community alumni 2012 review 2012 review of uws … · 2012 review of uws community and regional...

2012communityreview regional

engagementstaff

alum

nistudents

academics

businesses

strategyfu

rther d

evelopm

ent community

2012 REVIEW OF UWS COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT

PANEL REPORT

5 December 2012

2 22012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement – Panel Report

Expert Panel (from left to right)

Mr David Borger

Professor Sandra Harding

Professor Sir David Watson

Professor Lawrence Bacow (opposite)


5 December 2012 Professor Janice Reid, AM Vice-Chancellor University of Western Sydney Locked Bag 1797 Penrith NSW 2751 AUSTRALIA Dear Vice-Chancellor

We were privileged to be invited to form the Review Panel and are now delighted to present

our Report.

As you will see this would not have been possible without the immense care and

commitment with which you and your colleagues prepared for and then assisted us in

conducting the Review.

We believe that this exercise represents an example of international collaboration in the

development of higher education services and opportunity at its best. We have each learned

from engaging with UWS in this way and trust that what we have to say will enable the

University to move forward with confidence.

We would like to express our thanks to all who assisted us, but in particular to Janelle

Tisserand and Paul Rowland whose professional input into the design and execution of the

Review, combined with good humour and gentle but firm management of our programme,

was exemplary.

With all good wishes

Yours sincerely

Professor Lawrence Bacow Mr David Borger

Professor Sandra Harding Professor Sir David Watson


Executive Summary

This Review of community and regional engagement occurs at a time when the University of

Western Sydney (UWS) is poised to take engagement with its region to the next level of

sophistication and impact.

Vice Chancellor Professor Reid has taken the University in a relatively short time from a

loose federation of campuses (a legacy of the previous colleges of advanced education

structure in Greater Western Sydney (GWS)) to a University with a whole of institution focus.

The dimensions of this leadership as it relates to engagement include both an alignment of

engagement strategy with international philosophy and practice, and creation of an internal

environment within the University where staff identify engagement as part and parcel of the

UWS mission. In its impressive submission to the Review, the University outlined the way

that engagement practice is linked strategically to the UWS Making the Difference: 2010-

2015 strategy, and how the focus of engagement is aligned with regional priorities. The

submission cites some 201 engagement partnerships and projects, with more than 30

highlighted as case studies illustrating both the breadth and embeddedness of this activity

within the region.

During the Review the Panel had the opportunity to meet with a wide range of external

engagement partners, students and alumni as well as University staff involved in leading this

activity and in working on engagement programs and projects. The Panel was impressed

with the passion and commitment with which partners (external and internal) talked about

their projects and activities, in particular the outcomes these produce. The Panel concluded

that the current impressive suite of engagement activities is due in no small part to the

individual efforts of dedicated staff at UWS. The Panel noted in this regard the independent

sector external evaluation of UWS as “a University of the people”1.

In its submission to the Review the University has taken the opportunity to review its current

engagement strategy and practice and has identified opportunities for improving planning,

cohesion and evaluation aspects. Areas of partner relationships are also identified for

improvement, as are opportunities to strengthen the overall framework and fabric for

engaged learning and teaching and research. The Panel supports the areas identified by the

University for improvement in its self-review, and has made recommendations in the report

about how these issues might best be addressed.

1 See Australian Universities Quality Agency (2007), „Report of an audit of University of Western

Sydney – January 2007‟, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/view-all; and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, pp. 10-11, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. The latter report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/view-all

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf


In positioning engagement strategy and practice for the next 20-30 years, the Panel has

identified the University‟s engagement leadership within the region as the dimension with the

most potential to expand and grow. While the UWS mission provides the raison d‟être for

engagement within GWS, the Panel considers that, in order to take this leadership

dimension to the next level, the University would benefit from identifying an overarching

„theme‟ for its engagement with the region. This theme would provide a clear context for

regional partners in understanding the University‟s intention and posture as it relates to

engagement, and at the same time provide a marshalling point for internal planning, priority

setting, evaluation and community of practice. The Panel proposes that a theme along the

lines of „a University for the region‟ would provide a very good philosophical and practical

platform for engagement. In arriving at this conclusion, the Panel notes the particular

character, challenges and potential of the region, and argues that these provide a „natural

laboratory-like‟ setting for similar and (arguably) future peri-urban communities on the fringes

of large cities internationally.

The approach proposed would provide both context and opportunity for UWS in an

engagement sense. However, it also presents challenges. These include defining what

engagement leadership constitutes for UWS, how it would enact this within a whole of region

and sub-regional context, and how the University thinks about the relationship between its

campus footprint and the region‟s urban, social and commercial demographics. There are

also implications for design of the student experience as it relates to community engagement

and service learning, as well as for alumni strategy as both a financial support and bridge

builder for engagement. The Panel notes from the submission to the Review that the

University is increasingly seeking to occupy this leadership space, and there are very good

examples in its involvement in the regional transport alliance lobby, the Gateway concept,

and the proposed Chancellor‟s Circle initiative. The report discusses in detail how these

questions might be addressed and sets out an integrated suite of recommendations in this

regard. The Panel considers that, with the pending retirement of Professor Reid, the

University should seek to ensure that the hallmarks of her leadership, commitment and

vigour continue in order to secure the step change for engagement proposed by the Panel in

this Review.

Following is a summary of the commendations, affirmations and recommendations which are

discussed in further detail in the report within the context of the six Terms of Reference

(TOR). The definitions of „commendation‟, „affirmation‟ and „recommendation‟ used in this

report are adapted from those used by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

(TEQSA), and are outlined below in Table 1.


Table 1: Definitions of „commendation‟, „affirmation‟, and „recommendation‟ used in this report

Source: TEQSA2

2 Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of

Western Sydney – October 2011, pp. 8-9, accessed 1 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/auqa/auqa_cycle_2. Note: this report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).

Commendation

Achievement of a stated goal – or existence of a plan or activity that appears likely to

lead to the achievement of a stated goal – which is particularly significant.

Affirmation

An area already identified by the University in need of attention which is particularly

significant, whether in respect of approach, deployment or results.

Recommendation

An area in need of attention, whether in respect of approach, deployment or results,

which is particularly significant. It is acknowledged that recommendations in this

Report may have resources implications.

http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/auqa/auqa_cycle_2


Commendations

The Panel commends:

C1. The leadership of community and regional engagement shown by the Vice-Chancellor

Professor Reid over the past ten years and the impact this has had on current strategy

and practice.

C2. The passion and commitment of UWS staff towards achieving the current level of

success with engagement activities, while displaying genuine enthusiasm to further

developing the University‟s engagement strategies.

C3. The breadth and embeddedness (depth) of current UWS engagement activities and

projects with regional partners.

C4. The UWS Operational Framework for Regional and Community Engagement as a

highly fit-for-purpose model for developing reciprocal mutual benefit relationships with

regional partners over time.

C5. The University‟s extensive and valuable work in civic engagement within the region,

including initiatives such as SMExcellence, TVSydney, and the Regional Centre for

Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development in GWS.

C6. The leadership displayed by the Whitlam Institute in promoting research, debate and

enquiry for the benefit of all Australians.

C7. The commitment to improving both the academic and non-academic achievements of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of the community, including

development of an array of targeted engagement activities that have resulted in

increased participation rates in higher education as well as increased employment at

UWS.

C8. The quality and depth of engagement partnerships which is evident in the indicative

case studies presented by the University in support of the Review.

C9. The extent to which engaged learning and engaged research are manifest in current

UWS engagement projects and activities.

C10. The impressive results being achieved within Greater Western Sydney secondary

schools through the University‟s Schools Engagement Program.

C11. The work being undertaken as part of the University‟s Cube strategy to develop an

e-portfolio for students that allows for University authentication of learning outside of

academic programs.

C12. The excellent foundation of commitment to regional engagement on which the

University can actively differentiate itself in attracting academic and professional staff.


Affirmations

The Panel affirms:

A1. That service learning be embedded across the curriculum and linked to the UWS

graduate attributes.

A2. The decision by the University to strengthen its role in the leadership dimension of

regional engagement.

A3. The Chancellor‟s Circle proposal as an effective overarching framework for UWS‟s

taking forward the next iteration of regional leadership in community engagement.

A4. The proposal to acquire an institutional-wide customer relationship management

(CRM) database.

A5. The University‟s proposal for developing a more robust evaluation framework for

engagement which is linked to regional priorities.

A6. The proposal to build experiential learning into all undergraduate courses

(acknowledging the very good practice already in place within some disciplines).

A7. The proposal to identify typologies of engaged learning and employ these systemically

within curriculum design.

A8. The decision to embed engaged research activity within a stronger strategic framework

for engaged research.

A9. Identification of the need for a more precise understanding of how student commitment

and interest in their communities can be translated to engagement activities that are

attractive and which they regard as adding value to their University experience.

A10. Identification of the need to integrate engagement activity more directly within the

recognition and reward framework for University staff.


Recommendations

The Panel recommends that:

R1. The University strengthen its planning and cohesion around the alignment of

engagement strategy and practice with regional priorities.

R2. Alumni strategy enables a longitudinal understanding of the impact that service

learning has on careers and alumni roles within their communities.

R3. UWS adopt „a University for the region‟ as the overarching theme for its regional

engagement strategy, focus and activity, becoming the „go to place‟ for information on

Greater Western Sydney, and brokering a forum with the University at its heart.

R4. In its engagement as „a University for the region‟, UWS should see the potential of

Greater Western Sydney as a „natural laboratory‟ in which to develop expertise in

meeting the challenges of peri-urban settings within large cities.

R5. In adopting „a University for the region‟ as the overarching theme for regional

engagement, the University should develop a clearer understanding of its role in

supporting industries in which the region has a comparative advantage through

scientific innovation. Innovation and productivity in these sectors will likely generate

the greatest economic multipliers for the economy of Greater Western Sydney.

R6. Action should be taken to align external media strategy in the context of promoting

UWS as „a University for the region‟.

R7. The University should engage in an institutional dialogue about improving the planning

and focus of engagement in a way that does not reduce the ability of staff to engage in

projects of importance.

R8. As a matter of priority UWS should institute clear and seamless arrangements for

intending engagement partners to make contact with the University and for effective

management of their proposals.

R9. In a stronger regional leadership of engagement context, UWS should review its

current arrangements for Provosts as the face of campus interaction with local

communities.

R10. The overall management of key engagement partnerships be undertaken through

senior contacts at the University Executive or Dean of School level.

R11. The University develop and implement processes for ensuring the sustainability of its

engagement activities.


R12. More concerted attention be given to developing the concepts and frameworks for

engaged teaching within UWS.

R13. The University develop and implement processes to ensure that engagement

permeates programs for Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students. This could

potentially include opportunities for exchange with other Talloires Network members

globally3.

R14. The University develop and implement a life-long learning strategy.

R15. The University take a more strategic approach to alumni in the context of enabling

regional and community engagement.

3 Talloires Network Members, accessed 3 November 2012, from

http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-network-members/



Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 1: Overall Findings ............................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 2: Strategic Alignment ....................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 3: Greater Western Sydney .............................................................................................. 23

Chapter 4: Partnerships ................................................................................................................... 33

Chapter 5: Engaged Learning, Teaching and Research............................................................. 37

Chapter 6: Students .......................................................................................................................... 44

Chapter 7: Staff ................................................................................................................................. 51

Afterword ............................................................................................................................................. 54

Acronyms and Abbreviations of Titles ............................................................................................. 55

Appendix A: Review Panel .............................................................................................................. 56

Appendix B: Terms of Reference ................................................................................................... 60

Appendix C: Review Methodology ................................................................................................. 61

Appendix D: Submissions ................................................................................................................ 65

Appendix E: Consultations ............................................................................................................... 69

Appendix F: Program ....................................................................................................................... 74

References .......................................................................................................................................... 78


Introduction

The 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement (the Review) is a major

thematic review that arises as part of an institutional review process at the University of

Western Sydney (UWS).

The membership of the Review Panel (the Panel) is set out at Appendix A. The Panel

comprised four members external to the University.

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Review are set out at Appendix B, and encompass

three areas related to strategic alignment in relation to community engagement, and three

which are centred on practice and capacity building. The methodology for the Review is set

out at Appendix C. As part of its preparations for this Review, the University conducted a

full-day staff forum (EngageLab 2012) to inform the University‟s submission to the Review.

The Panel notes that this event involved over fifty staff representing all Schools, Research

Institutes, and operational areas across the institution, and included presentations from

external partners. A website for the Review4 was developed by the University, and continues

to serve as a source of information for external and internal stakeholders.

In its deliberations, the Panel took into consideration the background briefing papers

provided by the University, including the University Submission and Book of Supplementary

Materials (both of August 2012), in addition to 98 external and 27 internal submissions to the

Review that were collected on the Panel‟s behalf by the University. Lists of external and

internal submissions to the Review appear at Appendix D. The Panel sought additional

information from the University throughout the review process, and conducted a three-day

visit to the University on 6, 7 and 10 September 2012 (on Parramatta, Campbelltown and

Bankstown campuses respectively), in addition to an off-site Panel meeting on 5 September

2012. Details of consultations are set out at Appendix E, and the program for the on-site

visit appears at Appendix F.

The University has asked the Panel to comment on both current provisioning and future

positioning issues around the six TOR. The Panel introduces its report with summary

comments about both current performance and strategic positioning. The report then

addresses both of these dimensions, in more specific terms, under each of the TOR.

The Panel wishes to note that throughout this report it has used the terms „Indigenous‟, „First

Nation‟, and „Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander‟ interchangeably and as they were

employed by the individuals and groups presenting to us. This has been done with due

respect and on the understanding that such terms are acceptable to these communities.

4 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement website, accessed 2 October 2012,

from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/


Chapter 1: Overall Findings

The Panel considers that the current Review of Community and Regional Engagement takes

place at an important time for UWS, in the context of meeting the expectations of the region

within a changing environment for higher education in Australia. Moreover, the Review

occurs at a time when the University has clearly challenged itself about the strategies and

settings necessary to take the next step in its relationship with its community. In this sense

the breadth and sophistication of the current suite of engagement activities in place with

regional partners is a good platform on which to build. The Panel, in its report, has provided

comment on both the current overall settings for engagement and the way in which the

University is positioned for the future, identifying strengths as well as areas for improvement

in respect of both these dimensions.

1.1 Current settings and provisioning

The Panel considers that the starting point for effective regional engagement is clarity about

the philosophy, context and focus of engagement. This is particularly so in the case of UWS

because of the strong regional orientation in its mission, and the financial settings in which

the University operates. As an institution which relies heavily on income from students

without a substantial endowment base, any resources devoted to regional engagement must

bring the highest return to the community and the University. Without this clarity of purpose

there is the very real risk of activity being diffuse and uneven, failing to yield strategic and

enduring benefit at the cost of diverting resources from the key business of research,

learning and teaching.

In this regard the first observation the Panel would want to make is to recognise the

outstanding leadership of the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Janice Reid, in establishing the

current level of focus and united sense of purpose for the University in its relationship with

the region. This has been achieved in a relatively short time in the life of a tertiary institution,

and in an environment where there have been challenges more broadly in establishing a

single institutional focus as UWS has transitioned from the federated organisational model in

place at the turn of the century. The Vice-Chancellor‟s leadership in this area is perhaps best

recognised in the independent external evaluations of UWS as a “university of the people”5.

The Panel‟s second observation recognises the sheer critical mass and breadth of UWS

engagement at the activity level. The University‟s submission outlined more than 30 case

studies to illustrate the way engagement is manifest within various domains. The Panel had

the opportunity to meet with both external and internal (staff) project partners during the

5 See Australian Universities Quality Agency (2007), „Report of an audit of University of Western

Sydney – January 2007‟, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/view-all; and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, pp. 10-11, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. The latter report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).




Review, and noted the genuine sense of collegiality and shared value in these relationships.

Furthermore the Panel considers that this has not occurred by accident and is in substantial

part a product of the commitment of the Vice-Chancellor, University management and staff.

The Panel considers that the framework for regional engagement as articulated by UWS in

its submission to the Review is well defined. The relationship between the UWS mission, the

Making the Difference: 2010-2015 strategy, and the Operational Framework for Community

and Regional Engagement is clear and well defined, and the Panel considers this model

establishes the appropriate settings for a focus on regional priorities. In its submission the

University identified some 65% of more than 200 current engagement activities that are

directly related to the five key priority areas for the region identified by the Regional

Organisation of Councils6.

The Panel notes that, notwithstanding the current quantum of engagement projects on the

ground, there is scope to improve aspects of internal planning and evaluation, as well as

some aspects of relationship management. These are not uncommon challenges faced by

universities, and UWS is certainly not alone in its wish to improve these aspects of strategy

and practice. The Panel endorses the proposals made by UWS in its submission in these

areas, and has made recommendations throughout the report on how they might be

approached. There is also a need for better planning and execution in both building the

overall capacity for engagement within the institution (including the sharing of practice), and

recognising and resourcing staff who are engaged in this activity.

