Transcript Test av AstraZenecas mallar

Universities and excluded
communities
Paper presented to
“Regional economic impacts of Universities”
Strathclyde University, Glasgow, 10th October 2007.
Paul Benneworth, KITE, Newcastle
University
About the project
Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology
& Enterprise at Newcastle University
September 2007 – August 2009
3 researchers, local “sounding board”,
international steering group
Universities engagement with excluded
communities
Focusing on North East, North West, Scotland
Drivers of community
engagement by universities
Beyond the Widening Participation agenda …
Changing nature of university/ society
compact
Universities as sources of knowledge capital
for knowledge economy
“Knowledge capital release”
University knowledge cheaply benefiting
excluded communities
Commercialisation: inspiration or
threat
2 decades of the commercialisation agenda
Exploiting Science and Technology in
universities (Knowledge Capital) for social
benefit
Vision of universities as a business 
‘privatisation of the knowledge commons’
Commercialisation receives third-strand
funding from government in UK…
The paradox of the engaged,
entrepreneurial university
The search for a vision for valourisation of
humanities, arts, social sciences
Commercialisation hinders engagement
The paradox
DEMOCRATIC university vs.
ENTREPRENEURIAL university
How can communities engage with these
institutions?
Barriers inhibiting universities to
engage
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
SKILLS BASE
REGIONAL FIT
TIME & ORIENTATION
STUDENT IMPACTS
How important is engagement to
universities?
Level
0
Manifestation
A few individuals actively promoting
community engagement
1
A university office developing an
institutional engagement plan
2
University core business processes
maximise community engagement
3
University forces other local partners to
be better engaged
Communities as a salient
university stakeholder
How can communities become more salient to
universities?
Community characteristics
Community coherence, boundary spanners
Realigning expectations
Formal structures, project centred, language
of engagement
Overcoming unhelpful practices
Invisible barriers, engagement practices,
external mediation
Engagement between not with…
‘From Crossroads to CURAs’  from knowledge
transfer to networked co-creation
Lessons from the Canadian SSHRC
Collaborative knowledge production ‘between’
Collaborating on ‘something’ – beyond happy
families
 The shared self-interest project
Shared self interest as a driver of
engagement
Shared self interest at the heart of knowledge
release
Examples from technology transfer already
well known
Knowledge spillovers accessible to others
Helps to create an economic advantage
To understand how they collaborate, what are
the kinds of things they collaborate on?
The commercialisation model
Other
product
innovation
Other
firm
Product
innovation
with IPR
Territorial
knowledge pool
Spinoff
University
Knowledge
about
innovation
University/
business
relationship
Source: Benneworth & Charles (2005)
after Muller & Zenker (2000)
Universities benefiting from
communities
Core resources can be dependent or added to
with engagement
Communities are laboratories with exclusive
local knowledges and skills
Interesting community knowledges can crossfertilise university expertise – ‘jigsaw effect’
Improving governance with better sense of
community
Communities benefiting from
universities
Universities directly providing services which
otherwise sparse
Universities helping communities to learn,
improve, strengthen
Universities supporting community groups to
achieve their own goals
Communities accessing knowledge resources
to strengthen their own position
Shared self-interest projects –
lessons from commercialisation
“Hybrid project”: the MESA+ nanotechnology laboratory,
Twente, the Netherlands (outside study area!)
Hybrid projects
“A home which supports the life of a community which
interact around a range of tangible activities of
individual interest whilst sharing resources to allow
individuals to achieve more than the sum of the parts”
Critical mass
Different activities using shared infrastructure
Significant to all the users, anchoring key
external actors locally to cross-fertilise
Help to rebuild universities as hybrid project
management vehicles
changing nature of university
Community University Hybrid
projects
Central to core university missions –
supporting teaching and research
Meeting place for students, researchers,
academics, community
Facilities not available elsewhere
Social spaces for informal, creative interaction
Professional managers to run the scheme
unselfconsciously
Hybrid engagement projects: the
reality
Some difficult questions for the research…
How will they creatively share/ combine
knowledge?
‘Ensuring excellence and relevance’…
How does the university share ‘infrastructure’?
What kinds of infrastructure?
Community activity not spin-off tenants ($)?
What kinds of business model/ management
structures necessary to keep on track