254
S. Rogga
potential user groups undefined, it also vaguely describes the benefit of research. It is
assumed that the public needs innovative products and scientific knowledge of solutions. In addition, numerous empirical studies have shown that the implementation
of practice transfer has fallen short of expectations (Böcher and Krott 2013; Ascher
et al. 2010; Fry et al. 2003; Pregernig 2000, etc.) (Table 13.1).
Contemporary transfer approaches that especially concentrate on knowledge
transfer and advocate a move beyond the transfer of artefacts reflect much more
on the fact that the generation of knowledge requires a co-constructed (learning)
process (Fazey et al. 2013). This means that the mere provision of knowledge in
different media forms of preparation is not the same as the successful transfer of
that knowledge. The way in which actors tap into knowledge plays an increasingly
important role.
Best and Holmes (2010) see two paradigms of knowledge transfer as an extension to the linear model. First, relationship models, in which knowledge producers
and consumers come together in collaborative networks and exchange knowledge,
Table 13.1 Comparison of linear transfer models versus systemic transfer models by characteristics
(own source)
Characteristic
Linear transfer model
Systemic transfer model
Transfer impulse
Science-pushed or demand-driven Science-pushed and
demand-driven
Direction of transfer
Unidirectional; from science to
practice
Reflexive and iterative between
science and practice
Dimensions of transfer Transfer of research results
(technological transfer, transfer of
codified information)
Transfer of research results
(technological transfer, transfer of
codified information); knowledge
transfer (exchange of individual,
disciplinary and
organisation-based knowledge)
Date of transfer
Ex-post
Continuous and ex-post
Content of transfer
Results of research
Results of research, perspectives
of disciplines and stakeholders,
experiential knowledge of
practitioners and stakeholders,
data, evaluation of complex issues
Who transfers?
Science (via intermediaries)
Science and practice
Instruments of transfer Publications (artefacts and
presentations), academic teaching
Publications (artefacts and
presentations), academic teaching,
methods of knowledge exchange
and integration
Transfer objects
Artefacts, scientific publications
and dissemination formats
(written and oral)
Artefacts, scientific publications
and dissemination formats
(written and oral), tools, policy
briefs, exchange forums, decision
support systems, etc.
S. Rogga
potential user groups undefined, it also vaguely describes the benefit of research. It is
assumed that the public needs innovative products and scientific knowledge of solutions. In addition, numerous empirical studies have shown that the implementation
of practice transfer has fallen short of expectations (Böcher and Krott 2013; Ascher
et al. 2010; Fry et al. 2003; Pregernig 2000, etc.) (Table 13.1).
Contemporary transfer approaches that especially concentrate on knowledge
transfer and advocate a move beyond the transfer of artefacts reflect much more
on the fact that the generation of knowledge requires a co-constructed (learning)
process (Fazey et al. 2013). This means that the mere provision of knowledge in
different media forms of preparation is not the same as the successful transfer of
that knowledge. The way in which actors tap into knowledge plays an increasingly
important role.
Best and Holmes (2010) see two paradigms of knowledge transfer as an extension to the linear model. First, relationship models, in which knowledge producers
and consumers come together in collaborative networks and exchange knowledge,
Table 13.1 Comparison of linear transfer models versus systemic transfer models by characteristics
(own source)
Characteristic
Linear transfer model
Systemic transfer model
Transfer impulse
Science-pushed or demand-driven Science-pushed and
demand-driven
Direction of transfer
Unidirectional; from science to
practice
Reflexive and iterative between
science and practice
Dimensions of transfer Transfer of research results
(technological transfer, transfer of
codified information)
Transfer of research results
(technological transfer, transfer of
codified information); knowledge
transfer (exchange of individual,
disciplinary and
organisation-based knowledge)
Date of transfer
Ex-post
Continuous and ex-post
Content of transfer
Results of research
Results of research, perspectives
of disciplines and stakeholders,
experiential knowledge of
practitioners and stakeholders,
data, evaluation of complex issues
Who transfers?
Science (via intermediaries)
Science and practice
Instruments of transfer Publications (artefacts and
presentations), academic teaching
Publications (artefacts and
presentations), academic teaching,
methods of knowledge exchange
and integration
Transfer objects
Artefacts, scientific publications
and dissemination formats
(written and oral)
Artefacts, scientific publications
and dissemination formats
(written and oral), tools, policy
briefs, exchange forums, decision
support systems, etc.