shelley marie hanvey triple nelm 2015 1223962

Shelley HanveyStudent Number: 1223962

Assignment Cover Sheet

Student Name: Shelley Marie Hanvey

Student Number: 1223962

Level of study: 7

Module Title: Triple NELM

Module Number: IS7 020

Date submitted: 12th May 2015

Assignment Title: Academic Perceptions of University-Community Engagement at the University of Chester’s Warrington Campus

Word Count (excluding References page and Appendices)

14,935

1


Negotiated Experiential Learning Agreement (NELA)

This agreement is intended for use with Negotiated Experiential Learning Modules (NELMs). The accompanying guidance notes may assist you in completing this agreement – and please note that the experiential learning covered by this agreement should always be congruent with your WBIS award title.

NELM Title (theme or project to be addressed):Academic Perceptions of University-Community Engagement at the University of Chester’s Warrington Campus.

WBIS Award Title: MA Corporate Communications

Name of Student:Shelley Marie Hanvey

Name of Employer:University of Chester

Address

42, Redbourne DriveWidnesCheshireWA8 4TS

Address

Crab LaneWarringtonCheshireWA2 0DB

Tel. no. 0151 422 0585 Tel. no. 01925 534223Mobile no. 07976 917532 Mobile no. 07976 917532E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

Work Based Mentor(if appropriate)

Name Professor Peter HarropTel. no 01925 534223E-mail [email protected]

NELM Tutor / Supervisor

Name Jeremy PeachTel. no. 01244 512123E-mail [email protected] Department CWRS – Professional Development

Personal Academic Tutor (if different)

NameTel. no.E-mailHost Department

Subject Assessment Board (WBIS unless specified otherwise)

WBIS

Module code: IS7 020 - 021 Module credit value: 60

2


RationaleThe focus of this research project is to find out the perceptions of the impact of university-community engagement on the Warrington Campus of the University of Chester. In my role as Executive Secretary, I am required to demonstrate a strong sense of externality and to develop and maintain close working relationships with external stakeholders. It would therefore be helpful for me to get a more in-depth understanding of the relationships which currently exist between academic colleagues at the campus and the wider community, to facilitate joined-up thinking and work towards streamlining collaborations across disciplines. Additionally, the Warrington Academic Management Group (WAMG) has now been in place for four years and can state full representation from colleagues at head of department level, from each of the six faculties at the campus. A consideration of the progress of this committee would be useful and relevant, due to the fact that university-community engagement has been a key consideration of the WAMG since its inception.

AimsI aim to uncover the associated drivers and barriers to university-community engagement activities taking place and having an impact both internally and externally; in which areas this impact lies; the factors which affect impact; and how these factors vary across disciplinary areas and academic positions, from the perspective of Warrington academics. I also aim to discover the methods used to communicate these activities and their successes across departments, faculties and the wider University. This research will contribute to the existing body of knowledge surrounding the impact of university-community engagement on regional development and innovation, but will focus specifically on the methods and perceived impact of engagement, according to the viewpoints of key stakeholders. In this respect, the research project aims to offer a fresh perspective to discussions currently taking place in this area. The purpose of this research is to identify recommendations to further enhance university-community engagement between the University of Chester's Warrington Campus and the local community.

Critical datesStart date: 9th June 2014Date for sending draft to tutor: 28th November 2014Final submission deadline: 12th May 2015

Other negotiated learning(See guidance note 2)

Not applicable

Any areas of professional competence/ability to be demonstrated(See guidance note 3)

Not applicable

3


Tangible Outputs from the activities

The output of this research project will be a 12-15,000 word dissertation which seeks to identify recommendations to further enhance university-community engagement between the University of Chester's Warrington Campus and the local community, as well as proposing ways in which the internal communication of such activities could be strengthened.

I may also consider producing a paper for submission to the Senior Management Team. This will not form part of my assessment.

Anticipated Resources Required

Work-based: I intend to conduct a series of 12 semi-structured interviews with academic colleagues (2 colleagues from each of the 6 faculties at Warrington) and 1 interview with the Senior Corporate Communications Officer. These interviews will be in person and will require the use of a small room, dictaphone and writing materials for myself. The interviews will be conducted during my lunch hour. All other materials are available through the internet of University library resources.

I will also require on-going support and sponsorship from my line manager, Professor Peter Harrop. Should my proposed Erasmus exchange be approved, I will also require support regarding the agreement of annual leave.