At the level of scholarly practice, which is the primary focus of University activity involving

staff and students, the Panel recognises that the framework for engaged learning focuses on

the community as a site and source for learning. The case study examples provided to the

Panel illustrate the effectiveness of this approach in contributing to a „work ready‟ student

experience. The Panel supports the University‟s assessment that there are aspects of

scholarly practice that can be strengthened around a community of practice, especially as it

relates to engaged teaching.

1.2 Future positioning

The Panel considers that the University has developed an excellent platform of engaged

partnerships from which to make a step change in its relationship with the region. In its

submission to the Review, UWS refers to the fact that it has been growing its activity in what

it refers to as the „civic engagement‟ segment of its regional activities. The University cites

SMExcellence, TVSydney, and the United Nations University endorsed Regional Centre of

Expertise (RCE) on Education for Sustainable Development – RCE Greater Western Sydney

as examples of activities where UWS has provided leadership in a facilitation/enabling sense

as the beacon for community activities in particular areas. Moreover, in the concluding

chapter of its submission the University makes reference to areas where this leadership

dimension is becoming more visible, for example in the partnerships which are engaged in

lobbying for improved transport in the region.

6 UWS, (2012), „University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional

Engagement‟, pg.27, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/university-submission

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/university-submission



It is in this area – the leadership dimension – that the Panel considers the University should

give increased focus to positioning its engagement strategy for the next 20-30 years. The

Panel believes there is considerable potential to take a stronger role standing shoulder to

shoulder with the community and region in leading representational (including lobbying)

activities, strategy development, and applied aspects of addressing regional priorities. The

Panel notes in this regard that 65% of current engagement partnerships are in priority areas

for the region. However it could be argued that this has arisen as much through chance as

design. The Panel asks whether, in a paradigm of UWS as a more prominent regional

leadership partner, this percentage should be higher.

The Panel considers that the UWS mission provides the fundamental raison d‟être for

engagement with the region. However, the Panel considers that the University would be best

placed to take the enhanced leadership dimension forward if it has a compelling „theme‟ for

its regional engagement. To the community this would present a clear rationale and posture

for the University in its regional partnership, and in turn would represent the marshalling

point for internal planning and activity.

The Panel considers that a potential paradigm effectively to shape the University‟s future

engagement rationale is that of „a University for the region‟. In this metaphor, UWS would

take the posture of a University working with the region to shape the way that such a large

peri-urban setting on the fringe of a large city manages the challenges associated with

population growth, increasing multi-culturalism, the retreat of manufacturing industry,

infrastructure pressures, health, education and employment challenges, and the progress of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. In many respects GWS could be seen as a

model for the future peri-urban settings of many large cities around the world, and this

provides a compelling rationale for the region as a „natural laboratory‟ setting, where UWS

would partner in a leadership sense in developing future solutions for such settings. This

dynamic would in turn provide a focal point for University planning for regional engagement,

and evaluation would be undertaken in conjunction with partners in the context of regional

priorities. In the metaphor of „a University for the region‟, the issues on which the University

engages with the community would be enhanced in breadth and texture and take on a

longer term developmental perspective. The Panel has suggested a range of areas in which

this focus might progressively evolve, that go to the heart of what it is to be a peri-urban

region with the challenges described.

An issue allied to that of the University‟s taking a stronger leadership posture under a

compelling „theme‟ for its regional engagements is that of leadership at the local level within

the sub-regional structure and reality of GWS. In this respect the UWS campus network is an

important platform for engagement and is broadly aligned with the sub-regional structure.

The Panel believes there is a strong case to demonstrate that the enactment of this new

leadership paradigm would be most effective if linked to (and in some respects driven from)

the campus framework. The Panel notes that the provost role currently manages the

interface between the University and the local community. During the visit the Panel was

introduced to the provosts of two campuses and was impressed by their local community

knowledge and their commitment to developing campus cohesion. However, the Panel

considers that discharging a stronger community leadership role requires the provosts to

possess and exercise institutional authority as head of campus. In this regard the Panel

notes that such roles are often undertaken at Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) or Pro Vice-

Chancellor (PVC) level in other Australian Universities. If the provosts are to have a stronger


leadership role as envisaged in this report, the Panel considers that UWS should examine

the option of delegating greater responsibility and accountability to them. This would require

the head of campus positions being recognised as senior executive members of the

University. The Panel recognises that University Executive members are currently centrally

located which may make this option complex, although it does note that there is at least one

Dean located physically on every campus.

The Panel was briefed during the visit on the Chancellor‟s Circle proposal, which the Panel

believes could provide an effective overarching frame for a stronger leadership role in

regional engagement, within „a University for the region‟ paradigm. The Panel‟s proposals for

organising the leadership role at a campus level are considered to align well with the

Chancellor‟s Circle, and would be the means of enacting this leadership dynamic at an

issues level within the sub-regional reality of GWS. The Panel is aware of Professor Reid‟s

pending retirement and considers that a key consideration in appointing a new Vice-

Chancellor would be that he or she should have the ability to lead engagement to this next

level of leadership with the same understanding, commitment and skill with which Professor

Reid has taken it forward.

The Review has identified that external partners – including potential partners – find it

difficult to identify a point of entry to the University. The Panel supports the mooted Gateway

initiative, and believes it will benefit from having senior staff members managing liaison with

the most important engagement partners. In the leadership model proposed, this role might

be included as part of more deliberate campus leadership in local engagement strategy.

The final comment the Panel would make about future positioning is the importance of

alumni to building capacity from both a financial (endowment) point of view, and from the

perspective of developing a network of future community-based „champions‟ of regional

engagement. In this context the Panel considers that embedding service learning across the

curriculum is a key strategic long-term capacity building issue. The University should build

on the very good models that are in place within some UWS disciplines and institutionalise

these as part of the leadership agenda. Also, by educating its alumni to be active, engaged

citizens, the University can leverage its efforts to build social capital for the benefit of GWS.

In the chapters which follow the Panel has elaborated on these conclusions in the context of

the specific Terms of Reference for the Review.


Chapter 2: Strategic Alignment

The Panel identified a key consideration in effective community and regional engagement

outcomes as the extent to which strategic, enabling and operational elements are aligned

and work together cohesively. The University has addressed this in the submission to the

Review, and the visit by the Panel was an opportunity to explore and test how well this

works.

2.1 Overall strategic settings

In its submission to the Review, the University discussed at length the matter of alignment

between community and regional engagement, and the UWS Strategy and Plan 2010-2015:

Making the Difference (MTD)7. The University proposed that, from a strategic point of view,

the MTD strategy provides clear purpose and context for external engagement (the „why‟), in

particular through its reference in the strategy to a focus on “regional, national and

international communities, beginning with the people of Greater Western Sydney”8. The

Panel notes the distinct linkage in the UWS mission to the regional context, and agrees that

this provides a robust raison d‟être for engaged University strategy and practice.

The MTD strategy is the vehicle through which the University gives life to its mission. It

situates the University‟s vision of its engagement with the region, ascribes a set of core

values („what we believe in‟) that inform this, and sets out a suite of actions („what we will

do‟) in three key pillars of activity around: a superior and engaged student learning

experience; focused, relevant, and world class engaged research; and building

organisational capacity. The Panel was informed that in a previous iteration of the MTD

strategy, University Engagement was a fourth pillar but in the current context is integrated

within the current three pillars.

7 UWS Strategy and Plan 2010-2015: Making the Difference, accessed 2 October 2012, from

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/7301/Strategy-for-web10.pdf 8 See UWS mission statement, see UWS Strategy and Plan 2010-2015: Making the Difference,

accessed 2 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/7301/Strategy-for-web10.pdf

Term of Reference 1

The UWS engagement strategy aligns with the University’s Making the Difference Strategy and Plan, and with international

directions in strategic community engagement

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/7301/Strategy-for-web10.pdf




In its submission the University proposes that the mission and the MTD strategy provide a

segue to the priorities of the region as a focal point for external engagement, citing health,

education, employment, environment and society/culture as broad regional themes, based

on the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) priorities. The

submission outlines some 126 specific engagement partnerships/projects in these five broad

thematic areas (page 27). Table 2.1 of the submission provides evidence of the extent to

which engagement projects are operating under these five broad themes (pages 28-29).

In its submission to the Review the University outlined an interesting history of the way

engagement strategy and practice have developed over the past 14 years since „unification‟

of the previous federated structure for UWS. This narrative brings out important points about

the sub-regional context and imperatives which defined early strategy and practice, as well

as an increasing sophistication and unification of approach which has developed in the last

ten years. Key to achieving this more strategic approach were the initiatives by the Vice-

Chancellor Professor Reid in leading a dialogue within the region and the institution about

the meaning of and parameters for university engagement9; her putting UWS engagement in

an international context and standing through the decision to be party to the Talloires

Declaration (2005)10 (including her serving as Vice-Chair of the Talloires Network Steering

Committee11); her leading role in establishment of the Australian Universities Community

Engagement Alliance (AUCEA – now Engagement Australia12); as well as her initiating a

series of internal reviews since 2005, in addition to the current external Review, to define

institutional approach and practice.

The Panel notes the very intense personal commitment of the Vice-Chancellor to UWS as an

engaged university, and the role her personal energy and dedication have played in UWS‟

current standing and profile within its community. This is manifest in the fact that two reviews

by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), in 2006 and 2011, confirmed UWS as

a “university of the people” within its region13.

Commendation 1

The leadership of community and regional engagement shown by

the Vice-Chancellor Professor Reid over the past ten years and the

impact this has had on current strategy and practice.

9 Reid, J., (1999), „UWS and Its Communities: A Time for Change‟, accessed 2 October 2012, from

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/Panel-Review-docs/3_UWS-and-Its-Communities.pdf 10

The Talloires Declaration on the Civic Roles and Social Responsibilities of Higher Education, 17 September 2005, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-declaration/ 11

Talloires Network Steering Committee, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-network-steering-committee/ 12

Engagement Australia home page, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.engagementaustralia.org.au/ 13

See Australian Universities Quality Agency (2007), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – January 2007‟, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/view-all; and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, pp. 10-11, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. The latter report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/Panel-Review-docs/3_UWS-and-Its-Communities.pdf


http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-declaration/


http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-network-steering-committee/

http://www.engagementaustralia.org.au/




The Panel observed genuine enthusiasm within the University for this Review, and was

impressed by the overall passion and commitment displayed by UWS staff in terms of

furthering the University‟s engagement agenda by building on current achievements. This

was evident during meetings with both academic and professional staff, as well as in the

internal submissions to the Review. The Panel observed employees at all levels that are

highly committed to the University‟s mission and engagement focus, and notes that this was

also reflected in findings of the recent MyVoice survey14.

Commendation 2

The passion and commitment of UWS staff towards achieving the

current level of success with engagement activities, while

displaying genuine enthusiasm to further developing the

University’s engagement strategies.

2.2 Extent of alignment with region and community

The University submission outlines the breadth and depth of engagement activities, and

provides more than 30 case study examples to illustrate this. The Panel was impressed by

the extent to which these are for the most part deeply embedded within the community, and

the dynamism with which this is managed by the University. Examples of this level of

embeddedness (depth) across a wide breadth of activities include the UWS Schools

Engagement Program of outreach to secondary schools in the region, programs designed to

assist GWS school students overcome barriers to education (for example, for Indigenous

and refugee children), programs which provide professional services (for example, in the

areas of law and psychology) to GWS residents who normally could not afford these

services, and projects which address issues of long-term sustainability in agriculture, food

and the environment.

Commendation 3

The breadth and embeddedness (depth) of current UWS engagement

activities and projects with regional partners.

From the point of view of alignment with the UWS mission, the Panel was interested in the

way the University has successfully managed what often began as exploratory projects into

more deeply embedded and robust relationships. In this regard, the UWS Operational

14

Voice Project (2012), UWS MyVoice Staff Engagement Survey: Executive Summary, 4 May 2012, downloaded 24 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/people_and_culture/opc/working_at_uws/myvoice_uws_staff_engagement_survey/myvoice_faqs

http://www.uws.edu.au/people_and_culture/opc/working_at_uws/myvoice_uws_staff_engagement_survey/myvoice_faqs



Framework for Community and Regional Engagement (presented on page 31 of the

University‟s submission) appears to be effective, emphasising the value placed on all

engagement activities in building a dynamic sense over time of mutual benefit and

reciprocity with regional partners. The Panel considers that in the context of the regional

partnership orientation of the UWS mission, the operational model is highly fit-for-purpose as

a way of marshalling a plethora of activities under a unifying sense of purpose. The Panel

notes moreover that the model is endorsed by University staff as an approach that is

inclusive, and where staff members are able to situate their contribution within the overall

schema for institutional engagement with the region.

Commendation 4

The UWS Operational Framework for Regional and Community

Engagement as a highly fit-for-purpose model for developing

reciprocal mutual benefit relationships with regional partners over

time.

While the Panel noted that some 65% of engagement projects are directly related to regional

priorities, the Panel was interested in exploring the institutional dynamics around planning

which had delivered this outcome, and indeed in exploring the question of whether the

University had set targets or indicators in respect of strategic priorities for engagement. In

the submission to the Review, reference was made to enabling plans in the portfolio areas of

Engagement, Learning and Teaching (L&T), and Research15. The Panel noted that in broad

terms the L&T and Research Plans encapsulated engaged elements as a matter of principle.

In a similar way, the UWS Engagement Strategy sets out key principles for University activity

in this area. However the Panel was not able to establish that University planning at the

portfolio level (as reflected in these enabling plans) is directed in any deliberate way towards

addressing regional priorities.

Moreover, in discussions conducted during the visit the Panel was not able to identify

strategic level processes for deciding on engagement priorities at an institutional level. This

finding tends to be borne out by the University‟s reference in its submission to the fact that

engagement activities and projects tend to be driven by the commitment and passion of

individual staff members through their community contacts. In this respect, the Panel was left

with the impression that the percentage of engagement activities that are linked to regional

priorities has occurred somewhat by happenstance. The attendant question is whether this

percentage (65%) should and could be much higher with a more deliberate and planned

strategy. In its submission the University appears to recognise the need to improve “the

alignment of institutional and unit-level strategy”, referring in effect to internal alignment of

engagement activities (page 118).

While the Panel supports this finding about internal alignment and discusses it further under

Term of Reference 2, the more compelling issue is the University‟s approach to the

alignment of broader institutional strategy with regional priorities. The Panel notes the

15

See „UWS Engagement Strategy 2010-2013‟, „UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014‟, and „UWS Research Plan 2012-2014‟, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review

http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review


somewhat serendipitous nature of this. The Panel considers that development of a more

robust approach to institutional planning for regional engagement raises questions such as

the nature of the University‟s external profile at the regional leadership level, institutional

governance frameworks for engagement, institutional priority setting (including key

performance indicators (KPIs)), as well as organisational structure and resourcing questions.

Recommendation 1

The University strengthen its planning and cohesion around the

alignment of engagement strategy and practice with regional

priorities.

A potential issue for the University is that some students interpret the University‟s mission

and the characteristics of the student cohort to mean a „lower value‟ university experience.

More specifically, some students may feel that the University‟s concern for „opportunity‟

implies lower entry requirements. The metaphor of „a University for the region‟ positions this

student experience in a more positive light, where the emphasis is on student outcomes

rather than inputs.

While the preceding discussion about strategic and operational planning addresses the issue

of broad alignment of the settings for UWS engagement, the matter of meeting the needs

and expectations of the region is discussed in greater detail under Term of Reference 2,

below.

2.3 Alignment with international practice

The Panel found a number of interesting areas of parallel with UWS‟s engagement strategy

in its region and international practice, as well as a number of international perspectives that

might inform the future direction of practice. The first relates to the nature of the relationship

between the institution and the region itself.

For example, the Morrill Act (1862) that created the United States (US) Land Grant

institutions16, conceived of these colleges as being for their region. Similarly, UWS‟s mission

aligns closely with the concept of a University focussed on GWS.

Notwithstanding this strong level of alignment at the mission level, the Panel considers that

UWS has scope to strengthen its position and focus within the metaphor of „a University for

the region‟. This is discussed in greater detail under Term of Reference 2, and is related to

the question of „expectations‟ previously alluded to at the conclusion of Section 2.2 of this

report.

16

Also known as the Land-Grant College Act of 1862. Sixty-nine US colleges were created by the Act (including Cornell University and MIT), see http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33&page=transcript

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33&page=transcript


Given that the principle activity of a University revolves around the notion of scholarship, the

Panel also sought to draw conclusions about UWS‟s strategy and practice with respect to

the student experience. An emerging contemporary perspective is that of „scholarship in

action‟ for the benefit of the region/community/nation17. In this regard, the Panel would agree

with the University‟s own assessment that there are parts of the curriculum where the notion

of service learning is highly embedded. However this does not appear to be an area of

strategic intent on the part of the institution. The UWS position is arguably no different than

in a number of institutions where the challenge in this regard is to embed such an approach

in a way that meets the needs of disparate disciplines. Nevertheless the Panel affirms the

UWS position that it should seek to engage with service learning as a key aspect of the

mission and approach it in a more deliberate and planned way for a consistent engaged

student experience. The Panel notes that the UWS graduate attributes already substantially

provide the entrée for a more embedded approach.

