This paper provides an examination of inter-organizational collaboration in the UK research system. Data are collected on organizational collaboration on projects funded by four key UK research councils: Arts and Humanities Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The organizational partnerships include both academic and nonacademic institutions. A collaboration network is created for each research council, and an exponential random graph model is applied to inform on the mechanisms underpinning collaborative tie formation on research council-funded projects. We find that in the sciences, collaborative patterns are much more hierarchical and concentrated in a small handful of actors compared to the social sciences and humanities projects. Institutions that are members of the elite Russell Group (a set of 24 high-ranking UK universities) are much more likely to be involved in collaborations across research councils.

This research communication reports the results from questionnaires used to identify the impact of recent research into the disinfection of cattle foot-trimming equipment to prevent bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) transmission on (a) biosecurity knowledge and (b) hygiene practice of foot health professionals. An initial questionnaire found that more than half of participating farmers, veterinary surgeons and commercial foot-trimmers were not considering hand or hoof-knife hygiene in their working practices. The following year, after the release of a foot-trimming hygiene protocol and a comprehensive knowledge exchange programme by the University of Liverpool, a second survey showed 35/80 (43.8%) farmers, veterinary surgeons and commercial foot-trimmers sampled considered they were now more aware of the risk of spreading BDD during foot- trimming. Furthermore, 36/80 (45.0%) had enhanced their hygiene practice in the last year, impacting an estimated 1383 farms and 5130 cows trimmed each week. Participants who reported having seen both the foot-trimming hygiene protocol we developed with AHDB Dairy and other articles about foot-trimming hygiene in the farming and veterinary press, were significantly more likely to have changed their working practices. Difficulties accessing water and cleaning facilities on farms were identified as the greatest barrier to improving biosecurity practices. Participants' preferred priority for future research was continued collection of evidence for the importance and efficacy of good foot-trimming hygiene practices.

This article reflects on the experience of undertaking a knowledge exchange project with a local government authority to improve services for older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) adults. It frames this project in terms of local government equality work, existing research and initiatives concerning older LGBT people and the coming of austerity. The project methodology is detailed, including discussion of the generation and measurement of impact. Some critical issues that arose during the project are considered, including suggestions that these may have been related to economic austerity. The article concludes that although knowledge exchange work with older LGBT people faces challenges in such times, future research and initiatives are warranted.

There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.