University-based: I anticipate requiring regular tutorial support and on-going mentoring from my PAT, Jeremy Peach. These sessions will be arranged via e-mail as and when appropriate.

Relevant reading (up to half a dozen key academic texts/in-house publications - use APA referencing)

Barker, D. (2004). The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123-131.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, U.S: SAGE Publications.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 102.

Clifford, D., & Petrescu, C. (2012). The keys to university–community engagement sustainability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(1), 77-91.

Dawson, C. (2007). A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Oxford, UK: How To Books Ltd.

Goddard, J., & Vallance, P. (2013). The University and the City. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Kemp, R. (2013). Town and Gown Relations: A Handbook of Best Practices. North

Carolina, US: McFarland and Co Inc.

4


Specific learning outcomes and associated assessment.

Learning Outcomes:

1. To undertake secondary and primary research commensurate with higher education standards at level 7, in order to identify the perceptions of the impact of university-community engagement at the Warrington Campus of the University of Chester; the associated drivers and barriers to engagement, in which areas this impact lies; the factors which affect impact; and how these factors vary across disciplinary areas and academic positions, from the perspective of Warrington academics.

2. To critically evaluate academic and professional literature relating to university-community engagement, both in the UK and internationally.

3. To critically evaluate the university-community engagement activities of a partner HEI through an Erasmus exchange; the findings of which will be incorporated in to a review of my professional context.

4. To critically evaluate and analyse data using a thematic analysis approach, in order to identify recommendations to further enhance university-community engagement between the campus and the local community and to propose ways in which the internal communication of such activities could be strengthened.

Assessment method:

The assessment method will consist of a 12-15,000 word dissertation.

Any assessment of professional competence:

Not applicable

Methods of re-assessment (See guidance note 7)

Re-assessment would consist of the resubmission of a 12-15,000 word dissertation.

5


Signatures of parties to the agreement. This NELA has been negotiated and agreed between:

Student Shelley Marie Hanvey

Employer / professional body (if applicable) University of Chester

Relevant University department Warrington Directorate

6

Any particular ethical considerations (and Action Plan, if required)

I will design a Participation Information Document (PID) and a consent form which informs the participants of the purpose of the research; their rights; the way in which I will handle/use the data and ask for their permission to audio record the interviews.

All interview data will be treated confidentially. No names will be mentioned and the information will be coded. All data will be destroyed at the end of the research project.


Academic Perceptions of University-Community Engagement at the University of Chester’s

Warrington Campus

7


Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my line manager and Provost of the Warrington Campus, Professor Peter Harrop, for his support, advice and encouragement throughout my postgraduate studies.

I would also like to thank my PAT, Jeremy Peach, for his guidance and support throughout my WBIS studies to date.

I would like to extend my gratitude to those academic and support colleagues at the University of Chester’s Warrington Campus who agreed to become participants in the interviewing stage of my research project. Without these individuals, I would not have been able to complete this piece of work. Their time, thoughtful engagement and support are greatly appreciated.

Last but not least, I would like to thank colleagues at the University and Municipality of Ferrara who helped to make my Erasmus exchange a highly productive and memorable experience.

8

This dissertation is an original and authentic piece of work produced in fulfilment of my degree regulations. I have fully acknowledged and referenced all secondary sources. The dissertation has not been

submitted in whole or part for assessment in another module at this or any other university. I have read the Academic Regulation and am fully

aware of the potential consequences of any breach of them.

Signature…Shelley Marie Hanvey

Date…12th May 2015


Contents

1 Introduction

Abstract and rationale………………………………………………………………………10

2 Framing the Research Questions

2.1 Reviewing the Context………………………………………………………………12

2.2 Reviewing External Knowledge……………………………………………………..15

2.3 Research Purpose and Questions…………………………………………………23

3 Research Methodology (Design)

3.1 Research Strategy/Approach………………………………………………………25

3.2 Methods for Data Collection………………………………………………………..26

3.3 Methods for Data Analysis………………………………………………………….29

3.4 Ethics…………………………………………………………………………………34

4 Data / Data Analysis/ Findings

4.1 Overarching themes…………………………………………………………………35

4.2 Reflection on findings………………………………………………………………..43

5 Conclusion

5.1 Critical Reflections on Research Process …………………………………………47

5.2 Recommendations/implications for practice ………………………………………48

Appendix 1: Schedule/Gantt Chart………………………………………………………….53

Appendix 2: Participant Information Document (PID)…………………………………….54

Appendix 3: Interview Schedule…………………………………………………………….56

Appendix 4: Interview Summary Form……………………………………………………..57

Appendix 5a: Rich Picture – Phase 2 codes………………………………………………58

Appendix 5b: Rich Picture – Phase 2 codes ………………………………………………59

Appendix 6: Initial Coding Framework tables………………………………………………60

Appendix 7: Final Coding Framework table…………………………………………………66

Appendix 8: Barker’s Scholarship of Engagement Taxonomy…………………………….69

Appendix 9: Quotes from semi structured interviews……………………………………….70

Appendix 10: Reflexivity Journal………………………………………………………………72

Reference List……………………………………………………………………………………89

9


1 Introduction

The focus of this research project is to uncover the perceptions of academic staff at