Affirmation 1

That service learning be embedded across the curriculum and

linked to the UWS graduate attributes.

A related challenge is to understand the longer term impact of service learning on how

career paths of alumni are influenced by engaged university learning experiences, and more

broadly the impact this is having in communities and beyond. A current longitudinal study,

launched in 2006 by Tufts University in the US, is seeking to understand whether and how

student attitudes change towards civic engagement during their time at university, and the

impact this has on their working and community lives18. With this in mind, though the current

Review does not address alumni strategy per se, the Panel recommends that the University

ensure its alumni relations are structured in a way that enables such a longitudinal

understanding of the impact of exposure to civic engagement concepts and experiences

whilst at UWS. This would necessitate retrospective analysis from 1992.

Recommendation 2

Alumni strategy enables a longitudinal understanding of the

impact that service learning has on careers and alumni roles

within their communities.

17

See Syracuse University vision statement, Scholarship in Action, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.syr.edu/about/vision.html 18

Tufts University, (2006), „Education for Active Citizenship: A longitudinal Study of Civic Outcomes‟ , presentation to the AAC&U Annual General Meeting, January 2006, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://aacu-secure.nisgroup.com/meetings/annualmeeting/AM06/documents/TuftsLongStudyPresentationAACUWebsite.pdf

http://www.syr.edu/about/vision.html

http://aacu-secure.nisgroup.com/meetings/annualmeeting/AM06/documents/TuftsLongStudyPresentationAACUWebsite.pdf




Chapter 3: Greater Western Sydney

In this chapter the Panel focuses on the „what‟ of community engagement, as discussed in

the University‟s submission to the Review. Current areas of emphasis are discussed in terms

of their meeting the needs of GWS, and the Panel raises a number of issues and challenges

for the University in the area of community expectations as they relate to leadership. In

Chapter 1 the Panel endorsed the breadth and depth of the current suite of engagement

activities. It believes that the questions canvassed within the current chapter are germane to

UWS‟s future impact as „a University for the region‟.

3.1 Regional needs and expectations

As outlined in Chapter 2, the Panel considered that the suite of engagement initiatives in

which the University partners with the region reflects a substantial commitment to GWS.

The operational model by which UWS partners with the region involves the investment of

considerable institutional expertise and resources. It is equally clear that engagement

partners make a substantial commitment, for example in making their sites available as

places for work-based learning.

In its submission to the Review, the University devoted a chapter to the area of civic

engagement, where the phenomenon was characterised as the leadership dimension of

regional engagement, and inter alia the benefits of engagement fall more towards the region

as a partner than the institution. The University outlined in its submission some excellent

examples of this dynamic, such as its SMExcellence initiative aimed at assisting small to

medium sized businesses, TVSydney (a regional community television station), and the

United Nations University endorsed Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE) on Education for

Sustainable Development – RCE Greater Western Sydney. Through these case studies the

Panel was able to appreciate the position that UWS has taken as the

catalyst/facilitator/beacon for bringing together a number of levels of community and

government expertise in the name of developing regional capacity.

Term of Reference 2

The UWS engagement strategy is focused on key needs and expectations within Greater Western Sydney (GWS)


Commendation 5

The University’s extensive and valuable work in civic engagement

within the region, including initiatives such as SMExcellence,

TVSydney, and the Regional Centre for Expertise on Education for

Sustainable Development in GWS.

The University has indicated that many examples of civic engagement are relatively recent

(in the past three years), and that this leadership dimension is an area for further

development. In its discussions with University staff and community representatives during

the Review the Panel agreed that the leadership dimension of engagement is the area in

which the community expectations of the institution have the greatest potential to be

furthered. The Panel noted two areas in which UWS is assuming a stronger voice and

interest in partnering with the community. The first is the alliance with state and local

governments in representing the transport needs of the region. The second is the

Chancellor‟s „Gateway‟ project through which the University is “exploring its capacity to

provide an expertise, facilitation and linking role in respect of key GWS economic and social

priorities” in order to become “the „first point of call‟ for government, industry and community

sectors in locating, accessing and linking to relevant research, data, information and

resources (including people) within the region”19.

In the context of the University‟s mission in GWS, the Panel supports the proposition that, as

the most senior source of learning in the community, UWS is uniquely placed to contribute to

both the conceptual and practical dimensions of building regional capacity. Moreover, an

approach in which UWS is an increasingly active and equal partner in leading regional

strategy for addressing GWS issues would add both dimension and weight to the

University‟s regional profile. As UWS seeks to engage with the region of GWS, it is in no

small way helping to „create‟ the region. This is an important consideration as the University

seeks to strengthen its leadership role in the region.

Affirmation 2

The decision by the University to strengthen its role in the

leadership dimension of regional engagement.

19

UWS, (2012), „University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement‟, pg.122, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/university-submission




3.2 A University for the region

In recognising UWS‟s strategic intention to increase its leadership role within the region, the

Panel believes this is best approached from a very clear conception on the part of the

University of the „place‟ it wishes to occupy within GWS within a 10-20 year timeframe. In

this regard the Panel considers that the very substantial performance and sophistication of

UWS engagement at an activity level over the past 3-5 years presents an excellent platform

to take engagement leadership and impact to the next level. The Panel believes that the

paradigm of „a University for the region‟ has much to offer as a theme in shaping an

enhanced leadership dimension.

In the New South Wales (NSW) State Government‟s recently released Western Sydney

Regional Action Plan: Community Discussion Paper (which will inform government planning

to 2021), a number of priorities were identified including: growing the economy of Greater

Western Sydney; improving access to jobs; and dealing with housing, transport, and

environmental issues20. The Panel notes that the State Government‟s vision for Western

Sydney is to “strengthen its regional economy through the development of additional

employment, and, extensive unique parklands, modern housing options, first-class

educational facilities and new transport linkages, while maintaining its unique urban and rural

residential lifestyles"21, and that the University is well placed to play a leadership role in this

regard.

As identified in a recent study by Deloitte (2012) into the economic contribution of UWS

towards the region22, GWS as a growing peri-urban community and economy is highly

distinctive in terms of its regional demographics. The Panel argues that this may represent a

microcosm of sorts for the future challenges of communities on the urban fringes of large

cities around the world. In this context, the demands of managing cultural and religious

diversity, population growth, the retreat of manufacturing bases, and complex issues around

education, language, health, housing and transport may be increasingly characteristic of

peri-urban settings during this century. The Panel considers that this presents a unique

opportunity area for the University as a focal point for regional engagement. With the

community as partner, the University would bring the weight of its educational and research

concentrations, and its gravitas as a key regional employer and shaper of values, attitudes

and skills. A thorough „stakeholder‟ analysis of current and potential regional partners would

provide a solid base from which to develop this theme, including the sharing of risk with

other agencies and funders. Such analysis necessitates the University‟s differentiating

between partnerships that involve mutual risk-sharing and investment of resources, and

those that relate more to the provision of general intelligence or advice. While all

20

NSW Government (2012), „Western Sydney Regional Action Plan: Community Discussion Paper‟, page 5, downloaded 16 October 2012, from www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/document/show/146 21

NSW Government (2012), „Western Sydney Regional Action Plan: Community Discussion Paper‟, page 3, downloaded 16 October 2012, from www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/document/show/146 22

Deloitte Access Economics, (2012), „Economic contribution of the University of Western Sydney‟, February, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/Panel-Review-docs/8_Economic-Contribution_Deloitte.pdf

http://www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/document/show/146


http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/Panel-Review-docs/8_Economic-Contribution_Deloitte.pdf



relationships are potentially important, the University should concentrate on developing

those relationships that represent a mutual sharing of risk and investment of resources.

In the paradigm of the region as a natural „laboratory‟ for such settings, and in alignment with

the State Government‟s vision for Western Sydney as outlined above, the Panel considers

there is considerable potential for UWS to embrace, research and develop expertise and

substantial policy influence in areas such as:

Economic growth and employment

Economic diversification (how does technology transfer work?)

Transport (a real deficit area in GWS)

Housing and town planning (the Panel was particularly struck by the problem of creating smaller centres near where there is one big centre (Sydney central business district (CBD) nearby); subsidiary effects

Cultural, including tourism

Health and wellbeing

Education, with languages a subset of this (the Panel observes that while new immigrants learn English, they should also preserve their own language)

Situated and relevant research and development (R+D)

Criminal justice and security

Community cohesion including working with First Nations (which is a global issue)

Youth citizenship and agency

An international example of a University that has successfully established itself as a „go to

place‟ for such R+D is „LSE London‟ of the London School of Economics (LSE). As outlined

on its homepage, LSE was “set up to improve society and to „understand the causes of

things‟”, while putting “engagement with the wider world at the heart of its mission”23.

Recommendation 3

UWS adopt ‘a University for the region’ as the overarching theme

for its regional engagement strategy, focus and activity, becoming

the ‘go to place’ for information on Greater Western Sydney, and

brokering a forum with the University at its heart.

An important consideration in this respect is the substantial population growth predicted for

GWS, from 2.2 million residents in June 2011 to almost 3 million residents by 203624. The

Panel notes that, in response to this growth, higher education in general has an important

role to play in developing new economic and cultural „centres‟ across the region.

Notwithstanding the predicted growth of GWS, the region has stronger sub-regional identity

than with the wider region, uneven levels of development and prospects between the major

population and commercial centres, and the experience of successful and capable

23

See the London School of Economics and Political Science homepage, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://www2.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/aboutHome.aspx 24

NSW Government, Premier and Cabinet, homepage, (2012), „About Western Sydney: Demographics‟, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.westernsydney.nsw.gov.au/about-western-sydney/demographics/

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/aboutHome.aspx

http://www.westernsydney.nsw.gov.au/about-western-sydney/demographics/



individuals leaving the region. These considerations infer a potentially important role for

UWS in overall community leadership because of the combination of the University‟s

orientation to the region as a whole, and its local sub-regional campus configuration. No

other single potential partner in regional development is able to bring this breadth of

perspective. The Panel considers that adoption by the University of a compelling and robust

philosophical orientation for the future along the lines of „a University for the region‟ would

provide a very good frame and platform for UWS in shaping its future regional leadership

role.

Recommendation 4

In its engagement as ‘a University for the region’, UWS should see

the potential of Greater Western Sydney as a ‘natural laboratory’ in

which to develop expertise in meeting the challenges of peri-urban

settings within large cities.

The Panel is cognisant of the Chancellor‟s commitment to an increasing leadership role for

the University, and considers that a vital enabler for the leadership direction envisaged is a

high level of recognition of and commitment to this from the trustees of the institution. As

such, the Panel considered that the Chancellor‟s Circle concept, initiated by Professor

Shergold, could be a very good platform on which to build a stronger leadership role for the

University, complementing University engagement with pre-existing local economic and

community development bodies.

Affirmation 3

The Chancellor’s Circle proposal as an effective overarching

framework for UWS’s taking forward the next iteration of regional

leadership in community engagement.

The Panel was impressed with the University‟s engagement with industry through student

work experience programs and industry partnerships. However, there is a sense that the

economic base of the region is poorly understood in terms of its comparative advantages.

While the University has undoubted strengths in producing scientific innovation, there may

be opportunities to strengthen research in areas that have a particular relevance for the

region‟s export industries. For example, food manufacturing is one industry that has the

potential for additional growth, particularly in the context of the growth of Asian export

markets. The Australian Government‟s 2011 census data show, for example, that the GWS

suburb of Westmead has the second highest number of postgraduate residents of any

suburb in NSW25. In economic terms, this represents a very thick labour market in a precinct

that includes four hospitals and at least two major research institutes. The Panel considers

that there may be „cold spots‟ where research could be better aligned and connected.

25

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011 Census data, accessed 19 November 2012, from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200


Recommendation 5

In adopting ‘a University for the region’ as the overarching theme

for regional engagement the University should develop a clearer

understanding of its role in supporting industries in which the

region has a comparative advantage through scientific innovation.

Innovation and productivity in these sectors will likely generate the

greatest economic multipliers for the economy of Greater Western

Sydney.

An important issue in relation to developing and sustaining a stronger leadership role for the

University in its regional engagement is the commitment of resources required to achieve the

University‟s engagement aspirations. The Panel recognises that, for a University such as

UWS which does not have substantial endowment resources, any funds invested in this area

are in effect diverted from the core business of education and research. In this respect, the

Panel believes an important consideration is to ensure current capacity is aligned and

optimised. This will require a thorough assessment of current capabilities and identification

of any gaps in expertise. The University submission indicates that there is scope to improve

this alignment, and the Panel has affirmed this in Chapter 2.

More generally, the Panel considers that this is an area of investment that needs to be

examined in terms of its longer term returns. In particular, the investment should be seen in

terms of opportunities for the University as a partner in new education/business/commercial

enclaves and incubators in the region, in more embedded research partnerships with

business and government, and in attracting students to UWS. An important further

consideration is the opportunity for strengthening alumni endowment as a means of

supporting and funding University engagement. Realignment of the University‟s media

strategy will also be a key consideration in embedding a stronger leadership profile for the

University within the community.

Recommendation 6

Action should be taken to align external media strategy in the

context of promoting UWS as ‘a University for the region’.

The Panel noted the extensive discussion of the Whitlam Institute in the University

submission, and had the opportunity to visit and discuss the Institute with its Director, Mr Eric

Sidoti, during sessions on Parramatta Campus. The Panel found the intention and focus of

the Whitlam Institute interesting in the context of the question that emerged during the

Review of leadership in community engagement. In many respects the Whitlam Institute

provides a model for the University in the Institute‟s very clear focus on regional issues. The

Institute‟s mission is “to promote equality; to involve the people of Australia in the decision-

making processes of our land; and to liberate the talents and uplift the horizons of the


Australian people” through research, debate and enquiry26. The Panel considers that through

the Institute and in conjunction with faculty, the University already has in place the

intellectual foundation stone for a stronger leadership dimension in its engagement with the

region.

Commendation 6

The leadership displayed by the Whitlam Institute in promoting

research, debate and enquiry for the benefit of all Australians.

3.3 Parameters for community engagement

In its discussions with University staff the Panel noted an interesting dynamic with respect to

the question of community leadership. In its self-assessment submission, the University

indicated that one of the themes in staff submissions to the Review was the perception of the

need for UWS to take a stronger leadership role within the region. The University also

briefed the Panel on the extent to which there is strong staff commitment to meeting the

needs of the region as indicated in findings of the recent MyVoice survey27.

During discussions with staff a recurrent view emerged that they would not support an

overwhelmingly top-down approach to engagement manifest in the form of controls and

administrative requirements that add little value, and that take away from their limited

resources (time) for community engagement. The Panel understands and sympathises with

this view and notes the University‟s own assessment that the significant reach and

endurance of engagement projects is essentially driven by the commitment and passion of

individual staff members.

Notwithstanding the importance of ensuring an organic approach is able to continue, the

Panel considers that there would be advantage to UWS in having a foundation on which to

respond to community expectations on the basis of clarity as to „what‟s in and what‟s out.‟

Such clarity would provide a framework within which staff and the University could apply

scarce resources to the engagement task, maximising the benefit of that engagement. In this

respect the Panel notes that some 35% of engagement activity is currently not in areas that

comprise the current regional priorities. The experience of Panel members within their own

jurisdictions suggests that having a „crispness‟ to a University‟s engagement orientation

within the region provides a good basis for both the community and staff to prioritise

resourcing and activities. The discussion in the foregoing section of this chapter about the

UWS raison d‟être for engagement is germane to this point, as are the discussion and

recommendations within Chapter 2 about improving strategic planning. The challenge is

26

See „Mission and Guiding Principles‟, The Whitlam Institute home page (2012), accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.whitlam.org/about_us2/mission 27

Voice Project (2012), UWS MyVoice Staff Engagement Survey: Executive Summary, 4 May 2012, downloaded 24 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/people_and_culture/opc/working_at_uws/myvoice_uws_staff_engagement_survey/myvoice_faqs

http://www.whitlam.org/about_us2/mission




around managing community expectations while not inhibiting the ability of University staff to

openly engage in projects of importance. This should be the subject of a dialogue with the

staff who are leading proponents in UWS engagement practice.

Recommendation 7

The University should engage in an institutional dialogue about

improving the planning and focus of engagement in a way that

does not reduce the ability of staff to engage in projects of

importance.

3.4 Relationship management

An issue that arose during the Review was the way in which the community „finds its way

into‟ the University. The Panel notes from external submissions that there is confusion about

where and how to contact UWS with a new engagement proposal, and this view was

confirmed by several external partners during the visit. The Panel considers that the

„Gateway‟ project has the potential to resolve this issue, but that it should be settled as a

priority. The Panel recognises in this respect that there is at least one other University

already engaging actively with GWS institutions, and that their „shopfront‟ arrangements for

this are relatively sophisticated compared to UWS 28 . There are other examples of

Universities making good progress on simplifying the „way in‟ for external stakeholders29. A

guiding principle in addressing this should be a minimum of bureaucracy and barriers. While

technology could be a key enabler in matching external and internal contacts, the overall

emphasis from the community perspective should be on the ability to seamlessly contact key

individuals who will manage the contact process to a suitable outcome. The Panel considers

it necessary to further develop the UWS website in order to facilitate engagement with

external stakeholders, including potential industry partners.

