issues and with development. It is thus likely that the application of such knowledge helps to better understand societal problems and react to them. Both actors, partly out of responsibility to society, are interested in acknowledging these problems and doing what is beneficial for society. Overall, these arguments show why it is in the interest of both stakeholders to broaden the scope of valorization and to take HASS into considerations.
Efficiency Effectiveness Political feasibility Budgetary feasibility Administrative feasibility Social feasibility Implementation ++ = very good + = good o = neutral
Finally, the broadening of the scope of valori-
zation should be taken into consideration when drafting the vision for future cooperation. Both sides should acknowledge the importance of valorization in broader terms. It will be important to do further research on how the scope can be broadened in a practical manner. Thus, this requires a research position, which conducts research on how knowledge of the HASS studies can be used in Maastricht. For a 3-4 month half-time position for a phD position, costs would be approximately €1.000 to 1.300,- per month. (Current offers for full-time positions at UM pay €2.000 to 2.600,- ). This amounts to maximal costs of €5.200,-. Depending on the workload this position can be prolonged or an additional position can be created.
Benneworth, P. & Jongbloed, B.W. (2009). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Karen Witten & Kay Hammond (2010): What becomes of social science knowledge: New Zealand researchers’ experiences of knowledge transfer modes and audiences, Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 5:1, 3-12
++ + ++ + + ++ - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 2: Broadening the Scope of Valorization
Assessment of Valorization AT ONE GLANCE â€˘ The University Maastricht should develop a new framework for research evaluation, by means of which research can be assessed more effectively with regard to knowledge valorization.
University currently assesses research by means of the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) criteria. This evaluation approach is conducted via the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Association of Universites in the Netherlands (VSNU) and the Netherlands organization for Scientific Research (NOW) (Quality Assurance, 2012). The aim of the aforementioned form of assessment is to ensure high quality of the research conducted at and by universities and to provide criteria that help distribute research funding resources (KNAW, vsnu& NWO, 2009). However, the SEP criteria so far insufficiently assess research with regards to knowledge valorization (Council for the Humanities and the Social Sciences Council, 2005). Valorization is not yet given sufficient attention as it only constitutes one sub-section of the category â€˜societal relevanceâ€™ in the SEP criteria (KNAW, vsnu& NWO, 2009). Furthermore, indicators as part of the framework supporting valorization assessment are still lack-
ing (Rathenau Instituut, 2011; Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2011). Valorization has become increasingly important for universities as well as for UM and the municipality specifically, since valorization provides a means for fruitful cooperation between the aforementioned entities (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhart & Terra, 2000). Thus, enhancing and advancing knowledge valorization is of interest for both actors. In order to do so, research assessment regarding valorization at UM needs to be improved and advanced, by determining factors that yield improvements for knowledge valorization. Means and channels need to be found to make knowledge valorization work by improving the research assessment thereof.
An improved framework that includes indicators
for research assessment is deemed necessary to assess research regarding knowledge valorization in a comprehensive manner (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2005; 2011). Ac-
ASSESSMENT OF VALORIZATION cording to the working group ‘Waardevol-indicatoren voor valorisatie”, the best way of developing such indicators that do justice to the complex nature of valorization, is the construction of a valorization map (Rathenau Instituut, 2011). Indeed, this map enables UM to keep track of their improvement in knowledge valorization without requiring very time-consuming changes of the general criteria in the SEP. The map names the parties considered responsible for valorization.
(...) indictors for valorization will help improve research (...)
Moreover, it includes an aggregation level to address the different levels of responsibilites of the respective parties. Another factor to take into account when constructing a valorization map is the academic discipline for which valorization is desired. Especially concerning Humanities and Social Sciences on the one hand and Life Sciences on the other hand, there is a profound difference in valorization (Rathenau Instituut, 2011). This last point has specifically been considered by KNAW, who develop quality indicators for the Humanities, in order to take into account the distinct nature of the Humanities with respect to the Social and Life Sciences (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences). Lastly, the aforementioned valorization map should incorporate the research phase at which valorization is to take place (Rathenau Instituut, 2011). In sum, developing indicators for valorization will help both UM and the municipality to improve research assessment conducted by UM with respect to knowledge valorization. Thereby, knowledge valorization will be ameliorated. The indicators to be developed by each faculty with regard to knowledge valorization could orientate themselves to the current SEP criteria for ‘societal relevance’. These include the following aspects: relevance to society of the research group’s mission and research agenda, dissemination of knowledge, stakeholder interest and contribution to better understanding of societal sectors (ERiC, 2010).
Furthermore, the report on quality indicators for the humanities by KNAW, is very useful. It lays out assessment criterias for quality indicators of the humanities. Those assessment criterias for quality indicators, which are of use for indicators of valorization are: civil-society publications, civil-society use of research output and evidence of civil-society recognition (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2011). Under each of these assessment criterias, indicators are invoked, which might be possible indicators of valorization. Such possible indicators could be: civil society use of research output such as avisory reports on policy, as well as projects carried out in collaboration with civilsociety actors, demonstrable civil society effects of research or other types of civil-society use, for example reviews and citations in policy reports. It further states civil-society appointments, invitations to give lectures and advisory positions/membership in advisory committees as quality indicators (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2011). These reports indicate UM as a knowledge supplier and the municipality as an entity in knowledge demand. Mutual profit can be created by means of cooperation with regards to research assessment. This is because valorization gains momentum as a vital part of the research quality at institutes of higher education.
This recommendation requires a person to work
on a valorization map for UM as specified previously. Each faculty of UM has distinct understandings of knowledge valorization, thus each faculty itself needs to develop indicators that suit the discipline represented at the respective faculty (Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2005). Although this distribution requires several additional working hours for research that explore these linkages, the indicators - once established - enable an improved assessment of knowledge valorization. In turn, this will yield greater effectiveness with regards to valorization. Each faculty approximately requires 70 working hours to work out a proposal for a valorization map. There are already numerous documents on quality indicators, developed by KNAW, 25
and on societal relevance, developed by Evaluating Research in Context (ERiC). These can serve as examples of how valorization indicators may look like (ERiC, 2010; Rathenau Instituut, 2011). Moreover, in the long run each faculty requires additional working hours every two years once a new framework for assessment is established. Staff needs to assess peer research in respect of knowledge valorization. As a side note, peer reviews display the common medium of research assessment (Rathenau Instituut, 2011). Furthermore, a consultation with societal stakeholders wit, the municipality as a core element, is deemed beneficial for efficient research assessment. This report advises the stakeholders to undertake this assessment â€œby means of either external reporting or by assigning them a role on the assessment panels in addition to the actual peersâ€? (Royal NetherCRITERIA*
Efficiency Effectiveness Political feasibility Budgetary feasibility Administrative feasibility Social feasibility Implementation ++ = very good + = good o = neutral
lands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2011, p.32).
