Louis Coiffait breaks down the KEF consultation to what you really need to know.
This article is more than 7 years old

It’s 455 days and two university ministers since the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) was first announced but today sees the release of a KEF consultation document setting out proposals for how it will work.
The challenge facing KEF is that knowledge exchange covers an extremely diverse range of activities across the sector, with performance typically aligning with different institutional missions. In a bid to avoid comparing apples with oranges and creating an inappropriate single measure of success, KEF will create institutional clusters for benchmarking purposes.
KEF will aim to provide performance information about knowledge exchange activities that is comparable, benchmarked, and transparent. The hope is that this information will be used internally by English universities for improvement, and externally by businesses and others to help them understand and engage with universities. And of course, funders and regulators will use it to hold universities to account. The key question of whether KEF should be linked to funding will be “revisited” after a pilot ends in April. The overall approach with KEF feels more careful and deliberative than we have become used to.
KEF is an annual, institutional-level, and largely metrics-driven exercise, although narratives will have a role.
Institutions are to be clustered into eight “knowledge exchange peer groups”, following a set conceptual framework and method. Provider performance is benchmarked against the average within their cluster over three years and is equally weighted. Institutional performance isn’t intended to be treated as a form of ranking in itself or to aggregate to a single score. Data will be provided in interactive dashboards with radar charts. All of the key metrics used will apparently come from existing statutory returns, including the Higher Education Business & Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey and the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) process, or will be derived through other HESA and UKRI data collections.
KEF groups the smorgasbord of potential knowledge exchange activities into seven equally-weighted “perspectives”:
Two to four metrics are used for each perspective. Although metrics underpin all seven perspectives, Research England acknowledges the current lack of “fully developed metrics” for the latter two – local growth and regeneration, and public and community engagement – instead suggesting metrics for those two should be “provisional” and that institutions submit a “supplementary narrative” of up to two A4 pages for the pair. These will summarise the strategic goals, activities, outputs and potential outcomes achieved in these two areas. Statements should be factual and verifiable. The utility of narratives for other perspectives is also put to consultation respondents.
Research England will also explore through the pilot how to collect data for the proposed metric “Co-authorship with non-academic partners as a proportion of total outputs”. As the only metric without an identified source, and potentially gameable, it could create a degree of controversy.
Trevor McMillan, of the University of Keele, continues to lead work on the KE Concordat, which aims to complement KEF metrics by focusing on knowledge exchange good practice.
It remains to be seen if devolved funding bodies will make use of KEF, though only English universities can apply to join the pilot.
You may ask yourself, well … just that, so here’s a handy timeline on the KEF journey so far.
You can also see all Wonkhe articles mentioning KEF here.
You can respond to the consultation online by 14 March 2019.

Jim Dickinson | Policy Watch | 12/10/26

David Kernohan | Policy Watch | 18/09/26

Jim Dickinson | Policy Watch | 17/09/26

Jim Dickinson | Policy Watch | 13/09/26

David Kernohan | Policy Watch | 4/09/26

David Kernohan | Policy Watch | 28/08/26
New comments will come back with sign-in later this year.