Recommendation 8

As a matter of priority UWS should institute clear and seamless

arrangements for intending engagement partners to make contact

with the University and for effective management of their

proposals.

28

See the University of Technology‟s „Shopfront‟ at http://www.shopfront.uts.edu.au/, accessed 15 October 2012 29

For example, see the University of Brighton‟s „Community University Partnership Programme (CUPP)‟ at http://www.brighton.ac.uk/cupp/contact-cupp/helpdesk.html; and the University of Newcastle‟s „Engage Newcastle‟ at http://www.newcastle.edu.au/engage/#engage - all accessed 15 October 2012. Also see Tufts University‟s Community Outreach Portal at http://outreach.tufts.edu/ accessed 11 November 2012.

http://www.shopfront.uts.edu.au/

http://www.brighton.ac.uk/cupp/contact-cupp/helpdesk.html

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/engage/#engage

http://outreach.tufts.edu/


From an outward-facing perspective the Panel formed the view that the campus provosts are

to all intents and purposes the public face of the individual campuses. The Panel considers

that these arrangements work quite effectively within the current approach to regional

engagement. However in a stronger regional leadership paradigm, the Panel considers there

would be advantage in having this responsibility exercised by staff with greater responsibility

and authority in relation to campus administration and engagement matters. This would

imply provosts being members of the University Executive or employed at Dean of School

level. The Panel considers that it would be important for University representatives to be in a

position where they are able to respond and commit on community engagement matters as

and when they arise, rather than have to refer everything to „head office‟. This approach

would also facilitate improved planning and responsiveness at the local level. The Panel

notes that the majority of University Executive is concentrated on a campus without

students, and that the Executive would wish to be mindful of its potential isolation when

developing, executing and sustaining broad based engagement across UWS.

Recommendation 9

In a stronger regional leadership of engagement context, UWS

should review its current arrangements for Provosts as the face of

campus interaction with local communities.

The University has identified in its submission the need to more effectively manage

relationships as they mature and come to an end, which the Panel endorses, including the

database and protocols proposals. The Panel agrees to the need for an effective,

institutional-wide customer relationship management (CRM) database.

Affirmation 4

The proposal to acquire an institutional-wide customer relationship

management (CRM) database.

Over and above the database issue, the Panel observes that effectively managing

relationships as they mature and come to an end is part of the wider issue of relationship

management which is canvassed in this section of the report. With respect to the proposed

schema for the management of relationships at Chapter 7 of the submission30, the Panel

respectfully suggests that key partnerships be managed through senior contacts, in a model

of a stronger University leadership profile for engagement within the region. For example,

each senior executive might be allocated responsibility to actively engage with particular

stakeholders or contacts in a centre or industry. These key partnerships are likely best

30

UWS (2012), „University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement‟, see Figure 7.1 (Relationship Development and Management Institutional Partnerships), page 115, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/INC3407_EngagementReview_Booklet_LR.pdf_8Nov.pdf

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/INC3407_EngagementReview_Booklet_LR.pdf_8Nov.pdf

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/INC3407_EngagementReview_Booklet_LR.pdf_8Nov.pdf


managed at University Executive or Dean of School level, and could be supported by a

dedicated business development service role.

Recommendation 10

The overall management of key engagement partnerships be

undertaken through senior contacts at the University Executive or

Dean of School level.


Chapter 4: Partnerships

In this chapter the Panel examines the framework and approach to mutual benefit between

the University and its engagement partners. The Panel also reflects on the extent to which

the current settings are likely to build sustainable mutual benefit. The Panel concludes the

chapter with observations about the current approach to evaluation of engagement, including

its adequacy within the higher impact strategic model discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.

4.1 Community and regional partnerships

As discussed in Chapter 1, the Panel considers that the partnerships the University has built

with the community and region are impressive in terms of their breadth and depth. The sheer

scale of these is reflective of institutional commitment. The University submission provides

numerous testaments from partners about the benefits their organisations receive from

relationships with UWS, and this was confirmed in discussions conducted during the visit.

The Panel believes that the approach outlined in the operational model for engagement has

contributed substantially to the establishment, nurturing and growth of relationships. In

particular the goal of inclusion of all interactions within a model of developing mutuality and

reciprocity over time has worked effectively.

The Panel discussed in Chapter 1 the importance of the University‟s joining with other

organisations in GWS in order to advocate for the region. While this necessitates an

institution-wide approach, it should be stressed that each member of the University‟s

Executive must play a crucial role in leading this activity. Such involvement could include

membership of a regional body or board, as well as regular liaison with state officials,

politicians and leading business people who are particularly interested in GWS.

The Panel is aware that an important consideration for community and regional partnerships

is the University‟s engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and

notes from the University‟s submission that GWS has the “highest number of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander persons compared to any other metropolitan region in Australia” (page

103). The University has made progress in this area of engagement, including in a very

Term of Reference 3

The University’s engagement practices are building sustainable community and regional partnerships which have mutual

benefit


practical way by increasing the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders employed at

UWS from 15 in 2007 to 58 in 2012. The Panel notes that a goal in the University‟s Making

the Difference strategic plan, under the „create a superior and engaged learning experience‟

pillar, is to “implement a comprehensive Indigenous education strategy” 31 . Moreover,

institutional KPIs relate directly to improving Indigenous participation rates in university study

at UWS. In its submission the University presented a number of examples of engagement

with this under-represented community, including the Indigenous School Student Mentoring

Program (ISSMP) (which includes the Heartbeat project and the Rural Indigenous Students

Visit Program), and the Indigenous Health Outcomes Patient Evaluation (IHOPE) project. In

the case of ISSMP, it is noteworthy that – in addition to supporting Indigenous secondary

school students across GWS – potentially any UWS student can benefit by becoming

exposed to the barriers being faced by Indigenous students in education while also gaining a

deeper understanding of Indigenous Australian culture. In terms of engaged research into

Indigenous issues, the Panel was impressed that UWS is the most successful university at

attracting Australian Research Council (ARC) Indigenous Discovery grants.

During its visit to the University, the Panel had the opportunity to meet representatives of the

UWS Indigenous Advisory Council and the UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Employment and Engagement Advisory Board – including Elders on Campus. In addition, a

comprehensive external submission was received from the UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board which cited an “increase in

employment and training for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders” as a direct benefit of the

University‟s engagement activities, while raising various suggestions for improvement32. The

Panel was impressed with the goodwill expressed by those Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islanders met during the visit, particularly in terms of their willingness to support students

and potential students. The Panel did note tensions relating to organising frameworks of the

governing committees, and considers this an issue that the University should address as a

matter of priority and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. In addition, there was a

desire on the part of Elders to be more systematically engaged with the University and with

students. Ideas emerged in the discussion indicating the additional value Elders might add.

For example, Elders raised the idea of a special Welcome to Country for Indigenous

students from outside local country both to formalise their relocation and to indicate support

available to them from within the local community.

Commendation 7

The commitment to improving both the academic and non-

academic achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

members of the community, including development of an array of

targeted engagement activities that have resulted in increased

participation rates in higher education as well as increased

employment at UWS.

31

UWS Strategy and Plan 2010-2015: Making the Difference, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/about_uws/uws/mission_goals_strategic_plan/uws_making_the_difference_strategy 32

External submission 44

http://www.uws.edu.au/about_uws/uws/mission_goals_strategic_plan/uws_making_the_difference_strategy



Notwithstanding the successes achieved in developing community and regional

partnerships, the Panel considers that the current organic approach whereby individual staff

members develop these relationships within a model where there is limited recognition for

this activity in workload terms has limitations for the University‟s overall leadership, strategy

and organisation of its engagement impact over the long haul. As discussed in Chapters 1

and 2, the Panel is arguing for a more deliberate, strategic and planned approach to

community and regional engagement as the step change for taking the engagement to the

next level of sophistication and impact, recognising the excellent base of expertise and

relationships already in place on which to build and without which a step up in approach and

activity is unlikely to be achieved.

In its submission to the Review the University has identified the need for greater cohesion

and planning and for optimising current resources that are already involved in engagement.

This is affirmed by the Panel in Chapter 1 which discusses the strategic settings for

engagement. There is, however, a sustainability dimension to this question. The Panel

considers that without a clear frame for engagement, projects may become diffuse to the

point where they lose alignment with regional priorities (as previously noted, currently only

65% are aligned). Moreover there is a risk factor associated with the extent to which projects

are dependent on the good will and commitment of individual staff members. All of these

considerations point to the desirability of a more structured approach with an appropriate

resourcing model.

That said, the Panel wishes to commend the University on the quality of the partnerships

which have been developed over the past five years in particular, while endorsing the

University‟s having recognised the need for a more systematic and planned approach. The

Panel notes however that this is an issue of sustainability as much as one of cohesion and

focus.

Commendation 8

The quality and depth of engagement partnerships which is evident

in the indicative case studies presented by the University in

support of the Review.

Recommendation 11

The University develop and implement processes for ensuring the

sustainability of its engagement activities.


4.2 Mutual benefit

In its submission to the Review, the University proposes that in its Operational Framework

for Community and Regional Engagement, mutual benefit is assessed by the community and

the University as partners not on an individual project basis, but by weighing the balance of

benefit over time and multiple exchanges. The Panel believes this is a practical and realistic

approach in the regional context, and the positive feedback received from partners during

the Review suggests that there is a strong sense of reciprocity involved. Certainly in the

case study examples in the University‟s submission, and where partners who presented at

UWS EngageLab met with the Panel, this dynamic was evident.

In its submission to the Review, the University discussed evaluation of its engagement

strategy and activity, identifying this as an area for improvement. The Panel notes that

evaluation is currently based on the sense of mutual benefit which flows from partner

feedback during projects and activities, from student success in units of engaged learning,

and from the percentage of school students involved in University outreach programs who

go on to attend university. While these are appropriate measures at a micro level, the Panel

notes that the University is examining options for evaluating more broadly impact at the

community/regional level. A key opportunity area, which would be of joint institutional and

regional interest, is the extent and impact of lifelong learning where the University and the

community in partnership define the elements that would apply within a GWS regional

context.

Following the discussion in Chapters 1 and 2, the Panel considers that the question of

evaluation in a macro sense should be examined in the context of the need for a stronger

UWS regional engagement identity and purpose. In a stronger community leadership model,

the University would be well placed to identify the focus and priority required of its

engagement activity, and with regional partners, to identify the indicators of success on

which activities should be jointly evaluated. The Panel notes that while employment is one of

the five key priorities for the region, the current suite of engagement activities includes only

ten (less than 5%) which are identified as being in the area of regional employment. The

Panel proposes a comprehensive and integrated evaluation model where the five elements

of University engagement (i.e., learning, research, Schools and student, and civic

engagement) are evaluated in terms of their contribution to regional priorities within a shared

purpose regional context. This could also apply to the support of local enterprises and Non-

Government Organisations (NGOs) in the work, leadership and procurement of activities of

the divisional units.

While the Panel did not reflect in detail on potential models for evaluation, it concurs with the

University‟s proposal in its submission that the model should focus more on strategic

impact/outcome indicators than on micro-process indicators.

Affirmation 5

The University’s proposal for developing a more robust evaluation

framework for engagement which is linked to regional priorities.


Chapter 5: Engaged Learning, Teaching and Research

In this chapter the Panel considers the concepts of engaged learning, engaged teaching and

engaged research as practiced institutionally, including the broad issues of strategic

alignment, performance and measurement. The issues raised in Chapter 2 also relate to

further strategic development by the University in this area. It is acknowledged that further

strengthening of engaged learning, teaching, and research activities at the University will

have human resource implications in terms of operational processes (including recruitment,

training, and recognition), as well as other operational implications such as communications,

and these issues are addressed in Chapters 7 and 3 respectively.

5.1 Strategic focus

The Panel acknowledges the University‟s integration of engagement within learning,

teaching, research, and institutional strategies, as outlined in the University‟s strategic plan

Making the Difference: 2010-201533. The Panel also recognises that community engagement

is embedded across the three strategic pillars of the plan34. It is noteworthy that the concepts

of engaged learning and teaching, and engaged research have evolved progressively at the

University over the past decade, with strategies developed following the 2005 internal review

of community engagement in particular placing greater emphasis in these areas. This

evolution is also apparent across the higher education sector in Australia, as highlighted by

the University when citing the 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education report, which

stated that “engaged teaching and research should be the norm in universities”35. Growth of

the engaged learning/teaching/research movement is also increasingly evident

33


The three strategic pillars of the plan relate to learning and teaching, research, and operations 35

Bradley, D.B., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., Scales, B., (2008), Review of Australian Higher Education, Commonwealth of Australia, page 169, downloaded 29 September 2012, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/Higher_Education_Review_one%20document_02.pdf, cited in the University Submission, page 17

Term of Reference 4

The concepts of engagement are realised in and integrated across learning & teaching, research and institutional

strategies



http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/Higher_Education_Review_one%20document_02.pdf



internationally, as manifest in the vision statement of The Talloires Network, an organisation

dedicated to building a global movement of engaged universities:

“We believe that higher education institutions do not exist in isolation from

society, nor from the communities in which they are located. The Talloires

Network envisions universities around the world as a vibrant and dynamic

force in their societies, incorporating civic engagement and community

service into their research and teaching mission.” (The Talloires Network

vision statement36, emphasis ours)

As highlighted in Chapter 2, engaged learning, teaching and research are firmly linked to the

University‟s mission of serving GWS, and the Panel acknowledges that “UWS has sought to

respond to the needs of the region through its core activities of teaching and research”37.

This was reinforced in findings of the 2007 AUQA audit which stated that “strategic

engagement with GWS regional communities is a distinguishing feature of UWS through

regional participation, engaged research, and engaged learning”38.

The Panel was impressed with the array of case studies presented by the University in its

submission to the Review, noting that these represented a well balanced and clear

illustration of current best practice in engaged learning and teaching and engaged research

across the institution. The depth and breadth of these activities – as well as the sheer

quantity of activities being undertaken – suggest a deeply ingrained and highly successful

engagement strategy, and one which must place UWS as a leader in this area amongst

Australian universities. The Panel congratulates the University on the broad range of

engagement opportunities that are being undertaken across the institution. However, the

Panel considers that – as noted in the Chapter 2 – there is currently a lack of strategic

oversight or effective dedicated leadership and coordination of these activities, which are

often dependent on the energy and goodwill of individuals, and this was highlighted in the

internal and external submissions to the Review (see Recommendation 1).

Commendation 9

The extent to which engaged learning and engaged research are

manifest in current UWS engagement projects and activities.

The Panel notes with interest the University‟s hypothesis that a positive correlation exists

between performance of current research concentrations and associated teaching

programs39. This tends to confirm the integrated nature of engaged learning, teaching and

research, and the synergies that can and do exist between the three. Staff met by the Panel

36

The Talloires Network homepage, accessed 7 August 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/ 37

UWS, (2012), „University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement‟, pg.21, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/university-submission 38

Australian Universities Quality Agency (2007), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – January 2007‟, page 4, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/7060/Final_UWS_AUQA_Report.pdf, 39

See “Relationship between research concentration and teaching program performance”, Table 8.1, page 122, University Submission to the Review (note typographical error: should be Table 8.2)

http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/



http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/7060/Final_UWS_AUQA_Report.pdf


reinforced this view when referring to a “blurring” of engaged teaching and engaged

research, and the Panel encourages the University to further develop strategies that address

and refine the integrated and complex nature of the relationship between engaged learning,

teaching and research.

5.2 Engaged learning

The University stated in its submission that “there is clear alignment between the University‟s

MTD and the UWS Learning and Teaching Plan as it relates to the University‟s commitment

to engaged learning” (page 67), and notes that this commitment is also reflected in two of

the six UWS Graduate Attributes40. The Panel supports this assessment. Moreover, the

Panel notes the affirmation relating to engaged learning that was received by the University

in the AUQA 2011 report (“Affirmation 7: UWS‟s inclusion of engaged learning experiences

in all its courses, which should be developed and refined after review of the scope of its

concept of engaged learning, is affirmed”41).

In its submission to the Review, the University presented an impressive array of case studies

and examples that encapsulate engaged learning at UWS. These covered service learning

(including the School of Law‟s Parramatta Community Justice Clinic (PCJC); the School of

Medicine‟s Lifeline Macarthur Project and Paediatrics Community Schools Program; the

School of Social Science and Psychology‟s Richmond Fellowship NSW Project; and the

School of Education‟s Classrooms without Borders and Refugee Action Support and

Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation (ALNF) Project; capstone projects (such as

the School of Humanities and Communication Arts‟ Professional Design Studio („The Rabbit

Hole‟); the School of Business‟ international marketing capstone unit; and the School of

Science and Health‟s Bachelor of Natural Science field projects); as well as

practicum/placements (for example, the School of Nursing and Midwifery‟s clinical

placements). Engaged learning activities at the University are diverse in nature and reflect a

number of typologies. The Panel recognises that the examples presented are not by any

means exhaustive, and commend the University on the breadth of engaged learning

activities being undertaken (see Commendation 5).