EriC (2010). Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: a guide. Rathenau Instituut (2011). Colofon WaardevolIndicatoren voor Valorisatie. Retrieved from: http://www.rathenau.nl/uploads/tx_tferathenau/ Rapport_Waardevol__ Indicatoren_voor_valorisatie.pdf Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2011). Quality Indicators for research in the humanities. Retrieved from: http://www. knaw.nl/Content/Internet_KNAW/publicaties/ pdf/20111024.pdf
++ + o ++ + - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 3: Assessing Research Valorization
Knowledge Transfer AT ONE GLANCE • Adapt the product (research output) to the needs of the user (policy makers) • Encourage formal and informal interaction and communication between researchers and policy makers • Organize conferences, events, joint activities for both institutions • Provide policy-makers with opportunities for professional evidence based policy-making (EBP) skills • Incentivize the use of academic evidence in policy-making • Provide incentives for researchers to produce locally relevant research
Pursuant to a change on the level of the vision,
this recommendation focuses on the strategic and operational level. Indeed, the cooperation between UM and the municipality remains problematic on the aforementioned levels. So far, there is merely ad-hoc cooperation, missing a clear structure that facilitates knowledge transfer. Awareness in general as well as structural awareness of knowledge transfer options are lacking at the moment. As concerns the municipality, evidence is only used sporadically and not systematically in the policy making process. Still, Maastricht offers a variety of high-quality research facilities with expertise in the realm of the social sciences and the humanities. Nonetheless, UM so far lacks a knowledge valorization strategy so that policy makers’ de-
mand of research informing their policies cannot be matched. This mismatch of supply and demand corresponds to a science-policy gap in the city. Thus, the following paragraphs will deal with the aforementioned issues, thereby identifying and providing recommendations on how to overcome obstacles to knowledge transfer. Possible solutions and strategies on how to structure and realize fruitful cooperation are outlined. Furthermore, the issue of awareness is tackled by focusing on UM developing a valorization strategy for HASS, aimed at utilisation in the policy making of the municipality. All separate recommendations are presented followed by a two-fold rationale. First, the theoretical level deals with an analysis of the science-policy gap, drawing from theoretical research when identifying underly-
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ing cause and effect relationships. Second, the pragmatic level derives practical recommendations, tailored towards the local context in which both UM and the municipality are to be seen. The transfer of knowledge from academic researchers to policy-makers can be conceptualized by means of the knowledge-transfer cycle developed by Tranfield et. al (2004). They see the process of knowledge-transfer as going through four distinct stages: knowledge creation, diffusion, adaptation and utilization (Tranfield et al., 2004)[see graphic]. In the creation stage, scientific knowledge is generated by researchers at Maastricht University. This process starts with the framing of the research question, until the actual writing down of the results in academic language occurs (codification). Since researchers often lack exposure to the policy-making
The first pillar of the recommendations given focuses on the first part of the knowledge transfer cycle: creation. This report advises a strategy to adapt the product, which is the research output, to the needs of the consumers, which are the policy makers. A lack of common language, better known as a cultural gap, inhibits mutual understanding (Amaraet al, 2004; Caplan, 1979). A bilateral flow of information thus enhances the transparency of the policy process, on the one hand, and the research process on the other. Both entities need to conduct mutual consultations to create a trust-based relationship. In turn, this will yield common projects in the medium and long run (Brown, 1991; Frenk, 1991; Gins-
Image 4: Process of Knowledge Transfer (adapted from Transfield et al., 2004) realm, their research is often exclusively framed in an ‘academic bubble’. In the next stage, diffusion, tacit and explicit, is transferred to professionals. This can happen either through the dissemination of written work (e.g. journal articles or other formats more accessible for policy-makers), but also, more effectively, through means of face-to-face communication and other forms of personal interaction. Once policy-makers have obtained academic knowledge from researchers, they need to be able to understand, contextualize and internalize the findings, to identify implications for their own professional work and to be able to judge the quality as well as the reliability of the research. Finally, in the last stage, policymakers utilize the adapted knowledge in their professional work by drawing on this scientific evidence, concepts, models and other insights.
berg, 2001; Lane, 1998). This is illustrated by what Nutley, Jung and Walter (2008) describe as the “Organizational Excellence Model” in which a ‘research-minded’ local culture is developed through a mutual rather than one-sided relation between a policy institution and a university. On the one hand, policies benefit from the input by the university and the research institution becomes subject to scientific inquiry and evaluation by the same token. Thereby, a natural relationship between both entities can be achieved because staff members of the municipality are familiarized with research, whereas researchers are familiarized with the demand of the municipality (Nutley, Jung, & Walter, 2008). Hence, publication formats alternative to academic journals need to be developed by UM. These formats should be significantly shorter and easier comprehensible than journal articles, hence pointing out implications for policy making in a concise, yet simple, man-
RECOMMENDATIONS ner. Examples include issue papers, policy briefs as well as literature reviews (Amara et al, 2004; Landry, 2003; Nutley, Davies, & Walter, 2002). Undergraduate research programs, such as MARBLE and PEERS that already exist and usually operate in a time frame of one semester, should be strengthened. Furthermore, a mechanism should be developed through which policy-makers can function as research (question) sponsors. This approach will yield the creation of knowledge transfer on an already existing level. There are certain obstacles to the above-mentioned approach. Indeed, the promotion of research with CRITERIA*
Efficiency Effectiveness Political feasibility Budgetary feasibility Administrative feasibility Social feasibility Implementation ++ = very good + = good o = neutral
a local focus is problematic since it is difficult to encourage researchers to make their research accessible for local purposes. It is more attractive for them to publish in journals (Squire, 2010). Consequently, alternative ways of generating research, undergraduate research being an example, become of pivotal significance. This could be attractive if undergraduates work closely together with the municipality, so that a mutual learning process takes place. It is to be assessed whether there are potential projects at the municipality for which undergraduate research would be valuable.