the Warrington Campus of the University of Chester, regarding the impact of

university-community engagement. This piece of research also aims to establish

any perceived associated drivers and barriers to such engagement; in which areas

this impact lies; the factors which affect impact; and how these factors vary across

disciplines and academic roles. This research contributes to the existing body of

knowledge surrounding the impact of university-community engagement on regional

development and innovation, but focuses specifically on the methods and perceived

impact of engagement, as well as making recommendations for future internal and

localised improvements to town-and-gown relations and the communication of such

activities within the University and local borough. Town-and-gown denotes the

relationship between the residents of a college town and the students and faculty

associated with an institution of higher learning which is also located in the area.

Throughout this research project, I have also made reference to town-and-gown

relations in the context of the relationship between the institution of higher learning,

the municipality and local organisations. Examples of good practice in this regard

will be provided as a result of my November 2014 Erasmus exchange to the

University of Ferrara in Italy. I chose to embark on a visit to this institution after doing

some online research in to university-community engagement projects in Europe.

The University of Ferrara hosted the first UniTown Network conference in 2013;

UniTown is an international network of excellence, bringing together university cities

willing to share experiences and develop good practices in town-gown relations. I

wished to learn more about the objectives of the network and the logistics of setting

up such a group with an international scope. During this working trip I was able to

meet with senior academic and student representatives of the institution, as well as

the Vice-Mayor and representatives from the Executive Board of the Municipality of

Ferrara. Our discussions ranged from university-city relations, citizenship, cultural

sustainability, urban regeneration and commonalities of strategy. In this respect, my

research project was carried out as a social process as I made contacts and liaised

with colleagues at the university and municipality, whilst also being imbued with an

integral development dimension as I recorded our conversations and made notes in

order that myself and my institution might learn from some good practice initiatives

10


(Reed and Proctor, 1995 in (Costley, Elliott, & Gibbs, 2010). I sought to identify and

explore socio-political and historical factors affecting local and international

university-community engagement practice and to yield insights which should offer a

fresh perspective to strategic development discussions currently taking place in this

regard, both in my institution and in the higher education sector as a whole.

The purpose of this research is to identify recommendations to further enhance

university-community engagement between the University of Chester's Warrington

Campus and the local community. In applying an exploratory sampling technique,

eleven academic members of staff from across six faculties were invited to a face-to-

face semi-structured interview. I chose to focus on the perceptions of academic

members of staff as I hoped that in turn this might glean some insight in to the

effectiveness of the Warrington Academic Management Group (WAMG), whose

members were tasked four years ago with developing and sustaining the academic

identity and reputation of the Warrington Campus, as a distinctive unit of the

University of Chester. This included developing the student experience across the

residential and commuting communities and encouraging externality through CPD,

research and knowledge transfer. I am referring to the philosophical definition of

externality; the fact or awareness of existing outside the perceiving subject. An

interview was also be held with the University’s Senior Corporate Communications

Officer, with the discussion focussing more specifically around the dissemination and

communication of engagement activities via internal and external corporate

communications. Colleagues at the University and Municipality of Ferrara were also

interviewed using the same schedule. Using such methodological tools as a

reflexivity journal (see Appendix 7), interview summary forms (see Appendix 4) and

rich pictures, I was able to undertake a thematic analysis process of initial coding

and overarching themes from the collated data. Following this research and the

subsequent analysis, I have been able to make a number of recommendations in the

form of a framework consistent with Barker’s scholarship of engagement taxonomy

(Barker, 2004), in order that my research might prove useful to the community of

practice and have the potential to generate theory (Costley, et al., 2010).