A pertinent strategic goal of the University is to “embed engaged learning in every

program”42, and the Panel notes the recently launched „create@UWS – curriculum renewal

for excellence and transformative education@UWS initiative‟43, outlined in the University‟s

40

“applies knowledge through intellectual inquiry in professional or applied contexts”, and “brings knowledge to life through responsible engagement and appreciation of diversity in an evolving world” – see UWS Graduate Attributes, accessed 21 September 2012 from http://policies.uws.edu.au/download.php?id=189 41

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, pp. 10-11, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. Note that this report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) 42


UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014, page 2, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review

http://policies.uws.edu.au/download.php?id=189






Learning and Teaching Plan. More than a decade ago, the Vice-Chancellor Professor Reid

wrote of the University‟s intention to “seek ways to enrich the student experience by bringing

research and practical experience of the world they will enter into the curriculum”, and the

Panel recognises that the University has made considerable progress in this respect. In their

international study of university engagement, Watson and his colleagues (2011)44 noted that

the University at that time was well on its way to developing experiential learning in every

course of study. The Panel of the AUQA 2011 audit referred to a stocktake undertaken in

January 2011 to establish the extent to which engaged learning was included in courses,

describing the results as “impressive”45. Data concerning the current proportion of units with

evidence of engaged learning was not presented to the Panel, although it is acknowledged

that such measures are currently being developed and fine-tuned. The Panel affirms the

University‟s intention to “build experiential learning (e.g., service learning, volunteering) into

all undergraduate courses beyond that required for clinical and practicum placements in the

core curriculum”46, and its introduction of a performance measure as being the “proportion of

units with evidence of engaged learning” 47.

Affirmation 6

The proposal to build experiential learning into all undergraduate

courses (acknowledging the very good practice already in place

within some disciplines).

In its submission, the University acknowledges that “there would be merit in articulating the

range of engaged learning typologies” (page 67). The Panel agrees. The report goes on to

suggest that “it would also be beneficial to define the expected outcomes of engaged

learning activities and to evaluate these in order to build stronger organisational cohesion in

this area. This could be further augmented by a more systematic approach to capacity

building for academic staff with respect to strategies for embedding and evaluating engaged

learning in the curriculum.” (page 67). During discussions with the Pro Vice-Chancellor

(Education) and members of her senior management team, the Panel appreciated the frank

feedback received concerning areas perceived to require improvement. This included an

acknowledgement that, whilst there is much successful activity being undertaken, engaged

learning is not yet systemic at UWS. These views were further reiterated by many of the staff

met during the Panel visit. The Panel observed that, while it is intended that engaged

44

Watson, D., Hollister, R., Babcock, E., Stroud, E.s., (2011), „The engaged university: International perspectives on civic engagement‟, Routledge, New York pp. 58-60. 45

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, pp. 10-11, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. Note that this report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) 46

UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014, objective 2, strategy 10, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review 47

Performance measure 2, Strategy 10, UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review





learning be managed within the academic standards framework 48 , there was a lack of

evidence of such a process, and no mention of engaged learning in the framework.

Affirmation 7

The proposal to identify typologies of engaged learning and employ

these systemically within curriculum design.

5.3 Engaged teaching

Unlike the concept of engaged learning, the definition of which is addressed in considerable

detail in the University‟s submission, engaged teaching lacks a clear working definition in the

University, and is not fully embedded within institutional practice. The University

acknowledges this in its submission (pages 67-8), where it recognises that “broad principles

for developing an engaged approach to teaching are well established in the literature”, and

goes on to list relevant focus areas in need of development in order to embed engaged

teaching into institutional practice.

Recommendation 12

More concerted attention be given to developing the concepts and

frameworks for engaged teaching within UWS.

While engaged teaching can perhaps be seen as the weak link in the engaged

learning/teaching/research triptych, the Panel recognises that a solid base exists on which to

inform engaged teaching in a practical sense. For example, it was evident to the Panel that

the importance of involving the community in matters relating to academic teaching has long

been recognised by the University. As far back as 1999, in her paper on UWS and its

communities, Vice-Chancellor Reid discussed the importance of the then new idea for UWS

of establishing external advisory councils, noting that “the Advisory Councils could provide

an effective and purposeful link between UWS, the academic communities, the professions

and the communities that make up the region, and places and people beyond”49 . It is

understood by the Panel that such councils, currently known as Academic Advisory

Committees, now support each of the nine Schools by advising on curriculum design

standards and relevance of courses, as well as touching on broader issues that would

“facilitate networking with business, industry and community figures to leverage consultancy

ventures, foster support for the University, attract donations for scholarships, provide

48


Reid, J., (1999), “UWS and its Communities – a time for change‟, University of Western Sydney, pg 3, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/background-documentation



http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/background-documentation

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/background-documentation


opportunities for research collaborations, and provide vocational experience for student

placements” 50 While such engagement of the community (including employers) in the

development of the University‟s teaching programs is an important element of engaged

learning, the Panel believes the intelligence from prospective employers can also provide

important context for engaged teaching. In this regard the Panel supports the University‟s

intention to “strengthen the strategic focus and contributions of External Advisory

Committees”51.

5.4 Engaged research

The Panel acknowledges that UWS is a research-led institution52, with explicit goals to

“develop focused, relevant and world-class engaged research”53 while actively increasing the

“number and concentration of funded research partnerships”54. The latter goal is correctly

identified by the University as being essential to the development of successful engaged

research. As noted in the research strategic plan, engaged research is dependent on the

development of research partnerships and, as such, is aligned with the values of an

engaged university55. In its submission the University highlights “the role that linkage grants

play in effective community and regional engagement over the longer term, and the need for

the University to improve focus and performance in this area” (page 121).

Achievements in engaged research, particularly in a regional context, were also identified by

the 2007 AUQA Panel when it stated “in engaged research, UWS has an appropriate set of

KPIs and notable successes. It is consistently among the top five national performers in

terms of the success rate of ARC Linkage grants, and has secured significant grants for

research in rural industries on plant, food and water sciences. Most of these ARC Linkage

projects are with partners located in Greater Western Sydney” 56.

In its submission to the Review the University presented an impressive and interesting range

of case studies within the engaged research realm. These included examples from research

institutes (Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment‟s Western Sydney Insect Infestation

research; Marcs Institute‟s BabyLab; and Institute of Culture and Society‟s Hot Science

research), as well as from the Schools and their research centres (CompleMED‟s Chinese

herbal medicines research; the Centre for Health and Research‟s IHOPE project; and the

50

UWS External Advisory Committee Policy, 1 May 2012, accessed 4 October 2012, from http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.status.php?id=00141 51


UWS Strategy and Plan 2010 – 2015: Making the Difference, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/about_uws/uws/mission_goals_strategic_plan/uws_making_the_difference_strategy 53


UWS Research Plan 2012-2014, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review 55

UWS Research Plan 2012-2014, page 5, accessed 21 September 2012 from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review 56

Australian Universities Quality Agency (2007), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – January 2007‟, page 4, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/7060/Final_UWS_AUQA_Report.pdf,

http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.status.php?id=00141








http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/7060/Final_UWS_AUQA_Report.pdf


Urban Research Centre‟s Building Arabic Businesses study). The Panel is concerned that

the University‟s submission was silent on research students however, whose voice is

necessary as the University refines its engaged research strategies.

Recommendation 13

The University develop and implement processes to ensure that

engagement permeates programs for Higher Degree by Research

(HDR) students. This could potentially include opportunities for

exchange with other Talloires Network members globally57.

The Panel had the opportunity to meet a number of staff and external partners involved in

various research projects, and heard that engaged research is a particularly labour intensive

endeavour – both for the University and for the external partner. This is an issue pertinent to

recent MyVoice survey results suggesting that “many staff felt they did not have the time and

opportunities for community engagement”58 . Some researchers met by the Panel were

critical of funding, recognition, and University procedures (including innovation and legal

services). However, when challenged for examples of better practice elsewhere, it was

agreed that „UWS is better than most‟. This issue of recognition is dealt with in Chapter 7.

The University has developed over 1500 engaged research partnerships since 2007, but this

growth has been largely organic. The next step is to be more proactive, and sound

suggestions for doing this were presented by the University in its submission (page 98).

While recognising the many achievements in engaged research, the Panel agrees with the

University‟s assertion in its submission on the need for “a more deliberate and planned

engaged research strategy” that would “provide greater institutional direction for engaged

research and also better position the University for collaborative grant funding” (page 98).

Such a strategy should aim to strengthen the international reach and focus of engaged

research, in alignment with institutional goals of producing “world-class engaged research”.

One Dean met by the Panel referred to focus group findings within his School indicating that

outsiders saw UWS as a ghettoising institution („we teach you to teach kids in Western

Sydney‟) yet to being completely unaware of the important engaged research work being

undertaken by the University on a national and international level. Refining the engaged

research strategy will allow the University to move to a higher level of sophistication as part

of its overall engagement strategy, and should also include effective and expanded

strategies for improving marketing of the research successes of UWS (both within the

institution and externally). This view was supported by management and researchers met by

the Panel.

Affirmation 8

The decision to embed engaged research activity within a stronger

strategic framework for engaged research.

57

Talloires Network Members, accessed 3 November 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-network-members/ 58

Cited in University submission to the Review, page 25



Chapter 6: Students

This chapter builds on the Panel‟s comments on engaged learning in the previous chapter,

focusing more specifically on students and their experience with the University – as related

to engagement – including their experiences both prior to enrolment and after graduation.

This approach aligns with the student lifecycle framework presented by the University in its

submission59.

6.1 Engagement with potential students

Engagement with potential students presents a significant opportunity for the University to

influence views within GWS in particular and of higher education in general, and is aligned to

Australian Federal Government strategies of increasing participation in higher education60.

The Panel notes that the University was commended as part of the 2011 AUQA review on its

“extensive programs for engagement with schools and prospective students in the Greater

Western Sydney region”61, and was impressed with the extensive suite of engagement

activities presented in the University‟s submission that specifically target secondary school

students. This influence can potentially extend to the students‟ families. For example, the

Panel notes that a goal of the successful Fast Forward program is to “promote the benefits

of lifelong learning, vis-a-vis life opportunities, to students and their families”62. Benefits of

59

UWS, (2012), „University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement‟, see „The Student Experience: 5 stages to connect, retain and engage‟, pp 72-3, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/university-submission 60

Australian Government, (2008), „Review of Australian Higher Education – Final Report‟, December, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/ResourcesAndPublications/ReviewOfAustralianHigherEducation/Pages/ReviewOfAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx 61

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, commendation 8, page 9, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. Note that this report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). 62

University submission to the Review, page 46

Term of Reference 5

Engagement is a focus for scholarly practice, and engaged learning is manifest within the experience of students


http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/ResourcesAndPublications/ReviewOfAustralianHigherEducation/Pages/ReviewOfAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx




engagement programs with potential students also serve to shape the experience of current

students that become involved in the programs (as mentors, for example).

Students met by the Panel (from participating high schools as well as from UWS) spoke

highly of their experiences with these programs, and of the many benefits received. These

early experiences with UWS create both an important and positive transition into the

University. Some suggestions received from students involved in these programs include:

engaging with high school students earlier than Year 9; better promotion of the Fast Forward

program (which some viewed as being undervalued by the students themselves); and, in

direct alignment with the strategic repositioning recommended in this report, focusing “less

on disadvantage and more on opportunity”.

Commendation 10

The impressive results being achieved within Greater Western

Sydney secondary schools through the University’s Schools

Engagement Program.

6.2 Student engagement

The Panel notes that „primacy of the student experience‟ is entrenched in the University‟s

strategic plan 63 , and that an institutional goal is to “embed engaged learning in every

program”64 (which includes launching initiatives such as create@UWS65). The Panel affirms

the University‟s intention to “build experiential learning (e.g., service learning, volunteering)

into all undergraduate courses beyond that required for clinical and practicum placements in

the core curriculum”66, noting that the proposed performance measure of this will be the

“proportion of units with evidence of engaged learning” 67 . Engagement can impact the

University‟s positioning in the market, and it is noteworthy that a number of students met by

the Panel cited the practical focus of programs as being a key reason for choosing UWS

over its competitors.

The Panel was impressed that “each year somewhere between 800–1200 UWS students

increased their personal and professional skills by assisting with schools engagement

63



UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014, page 2, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review 66


Performance measure 2, Strategy 10, UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review









activities on a voluntary, academic service learning, or paid casual basis”68, and that this

number increases significantly when considering the full suite of engagement activities

currently available to students. In its submission, the University presented a number of

excellent case studies as examples of student engagement activities. These included „for

credit‟ activities such as Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) within the School of Business,

and Experiential Learning in Communities (ELC) within the School of Education. There is

also an impressive mix of extra-curricular engagement opportunities available to students

across the institution, including SMExcellence (which supports small to medium enterprises

in the region); Indigenous School Mentoring Program (through which UWS students provide

one-on-one mentoring to the region‟s Indigenous high school students); cadet programs for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; as well as the highly successful Peer Assisted

Study Sessions (PASS) program in which students positively influence the academic

outcomes of less experienced students. On the latter example, the Panel notes that the 2011

AUQA panel commended the University on the PASS program and its valuable contribution

to both student learning and retention 69 . Furthermore, students met by the Panel also

confirmed the highly positive nature of PASS, both in terms of improving academic results as

well as in providing a rich and valuable development experience for the student mentors.

Somewhat ironically, the Panel heard that many students were choosing to attend PASS

sessions rather than attend lectures.

As highlighted in section 5.1, there is a need to strengthen the strategic focus of these

activities, and this is dependent on the University‟s developing a more solid analysis of the

programs themselves, including analysis of the students for whom they are intended. This

was echoed in comments made by the Vice-Chancellor Professor Reid, who raised with the

Panel her desire that the University develop a better understanding of its students, as well as

better support them to become self-consciously involved in activities such as volunteering

that lead to an increased understanding of other communities. A related desire of the Vice-

Chancellor is that UWS students become more highly visible in the community as a direct

result of their engagement activities.

Affirmation 9

Identification of the need for a more precise understanding of how

student commitment and interest in their communities can be

translated to engagement activities that are attractive and which

they regard as adding value to their University experience.

Students met by the Panel provided valuable feedback on their experience at UWS. There,

was overwhelming agreement that community engagement „does matter‟, and that an

68


Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, pg 33, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf. Note that this report was published by TEQSA in order to complete the cycle of quality audits initiated by the former Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).





important opportunity exists for the University to take on a greater leadership role in the

region. Some students spoke of their desire for a „richer experience‟ on campus, and of the

changing nature of the „university experience‟ due to technological advancements that are

increasingly allowing students to download content in lieu of attending lectures. Students

appeared to appreciate the unique challenges of a multi-campus university, noting that the

student experience can be quite different from campus to campus. Some students were

critical of overall communications (including the new website), and by what they saw as a

lack of transparency on key data such as assessment outcomes and employability.

Predictably, a major concern affecting their experience at UWS related to travelling to/from

campus, and the Panel notes that this problem could be alleviated with the introduction of

blended learning strategies, with students also commenting on their desire for lectures to be

available online. Another concern raised with the Panel was the lack of child care facilities

available to students on Parramatta campus. Overall, there was strong recognition by

students of the value of participating in engagement activities within the community. This

was supported by staff met by the Panel who observed that the University is effectively

helping students to „enrich their CV‟ by making engagement activities available to them.

While measurement of engagement outcomes is addressed within Chapter 4, it is

noteworthy that academics met by the Panel emphasised that employability is an important

outcome.

In terms of improving the overall student experience at UWS, many students (and alumni)

told the Panel that they want more support in developing academic writing and professional

skills (suggesting, for example, introduction of a first-year compulsory subject in academic

writing), and that this could be a critical success factor relating to student retention. One

alumnus commented that, once students have been accepted into the University, there is a

moral obligation to provide support to ensure that they are able to succeed. PASS is one

program that is directly addressing this, and the University should consider other

opportunities to offer greater support in both academic writing and English language skills

that will directly impact student learning and student retention. Similar to PASS, these

initiatives could become an important element of the University‟s engagement strategy (for

example, by involving volunteer retirees in the community) and can serve to further

differentiate UWS from its competitors.

The Panel notes the University‟s desire to make service learning more deliberate across the

institution (once again, representing a potential point of differentiation) and move beyond

academic indicators of success. This would incorporate volunteering, civic engagement, and

involvement in student societies. Staff met by the Panel spoke of a perceived desire on the

part of students to become more involved in their communities, and this view was confirmed

by the students and alumni met by the Panel. In discussions with the Panel, the Pro Vice-

Chancellor (Students) observed that service learning is not well developed at Australian

universities and, despite indications that it would be highly valued by UWS students,

embedding service learning across the institution may present challenges. Nevertheless,

there is a clear intention on the part of the University to better prepare students for success

(using service learning or work integrated learning), and a strong recognition that strategies

around this need to be developed.