+ ++ o + ++ + - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 4: Recommendations for the Creation Stage Diffusion & Dissemination
The second pillar of the knowledge transfer cycle concerns the dissemination of knowledge. It refers to an encouragement and facilitation of both formal and informal interaction between research and policy makers. Namely, this is to happen on three levels. First, a research or policy friendly attitude should be promoted in the institutions concerned. Second, events provide a platform for interaction. These include formal seminars, symposia and conferences, but also informal activities and joint events. Lastly, a shared database for research is to be established. In this context, UM should make its library accessible for municipality staff. This will foster knowledge transfer on the one hand and dissemination of knowledge and interaction in general as well. There are several reasons for the importance of both informal and formal interaction between 30
the two institutions. Informal interaction decreases the cultural gap. Research has shown that this creates a friendly and trusting attitude between the members of two different institutions (Brown, 1991; Lane, 1998). Furthermore, formal interaction provides several facilitating factors for knowledge transfer. It assures a long-term and regular exchange of information and cooperation. However, there are also certain obstacles in the knowledge creation stage. Researchers rarely consult policy makers when framing research questions. Academics, thus, tend to produce research that is not directly relevant to policy makers but rather aimed at the advancement of science in itself (Chagnon et al., 2010). Policy-makers and academics also operate on different timescales, with research being a long-term venture and policy-makers looking for timely answers. A way to align these two different modes of opera-
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER tion is to ‘open up’ the iterative research process and to conduct more short-term studies. Interaction between the two groups is also deemed useful to align their interests (Jewell & Bero, 2008). The municipality displays a typical bureaucracy that consists of a hierarchical, static structure, which operates a reward system among its employees that is based on certainty and success. Research shows that safe, non-experimental practices and solutions are favored. However, this can lead to a negative attitude towards research that might point out flaws in common and established policy practices/solutions/points of view. Therefore, the promotion of greater openness towards the usage of evidence/research/ambiguity is recommendable to create greater awareness for the importance of objective, “outside” points of views. Thinking and looking “outside the box” should be valued more, instead of taking the certain and known paths (Bradshaw, 2002; Ginsburg, 2001; Rich, 2002). Internal promotion of a more research/policy friendly attitude can overcome this obstacle of avoiding research, if it is too experimental or too distant from their expectations and own values. The organization of common events, both informally and formally, can decrease the gap: Conferences make weak ties between the municipality and UM stronger. UM subsequently will assume a more present role in the municipality and UM knowledge becomes more accessible (Nutley et al., 2002). CRITERIA*
With regards to dissemination of research, there are several pitfalls to be taken into account. Passive dissemination via publications and databases has been found to be largely ineffective. Therefore, face-to-face interaction and more intensive or problem-specific workshops are deemed necessary. These should focus on one particular task. More so, the department concerned with it should in turn make the resulting recommendations. Furthermore, the master program “Master of Evidence Based Innovation in Teaching” at the Dutch Teachers’ Academy and the organization TIER is a notable, classic example of such cooperation in dissemination. The organization was set up jointly by UM, University of Amsterdam and Groningen, and provides a role model on how ministries, practitioners and research can work together, exchanging knowledge via a shared database (Universiteit Maastricht, 2012). It is crucial to mention a distinction between the creation of these databases and making the UM library accessible, as stated previously. Making the UM library, or another database, available does not create evidence, but only access to research. This distinction is important, since there is a need for training to generate evidence. There need to be pragmatic trainings on resource use by municipality staff with a UM education in evidence-based policy, in order to spread these capabilities to other staff members (TIER; Groot, 2012; Universiteit Maastricht, 2012).
++ ++ + + + - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 5: Recommendations for the Diffusion Stage
tablish closer working relations between municiThe third step of the knowledge transfer model pality staff members and UM researchers (Nutley, should provide policy makers with opportunities Davies, & Walter, 2002). A cooperation with the for professional development that focus on evi- Teachers’ Academy will further foster a successdence based policy-making (EBP) skills. A note- ful implementation of these steps. The masters worthy component of this is the establishment and of the Teachers’ Academy provides a valuable enhancement in the long run of cooperation be- educational resource in the following areas: civil tween the Teachers’ Academy and the municipali- servants learn to agree on which evidence is valuty, in order to educate staff members of the munic- able for its purposes and students will deal with ipality in a master’s program, that is aiming at the research in a professional way and will examine needs of policy makers (Master of Evidence Based the relevance and quality of research; the propolicy and Evaluation). The evidence-based poli- gram teaches how to work with research and how cy model provides several benefits for both actors. to integrate it into the policy making process; the As a side note, evidence refers to research program approaches the creation of evidence in findings that gain significance through proper use priority areas strategically, and thereby educates in this model. There are warrants and biases influ- students in conducting research; it also facilitates encing the choice of interpretation of resources but access to research by educating staff and shifting greater access to research can be used to legitimize towards the evidence-based approach. In the long or back up policy ideas. This is because their under- run they may give workshops to more members, lying reasoning relies on scientific, as opposed to hereby self-sustaining their education. Lastly, the ideological, arguments (Marston & Watts, 2003). program helps to establish closer working relaResearch-based knowledge refers to those find- tions between municipality staff members and ings, evidence, empirics and theories that involve UM. It would be valuable for the municipality different forms of knowledge but that are not lim- to have staff that is familiar with the structure of ited to research (Davies & Nutley, 2008). Amongst UM and that has ties with UM staff. Therefore, the most notable benefits of this approach is the sending staff to the Teachers’ Academy signipossibility to use cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, fies a first step in building bridges between UM this theory provides a better understanding of pol- and the municipality. It makes knowledge not icy issues and predictions on potential policy out- only accessible but also relevant to staff memcomes and furthermore enhances accountability bers (Universiteit Maastricht, 2012;Groot, 2012). Again, the described approach bears cerof research and policy units (Davies et al., 2008). tain pitfalls. It is deemed only interesting for UM to There are four conditions for the municipality to successfully make use of the evidence organize a Teachers’ Academy program in Maasbased policy model. To utilize research by UM, tricht if there is a minimum of 15 participants. If the municipality has to (1) agree on which evi- the municipality decides so, staff could work partdence is valuable for its purposes; (2) approach time and partake two days per week in the program. the creation of evidence in priority areas strategi- Otherwise, it is recommendable to send a small cally; (3) facilitate access to research and; (4) es- number of staff members to The Hague for the program and have them give workshops afterwards. CRITERIA*
Efficiency Effectiveness Political feasibility Budgetary feasibility Administrative feasibility Social feasibility Implementation
++ ++ + + + -
Impact-Table 5: Recommendations for the Adaptation Stage 32
The last pillar of the knowledge transfer model refers to incentivizing the use of evidence in policy making for the municipality. By the same token, researchers at UM need motivation to include the municipality and to cater to their needs. Hence, the use of research, especially by UM, should be promoted within the municipality. Furthermore, researchers as well as policy makers should receive guidelines on how to facilitate the use and production of policy-related research for each other, exemplary via special funding of the research generation (Squire, 2010). However, the implementation of this is difficult, which is why especially undergraduate research needs to be moved into the focus of the issue. For researchers, it is a viable incentive to conduct research with a local focus (Squire, 2010). Research with an international focus does not necessarily clash with conducting research on a local level. Local case studies can be used for international purposes that are published in international journals. For policy-makers, it is equally important to create incentives for research use, since no regulations oblige them to use the research available. CRITERIA*