11


2 Framing the Research Questions

2.1 Reviewing the Context

I have been employed by the University of Chester since 2008, in the role of

Executive Secretary to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the Warrington Campus. The

scope and breadth of my responsibilities, as part of the Warrington Directorate team,

has grown exponentially since the appointment of my line manager and Provost,

Professor Peter Harrop, in 2009. My role falls between the Executive Secretary and

the Faculty Administrator, with the co-ordination of cross-campus communication

being a staple requirement of my day-to-day responsibilities. I am the main

communication link between the University’s Warrington Campus, the wider

University as a whole and the borough of Warrington. I am required to demonstrate a

strong sense of externality which involves being mindful of the perceived needs and

wants of the local community when carrying out all aspects of my role. My role

encompasses the development and maintenance of close working relationships

with external stakeholders of the Warrington Campus of the University of Chester,

from organisations such as Warrington Borough Council, Warrington Collegiate,

Warrington & Co, Culture Warrington, the Department for Education (DfE), the Baker

Dearing Trust and Warrington Wolves Rugby Club.

A piece of primary research, in the form of a marketing strategy review, was

completed at the Warrington Campus in 2008 by an external consultant (Underhill,

2009). The objective of this research was to review the effectiveness of the current

marketing strategy at Warrington and to propose recommendations for future

improvements. Underhill was tasked with reviewing the market and product, which

encapsulated levels of awareness and engagement between the University and the

local community. Underhill interviewed a number of academic and support

participants, seeking their views on issues including branding, networking, corporate

communication and business engagement. The qualitative data that was obtained

included references to the frequency of external engagement per faculty/department,

the perceived impact of such engagement and the wider dissemination and

communication of engagement successes and opportunities. It is my belief that a

new piece of research in this area would be timely and relevant and will also share a

related purpose, context and questions. This belief is based on three main

12


considerations: The Provost has identified the development and fostering of

town gown relationships or university-community engagement as a continuing

strategic priority for the Warrington Campus as student numbers continue to grow,

both locally and internationally; the University has reaffirmed its commitment to the

campus, to a continued presence in the town and to the fostering and nurturing of

strategic partnerships with local institutions and organisations . The University has

seen positive change in this regard since the appointment of the Provost, Professor

Peter Harrop, in 2009; the University has a closer and more productive working

relationship with stakeholders such as Warrington Borough Council and Warrington

Wolves Rugby Club, as a direct result of increased engagement with external

working groups, governing bodies and a continued commitment to sponsorship

arrangements with local sports, leisure and charitable organisations. Additionally, in

2011 the Provost established the WAMG which now states full representation from

colleagues at head of department level from each of the six faculties at the campus.

Amongst other concerns, the group was tasked with focusing on the associated

drivers and barriers to university-community engagement; the impact of faculty and

department engagement with the local community and the areas in which this impact

lies; the factors which affect this; and how these vary across different disciplinary

areas. It is my intention to present my research findings and actionable outcomes to

the group at a later date, in order that they might form the basis of future business

planning in this area. I will also produce a report for the University’s Senior

Management Team (SMT), with a similar rationale.

Finally, the 2014 Warrington Campus Student Survey has just been completed,

which sought students' views on academic matters, their perceptions of the campus

and the surrounding area. The survey achieved a record response this year, with

535 undergraduate and postgraduate students taking part, highlighting the

importance of issues raised and opportunities for change. Students were asked to

rate their level of satisfaction (from 1-10) with 'the level of interaction with external

bodies on my course, i.e. live briefs, guest speakers, work placements' (Micci, 2014).

An overall mean score of 6.71% was recorded in this regard, which could be

analysed by faculty. The Warrington School of Management received the

lowest satisfaction rating with 5.62%, whilst Social Science/Policing achieving the

13


highest rating of 8.75%. These statistics could be viewed as an indicator of how

effective interaction and engagement with local industry and community can impact

student perceptions of teaching quality. I therefore believe that both staff and

students of the Warrington Campus, as well as the local community, will benefit from

my research project; on an operational basis in the short term and strategically in the

long term.

I also wish my research to be viewed as relevant in a wider context and as

such have given consideration to and drawn conclusions from contemporary texts

and research findings related to the subject of university-community engagement. I

wished to gain an accurate and up to date impression of the perceptions which exist

concerning the relevance and impact of such engagement from both local and

international academics. I achieved this aim through international

networking at the University and Municipality of Ferrara and also in giving

consideration to the possible impact of market forces on such engagement both

locally and internationally. Forces such as the cultural landscape of the

Campus and its relationship with the local borough (Costley, et al., 2010). In

identifying the impact of such forces, I hope to be able to provide realistic and

actionable outcomes which might enhance the number of successful initiatives in this

area at my institution or simply provide colleagues with a clear and purposive

statement as to the possible professional and institutional benefits that could result

from an increased engagement with and dedication to this area of work.