The Panel considers that development of a student portfolio, where the University

authenticates learning outside of academic programs, is a further opportunity for the

University to address in its engagement strategy. The Panel notes the existence of an


e-portfolio facility on Career-Hub (an online student portal available at a number of

Australian universities) that allows students to upload any engaged learning (including

service learning) activities, maintain their content, and use this as a reference when applying

for jobs. However, the documentation uploaded is not verified by the University, and the

Panel has been advised that work is underway to develop an alternative solution as part of

the University‟s Cube strategy70. This will capture and validate students‟ extra-curricular

activity, and will incorporate an e-portfolio system which will be supported by an institutional

policy and practice framework.

Commendation 11

The work being undertaken as part of the University’s Cube

strategy to develop an e-portfolio for students that allows for

University authentication of learning outside of academic

programs.

Perhaps one of the more „big picture‟ ideas to be raised with the Panel was that of

strengthening the concept of agency within all courses across the University. By helping

students to develop a sense of agency, the University can instil in students the confidence

and belief that they are able to initiate change and make a valuable contribution to their

communities. It was suggested that much of the messaging about the UWS student cohort

could be framed more positively, and that the University experience should inter alia „show

them how good they are‟ and encourage them to consider aspiring to leadership roles as

part of their future. This relates to the issues raised in Chapter 4 concerning the need to

focus on outcomes and impacts rather than on inputs and processes, and the role that

positive messages play in this.

Finally, in terms of supporting international students, the Panel heard that there is currently

untapped potential to more formally engage domestic with international students from similar

backgrounds. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement and International) gave the example of

Indian students. With over six hundred domestic students who were born in India, this is a

potentially welcoming group for the institution‟s four hundred Indian international students.

This is an opportunity for engagement that is currently not being utilised, and which has the

potential to impact retention rates.

6.3 Engagement beyond graduation

Students, staff, and alumni met by the Panel all raised the importance of the University‟s

developing ongoing relationships with students that extend well beyond graduation, including

the value of preparing the way for long-term relationships by engaging with them well before

graduation. The Panel notes that alumni was “not addressed in detail” in the University‟s

70

Proposed „my portfolio‟ application, which is part of ongoing student lifecycle program work


submission71, yet considers the issue of alumni to be an essential element in the University‟s

future engagement strategy (and the importance of developing a long-term understanding of

alumni is discussed in Chapter 2). The Panel observes that the University has significantly

expanded its alumni database in recent years (from less than 10,000 contactable addresses

in 2008 to more than 60,000 today) and that over 1,300 alumni are currently enrolled with

the University as volunteers72 (representing an important and possibly untapped resource for

the University‟s engagement activities). Furthermore, in terms of resourcing, it is noteworthy

that staffing levels for alumni relations are lower at UWS compared to many other

universities in Australia (with three staff at UWS compared to more than ten staff in at least

eight other universities)73.

The Panel appreciates that strengthening the alumni function requires investment. However,

it also believes that the potential for impact beyond the institution is great, as alumni can

become engaged contributors in the communities in which they reside, thus amplifying the

engagement outputs of the University.

The Panel considers that the University‟s progress towards developing a more sophisticated

knowledge and understanding of its alumni is highly opportune, and that this would likely

necessitate further investment in database technology in order to be better able to track

„touches‟ (such as recording how many sign onto a podcast lecture, for example). Such

tracking technology is not only relevant to alumni, but can also be applied throughout the

student lifecycle. This is confirmed by comments from staff who identified the need to track

students involved in the many engagement programs being run by the University – including

those offered to secondary school students – noting that such tools are currently not

available to them. This is an issue closely related to the development of a CRM database

(see Affirmation 4).

The Panel heard positive comments from alumni concerning the perceived richness of UWS

graduates, largely seen to be the result of excellent professional preparation received during

their programs. Several alumni referred to how they had returned to the University to tutor or

otherwise work with students, and their desire to help current students.

The Panel believes that tackling the alumni issue represents an important „next step‟ in the

University‟s strategic development, and emphasises the crucial link that alumni presents in

developing any life-long learning strategies. While the University has touched on life-long

learning as part of some of its programs74, the Panel sees benefit in expanding this to a

more strategic level. In Australia, the sense of life-long learning beyond undergraduate/

postgraduate is largely underdeveloped, and represents untapped potential both for the

University and the region. Development of a life-long learning strategy could incorporate the

accreditation of courses with employers, provision of courses by remote access/blended

learning, and would ultimately result in greater exposure of UWS in the community as well as

development of the people of GWS.

71


Internal submission 27 (received from the Alumni Relations Manager) 73

Internal submission 27 (received from the Alumni Relations Manager) 74

For example, a goal of the Fast Forward program is to “promote the benefits of lifelong learning, vis-a-vis life opportunities, to students and their families”, see University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement, page 46




Recommendation 14

The University develop and implement a life-long learning strategy.

The existence of greater opportunities for engaging with alumni – as well the need to

develop a deeper knowledge and understanding of this important group – was reinforced by

many of the staff met by the Panel, and the Panel considers it prudent to incorporate more

strongly the alumni issue into institutional strategies.

Recommendation 15

The University take a more strategic approach to alumni in the

context of enabling regional and community engagement.


Chapter 7: Staff

In this chapter the Panel considers issues relating to staff recruitment, development and

recognition (including promotions) as they relate to the University‟s engagement strategy

and practice. These are important considerations. Many staff interviewed during the Panel‟s

visit made plain their personal commitment to making a difference within the communities

they serve and their desire for engagement to be an enduring feature of life at UWS.

Appropriate approaches to recruitment, development and recognition of engagement will be

essential to affirming an engagement orientation to scholarly life at UWS.

The Panel‟s perspectives have been shaped by the priorities identified in the University‟s

strategic plan Our People 2015 (although the Panel is concerned that engagement is not

referred to in that plan), as well as on briefings received on the recent University MyVoice

survey results. As noted in preceding chapters, the future refinement and implementation of

engagement strategies at the University will have human resource implications in terms of

recruitment, training, and recognition. Several Deans met by the Panel raised the issue of

resourcing and strategic focus, including concerns for impact on workload. The Panel

considers that effective alignment of human resource strategies is crucial to the University‟s

moving its engagement agenda to the next strategic level.

7.1 Staff recruitment

The Panel notes that a strategic goal of the University is to “promote UWS as an employer of

choice by establishing an employer brand that has clear links with the UWS mission and

values and with GWS”75. The Panel considers that the University‟s strong engagement focus

should form a prominent part of that employer brand, and that recruitment practices should

firmly reflect this focus. This is especially important for recruitment to senior leadership

positions. The University‟s engagement agenda, with its impressive performance both

75

UWS Human Resources Plan: Our People 2015, page 3, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/_media/main_site/documents/people_and_culture/special_projects_unit/Our_People_2015_Strategy_Final.pdf

Term of Reference 6

Building capacity for community engagement is reflected in corporate-level strategy and practice, including the University’s

systems of recruitment, staff development, promotions, and practice.

http://www.uws.edu.au/_media/main_site/documents/people_and_culture/special_projects_unit/Our_People_2015_Strategy_Final.pdf



regionally and internationally, should now be considered an area of competitive advantage,

and promoted as such in recruitment practices. Moreover, it will be imperative for the

University to appreciate that it is both „buying‟ and „selling‟ when recruiting staff, and this

should be reflected in actual recruitment practice (i.e., there is scope to present engagement

as a selling point).

Commendation 12

The excellent foundation of commitment to regional engagement

on which the University can actively differentiate itself in attracting

academic and professional staff.

7.2 Staff development

According to the current engagement plan, the University has injected “intentional and

strategic investments of funds and staffing to increase its engagement capacity”76. The

Panel supports this move, while appreciating the inherent nature of competing demands on

limited financial resources. The plan also refers to increasing capacity for engaged teaching

and research by “providing academic staff development programs using proven strategies

that align with the diverse interests and skill levels of staff”77. While the Panel did not

investigate specific details of the University‟s staff development programs, it notes that there

is opportunity to further develop staff capacity by embedding an institutional culture that

instils both a confidence and desire to engage with its community – especially as this relates

to the University‟s taking on a greater leadership role in GWS as discussed earlier in this

report. This view was supported by both management and staff met by the Panel.

7.3 Staff promotions and recognition

The Panel notes that a strategic goal of the University is to “reward and recognise high-

performing staff”78. According to the current engagement plan, “University policies have been

revised, including career promotion criteria, to ensure that staff members are recognised for

engagement activities”79. The plan also refers to a goal of increasing capacity for engaged

teaching and research by ensuring “academic staff are recognised for their engaged

76

UWS Engagement Strategy 2010-2013, page 2, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135345/OPQ1719_-_Engagement_Strategic-plan5.pdf 77

UWS Engagement Strategy 2010-2013, goal 3.1, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135345/OPQ1719_-_Engagement_Strategic-plan5.pdf 78

UWS Human Resources Plan: Our People 2015, page 3, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/_media/main_site/documents/people_and_culture/special_projects_unit/Our_People_2015_Strategy_Final.pdf 79

UWS Engagement Strategy 2010-2013, page 2, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135345/OPQ1719_-_Engagement_Strategic-plan5.pdf

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135345/OPQ1719_-_Engagement_Strategic-plan5.pdf









research and teaching activities”80. The Panel did not find evidence that such goals are

being successfully implemented, and notes results from the MyVoice survey indicating that

the majority of staff felt that they have neither time nor opportunities for community

engagement.

A reoccurring theme highlighted in discussions with the Panel (as well as within the internal

submissions) was that staff felt they were not being appropriately recognised by the

University for the considerable time and effort put into engagement activities. In some cases,

this understandably led to staff reducing or even ceasing their engagement activities in order

to concentrate on competing priorities that they deemed were being recognised by the

University. This may explain comments from a number of external partners met by the

Panel, who observed that their dealings with the University had at times been impeded when

their University contact had become preoccupied with competing priorities.

While this also represents a resourcing issue, the Panel considers that the University‟s

engagement strategy needs to be embedded more fully within its reward and recognition

policies and practices as a matter of priority. The Panel noted unanimous agreement on the

need to incorporate engagement into the recognition and reward system (including

promotions), and this was highlighted by the University both in its submission as well as

during discussions with the Panel. It was also an important focus of the Panel‟s discussions

with Vice-Chancellor Professor Reid, who raised her concerns that staff were not being

appropriately recognised for performance in relation to engagement. She highlighted to the

Panel an urgent need to review the current reward system in order to align it with the

University‟s engagement strategies, commenting that this must incorporate input from staff

concerning assessment processes, whether they be related to learning and teaching,

research, or engagement. The Panel notes an explicit goal in the recently released learning

and teaching plan is to “review the promotion policy to ensure that academic staff are

appropriately recognized and rewarded for scholarly leadership in learning and teaching”81,

and observes that this would by default incorporate engagement.

Affirmation 10

Identification of the need to integrate engagement activity more

directly within the recognition and reward framework for University

staff.

80

UWS Engagement Strategy 2010-2013, goal 3.2, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135345/OPQ1719_-_Engagement_Strategic-plan5.pdf 81

UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014, Strategy 5, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review





Afterword

Undertaking this Review has been, in the Panel‟s opinion, a bold, timely and imaginative

step by the University. Members of the Panel trust that they have played their parts in

assisting the University of Western Sydney to secure what it has achieved, scope the future

possibilities, and enhance its deserved reputation as a national and international leader in

University Civic and Community Engagement.

While the Panel recognise that the University has in place a framework for implementing

review recommendations82, it wishes to stress the strategic importance of developing an

appropriate action plan to address the recommendations of this Review, and of regularly

reviewing progress towards the achievement of planned outcomes. The Panel consider that

the University may wish to conduct a follow-up Review of Community and Regional

Engagement in perhaps six to eight years.

82

See UWS website: http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review



Acronyms and Abbreviations of Titles

ALNF Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation

ARC Australian Research Council

AUCEA Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance

AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency

BOT Board of Trustees

CBD Central Business District

CRM Customer Relationship Management

DVC Deputy Vice-Chancellor

ELC Experiential Learning in Communities

GWS Greater Western Sydney

HDR Higher Degree by Research

IHOPE Indigenous Health Outcomes Patient Evaluation

ISSMP Indigenous School Student Mentoring Program

KPI Key Performance Indicator

L&T Learning and Teaching

LSE London School of Economics

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MTD Making The Difference (UWS Strategy and Plan 2010-2015)

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NSW New South Wales

OMC Office of Marketing and Communication

OSQ Office of Strategy and Quality

PASS Peer Assisted Study Sessions

PCJC Parramatta Community Justice Clinic

PVC Pro Vice-Chancellor

R+D Research and Development

RCE Regional Centre of Expertise

SIFE Students in Free Enterprise

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

TOR Terms of Reference

TVSydney Television Sydney

UWS University of Western Sydney

VC Vice-Chancellor

WSROC Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils


Appendix A: Review Panel

Following are brief biographies of the four Panel members to the 2012 Review of UWS

Community and Regional Engagement.

Panel Member

Professor Lawrence S. Bacow

President in Residence, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Lawrence S. Bacow is an economist and lawyer who served as the President of Tufts

University from 2001 through 2011. During his tenure as President, he helped to found and

then served as the Chair of the Talliores Network of Engaged Universities. Also during this

period, he served on the Executive Committee of Campus Compact, the national

organization in the US that promotes civic engagement and service learning on college

campuses.

Prior to coming to Tufts, Dr. Bacow was the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of

Environmental Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he served on the

faculty for 24 years. From 1998 through 2001 he served as the Chancellor of MIT, one of

the Institute‟s two most senior academic officers, and from 1995-1997 he served as

Chairman of the MIT Faculty. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

and a recipient of five honorary degrees, Professor Bacow also serves as a member of the

White House Advisory Committee on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Note: Due to illness, Professor Bacow was not able to personally participate in the site visit

of the Review Panel. However, he did review all documents submitted to the Panel,

participate in conference calls and video conferences to set the Panel‟s agenda, and

participated by video conference in the Panel‟s final deliberations, and in the drafting of this

final report.


Panel Member

Mr David Borger

Western Sydney Director, Sydney Business Chamber

Prior to entering public life David worked as an Urban Planner and adviser to the Minister for

Planning. At 30 years of age, he became the youngest person to hold the office of Lord

Mayor of Parramatta where he served for three terms. During this time David provided

leadership in progressing the Civic Place development, and promoting urban renewal in the

city centre through the adoption of new planning controls with a strong urban design focus.

The city commenced a number of new civic projects to increase investment and employment

while also transforming the city‟s parks, public spaces and walkways. He chaired the

Mayors‟ Forum on City Design at the University of Sydney and the Central Parramatta

Planning Panel.

In 2007 David was elected to represent the Granville electorate in the NSW Parliament. He

served as Minister for Housing, Minister for Western Sydney and Minister for Roads as well

as assistant Minister for Transport in the NSW Government.

As Housing Minister David oversaw the construction of approximately 9,000 new social

housing dwellings – including 6,300 through the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan.

During this time he championed major reforms to expand the community housing sector in

NSW by transferring the title of $2 billion worth of public housing to highly performing

community housing associations. This reform allowed community housing to develop a

balance sheet, and to trade and develop existing housing assets.

Following the 2011 election David along with Adam Byrnes established Think Planners, a

busy planning firm with a focus on Western Sydney.

David lives in North Parramatta with his wife Giselle and daughters Grace and Zoe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Mayor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Mayor


Panel Member

Professor Sandra Harding

Vice-Chancellor and President, James Cook University – Cairns, Townsville, Singapore

Professor Harding took up her appointment as Vice-Chancellor and President of James

Cook University in January 2007. In this role, she is responsible for ensuring clear and

effective leadership and management of the University across all operating sites, including

campuses in Townsville, Cairns and Singapore.

Educated at the Australian National University, The University of Queensland and North

Carolina State University (USA), Professor Harding is an economic sociologist with a keen

scholarly interest in markets and how they work, and organisation survey methodology. She

also has a keen professional interest in education policy and management. She has

authored and co-authored a wide range of publications, conference papers and press

articles in her areas of interest.

Professor Harding has extensive academic and academic leadership experience, including

more than 15 years in Australian university senior executive positions. In addition, she has

undertaken a wide variety of senior university-aligned roles as well as

memberships/directorships of a variety of local, national and international Boards and

Councils.

Current roles include: Deputy Chair, Universities Australia; Commissioner, Queensland

Independent Commission of Audit; Director, Regional Australia Institute; Board member,

Skills Queensland; Council Member, Australian Institute for Marine Sciences; Director, North

Queensland Cowboys NRL Club; Member, Defence Science and Technology Organisation

(DSTO) Advisory Board.