Furthermore, the policy maker usually has several tools to his disposal for both making and evaluating a policy. Hence, it is crucial to raise awareness on the importance of these tools for the policy making and shaping process. Impact assessment methods can provide means for policy makers to internally enhance their policy making quality as well as internal accountability. Another point is that authorities providing a system of checks and balances could create a more structured approach towards evidence-based policy making. The overall idea of restructuring the policy making approach in the municipality also results from concerns that are not only related to internal accountability, but are also related to external responsibilities and accountability (Nutley et al., 2002). Currently, Human Resources practice and standard operation procedure of the municipality does not explicitly promote, or make use of, scientific evidence in policies as a requirement, nor is it a criterion in employee appraisals. Appropriate incentives should be incorporated in HR practices to facilitate both adoption and utilization of research as well as the appropriate production and targeted dissemination of knowledge to professionals. + + + + + - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 6: Recommendations for the Utilization Stage Creating a Boundary Organization
thermore, the organization could itself be the muThis part focuses on long run considerations as nicipalityâ€™s focal point of interaction with the uniopposed to those outlined in the knowledge trans- versity, with regards to research and the utilization fer model. Indeed, UM should create a boundary thereof. This boundary organization should also organization acting at the science-policy interface be at the heart of UMâ€™s valorization strategy for the in the medium or long run. Such an institution inner-city social science and humanities campus. In addition, the interaction with an intershould coordinate, supervise and evaluate those recommendations put forward previously. Fur- mediary that is familiar with both organizations 33
RECOMMENDATIONS and their structure can benefit both the municipality and UM to learn more about each other. By gradually giving insights int each other’s operations, they can adapt better to each others needs. Moreover, research reveals that organizations such as the municipality, that are built up static and hierarchical, benefit mostly from slow learners. This means that if members of other organizations, such as the University, become a constant part or consultant to the municipality, the whole organization can profit from their input. They will most likely hold their own values and common views among researchers and promote them within the University. Therefore, the municipality would gain insights into different ways and could learn to look at policy-problems from several angles: a research perspective broadens its horizon and eventually develops a more innovative learning attitude (Hatch, 2006; March, 1991; Schein, CRITERIA*
1990). By approaching the Think Tank with this idea of enhanced cooperation, the municipality shows its willingness to innovate. Conversely, UM would be able to adjust their research to local challenges, which would strengthen its standing within the region. Since the horizontal structure of the university and its focus on research and education already open the university for innovation, the cooperation could direct it into a different field. A complementary approach to its focus on internationalitsation would be established. UM being situated in the city of Maastricht makes greater involvement in local issues an asset for both actors. A boundary organization that matches, cooperates and overlooks this exchange of information, research and assistance will form a common platform where they can meet and create new ideas and projects for the future together.
o ++ o -o ++ + - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 7: Creating a Boundary Organization
quire at least two full staff positions with a total salary of roughly €100,000 to €120,000 annually. The budget estimates for the first three recom- If undergraduate research was used, a mendations relates to an additional workload smaller compensation for approximately 8 workfor staff members. Such activities are likely to ing hours per week, per student, should be considconsume between two and four hours (5 – 10%) ered. Constant checks on the effectiveness of reof the weekly workload, and thus a rough esti- search use, recommended in the aforementioned mate can be made by extrapolating the relative recommendations, within the organization would increase in workload to the salary of the num- be costly if external consultancies had to be apber of staff involved. Professional development proached. In general, the education of staff memopportunities can be estimated similarly to the bers at the Teachers’ Academy would make the program offered by the Teacher’s Academy with process of research use more sustainable the more a tuition fee of 17.000€ per person. The creation modules are completed. Staff members would of a boundary organization is estimated to re- not only be able to evaluate research, but they
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS could also generate it and conduct assessments Amara, N., Ouimet, M., and Landry, R. (2004). themselves, thereby saving budgetary resources. New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Science Communication, Further Reading Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence 26, 75. Based Policy and Practice: Cross Sector Lessons from the UK. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Unit for Research Utilisation.
Social Network Analysis AT ONE GLANCE • Organize events for social networking and information exchange • Create an instiution which coordinates the exchange of information between UM and the city • Set up an internet portal for inter-organizational computer mediated communication (ICMC) • Make use of Social Network Analysis
tors on both sides, through which this informacould flow, are still lacking. On the one hand, The goal of the recommendations is to, in the tion it is not clear which knowledge could be supplied end, optimize the match between the supply and and by whom, whereas, on the other hand, it is the demand of knowledge between the UM and not clear which knowledge is demanded and by the city. However, one basic problem, which has whom. Even if this knowledge was present, there been pointed out in the problem analysis and in is the issue of how to get into contact to match the the client meetings as well as in the interview with supply with the demand. Therefore, the first step Ermo Daniels, is a lack of awareness about the that is necessary to make a well organized transfer possible supply and the actual demand of knowl- of knowledge possible between UM and the city, edge. Related to that, connections between the ac- is to create the necessary awareness about the pos35
RECOMMENDATIONS sible supply and the actual demand of knowledge. Therefore, it needs the establishment of a well structured web of information routes through which this information can be exchanged. This issue is approached here with the methods of a Social Network Analysis (SNA) which is applied, in particular, to the exchange of information. The crucial question therefore is what kind of web or network is to be established in order to organize the exchange of information and to create awareness. Such a network would, first of all, need to consist of links which would function as information routes. These are connections through which information is forwarded and received. Moreover, in order to increase the information that individual “nodes” can receive, these nodes need a high level of “information exposure” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, 34), which indicates the potential access to information of a node. The individuals need to be exposed at a high level, not only to information of their own network (UM or municipality), but especially to information of the other network and thus to “non-redundant information” (Lin, Burt & Cook, 2001, 21). The existing network of information routes between the separated networks of UM and the municipality, however, seems to be sparse, indicating a low number of connections. The individual nodes are only exposed at a low level to information. When connections between two groups are missing, which bear information opportunities, the term “structural hole” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, 52) is commonly used (image 5). A structural hole between two groups, as described by Ronald S. Burt,
does not mean that people in the groups are unaware of another. It only means that people are focused on their own activities such that they do not attend to the activities of people of the other group. Holes are buffers, like an insulator in an electric circuit. People on either side of a structural hole circulate in different flows of information. Structural holes separate non-redundant sources of information, sources that are more additive than over-
” (Lin, Burt & Cook, 2001, 35).