14


2.2 Reviewing External Knowledge

In reviewing external propositional knowledge relating to university-community

engagement, I worked towards developing an original research design by

expanding my knowledge of the subject and good practice both in the UK and

abroad, establishing key issues that I might wish to explore in my situational context

and hopefully limiting my references to personal preconceptions about

issues and solutions (Fox, Martin, & Green, 2007). For me, the literature review

process was an opportunity to engage in an exercise of examining and challenging

my assumptions or meaning schemes (ibid) about my research focus, in order that

my research design might help to unearth the contextual roots of the issue in my

institution and produce realistic and actionable outcomes.

Brown and Isaacs (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, p. 502) discussed

the concept of “organisations as communities” and the potential of these

organisations to produce better performance than any traditional form of

organisation. They reference the significance of a collaborative approach between

the organisation and the local community in working towards assuring long-term

sustainability and a high level of commonality. In identifying a series of core

processes in which to achieve these outcomes: capability, commitment, contribution,

collaboration and conscience, they state that collaboration rests upon free-flowing

information in all directions and the weaving the web of personal relationships. I

would be in full agreement with the proposition that open communication is vital to

building positive working relationships, but the productivity of those relationships

rests with effective and consistent maintenance of those collaborations and the

deliverance of mutually agreed beneficial outcomes. One such example of good

work towards shaping conversations between city leaders and communities, in order

to assert its commitment to its role as a civic university, comes from Newcastle

University (Tewdwr-Jones, 2015). The project began as a pop-up urban room

exhibition and was successful in engaging politicians, businesses and residents of

the local community. The project focused on identifying new economic sectors;

dealing with the health needs of an elderly population; investment in public transport

and delivering education opportunities. Newcastle University was subsequently

chosen by the UK government as the lead co-ordinator for a network of Foresight

15


Future of Cities, which looks to academics to “collate their knowledge on the local

area to act as a resource for both residents and policymakers” (ibid: 7). I think that

the University of Chester could capitalise on its existing relationship with Warrington

Borough Council and the wealth of local and subject expert knowledge inherent in

selected academics at its Warrington Campus, by both organisations working

together on similar projects as those taking place at Newcastle University, for the

good of the local community and to reaffirm its commitment to the future

sustainability of the town and its residents.

I have discovered that contemporary researchers of university-community

engagement have mostly chosen to focus on its relationship with government

policy and practice that could guide future institutional, regional and national

reforms, as opposed to drilling down in to the nuances and particular challenges of

relationships between higher education institutions and local communities . I have

reviewed a number of primary research studies (Lawton Smith, 2007)

(Perry & Harloe, 2007) and academic journals (Clavelle, 2001) which focused on the

impact of this engagement on regional development and innovation, but they largely

fell short in addressing the challenges of these relationships and the methods of

auditing such activities. In this respect, I found it rather challenging to unearth

a considerable amount of examples of good practice in the logistical application and

analysis of qualitative data pertaining to university-community engagement both from

UK and international literary sources. I believe the cause of this to be the fact that

this is still a growing area of focus and expertise in academic circles. I would expect

to see more qualitative research carried out in the coming years and am heartened

by the inclusion of such focused literature as ‘The University and the City’

supplement, which was produced by Goethe University Frankfurt and circulated

alongside the Times Higher Education this month (Klump & Bickl, 2015).

As mentioned earlier, Underhill's review provides a useful starting point or situational

analysis of academic colleagues’ and external stakeholders' views on elements of

my research topic, as well as their interpretation of the situation, context or problem

(Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). To this end, I used Underhill’s review and the

16


“unwitting” evidence (Bell, 1995, p. 66) that lay in the underlying assumptions

unintentionally revealed in the language of participants concerning the

level of externality at Warrington as a foundation or reference point for my field of

enquiry. In an attempt to think globally; transferring the knowledge of good practice

in Ferrara and act locally; contextualising that knowledge for my own institution

(Costley, et al., 2010) and to step in to the debate concerning HEIs and their level of

community engagement, I have also used Kemp’s research on town and gown

relations in North America as a catalogue of good practice in the field. I acknowledge

that there will certainly be some non-transferable contextual differences related to

cultural, economic and government policy which could prevent such practices being

applied in my institution or the UK more generally. It was my intention to uncover the

best practices from an international reference point and to examine their

transferability on a local level, hence thinking globally but acting locally. It was

Kemp’s keynote speech at the inaugural UniTown Network Conference at the

University of Ferrara in 2013 that first drew my attention to this international network

of excellence which brings together university cities across Europe that are willing to

share experiences and develop good practices in town-gown relations. On my

subsequent Erasmus exchange to Ferrara, I was able to complete further reviews of

both academic and public sector literature materials concerning this topic.