She was recognised as North Carolina State University‟s College of Humanities and Social

Sciences Distinguished Alumna for 2003 and, in 2010, received an Honorary Doctorate for

services to education from Japan‟s Josai International University. She was recently named

as the Australian College of Educators 2012 Queensland Medallist for services to education.

Professor Harding is a Fellow of the Australian College of Educators, Fellow of the

Queensland Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company

Directors and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management.


Panel Member

Professor Sir David Watson

Professor of Higher Education and Principal of Green Templeton College

University of Oxford, United Kingdom

David Watson has been Principal of Green Templeton College and Professor of Higher

Education at the University of Oxford since October 2010. He was Professor of Higher

Education Management at the Institute of Education, University of London, from 2005-2010,

and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Brighton between 1990 and 2005. His most recent

books are Managing Civic and Community Engagement (2007), The Dearing Report: ten

years on (2007), The Question of Morale: managing happiness and unhappiness in

university life (2009), and The Engaged University (2011).

He has contributed widely to developments in UK higher education, including as a member

of the Council for National Academic Awards (1977-1993), the Polytechnics and Colleges

Funding Council (1988-92), and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (1992-

96). He was a member of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation's National Commission on Education

(1992-1993), and the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education chaired by Sir

Ron Dearing (1996-1997). He was the elected chair of the Universities Association for

Continuing Education between 1994 and 1998, and chaired the Longer Term Strategy

Group of Universities UK between 1999 and 2005. He is President of the Society for

Research into Higher Education, a Trustee of the Nuffield Foundation, a Companion of the

Institute of Management, and a National Teaching Fellow (2008). He chaired the national

Inquiry into the Future for Lifelong Learning, and co-authored its report Learning Through

Life (2009). He was knighted in 1998 for services to higher education. In 2009 he received

the Times Higher Education Lifetime Achievement Award.


Appendix B: Terms of Reference

Following are the Terms of Reference of the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional

Engagement83:

1. the UWS engagement strategy aligns with the University‟s Making the Difference

Strategy and Plan, and with international directions in strategic community

engagement

2. the UWS engagement strategy is focused on key needs and expectations within

Greater Western Sydney (GWS)

3. the University‟s engagement practices are building sustainable community and

regional partnerships which have mutual benefit

4. the concepts of engagement are realised in and integrated across learning &

teaching, research, and institutional strategies

5. engagement is a focus for scholarly practice, and engaged learning is manifest within

the experience of students

6. building capacity for community engagement is reflected in corporate-level strategy

and practice, including the University‟s systems of recruitment, staff development,

promotions, and practice.

83

2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement: Terms of Reference, accessed 5 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/terms-of-reference

http://reviews.uws.edu.au/terms-of-reference


Appendix C: Review Methodology

1. Develop and approve Terms of Reference: Using the UWS Cyclical Review template

based on the Making The Difference priorities, OSQ develop draft TOR in consultation

with PVC (Engagement). TOR approved by Vice Chancellor and endorsed by BOT.

2. Approve Review Panel membership: OSQ, in consultation with PVC (Engagement),

propose a list of external Review Panel members, from which 4 are approved by the VC.

VC approves Panel Chair.

3. Select Project Officer: OSQ, in consultation with PVC (Engagement), selects Project

Officer to be responsible for coordination of the review process, including self-

assessments.

4. Approve Steering Committee membership: OSQ, in consultation with PVC

(Engagement), propose a list of approximately 5-6 internal Steering Committee

members, from which 3-4 are approved by the VC. VC approves Steering Committee

Chair. Steering Committee members should comprise UWS academics and professional

staff with pre-eminent expertise in community engagement.

5. Approve Reference Group membership: OSQ, in consultation with PVC

(Engagement), propose a list of approximately 5-6 internal Reference Group members,

to be approved by the VC. VC approves Reference Group Chair. Reference Group

1 BoT

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Engaged Learning

14 Engaged Research

15 Engaging Students

16 Engaging in GWS Planning & Development

17 Engaged Sustainability

18

19

20

21

22

23 Panel visits University

24 Preparation of Panel Report

25 Presentation of Panel Report

26 Consideration of Report27 Agreement to Action Plan28 Follow up on ActionPlan

Panel considers briefing materials

Advise University and Community

Invite Submissions

Integrate with Centre for Western Sydney study

Self Assessment Submission

Receive SubmissionsConduct Focus Groups

Undertake

focused

assessment

& evalution

Presentation of Exemplars and Critical Review

"Virtualise" the exemplars and other good practice

Complete Self Assessment Submission

Provide briefing materials to Review Panel

Develop Framework for Self Assessment

Jun Jul Aug Sep

Develop and approve Terms of Reference

Approve Review Panel membership

Select Project Officer

Approve Steering Committee membership

Approve Reference Group membership

OctPost

Review

2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement

Activity Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May


membership should comprise UWS academics and professional staff working with

engagement issues on a daily basis, with representation from the five areas of focused

assessment and evaluation (see points 13-17 below).

6. Develop Framework for Self Assessment: Project Officer, in consultation with OSQ,

PVC (Engagement), PVC (Education), PRC (Research), PVC (Students), develops a

framework for the Self Assessment submission, covering engagement history, stock take

(including exemplars), benchmarking, gap analysis, and proposed strategies for future

development, all framed within the five TOR.

7. Advise University and Community: OSQ, in consultation with PVC (Engagement) and

OMC, announce the Review both within UWS (to academics, professional staff,

students), and also to external stakeholders including community and business groups,

employers, government, secondary schools, graduates/alumni. The announcement will

encourage involvement in the Review process.

8. Invite Submissions: Project Officer invites submissions from within the University and

externally from interested stakeholders (community and business groups, employers,

government, secondary schools, graduates/alumni). Submissions may include both

exemplars and suggestions for improvement/ new areas to explore etc.

9. Integrate with Centre for Western Sydney study: Examine findings of recent

interviews with business groups about a Centre for Western Sydney and integrate these

within the self-assessment and any focus group initiatives.

10. Self Assessment Submissions: PVC (Engagement) leads this process under the

overall direction of the Steering Committee, with a view to developing a submission

which assesses performance under each of the TOR. This report is to be evidence

based and should identify action plans in areas where performance improvement is

identified. This process should reflect a high degree of liaison with other PVCs and

Executive Director Sustainability, and should be as inclusive as possible of both internal

and external stakeholders. The self-assessment is to address current provisioning as

well as future positioning considerations around the TOR. OSQ compiles a package of

performance data as required.

11. Receive Submissions: Project Officer receives and collates submissions, and submits

them to the PVC (Engagement) for analysis.

12. Conduct Focus Groups: Project Officer co-ordinates the conducting of Focus Groups

(preferably by an external facilitator) with stakeholders such as community, employers,

government, secondary schools, graduates/alumni, students, academics and

professional staff. Results submitted to PVC (Engagement) for analysis.

13. Assessment and evaluation of Engaged Learning: PVC (Education) undertakes

assessment and evaluation of the University‟s engaged learning activities. Results

submitted to PVC (Engagement).

14. Assessment and evaluation of Engaged Research: PVC (Research) undertakes

assessment and evaluation of the University‟s engaged research activities. Results



15. Assessment and evaluation of Engagement and the Student Lifecycle: PVC

(Students) undertakes assessment and evaluation of the University‟s engagement with

students, including prospective students, current students, and graduates. Results


16. Assessment and evaluation of Community Engagement: PVC (Engagement)

undertakes assessment and evaluation of the University‟s engagement with external

organisations associated with the planning and development of GWS, including

community and business groups (such as Chambers of Commerce), employers,

government, and donors. This process should reflect a high degree of liaison with other

PVCs, and the process should be as inclusive as possible of both internal and external

stakeholders.

17. Future Directions: PVC (Engagement), in consultation with OSQ, undertakes

assessment and evaluation of possible future directions of the University‟s engagement

strategy. This process should reflect a high degree of liaison with other PVCs, and the

process should be as inclusive as possible of both internal and external stakeholders.

18. Presentation of Exemplars and Critical Review: Two full day workshops are held

where exemplars are showcased, followed by a facilitated discussion of themes arising

from the exemplars, and a discussion of where/how the exemplars relate to evaluation of

the University under the TOR. The intention of these workshops is to both „celebrate‟

and critique, with a view to inclusion of both the exemplars and the critique within the

self-assessment. Exemplars to be broad-based encompassing engaged research,

engaged learning, student transition, and sustainability.

19. “Virtulise” the Exemplars and other good practice: OMC, in consultation with OSQ,

develop a series of videos that capture a range of exemplary practice.

20. Complete Self Assessment Submission: The draft submission is considered and

endorsed by the Steering Committee, and sent for approval by the VC.

21. Provide briefing materials to Review Panel: The University provides the Review Panel

with Self Assessment submission and other briefing materials.

22. Panel considers briefing materials: Using the self-assessment submission and

briefing materials the Panel develops a preliminary view about the veracity of the self-

assessment as supported by the evidence. The Panel requests clarification and/or

further data or explanation where necessary. It also considers the

relevance/quality/achievability of future positioning strategy, and identifies issues for

potential focus in their report, and for further exploration through a visit to the University.

23. Panel visits University: Panel meets with individuals and groups of staff as it

determines appropriate. The schedule for the visit activities is pre-arranged (to the

extent possible) by the OSQ to maximise the effectiveness of the time the Panel has

available. The Panel provides indicative impressions by way of feedback to the PVC

(Engagement) at the conclusion of the site visit, as well as to the other relevant PVCs

and Executive Director. The final 2-3 hours of the Panel visit are dedicated to the Panel‟s

meeting to decide the content of their report so that the OSQ can commence the drafting

process.


24. Preparation of the Panel Report: This report is drafted by the OSQ at direction of the

Panel Chair.

25. Presentation of the Panel Report: As arranged between the Panel and the University

26. to 26. Consideration of Report, Agreement to Action Plan, and Follow up on Action

Plan: PVC (Engagement) is invited to comment on the report findings before

consideration by University Executive. An Action Plan is developed by PVC

(Engagement) and agreed by the VC. Copy of Panel Report Executive Summary and

Action Plan are presented to University Executive and BOT. OSQ monitors

implementation and assists the PVC (Engagement) to report to Executive and BOT on

progress. Progress reports required on a six-monthly basis until ass aspects addressed.


Appendix D: Submissions

In addition to the University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and

Regional Engagement, the Panel considered the 98 external and 27 internal submissions to

the Review. These submissions were received on the Panel‟s behalf by the University during

April and May 2012.

External submissions

Organisation/Individual External

Submission Number

ActronAir 5

AECOM ANZ 81

Anglican Retirement Villages 30

ANGLICARE- Chesalon Care Richmond 33

Anonymous independent submission by Business Partner 55

Anonymous independent submission by Careers Advisor 15

Anonymous Independent submission from Parramatta City Council 20

Anonymous independent submission by Teacher 8

Anonymous independent submission by Teacher 13

Auburn City Council 57

Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) 39

Bankstown City Council 72

Blacktown City Council 46

Blacktown City Council 47

Blacktown City Libraries 94

Blacktown Hospital VMO 61

Campbelltown City Council 35

Care Connect Ltd 73

CBRE 40

Cerebral Palsy Alliance 90

Coleman Greig Lawyers 32

Community Organisation Partner 45

Connect Child & Family Services 66

Corrective Services NSW 71

Cumberland Business Chamber 27

Department of Education & Communities 3


External submissions (continued)


Submission Number

Department of Education and Communities 58

Dept of Biological Sciences, Fordham Uni., NY, USA 54

Emerson Network Power 24

Fairfield City Council 96

Fuji Xerox Australia 50

Green, Mrs Jenny – independent submission 82

Gyrate Advertising.Design.Events. 22

Hayman, Mrs Vimla – independent submission 19

Henley Long Day Care Centre 76

Heslep, Ms Jan – individual submission 14

Holroyd City Council 29

Holroyd High School 68

Kellyville High School 53

Ku-ring-gai Council 74

Leumeah High School 38

LexisNexis 83

Liquor Marketing Group 98

Lithgow City Council 65

Lu Papi & Associates 86

Macarthur Disability Services 69

Macarthur District Temporary Family Care 1

Magdalene Catholic High School 42

Manser, Mr Hardy – individual submission 10

Member for Wollondilly 17

Mission Australia 64

MPower 44

Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy Australia Ltd 18

NSW DEC 62

NSW Department of Education and Training 60

NSWPF 37

NYAS 88

Older Women's Network NSW 84

P.A.P.A. org. 80

PAPA 36

PartnerUp Pty Ltd / Novello, Ms Simone 11

Penrith Business Alliance 21


External submissions (continued)


Submission Number

Penrith City Council 2

Pittwater Council 63

Population Health, NSW Health 56

Powerhouse Discovery Centre 75

Prysmian Power Cables Australia Pty Ltd 67

Quadrant Recruitment Pty Ltd 48

RDA Sydney 89

Representing Hawkesbury Environment Network 91

Samuel Terry Public School 51

Scouts Australia NSW 23

Sir Joseph Banks High School 87

South East Neighbourhood Centre 31

South West Sydney Academy of Sport 34

South Western Sydney Local Health District 95

Springwood Neighbourhood Centre Co-op Ltd 26

St Andrews College 92

St Anthony's Family Care 52

St Paul's Grammar School 85

SydWest Multicultural Services Inc. 49

TAFENSW Northern Sydney Institute 93

Tan, Ms Beeleng – individual submission 7

The Exodus Foundation 16

The Hills Holroyd Parramatta Migrant Resource Centre 28

The Smith Family 12

The Street University - Ted Noffs Foundation 6

Tunstall Healthcare 41

UnitingCare Burnside 70

UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board 97

WentWest 78

West Ryde Early Learning Service 25

Winmalee N/C 9

Wirripang Pty Ltd 4

Wykes, Mrs Gail – individual submission 43

Yarramundi AECG and IDAS 77

Yfoundations 79

Zonta Club of Sydney Hills Inc. 59


Internal submissions

School/Unit/Research Institute/Research Centre/Individual Internal

Submission Number

Anonymous submission from School of Business Academic 5

Anonymous submission from School of Computing, Engineering & Mathematics Academic

19

Anonymous submission from School of Medicine Academic 10

Careers & Cooperative Education – Tayebjee, Ms Freny 7

Careers & Cooperative Education – Holman, Mrs Judy 8

Computing, Engineering & Mathematics – Filipovic, A/Prof Miroslav 12

Dollin, Ms Jen / Office of Sustainability – individual submission 6

Falzon, Mr Paul – individual submission 3

Forbes, Mrs Heidi / School of Medicine/Department of General Practice – individual submission

21

Humanities and Communication Arts – Bloom, A/Prof Diana 4

Jarvis, Ms Kim / Office of PVC, Engagement and International – individual submission

26

Jeewani Anupama, Dr Ginige / School of Computing, Engineering & Mathematics - individual submission

16

McLean, Ms Anne / Schools Engagement Unit – individual submission 23

Mullins, Ms Trish / Office of Higher Education Policy and Projects (CSS) – individual submission

20

O‟Neill, Professor Phillip / Urban Research Centre – individual submission

15

Oppliger, Ms Amanda - individual submission 2

Rawling, Mr Steve / Careers & Cooperative Education – individual submission

18

Robinson, Mrs Vickie / IT Services – individual submission 1

School of Computing, Engineering & Mathematics 22

School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics – Bhathal, Dr Ragbir

17

School of Law – Adams, Professor Michael 13

School of Medicine – McCarthy, Dr Louella 25

School of Social Sciences & Psychology – Apostolatos, Ms Zoe 24

Schraner, Dr Ingrid / School of Business – individual submission 11

Shane, Ms Kate / Office of Director Education Partnerships, Dean & CEO UWS College – individual submission

14

Wendon, Mr Robert / Office of PVC Students – individual submission 27

Wright, Ms Suzie / Careers & Cooperative Education – individual submission

9


Appendix E: Consultations

Venues and dates of consultations

In a collaborative approach between the Office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement and

International), and the Office of Strategy and Quality, the University invited students, staff

and external stakeholders to attend meetings with the Panel on 5, 6, 7 and 10 September

2012 as follows:

Sydney CBD Wednesday 5 September 2012

UWS Parramatta Campus Thursday 6 September 2012

UWS Campbelltown Campus Friday 7 September 2012

UWS Bankstown Campus Monday 10 September 2012

The consultations provided participants with an opportunity to discuss with the Panel issues

raised in the Terms of Reference.

A list of attendees (in alphabetical order) appears on the following pages.

Notes:

1. The discussions held in these sessions helped to inform the view of the Panel and,

while notes were taken, there was no formal record kept of these discussions.

