To what extent is there an interest in, or efforts to stimulate, knowledge transfer in other directions than research to community?

“Knowledge” transfer is what universities aim to do through classroom instruction, publications, conferences, consulting, extension courses, industry consortia. To push things, one has to specify just what sort of “knowledge” one wishes to see transferred with greater effort than otherwise. Government agencies can promote venues for such transfer, but can’t generally, like, force people to “learn”. It’s not easy. Otherwise, why does it often take a graduate education to get at new knowledge with sufficient fluency to be usefully applied?

“Knowledge” is clearly not just factoids that can be boxed up and shipped out. Making things “open” doesn’t begin to touch it. Fact knowledge, tacit knowledge, declarative memory, intuition, judgment, ability to work in a team, ability to handle complex stuff–many things go into what comes over as “knowledge” worth being transferred. University “technology transfer” reflects knowledge (and rights) transfer connected to that particular, somewhat ambiguous research event known as ‘invention.”