Goddard and Vallance's (2013) latest publication, 'The University and the City',

features the findings of a random sample survey of academics from six UK

universities, which aimed to explore the different ways in which they understood their

research practice to have had an impact. In compiling this survey and in comparison

with Underhill’s more generic research focus, Goddard chooses to narrow his field of

enquiry in order to gain a more comprehensive insight in to the views of participants.

The questionnaire design which had been used (three sections: research profile,

research impact, research drivers and barriers) was clear, coherent and purposeful.

Participants were broken down in to the twelve disciplinary areas that they most

closely identified with. They were then asked to indicate whether they thought their

work was having a primary, secondary or no impact in respect to fourteen potential

areas, beneficiaries or mechanisms, one of which related to relationships with the

wider community. The survey was predicated on the assumption that all academic

staff canvassed had a) engaged in some form of primary research activity and b) that

17


all forms of academic research potentially have some form of wider impact. I found

that the way in which the questions in this survey purposefully drilled down to

potential areas of impact in order to secure a high level of in-depth qualitative

responses from participants particularly effective and inspiring for my own purposes.

I subsequently chose to unpack a certain element of my questioning concerning the

drivers and barriers to university-community engagement a. taking place and b.

having an impact. I also decided to enforce a similar predication on my sample

population, as a result of identifying the level of generalisability that could be applied

to data which had been collected from academics who had been pre-selected by

their line manager as having a specific role responsibility for university-community

engagement.

Clifford and Petrescu (2012) further developed the work of Dempsey (2010) by

categorising the challenges or critical concerns of university-community engagement

in to three main areas: internal (university organizational issues), external

(community and community-based partner issues) and personal (individual faculty

member and career issues). These dimensions are consistent with models found in

other contemporary literature (Beer & Cooper, 2007); (Hogner & Kenworthy, 2010);

(Morris, Schindehutte, Edmonds, & Watters, 2011). Such a framework could also be

applied to the identification and categorisation of themes from research data

particularly that acquired via interviews with academics engaging in such activities.

Issues such as the establishment of equity of contribution and return (Clifford &

Petrescu, 2012), advancement in the academic career versus community

engagement and internal recognition (Holland, 2001) highlight the importance of the

perceived benefit/cost position of all parties involved in the process. Barker’s

scholarship of engagement taxonomy (2004) also offers a useful framework for

measuring and auditing engagement activities. Barker identifies five emerging

practices which form the core aspects of a pluralist approach to engaged scholarship

with a view to contributing to the civic renewal of American higher education. Public

scholarship and community partnerships (ibid, p.129-131) would be the two most

referenced categories of engagement by academics interviewed as part of this

research project. Community partnerships typically engage scholars through contact

with intermediary public entities such as external agencies, local schools and

community organisations. This would be reflective of the type of collaborative

18


engagement which takes place across faculties at the Warrington Campus. In an

attempt to produce a clear and authentic representation of university-community

engagement activities currently taking place at Warrington, as well as suggested

actionable outcomes for the future, I plan to replicate Barker’s framework when

presenting my findings in the conclusion section of this research project. I believe

that the structure of this model will be best placed to translate across institutional and

disciplinary boundaries.

Weill, L.V. (2009) hypothesised that what colleges can do best is help to instil

a college town ambiance within their communities; typified by a formidable faculty

and student body exerting a profound influence on the social and commercial

atmosphere, as well as providing many social and cultural benefits to residents.