2. In addition to consultations at the University, the Panel took part in a teleconference

on 29 August 2012, a preliminary Panel meeting in the Sydney CBD on Wednesday

5 September 2012, and a final teleconference on 3 December 2012.


Attendee Name Position/Organisation

Allie, Mr Harry Elder and Community Advisor (Board Member), UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Andrei, Mr Brendon Bushland Project Officer, Blacktown City Council

Anning, Assoc. Prof. Berice Dean, Indigenous Education, UWS

Arias-Alvarez, Mr Nelson UWS Alumni

Armstrong, Mr Paul Student, School of Law, UWS

Arvanitakis, Dr James Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, UWS

Bailey, Dr Trevor Director (Engagement), School of Science and Health, UWS

Bensoussan, Prof. Alan Director, National Institute for Complementary Medicine Research, UWS

Bentley, Ms Rachel CEO, Television Sydney (TVS) Limited

Bhathal, Dr Ragbir Lecturer, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, UWS

Bourne, Ms Nola Administrative Support Officer, Parramatta Community Justice Clinic, School of Law, UWS

Brace, Mr Eric Executive Educational Advisor, Australian Literacy and Numeracy Foundation

Bressan, Mr Alessandro PhD Student, School of Business, UWS

Brocken, Mr Eric Convenor Hawkesbury EarthCare Centre

Cardona, Dr Beatriz Project Officer, Office of PVC Engagement and International, UWS

Cheetham, Prof. Andrew Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), UWS

Cole, Dr Bronwyn Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), UWS

Dennis, Mr Mark Group Editor, Fairfax

Dolin, Ms Jen Sustainability Coordinator, Office of Sustainability, UWS

Dunn, Prof. Kevin Dean, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, UWS

Ellis, Dr Betty Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), UWS

Fallon, Dr Wayne Lecturer, School of Business, UWS

Ferfolja, Dr Tania Senior Lecturer, School of Education, UWS

Fernandes, Ms Celeste Teacher, Sarah Redfern High School

Firth, Mr Rob Business Development Manager, UWS Consulting, UWS

Forbes, Mrs Heidi School of Science and Health, UWS

Ford, Ms Janet Manager, Richmond Fellowship NSW

Frankum, Prof. Bradley Deputy Dean, School of Medicine, UWS

Gajo, Ms Kimberley Student, School of Business, UWS

Gavin, Mr Paul Manager, Smarter Schools National Partnerships, Sarah Redfern High School

Goldsmith, Ms Rosalie Associate Lecturer, PASS, Student Learning Unit, UWS

Ha, Mrs Katrina Head of Quality, Teaching and Learning, Macarthur Anglican School


Hamilton, Mr James UWS Alumni

Hannan, Ms Jenny Director (Engagement), School of Business, UWS

Hawkins, Ms Rhonda Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Corporate Strategy and Services), UWS

Hengstberger-Sims, Assoc. Prof. Cecily

Acting Dean, School of Nursing and Midwifery, UWS

Herrera, Ms Lily Student, Sarah Redfern High School

Hinley, Mr Craig Disability Action Plan Project Manager, Equity and Diversity, UWS

Hudson, Dr Kerry CEO, UWSCollege

Hutchings, Prof. Peter Dean, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, UWS

Jarvis, Ms Kim Engagement Facilitator, Office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Engagement and International), UWS

Jazz, Mr Sam Student, Sarah Redfern High School

Johnston, Assoc. Prof. Christine

Director (Engagement & International), School of Education, UWS

Jorm, Prof. Louisa Director, Centre for Health Research, UWS

Kerr, Ms Sharon Director of Education, Mount Druitt TAFE

Kitamura, Dr Christine Research Fellow, Marcs Institute, UWS

Kolt, Prof. Gregory Dean, School of Science and Health, UWS

Kourtis, Mr Angelo Pro Vice-Chancellor (Students), UWS

Krause, Prof. Kerri-Lee Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education), UWS

Lakin, Ms Cossette Student, Sarah Redfern High School

Lam, Ms Katie Student, School of Science and Health, UWS

Lantz, Ms Julie Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement & International), UWS

Lee, Mrs Rachel Infant Research Laboratory Coordinator, Marcs Institute, UWS

Lee, Ms Sandra Elder and Community Advisor (Board Member), UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Linnell, Dr Sheridan Senior Lecturer, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, UWS

Marne, Mr Wes Consulting Member, UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Martin, Mr James Business Excellence Manager, ActronAir

Masya, Ms Lena Abdul Student, School of Science and Health, UWS

McCarthy, Dr Louella Director (Engagement), School of Medicine, UWS

McGrath, Mr Timothy UWS Alumni

McKenna, Prof. Wayne Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Research), UWS

McLean, Ms Anne Manager, Schools Engagement, UWS

Meller, Ms Nikki-Maree Student, School of Nursing and Midwifery, UWS

Micsko, Mr Jim Manager, Fast Forward Program, UWS

Mihajlovic, Mr Peter CEO, Lifeline Macarthur


Miller, Ms Jane Community Arts Coordinator, Richmond Fellowship NSW (UWS graduate)

Mitchison, Ms Debbie 6th Year Master of Clinical Psychology student, UWS

Mooney, Dr Mary Deputy Dean, School of Education, UWS

Moss, Ms Linda PRA Disability Employment Service

Naidoo, Dr Loshini Senior Lecturer, School of Education, UWS

Nguyen, Ms Thuy Le UWS student (Classrooms Without Borders)

Nobel, Assoc. Prof. Greg Institute for Culture and Society, UWS

Noble, Dr Anthony Director, SFI

Obola, Ms Ola St Vincent de Paul Society

O'Neill, Prof. Phillip Professorial Fellow, Urban Research Centre, School of Social Sciences and Psychology, UWS

Pacchiarotta, Ms Samantha UWS student (PASS facilitator)

Pearson, Mr Jack Board Member (Industry Employment and Engagement), UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Reid, Prof. Janice Vice-Chancellor, UWS

Riegler, Dr Marcus Senior Researcher, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, UWS

Rivera, Mrs Kaylene Community mother participating in BabyLab research

Robinson, Aunty Mavis 'Mae'

Elder on Campus; Consulting Member to UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board Representative; and Community Member, UWS Indigenous Advisory Council

Rowland, Dr Paul Executive Director, Strategy and Quality, UWS

Rutledge, Ms Pam CEO, Richmond Fellowship NSW

Sartor, Ms Annette Lecturer, School of Education, UWS

Schraner, Dr Ingrid Senior Lecturer, School of Business, UWS

Scott, Prof. Geoff Executive Director, Sustainability, UWS

Shane, Ms Kate Senior Executive Officer, UWSCollege

Shergold, Prof. Peter Chancellor, UWS

Shorrocks, Mr David Student, UWS

Sidoti, Mr Eric Director, Whitlam Institute, UWS

Simoff, Prof. Simeon Dean, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, UWS

Smallman, Prof. Clive Dean, School of Business, UWS

Smith, Prof. Gary Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement and International), UWS

Sorby, Mr Rex Consulting Member, UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Spirou, Ms Cherine Science Project Officer, Lachlan Macquarie College

Stevenson, Prof. Deborah Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), UWS

Stoker, Ms Narelle General Manager, Cumberland Business Chamber


Sweeney, Prof. Deborah Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), UWS

Tapson, Prof. Jonathan Deputy Dean, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, UWS

Tisserand, Ms Janelle Manager, Planning and Review, Office of Strategy and Quality, UWS

Trajkovski, Ms Suza Deputy Director (Engagement and International), School of Nursing and Midwifery, UWS

Uy, Prof. Brian Director, Institute for Infrastructure Engineering, UWS

Watkins, Ms Lyn Customer Development Manager, Mission Australia

Wellington, Mr Ivan Consulting Member, UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Wendon, Mr Robert Alumni Relations Manager, UWS

Wilkinson, Ms Zona Consulting Member, UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement Advisory Board

Williams, Ms Melissa Director, Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and Engagement, UWS

Wilson, Prof. Steve Dean, School of Education, UWS

Whitehead, Ms Vicky Department of Education and Communities

Wood, Ms Annamaria Macarthur Family Care

Wright, Mr Eric Principal, Nepean Community College

Wright, Ms Suzie Employer Liaison Coordinator, Careers and Cooperative Education, UWS

Zielinski, Mr Paul Principal, Leumeah High School

Zou, Dr Jeffrey Director (Engagement), School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, UWS


Appendix F: Program

Following is the program for the on-site visit.

Day 1: Parramatta Campus

Engagement Overview 9.00 – 9.20 am Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement & International) – Professor Gary Smith Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement & International) – Ms Julie Lantz 9.20 – 10.20 am Deans and Directors of Engagement 10.20 – 10.50 am MORNING TEA – Panel Deliberations

Engaged Learning 10.50 – 11.10 am Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) – Professor Kerri-Lee Krause Associate Pro Vice-Chancellors (Education) – Dr Bronwyn Cole; Dr Betty Gill 11.10 – 12.10 pm Deputy Deans, Lecturers, Partners, Students and Alumni involved with engaged learning 12.10 – 12.30 pm Panel Deliberations 12.30 – 2.00 pm Lunch with community representatives (Selection of focus group participants/external submission people) 2.00 – 2.30 pm Panel Deliberations

Case studies represented: 1. Richmond Fellowship NSW Project 2. Lifeline Macarthur-UWS Partnership 3. Classrooms Without Borders


Engaged Research 2.30 – 2.50 pm Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Research) – Professor Wayne McKenna Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) – Professor Andrew Cheetham Associate Pro Vice-Chancellors (Research) – Prof. Deborah Stevenson and Prof. Deborah Sweeney 2.50 – 3.50 pm Meeting with Directors of Research Institutes/Centres, Researchers and Partners 3.50 – 4.20 pm AFTERNOON TEA – Panel Deliberations 4.20 – 5.00 pm Tour of campus led by Mr Eric Sidoti (Director, Whitlam Institute) 5.00 pm Close

Day 2: Campbelltown Campus

Schools Program and the Student Experience 9.00 – 9.20 am Pro Vice-Chancellor (Students) – Mr Angelo Kourtis 9.20 – 10.20 am Meeting with staff, partners, students and alumni involved with engagement 10.20 – 10.40 am MORNING TEA – Panel Deliberations 10.40 – 11.40 am Meeting with Students and Alumni

Case studies represented: 1. Western Sydney Insect Infestation Project 2. BabyLab 3. Centre for Complementary Medicine Research 4. The IHOPE Project 5. Building Arabic Businesses

Case studies represented: 1. Schools Engagement 2. Fast Forward Program 3. Indigenous Student Mentoring Program 4. PASS 5. UWS Young Writers Day 6. Science and Maths Exposed Program 7. Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) 8. Alumni


11.40 – 12.00 pm Panel Deliberations 12.00 – 12.30 pm UWS Relationship Development and Management Committee Representatives 12.30 – 2.00 pm Lunch with staff representatives (including Reference Group and selection of staff who made a submission)

2.00 – 2.30 pm Panel Deliberations

Civic Engagement 2.30 – 3.00 pm Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Corporate Strategy and Services – Ms Rhonda Hawkins 3.00 – 4.00 pm Meeting with staff and partners involved with civic engagement 4.00 – 4.30 pm AFTERNOON TEA – Panel Deliberations 4.30 – 5.00 pm Tour of campus led by Dr Louella McCarthy, School of Medicine 5.00 pm Close

Day 3: Bankstown Campus

9.00 – 10.00 am Video Conference with Panel Member: Prof. Larry Bacow US east coast: EDT 19:00 hrs (previous day) 10.00 – 11.30 pm MORNING TEA – Panel Deliberations 11.30 – 12.00 pm Tour of campus led by Prof. Peter Hutchings, Provost, Bankstown Campus; Dean, School of Humanities and Communication Arts

Case studies represented: 1. RCE GWS (Regional Centre of Expertise on

Education for Sustainable Development) 2. SMExcellence 3. Television Sydney (TVS) 4. Riverfarm 5. The Youth Eco Summit


12.00 – 1.30 pm Lunch with o UWS Indigenous Advisory Council representatives o UWS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment and

Engagement Advisory Board representatives o Elders on Campus

1.30 – 2.30 pm Panel Deliberations 2.30 – 3.30 pm Afternoon Tea and presentation of initial findings

Prof Janice Reid, Vice-Chancellor

Ms Rhonda Hawkins, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Corporate Strategy and Services)

3.30 pm Close


References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011), „Census home: data and analysis’, accessed 19

November 2012, from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200

Australian Government, (2008), „Review of Australian Higher Education – Final Report, December 2008’, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/ResourcesAndPublications/ReviewOfAustralianHigherEducation/Pages/ReviewOfAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx

Australian Universities Quality Agency (2007), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – January 2007‟, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/view-all

Bradley, D.B., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., Scales, B., (2008), „Review of Australian Higher Education‟, Commonwealth of Australia, downloaded 29 September 2012, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/Higher_Education_Review_one%20document_02.pdf

Deloitte Access Economics, (2012), „Economic contribution of the University of Western Sydney‟, February, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/Panel-Review-docs/8_Economic-Contribution_Deloitte.pdf

Engagement Australia home page (2012), accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.engagementaustralia.org.au/

London School of Economics and Political Science website (2012), accessed 2 October 2012, from http://www2.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/aboutHome.aspx

NSW Government (2012), „Western Sydney Regional Action Plan: Community Discussion Paper‟, downloaded 16 October 2012, from www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/document/show/146

NSW Government, Premier and Cabinet, (2012), „About Western Sydney: Demographics‟, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.westernsydney.nsw.gov.au/about-western-sydney/demographics/










http://www.engagementaustralia.org.au/

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/aboutLSE/aboutHome.aspx




Reid, J., (1999), „UWS and Its Communities: A Time for Change‟, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/site/assets/media/documents/Panel-Review-docs/3_UWS-and-Its-Communities.pdf

Syracuse University, (2012), „Our Vision’, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.syr.edu/about/vision.html

Talloires Network, (2005), „The Talloires Declaration on the Civic Roles and Social Responsibilities of Higher Education’, 17 September, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-declaration/

Talloires Network, (2012), „Talloires Network Members‟, accessed 3 November 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-network-members/

Talloires Network, (2012), „Talloires Network Steering Committee‟, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/what-is-the-talloires-network/talloires-network-steering-committee/

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (2011), „Report of an audit of University of Western Sydney – October 2011‟, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/auditreport_uws_2011.pdf

Tufts University, (2006), „Education for Active Citizenship: A longitudinal Study of Civic Outcomes‟, presentation to the AAC&U Annual General Meeting, January 2006, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://aacu-secure.nisgroup.com/meetings/annualmeeting/AM06/documents/TuftsLongStudyPresentationAACUWebsite.pdf

Tufts University, (2012), „Outreach at Tufts University‟, accessed 11 November 2012, from http://outreach.tufts.edu/

United States Government (undated), „Transcript of Morrill Act 1862‟, accessed 24 October 2012, from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33&page=transcript

University of Brighton, (2012), „Community University Partnership Programme (CUPP)‟, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.brighton.ac.uk/cupp/contact-cupp/helpdesk.html

University of Newcastle, (2012), „Engage Newcastle‟, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/engage/#engage



http://www.syr.edu/about/vision.html










http://outreach.tufts.edu/

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=33&page=transcript



http://www.newcastle.edu.au/engage/#engage


University of Technology, (2012), „Shopfront’, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.shopfront.uts.edu.au/

University of Western Sydney (2010), „UWS Engagement Strategy 2010-2013‟, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135345/OPQ1719_-_Engagement_Strategic-plan5.pdf

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „Planning and Review‟, accessed 30 November 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement‟ website, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „Our People 2015‟, downloaded 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/_media/main_site/documents/people_and_culture/special_projects_unit/Our_People_2015_Strategy_Final.pdf

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „University Submission to the 2012 Review of UWS Community and Regional Engagement‟, downloaded 2 October 2012, from http://reviews.uws.edu.au/staff-submissions/university-submission

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „UWS External Advisory Committee Policy‟, 1 May, accessed 4 October 2012, from http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.status.php?id=00141

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „UWS Learning and Teaching Plan 2012-2014’, accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „UWS Research Plan 2012-2014‟, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/strategy_and_quality/sg/planning_and_review

University of Western Sydney, (2012), „UWS Strategy and Plan 2010-2015: Making the Difference‟, accessed 2 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/7301/Strategy-for-web10.pdf

University of Western Sydney, (undated), „Graduate Attributes‟, accessed 21 September 2012, from http://policies.uws.edu.au/download.php?id=189

http://www.shopfront.uts.edu.au/




http://reviews.uws.edu.au/




http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.status.php?id=00141




http://policies.uws.edu.au/download.php?id=189


Voice Project (2012), „UWS MyVoice Staff Engagement Survey: Executive Summary‟, 4 May, downloaded 24 October 2012, from http://www.uws.edu.au/people_and_culture/opc/working_at_uws/myvoice_uws_staff_engagement_survey/myvoice_faqs

Watson, D., Hollister, R., Babcock, E., Stroud, E.s., (2011), „The engaged university: International perspectives on civic engagement‟, Routledge, New York

Whitlam Institute website (2012), „Mission and Guiding Principles‟, The Whitlam Institute home page (2012), accessed 15 October 2012, from http://www.whitlam.org/about_us2/mission



http://www.whitlam.org/about_us2/mission


For information relating to this report, please contact:

Janelle Tisserand

Office of Strategy and Quality, UWS

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: +61 (2) 9678 7861

mailto:[email protected]