Hence, a recommended network would need to bridge the structural hole in order to connect the information flow circuits of UM and the city. Moreover, according to Burt (1992), a wellstructured network provides more than access to information but is also a matter of timing and referrals. The well-structured network can therefore “act as a screening device in the face of information overload, include others who can be brought into an opportunity, and deliver information early, providing the opportunity to act on the information before it is widespread or obsolete” (Haythornthwaite, 1996, 25). Finally, the quality of information needs to be maintained (Baker & Iyer, 1992). Subsequently, two types of networks which could complement each other are proposed at two different levels. Firstly, a decentralized network of rather informal or even personal information routes oriented on the properties of a “Small World Network”, and on the other hand, a centralized network based on an institutionalized information hub, occupying the position of a broker. The former network would rather “fill” the structural hole, integrating both networks; the other instead, would rather “bridge” it leaving two separated groups.
principal recommendation is to create a structure of contacts between the UM and the city which would function as information routes providing exchange of information on the supply and demand of knowledge in order to make the transfer of knowledge possible and well-organized. On this basis, the following four points are recommended. First, it is recommended to organize events for social networking on a regular basis, between employees of UM and the municipality, in which information is exchanged. This includes conferences with working groups, open days of the city and UM and discussion fora. The created network should be oriented on the properties of a Small World Network. Second, an information hub with the position of brokerage should be institutionalized. The broker or brokers would be one or more persons with the task of deliberately directing the exchange of information, hereby function-
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS
Image 5: A structural hole between two separate groups ing as a bridge between the networks of the UM and the city (image 6). An example would be a science officer, as exists at other universities. Third, it is recommended to establish an internet portal for Inter-organizational Computer Mediated Communication (ICMC) as to maintain the established information routes efficiently. The portal should provide information on the possible supply and demand for knowledge, as well as provide a clear, structured overview of completed research and research that is still in progress. Such a portal can moreover function as a basis for contact between providers of research, and those in need of research or knowledge. A final recommendation is that UM and the municipality engage in social network analysis themselves in order to assess the actual status-quo.
Recommended Network I: A small world
Access to information and proper timing of information exchange, as well as referral, can be provided by integrating both networks into one network of information exchange with high density, small path length and a rather homogeneous degree distribution. Those three properties are also typical properties of Small World Networks (Wang & Chen, 2003). The high density (image 7 & 8) increases the branching factor (the number of connection a node has) of the individual nodes as well as their range. This indicates the spectrum of sources a individual has access to and it can be measured by the amount of other nodes that an individual is tied to directly (one step) and indirectly (more steps) (Haythornthwaite, 1996). According to Haythornthwaite (1996), information exposure is intensified by in-
Image 6: A node assuming a broker position bridges the two groups creasing the prominence and the range of the individual. Therefore, high density networks improve access to information. High density also creates more direct connections and thus smaller path lengths (the number of links between two nodes), hence improving the timing and the quality of information. If this high density is not the case, the quality of knowledge might deteriorate when moving from one person to the next within a large chain of intermediaries (Coleman, 1990, Baker 1986). The path length could also be reduced by strategically connecting nodes which together reduce the overall path length (image 9). Granovetter (1973) pointed out that the path length is crucial for the efficiency of the diffusion of a certain resource as information. If the path length is too large, communication might not be feasible as communication might be distorted or too costly.
Image 7: The small network on the left side is a closed network with the highest possible density between the 4 nods. Every nod is connected with every other nod. The path length is 1. The small network on the right side is an open network with a low density. The highest possible path length here is 3. High density network are more conducive for fast information exchange as well as for keeping up the quality of information. position bridges the two groups.
Image 8: The network on the right side is a large high density network. On the left a network with sparse density is depicted. The flow of information might even be impeded. The degree distribution should be homogeneous rather than heterogeneous as is the case with, e.g., Scale Free Networks (image 11). This might be a result of increasing the density of a network. One important reason is that the stars, which are nodes with relatively high prominence (Haythornthwaite, 1996), have a high influence over the process of information exchange in strongly heterogeneous networks. In such a heterogeneous network, if the stars would fail or not be available in the network, the whole exchange of information breaks down. Hence, the more heterogeneous the degree distribution is, the higher is the vulnerability of the network (Wang & Cheng, 2003). Therefore, a more homogeneous degree distribution reduces the vulnerability of the network and is consequently desired. The Small World features of many direct connections and short path lengths increase the influence of the information sources. Coleman, Katz and Menzel (1966) distinguished between information sources which merely inform and others which influence action. They found that impersonal sources, such as mass media, only sporadically inform. However, the closer and more personal sources provide more influential legitimizing actions. Granovetter (1973) stated that information which is received third or fourth hand is â€œinformation without influenceâ€? (p. 1372). 38
Hence, the direct connections and personal ties of this proposed network go as far as to encourage action and thus lead to more cooperation. Such a network could be imagined as a network in which every person would have a similar and moderate amount of connections (through which information is exchanged) with persons from the other group. Moreover, between any entities A and B there would be only a few intermediaries, simplifying any contact or transmission of information. However, the exchange of information still presents itself in a rather uncoordinated way, because the different individual nodes are not aware of the overall structure and do not deliberately direct the exchange of information. This might inhibit the timing, the reliability and the accurate exchange of information flow. Such a case provides a perfect opportunity for the broker (see recommendation 2), who can aid in coordinating the information exchange and in providing relevant and accurate information. Such a network can be created via the use of events, such as conferences, training programs, workshops and discussion forums. These events would allow people that are relevant to the valorization of knowledge to meet and develop ties with one another, hereby expanding the network and creating informal (and formal) connections. As the strength of these connections grows, the flow of information is facilitated between them
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS (Haythornthwaite, 1996). However, the networks that are created at these events must be continued to ensure that the valorization and cooperation process continues in the medium and long run. It is therefore crucial for these events to occur on a regular basis, as to maintain and strengthen the ties that are created (Granovetter, 1973).
Recommended Network II: A network of
Image 9: Regular Network, Small World Network, Random Network (from left to right). The shortest path between the blue and the red nod in the regular network is 5. By readjusting a few connections this distance can be reduced to a path length of 3, creating a “smaller world”. Note that the degree distribution is still homogeneous.
ume of information from a large amount of sources. Burt (Lin, Burt & Cook, 2001) further pointed out the features of a broker. This person has a high volume of information reaching many people directly and indirectly, possesses a high amount of non-redundant information, learns early about the activities within the groups and has to be very responsive. Moreover, he has to be able to monitor information effectively and to move it on fast and must be able to tailor solutions to the specific individuals who are coordinated by him. A broker could thus control, coordinate and direct the exchange of information in time and accurately, by bridging the structural hole and being very well connected through the whole network, hereby possessing a good overview of the possibilities of exchange of non-redundant information. The information hub in the brokerage position can be a single broker or a group of broker organized in a clique, which will be advised and further explained later on (Haythornthwaite, 1996). A stars network could be imagined as a
Ronald S. Burt (Lin, Burt & Cook, 2001, 35) writes that “Structural holes are opportunities to broker the flow of information between people, and control the projects that bring together people from opposite sides of the hole”. Indeed, access to information as well as proper timing, information quality and referral can be provided by institutionalizing an information hub with the position and the task of brokerage. The broker has to aim for “a network rich in information benefits which has contacts: (a) established in places where useful bits of information are likely to air, and (b) providing a reliable flow of information to and from these places” (Burt, 1992, 15). Such a broker can deliberately direct the exchange of information within a network, having a very high level of betweenness, which refers to “the extent to which an actor sits between other in a network (Haythornthwaite, 1996, 335); and a high level of prominence (image 10) ensuring “global centrality”. This would lead to a high vol-
Image 10: A small centralized network The nod “A” shows a high level of betweeness being the only connecting path between the peripheral nods connected to it. Any message from nod “B” to “C”, and vice versa, needs to pass through “A” giving this nod control over the flow of information and the opportunity to broker. Nod “A” is also the network star displaying the highest level of prominence (a branching factor of 5). 39
Figure 11: Scale Free Network The network shows a strongly heterogeneous degree distribution displaying many nods with few connections and a few nods with many connections. Taking out any of the network stars would lead to a breakdown of the overall connectedness leaving many nods or clustered unconnected to others. Consequently, the network is highly vulnerable
network centralized around an office for interorganizational communication with a few employees, constituting a group of brokers, who are strongly interconnected among themselves (a clique) and very well connected (in terms of information routes) with both the networks of UM and the city. However, the individual actors at both sides would still be sparsely connected. Having more than one broker would additionally diminish the vulnerability of the network, as having merely one broker constitutes a liability due to the possibility that this central hub can fall away (due to for e.g. illness, holidays), which would bring the whole network down. It is therefore crucial that the position of broker will be taken up by at least two actors. Nevertheless, the process has to account for a high degree of vulnerability of the CRITERIA*
network as a consequence of the heterogeneous degree distribution. Such a network may not succeed in forming personal relationships between relevant actors. Therefore, it is less influential and the actors might be less encouraged to take action for cooperation in comparison to the former recommended â€œsmall worldâ€? network. Nevertheless, when such action and cooperation does occur, the broker can institutionalise it and act as a formal channel through which the communication passes.
