@Matthew it looks like you are hanging from ceiling by your ankles in my Zoom call

oh dear how strange... I shall leave and return

@Matthew - not to worry; there is at least one other - it must by my pooter not you...*shrugs shoulders*

You're still in Oz for me Matthew :-)

I agree - it has quite clear ‘transparency’ enablers, but lacks the rigorous thinking where ethics is concerned

Hi Richard, thanks for your comments. Does the OU have a policy/guidance regarding who you will and won't work with? For example based on environmental considerations?

The formality would possibly be a barrier to engaging. They were concerned that formalising the process would stifle the organic nature of their KE activity and this could back up that concern.

I second Shanta's question - but in terms of making those discussions based on political considerations, e.g. working with certain governmental bodies. where does the ownership lie of those contentious relationships?

greg - i'd like to come back on Tamsin's gatekeep point

I can come back on Katie's point after Chris.

The principles of the Concordat are useful in informing and setting strategic objectives, but Richard and Tamsin raise valid points about operationalising, incentivising and engaging staff - beyond the usual suspects.

scientists are trained to understand that no research is unethical, only the applications of the research may be unethical. the issue here arises because the academic is working with a partner that is also applying the research.

Can I come back on incentivising?

There are changes occurring in how the UK treats subsidies and what a subsidy is defined as (coming out of the EU state aid frame work). This impacts on transparency and preferential engagement of businesses. Should this be considered in the concordat? and how?

Couldn't agree more re: Rick's comment: so many prof services staff asked to facilitate long term engagement/KE culture change on a one year contract. It's bananas. Can't see at present - how the KEC directly incentivises looking after KE staff....

thanks Lesley

Following up on the discussion, this is the open access pamphlet on Creating Publics: http://oro.open.ac.uk/42551.

Agree entirely on the incentivisation issue wrt KE professional careers. However, a lot of KE posts, in England, are HEIF funded and even though HEIF has been around for over 16 years and has significantly increased in total value it is still largely seen as 'temporary' funding by HEIs and if HEIF allocations drop then posts go or not replaced. HEIF is absolutely welcome and really boosts professional capacity but take HEIF away are HEIs committed to funding KE posts with their own funds?

HEIF of course was removed from many smaller providers several years ago. it makes it incredibly hard to fund KE posts

Good point Phil - my view is that KE needs the equivalent of QR funding for KE. Longer-term, baseline funding.

And we know that the experience in Wales is relevant here, when HEIF equivalent was withdrawn KE posts were mostly on a project-by-project footing.

and that makes sense Richard. Going to the full diversity of providers

If you're interested in moral imperatives, I gave this talk on promoting epistemic justice through knowledge exchange last year: http://oro.open.ac.uk/73445/

Indeed: but there are unis out there who find the funds no probs for Research Facilitators (not knocking RFs - marvellous people) so why not KE facilitators? It's cause RFs get loadsa research funds; the value of KE not yet seen (including socio-economic impacts; social justice etc etc)

Where ethics and transparency have made a difference in my experience has been in setting out clearly our drivers and limitations to KE partners (especially commercial ones). Explaining to partners what our responsibilities and drivers are in terms of commercialising publicly funded research

Thank You.

thank you

Thank you. Very interesting discussion. Much appreciated.

Thanks to all the speakers.

Great discussion once again. Thank you

Thanks. You are progressing quicker through the principles than our institution is.

Excellent discussion - thank you

Really useful discussion, thanks all

Thank you all

thanks very useful

Thank you

Thanks!

thanks

Thank you

Thank you! Very useful.

really useful, thank you

Thank you!