A college town typically refers to a community (town or city; neighbourhood or

district) that is dominated by its university population. Weill (ibid) states that

colleges should be seen as active, and even aggressive, in supporting economic,

cultural and academic development within the community. He goes on to speak

about the institutionalisation of community involvement and experiential education in

to college curricula. Kemp (2013) elaborates further on this proposition by giving

practical examples of how universities can foster a new paradigm which encourages

the creation of partnerships between industry and community sectors, conversations

across professions and community boundaries and an intergenerational discourse

between students and citizens. It was whilst reading an online summary of Kemp’s

keynote speech at the inaugural UniTown Network Conference in October 2013 that

I was first introduced to the work of the University of Ferrara in bringing together

university cities willing to share experiences and develop good practices in town-

gown relations. Members of this international network of universities, and other

institutions of higher education and research, are committed to devising and testing

good practices that can shape the identity of their local community. My Erasmus

exchange to the University of Ferrara in November 2014 was in essence a research

expedition to uncover and challenge the dominant propositional knowledge (Fox, et

al., 2007) of university-community engagement internationally and to make an active

contribution to this discussion. During the course of my discussions with colleagues

from the University and Municipality of Ferrara, I was able to study the relationship

between the city and its academic community. I learnt that this relationship was

19


mutually agreed to be fundamental in creating the image and identity of the medieval

urban space, as well as in promoting sustainable development and innovation in

calling for the formulation of economic strategies based on innovative institutional

and social partnerships.

I met with Daniele Branca (representative of the student body of the University of

Ferrara), Marie-Therese Pinna (Executive Director of Culture, Tourism and Youth,

Municipality of Ferrara), Professor Gastone Ave (Leader of the Scientific Committee

of UniTown Network) and colleagues from the Informagiovani (Youth Information

Agency). Using my semi-structured interview schedule and a series of probing

questions, I was able to uncover details relating to the history of town-gown relations

in the region and the recent efforts on behalf of both parties to regulate and formalise

institutional agreements that had previously took the form of informal or customary

communications. The University and the Municipality refer to each other as

‘privileged counter-parts’, meaning that the strategic objectives and values of each

party are taken in to consideration as a matter of course. One such example being

the Municipality and in particular the Vice-Mayor’s efforts to have student

representation on its administration boards. In an attempt to secure the future

sustainability of the city and its attraction to students as a place to settle down after

graduation, the Vice-Mayor had acknowledged the significance of the student voice

and the importance of their presence on this committee due to the fact that they are

unable to vote in local elections. Students are also engaged as “agents of change”

(Kemp, 2013):155 as they are tasked with undertaking architectural planning and

community development projects as part of their undergraduate programmes which

are designed to regenerate parts of the centre of Ferrara which are in close proximity

to University buildings. This urban rejuvenation work is embedded in the curriculum

of undergraduate studies at the Department of Architecture. Branca and Ave both felt

that such initiatives helped to foster and embed a sense of community spirit and

responsibility, which subsequently leads to the notion of “students as citizens”

(Branca, 2014). I believe that joining the UniTown Network could offer the University

of Chester a network of contacts across the UK and Europe, the opportunity to share

ideas and learn from the good practice and challenges facing other HEIs in striving

to enhance university-community engagement, as well as the chance to join the

debate at this seemingly topical and relevant juncture.

20


At present, no institutional agreements exist between Warrington Borough Council

and the Warrington Campus of the University of Chester. The Provost of the campus

and the Chief Executive of the Council have a customary and positive working

relationship, developed largely over the past five years due to the Provost and

selected members of the WAMG proactively keeping regular communications with

Council colleagues and embedding the University further in to the town’s future

agenda by attending Learning and Skills working groups, hospital governance

meetings, Chamber of Commerce networking sessions and culture and tourism

steering groups. Kemp (2013, pp. 39-41) refers to this as “broadening the

conversation” or having conversations across boundaries, which he says is the “core

value and core practice of community building”. A number of shared initiatives have

taken place as a result of this closer relationship involving academic, economic,

political and social stakeholders. Examples being a successful bid by the Rugby

League World Cup Steering Group 2013 to host the Samoan national side and two

quarter final games in the town, as well as a series of Public Lectures to be held at

the campus throughout 2015. Ferrara is well known and celebrated for its festival

season, comprising arts, music and culture events which are jointly developed and

supported by the University and the Municipality. It could be argued that such a

situation is to be expected for a city with a population of 18,000 students and a

history of good relations between the two institutions, however I think the

proactiveness and commitment of both students and public officials in this regard

cannot be overstated. Clearly national austerity measures were also a primary driver

to continue to offer these collaborative events which in turn help to support the local

tourism and business industry. In this respect, the University of Ferrara is generating

desirable local economic impacts.

Whilst any institutionalisation would involve much greater timescales and high-level

strategic considerations, the University of Chester has stated its intention to ‘impact

positively on the lives of our students, staff, wider community and beyond’ and ‘play

a leading role in the intellectual, cultural, social, spiritual and economic life of the

local, regional and wider community’ (Wheeler, 2014). There is currently however no

formal classification to acknowledge the community engagement efforts of

individuals or faculties. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

21


(n.d.) has created the Community Engagement Classification in this regard for

American institutions of higher learning, which uses the theories of Weill as a

foundation for developing practical benchmarks and creating and sustaining

partnerships. Again, this is an institutional classification but could perhaps be

adapted for the purposes of a single campus.