Recommended ICMC portal
Inter-organizational computer mediated communication can improve the exchange of information cost-effectively and maintain as well as strengthen the created ties. However, the development of an ICMC is more fruitful the further developed + ++ + + o + + - = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Impact-Table 8: Social Network Recommendations
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS a web of ties already is (Pickering & King, 1995). Therefore, on the basis of a dense informal network, created with the aid of the aforementioned events, and the institutionalized hub, an ICMC structure can be established in order to maintain the created ties and to facilitate coordination between them. A portal providing the information on the supply and demand of knowledge could be run by the broker who possesses a high volume of such information. Through this portal, actors both from the UM and from the municipality can indicate what research or information they need, and what they can supply, hereby creating the basis for cooperation between them. This portal should also include a structured, clear inventory of research that has been conducted in cooperation with the UM, and an inventory of research that is currently being conducted, as to increase awareness regarding cooperation.
ingly in order to direct the process of creating the recommended networks. Moreover, by making use of a Social Network Analysis, not only the exchange of information about the supply and demand of knowledge can be assessed and depicted but also the actual exchange of knowledge itself.
Costs involved are costs for the organization of
networking events such as conferences, the establishment and payment of the position of a broker (or group of brokers), the payment of an employee (or a researcher) to carry out SNAâ€™s and the setting up as well as the maintenance of an internet portal. However, none of these costs need to be extraordinarily high if the University and the Municipality join forces and draw on existing resources and staff.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social Network Recommended SNA The successful development of the above presented Analysis. Library and Information Science, 18, 4, structures requires knowledge about the existent 323-342. status quo, strategic planning and well-informed action. Hence, a Social Network Analysis (SNA) Wang, X.F. & Chen, G. (2003). Complex should be applied by the UM and the city on their networks: Small-world, scale-free and beyond. own on a regularly basis (e.g. once a year) to over- IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, 3(1), 6-20 see the process and to take action correspond-
Conclusion In the course of this Think Tank report, we aimed
at disentangling the problem of the, currently, little and dysfunctioning cooperation between the municipality of Maastricht and the University Maastricht in the field of knowledge valorization. Both parties showed enthusiasm to cooperate. However, the cooperation has so far been limited to some specific projects. In order to approach this problem, we started by examining whether it actually makes sense for both institutions to cooperate, or whether to avoid collaboration for the sake of cooperation. After figuring out the benefits for both institutions, we explored different opportunities for collaboration To develop mutually beneficial cooperation, it is important for the institutions to find a common general goal of their cooperation. Despite the areas in which both institutions already cooperate, as can be seen in the Covenant, we discovered the lack of a common vision, which could be a joint way forward to structure their collaboration Thus, our point of departure was to restructure the existing cooperation as well as to find opportunities for new cooperation. After the examination of the general structure of the cooperation, as laid down in a potential common vision statement, we turned to the specific claims of our clients. Both the university and the municipality asked our group to focus on the topic of knowledge valorization in our examina-
tion of an optimized way of cooperation. This entails the inclusion of soft approaches as well as the disciplines Humanities and Social Sciences which have a big potential for future knowledge valorization. The goal is to broaden the scope of knowledge valorization from existing natural sciences and business projects, to a more interdisciplinary cooperation. Going hand in hand with this recommendation, it is also important to implement assessments of the valorization process. accordingly. This implies the evaluation of research with regards to knowledge valorization on the side of UM as well as implementation assessments on the side of the municipality. For the municipality, it is especially important to look at different ways to include knowledge in the policy making process. The different stages of the knowledge transfer cycle explain how the creation of knowledge and its dissemination can be improved, in addition to explaining how to incentivize policy makers to adapt and finally utilize the knowledge available. In order to implement knowledge in a professional way, we advise the municipality to consult the Dutch Teachers Academy which is part of UM. It will be necessary to invest into this education, but in our eyes it would be very valuable for the municipality to spread professional knowledge of research use and creation in order to make the policy making process more effective and sustainable. 43
CONCLUSION Finally, we considered different ways of connecting staff members of both institution for the sake of creating short lines and closer working relations between them. While it is important to establish informal ties through joint events, it is also crucial to have a â€˜brokerâ€™ that fulfills the function of officially connecting both institutions. During our work in the Think Tank, we already realized how much more we learned about the city we are living in. In our view it would be very
interesting for students as well as for the population of the city to understand and appreciate each other more. In the above mentioned recommendations we aim at improving these ties and we hope that in the future Maastricht will become a city in which knowledge flows, in which the university is seen as an integral part of the city, and in which students find a true home and get more involved with local affairs. We hope that our report will constitute a first step towards this vision.
