HEIs and Community Engagement

HEFCW Research, Innovation and Engagement Committee Cardiff, 6 th July 2009 Paul Benneworth, KITE, Newcastle University/ CHEPS, Twente University

Acknowledgements Economic and Social Research Council Ursula, Peter & Laura (Programme) Funders’ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcw HEFCW Research, Innovation and Engagement Committee Co-researchers (David, Lynne, Catherine)

Outline of presentation The rise of the third mission A challenging target group – socially excluded communities Characteristics of university-community engagement How does engagement fit as an HEI mission?

What can be done to support engagement?

The rise of the third mission 1980s depression – harnessing past investments in university knowledge Late 1980s – idea of ‘entrepreneurial university’ 1990s – formal governmental role – policies for regional impact Now legally enshrined as formal task Netherlands Sweden …

The Netherlands WHW “1. Universities are responsible for the provision of scientific education and undertaking scientific research, in every case … contributing knowledge for the benefit of society 2. Polytechnics are responsible for the provision of higher professional education, and can undertake research associated with their educational offer. In every case … contributing knowledge for the benefit of society … 4. Universities, HBOs and the Open University are required to consider the needs of the individual’s self-fulfilment and the promotion of a sense of societal responsibility amongst their stakeholders .” (

Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek

1992, Art 1.3) ,

Evidence base that universities create benefits First wave: multiplier effects (universities as businesses) Second wave: Universities as benevolent but detached (regional profiles) Third wave: Universities as constructive partnership players  Broad set of potential/ latent benefits

Restrictive policy approaches Typical ‘third stream’ policy cycle Early eye-catching experiments (HERDF) Benign environment (HEROBAC) Tightening/ squeezing (HEIF4) Not unique to England – difficult to define third mission without targeting (cash) outputs

The wicked issues of university engagement The expansion of Higher Education CAN create public benefits BUT is being channelled to targeting private beneficiaries.

Universities CAN have great societal impacts BUT are being funded to create spinouts Universities CAN encourage all to engage BUT it is easier to channel it through an office

Why look at excluded communities Focus: socially excluded communities High needs, low capacity to engage Disengaged from knowledge economy Extreme case – convincing results Evidence of improved third mission ‘Moral’ imperative for universities to demonstrate ‘not just businesses’

Our project… 2 year research project £135k Initiative Contribution, £30k Newcastle University, £10k licensing deal Concern universities prioritising commercial engagement Focus: engagement with socially excluded communities Three regions*, 33 Universities (NE, NW, Scotland) 2 phases 1 – mapping exercise 2 – detailed case studies of ‘co-learning’

The initiative £3m research venture 9 projects: researchers from 17 UK HEIs Different timescales, focus and methodologies Four broad themes: Regional Competitiveness Students and graduates University-Business Links Social and community engagement Plus the ‘overall impact’ project

Lots of engagement activity… Access to facilities Opening facilities Regeneration on the campus Cultural programmes Volunteering

Pro bono

spill overs Engagement Tailoring activities Involving community in decisions Mandating student involvement Providing non-accredited courses Running projects Consultancy and evaluation Individual knowledge exchange consultations Developing engagement strategies Community representation

Huge amount of engagement Kitson argues 40% of academics ‘engage’ Engaged in processes of society regeneration and inclusion Physical development, curriculum, service, governance Different levels of engagement: corporate, faculty, academic, students All kinds of universities engaging… How applicable to prosperous regions?

Community Financial Solutions (Salford)

Queen’s Campus, Stockton (Durham)

Sporting Edge, Ormskirk (Edge Hill)

Newcastle University – “becoming engaged”

But often peripheral within university Symptoms: one-off projects; in business office; used for PR; dominated by WP/ LLL; structural suspicion; paper-chasing not behaviour changing Hard to sustain long-term cultural change Heavily dependent on a few enthusiastic leaders Difficult to know/ measure/ capture

Liverpool Hope: pillars of engagement Mutually reinforcing pillars within HEI Physical development: Cornerstone phase IV Supporting community facility use: WAC, Collective Encounters Curriculum: Community music, drama, dance Research: Institute for Community Arts Volunteering: Global Hope, SLA Have to be woven together within one institution

Physical anchor for regeneration

Community theatre: capacity building and widening participation

‘Incubation space’ for social activities

But not a happy family story Tensions, pressures, conflicts Community very active: not

tabula rasa

Community has own struggles - embroiling Backsliding and internal struggle Should university employ community development worker Glacial pace of building change Community not core university stakeholder

Competing environmental pressures on engagement Many competing targets Mission overload Unsympathetic partners Short-term funding New policy idea Committed leaders Tolerance of experimentation Funding flexibility Vocal partners CULTURE CHANGE OPPORTUNISM

Questions worth further reflection (I) How can engagement be made a core task given competing demands on universities?

How can engagement drive research and be seen as excellent?

How does university knowledge create social value (it’s a complex process…)?

Questions worth further reflection (II) How do universities collectively contribute within a system, and how to measure that?

How to give communities the tools to be more demanding of what universities do to them?

What is the next stage in consolidating many good activities into effective engagement?