Abstract

This book presents a body of material generated over four years of close observation of research and knowledge transfer practices in one Russell Group university institution. It attempts to contextualise knowledge transfer (KT) within the arts and humanities environment, as well as situate learning about the reception and adoption of KT with reference to individual scholars and the organisations in which they operate. Within this context, little has been written about the character of the arts and humanities, particularly of the disciplines and their close relationship to current KT challenges.
Drawing on the literature, however limited, and contextual references this book addresses the growing interest in KT-specific language, the key words that have become landmarks in the extension of the Two Cultures debate. In defining some of the parameters by which KT has come to be recognised, it also begins to signal changes in the lexicon and landscape within which KT has evolved, suggesting that the institution and its academic inhabitants play an intrinsic part in this evolution, framed by the political and scholarly tensions of the time.
In the latter part of the book there is a distinct shift in emphasis from the foundations of the KT debate to its current inflections at a more grass roots level within the academic institution. It frames this shift in the context of the key investor in research within these disciplines and suggests that the Arts and Humanities Research Council is equally challenged to articulate and underpin the adoption of KT and its impacts at the heart of academic practice. In order that we might better animate how these practices are emerging, the book observes one particular case study that lays down a possible framework for closer observation of KT in what is termed the ‘Humanities Value Chain’. In focusing on a collection of players connected in the successful pursuit of collaborative research, it attempts to uncover the perspective of individuals within the institution and the way in which organisations might support or hinder their pursuit of KT-based research.
In concluding it suggests that the culmination of this knowledge might offer a useful framework for considering how KT occurs in arts and humanities-led teams, and at the same time how it might act as a possible tool from which KT players and practices might be better observed. In presenting a possible framework for consideration, it suggests that the current preoccupation with impacts might at the same time be better understood by observing more closely the roles researchers play during the collaborative research process.