Bibliography Amara, N. (2004). New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Science Communication, 26(1), 75-106. doi:10.1177/1075547004267491 Antipolis, S. (2009). Boundary organizations: An efficient structure for managing knowledge in decision-making under uncertainty. 113th EAAE Seminar. Arney, F., Bromfield, L., Lewig, K., & Holzer, P. (2009). Integrating strategies for delivering evidence-informed practice. Evidence Policy a Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 5(2), 179-191. Austin, M. J., & Claassen, J. (2008). Implementing evidence-based practice in human service organizations: preliminary lessons from the frontlines. Journal of evidence-based social work, 5(1-2), 271-293. AWT. (2007). Alfa en Gamma stralenâ€”Valorisatiebeleid voor de Alfa-en Gammawetenschappen. Den Haag: Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps-en Innovatiebeleid. Baker, W. E. & Iyer, A. (1992). Information Networks and Market Behavior. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16, 305 â€“ 332. Barabasi, A. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale Free Networks. Scientific American, May 2003, 60-69. Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A.,& Kirkpatrick, S.A. (1998). A Longitudinal Study of the Relation of Vision and Vision Communication to Venture Growth in Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (1), 43-54. Benneworth, P. & Jongbloed, B.W. (2009). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567-588. Blewden, M., Carroll, P., & Witten, K. (2010). The use of social science research to inform policy development: case studies from recent immigration policy. Kotuitui New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 5(1), 13-25. Bradshaw, G. A. and J. G. Borchers. 2000. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology, 4(1): 7. Brown, J.S. And Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198-213. Burstein, P. (2003). The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY Research Quaterly, 56, 29-40. Burt, R, S. (1992). Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caplan, N. (1979). The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459-70. Chagnon, F., Pouliot, L., Malo, C., Gervais, M.-J., & Pigeon, M.-E. (2010). Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implementation science , 5(1), 41. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. & Menzel, H. (1966). Medical innovation: A Diffusion study. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill. Rathenau Institut (2011). Colofon Waardevol- Indicatoren voor Valorisatie. Utrecht, Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut. “Cooperation”, Oxford Online dictionary. (2012). Retrieved on July 2nd 2012 from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cooperation?q=cooperation. Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2011). Network Determinants of Knowledge Utilization: Preliminary Lessons From a Boundary Organization. Science Communication, 33(4), 448-471. Crosier, D., Purser, L. & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V: Universities shaping the European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European University Association. Dalkir, K. (2011). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. MIT Press, 2nd edition. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhart, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future:evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330. Davies, H. T. O., Nutley, S. M., & Smith, P. C. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Davies, H. T., & Nutley, S. M. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used: guidance in the development of new empirical research. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation. Dessler, G. (1995). Managing Organizations in an era of change. Harcourt Brace & Company: Orlando. Dyk, B. & Neuberg, M.J. (2009). Chapter 8: Setting goals and making plans. In Principles of Management. p. 230- 291. South-Western: Elliott, H., & Popay, J. (2000). How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilisation and local NHS policy making. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, EriC (2010). Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: a guide. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhart, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and t h e university of the future:evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330. Festinger, L., Schacter, S, B., & Kurt, W. (1950). Social Pressures in Informal Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Franz, P. (2008). Chapter VI: From University Town to Knowledge City: Strategies and Regulatory Hurdles in Germany. Creative Urban Regions: Harnessing Urban Technologies to Supporrt Knowledge City Initiatives, 101-116. Frenk, J. (1992). Balancing relevance and excellence: Organizational response to link research with decision making. Social Science and Medicine, 35, 1397-1404. Funtowicz, S. (2007). Models of science and policy: from expert demonstration to extended participation. Presentation at the knowledge assessment methodologies fall school, 1-5 October, Novi Sad, Serbia . Gemeente Maastricht (2008). Stadtvisie 2030. Actualisatie 2008 (Version of October 2008). Retrieved on June 30th, 2012 from: http://www.maastricht.nl/web/Beleid/Beleid/Algemeen/ Algemeen/B_e_l_e_i_d_a_l_g_e_m_e _e_n-tonenop/Stadsvisie.htm Gera, R. (2012). Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. 46
BIBLIOGRAPHY International Journal of Educational Management, 26(3), 252-273. Ginsburg, M.B., & Gorostiaga, J. M. (2001). Relationships between Theorists/Researchers and Policy Makers/Practitioners: Rethinking the Two-Cultures Thesis and the Possibility of Dialogue. Comparative Eduction Review, Vol. 45, No.2. Granovetter, M, S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360- 1380. Granovetter, M, S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In P.V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills: Sage. Griffin, R. & Ebert, R. (2006). Business. Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey. Griffin, R. & Pustay, M. (2010). International Business. Person Education Inc.: New Jersey. Groot, W. (2012, June 25). Teachers Academy and TIER. (I. Wiese, A. Kubeneck, N. Lambrecht, & S. Pfülb, Interviewers) Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies Of Science, 29(1), 87-111. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science Technology And Human Values, 26(4), 399-408. Hallinan, M.T. (1996). Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice. Sociology of Education, 69, 131-134 Hatch, M.J and Cunliffe, A.L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press. Hart, A. & Wolff, D. (2006). Developing local communities of practice through local community university partnerships. Planning, Practice & Research, 21(1), 121-138. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Elsevier, 18(4), p. 323-342. Hemsley-Brown, J. V. (2004). Facilitating research utilisation: a cross-sector review of research evidence. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6), 534-552. Hodgetts R. & Luthans F. (2000). International management: Culture, Strategy and Behavior. McGraw-Hill Companies. Jewell, C. J., & Bero, L. A. (2008). “Developing good taste in evidence”: facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. The Milbank quarterly, 86(2), 177-208. Jones, N., Datta, A., & Jones, H. (2009). Knowledge , policy and power: Six dimensions of the knowledge-development policy interface. Overseas Development Institute. Kemm, J. (2001). Health Impact Assessment: a tool for Healthy Public Policy. Health Promotion International, 16, 79-85. Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. CIP: United States. Krackhardt, D. (1992), “The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations,” i n N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 216-239. Kraft, M., & Furlong, S. (2010). Public Policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives, 2nd edition. CQ Press. Landry, R., Lamari M., and Amara N. (2003). Extent and determinants of utilization of university research in public administration. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 191- 204. Lane, C. (1998). Trust within and between organizations: conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford University Press. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies. Science&Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203. Lin, N., Burt, R., & Cook, K. (2001). Social capital: Theory and research. New York: De Gruyter. 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY Maastricht University (2012). Inspired by Quality. Strategic Programme 2012-2016. Summary of the final draft. Retrieved on June 30th, 2012 from: http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/ Main/AboutUM/MissionStrategy/StrategicProgramme20122016.htm March, J. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 1(2), 71-87 Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the Evidence: A Critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Policy-Making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3). Mostert, E., & Raadgever, G. T. (2008). Seven rules for researchers to increase their impact on the policy process. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12(4), 1087-1096. Mumford, M.D, Feldman, J.M., Hein, M.B. & Nagac, D.J. (2011). Tradeoffs Between Ideas and Structure: Individual Versus Group Performance in Creative Problem Solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 35 (1), 1-23. Musterd, S. & Deurloo, R. (2006). Amsterdam and the preconditions for a creative knowledge city. Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 97, 80-94. Nutley, S., & Davies, H. T. O. (2000). Making a Reality of Evidence-Based Practice: Some Lessons from the Diffusion of Innovations. Public Money and Management, 20(4), 35-42. Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Cross Sector Lessons from the UK. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Unit for Research Utilisation. Nutley, S., Jung, T., & Walter, I. (2008). The many forms of research-informed practice: a framework for mapping diversity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 53-71. Oâ€™Brien, G. (1968). The Measurement of Cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 427-439. Ostrom, E. (2002). Policy Analysis in the Future of Good Societies. The Good Society, 11, 42-48. Paridon, K.v. (2012) Personal communciation, June 20, 2012 Pickering, J. M. & King, J. L. (1995). Hardwiring Weak Ties: Interorganizational Computer-Mediated Communication, OccupationalCommunities, and Organizational Change. Organization Science, 6(4), 479-486 Rawellem, Glaser and Kehr (2008). Why self-set goals may sometimes be non-motivating. In Wankel, C. (Ed.) 21st Century Management â€“ A reference handbook, vol. 2. Sage Publications: Los Angeles. Rathenau Instituut (2011). Colofon Waardevol- Indicatoren voor Valorisatie. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.rathenau.nl/uploads/tx_tferathenau/Rapport_Waardevol__Indicatoren_voor_ valorisatie.pdf Rich, R. F. (2002). Social Science Information and Public Policy Making. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Ritzen, J.M.M., Jacobs, C.J.N.M., Winants, L.M.C. (2009). Convenant gemeente Maastricht en de Universiteit Maastricht. Maastricht: Gemeente Maastricht & Maastricht University. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Social Sciences (2005). Judging research on its merits An advisory report by the Council for the Humanities and the Social Sciences Council. Retrieved from: http://www.knaw.nl/Content/Internet_KNAW/publicaties/pdf/20051029.pdf Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (2011). Quality Indicators for research in the humanities. Retrieved from: http://w w w.knaw.nl/C ontent/Internet_KNAW/ publicaties/pdf/20111024.pdf Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence Based Policy Making. Public Administration, 80, 1-22. Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) 2009-2015 Protocol for Reserach assessment in the Netherlands. (2009). Retrieved from: http://www.vsnu.nl/Universities/Quality-assurance-/Standard48
BIBLIOGRAPHY Evaluation-Protocol-20092015.htm Stone, D. (2002). The Art of Political Decision Making. Politics, 17-35. Stone, D. (2002). The Policy Paradox. Squire, L. (2010). Results for Development Institute. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from Results for Development Institute: http://resultsfordevelopment.org/ Tansey, O. (2009). Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften, 481-496. TIER. (n.d.). Top Institute for Top Institute for Evidence Based Education Research. Retrieved June 21, 2012, from Top Institute for Top Institute for Evidence Based Education Research: http://www. tierweb.nl/index.php?id=1 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Marcos, J., & Burr, M. (2004). Co-producing management knowledge. Management Decision, 42(3/4), 375-386. doi:10.1108/00251740410518895 Von Krogh, G. (1996). Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition. London: SAGE. Watson, R. T. (2005). Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science– policy interface. Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 471-477. Wang, X.F. & Chen, G. (2003). Complex networks: Small-world, scale-free and beyond. IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, 3(1), 6-20 Wedgwood, M. (2006). “Mainstreaming the Third Stream”, in Ian McNay (Ed.). Beyond Mass Higher education. NY: Open University Press. Weimer, D. & Vining, A. (2005). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Weiss C.H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431. Weiss, C.H. (1980). Social Science Research and decision-making. Columbia University Press. Weiss C.H. (1995). The haphazard connection: social science and public policy. International Journal of Educational Research. 23(2), 137–150 Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Werther, W. (1989). Workshop aid in goal setting. Personal Journal, 68, p.32-38. Wilde, R.d. (2012). Personal communication, 25-06-2012, Maastricht
Appendix Impact Table ++
Social Networks +
Vision Valorization I Valorization II Knowledge Transfer
++ = very good + = good o = neutral
- = unsatisfactory -- = deficient * (Kraft & Furlong, 2010)
Proposed Vision “Through our cooperation, we will develop Maastricht into a truly extraordinary place at the heart of Europe. Under our leadership, Maastricht will become a place that brings out the best in its population, a place where creativity and enterprise come together to jointly tackle challenges of society and create a better life for Maastricht’s people; a place that attracts people to come, stay and jointly innovate a bright future.” 50
APPENDIX This vision statement is deemed a suitable basis because it combines what both organizations aim at. These aims are include the provision of a surrounding that inspires people to be creative and innovative to improve life. UM indeed states in its Strategic Programme 2012-2016: “We shall educate people to make a valuable contribution to society” (Page 6). In its mission statement it points out:“Maastricht University is a stimulating environment.” Furthermore, in its Stadtvisie 2030, municipality states that it strives to keep the “strong parts of Maastricht and enhancing these with creative well educated, enterprising population“. Moreover, both enities desire to use their capabilities for something meaningful such as “doing research that contributed to solving the grand social challenges“ (UM Strategic Programm 2012-2016, 3). Both organizations deem renewal and innovation important features as signified by the Stadsvisie 2030: “Organizing public and administrative society is a way to invite innovation“. Lastly, a common vision as proposed is likely to fulfill the functions of an effective visions. These criteria have been outlined in academic discourse and are commonly referred to as being „imaginable, desirable, feasible, focused, flexible and communicable“ (Kotter, 1996, p. 72).
Source: Rathenau Institute, 2011
Questionnaire Example Questionnaire for recommended Social Network Analysis
The questionnaire consists of 2 pages and had been designed to be answered by the employees of the UM. However, the same type of questionnaires could be filled out by the employees of the municipality as well. The first page of questions refer to the network within the UM and the second page refers to the network between UM and the municipality.
assign at least one person to work together with one person from the Gemeente on designing the process of formulating an effective common vision (potentially involving the Hogeschool)
assign at least one person to work together with one person from UM on designing the process of formulating an effective common vision (potentially involving the Hogeschool)
Incorporate aspects of broadening the scope of knowledge valorization into the vision
Create phD position to work on possibilites how to incorporate HASS
Develop a valorization map including valorization indicators
Assess reserach by Develop external remeans of these indicaports or take part in astors in form of peer resessment panels view
Provide policy-makers with opportunities for professional evidence based policy-making (EBP) skills Encourage formal and informal interaction and communication between researchers and policy makers Organize conferences, events, joint activities for both institutions Incentivize the implementation of evidence in policy-making Incentivize researchers at UM to produce locally relevant research Establish a Boundary Organization together
short & long term
Social Network long-term
Adapt the product (research output) to the needs of the user (policy makers) Encourage formal and informal interaction and communication between researchers and policy makers Organize conferences events, joint activities for both institutions Incentivize researchers at UM to produce locally relevant research Establish a boundary Organization together
Organize networking & information exchange event between policymakers & researcher (small-world) Institutionalize an information hub (network star) with a broker position between both organization, e.g. an office for interorganizational communication (a boundary organization) or science officer.
Incorporate aspects of broadening the scope of knowledge valorization into the vision
Organize networking & information exchange event between policymakers & researcher (small-world) Institutionalize an information hub (network star) with a broker position between both organization, e.g. an office for interorganizational communication (a boundary organization) or science officer.
“Knowledge is Power”
- FRANCIS BACON