Summary

It is clear that university-community engagement as a defined area of strategic

focus is a relatively new concept for higher education institutions in the UK and

across Europe. The University of Ferrara seems to be leading the way with the

introduction of the UniTown Network and its attempts to encourage other

college towns to join this fresh, lively debate and ideas-sharing initiative. It is my

intention to use some of the good work carried out in Ferrara as examples of

good practice when I submit my proposal of actionable outcomes to the senior

management team of the University of Chester.

22


2.3 Research Purpose and Questions

The purpose of this research is to identify recommendations to further enhance

university-community engagement between the University of Chester's Warrington

Campus and the local community. Recommendations will be made in a framework

consistent with Barker’s scholarship of engagement taxonomy (2004) which

outlines five emerging practices: public scholarship, participatory research,

community partnership, public information networks and civic literacy.

Research Questions

1. What type of university-community engagement activities currently takes place at

Warrington Campus: by faculty/department?

I thought that it would be useful to incorporate an audit of the type and volume of

university-community engagement activities which currently take place at the

campus in to my interview schedule. This would be useful data to use for

comparative purposes in the future, should such activities continue and become

more embedded in the strategic mission and vision of faculties/departments. This

question proved to be effective in allowing participants to clarify their understanding

of which activities could be categorised as examples of university-community

engagement.

2. What are the perceptions of the impact of this engagement; what are the drivers

and barriers to impact; in which areas do academic colleagues believe that this

impact lies; which factors do academic colleagues believe affect this?

These areas of insight made up three of the questions (see Appendix 3, Q7, 8 and 9)

on my interview schedule. I divided the question relating to the drivers and barriers to

impact in to two parts: What are the drivers and barriers to this type of engagement

taking place? and What are the drivers and barriers to this type of engagement

having an impact? I felt that it would aid participants’ understanding of the research

focus and ability to answer questions with such a broad scope of inquiry if I

separated this question in line with chronological considerations. This approach was

effective but I was still asked to explain or further clarify the meaning of each

question, so perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I might have been in the PID or during my

unscripted interview preamble. I wouldn’t change my approach however, because it

23


afforded me the opportunity to observe participants’ current level of understanding

and familiarity with the research topic which proved useful for question 3 (below). I

believe that the reasoning for this initial misunderstanding of the question was simply

down to the fact that most participants hadn’t previously been asked to ponder such

questions or the relevance of these to their own roles. I was certainly careful not to

lead any of the responses in this respect as I had been keen to uncover personal

and authentic perceptions with departmental and role-specific considerations.

3. What are the differences in perceptions of impact across disciplinary areas?

I sought responses to questions concerning participants’ job role, faculty/department

name, length of time in post and full/part time contractual arrangements. These

questions were set to enable me to retrospectively form a picture and make realistic

assumptions about participants’ responses. The volume of qualitative data which I

retrieved from the interview process rendered this question pretty obsolete in my

opinion. I now don’t think it actually matters what the differences in perceptions of

impact are across disciplinary areas, as I can retrospectively see that the concept of

and strategic priority given to university-community engagement is still very much in

its infancy. As a result, I think that the question of differences across disciplinary

area is one for consideration at a much later stage in the process.

4. How could the communication of university-community engagement successes at

Warrington Campus be improved?

This line of questioning was almost an add-on to my drafting of the interview

schedule. In reality however, this question proved to be one of the most insightful

and useful when thinking about actionable outcomes for the future. Participants had

lots to contribute on this subject and often shared similar suggestions for

improvements to internal communication at the campus more generally. It was clear

that some faculties/departments heavily relied upon the commitment and proactive

nature of key colleagues in this process of undertaking and communicating the

success of university-community engagement activities. This question often became

more of a sounding board in relation to internal communication and

cross-faculty/department communication. It was interesting to interview both faculty

colleagues and the person responsible for communicating and promoting such

24


activities across the campus and wider institution (Senior Corporate Communications

Officer), for their contrasting viewpoints and implicating factors.

3 Research Methodology (Design)

3.1 Research Strategy/Approach

Stage 1: Audit (RQs 1-2)

I commenced my research project by undertaking a thorough background

search of contemporary texts and journals, which shadowed both my chosen topic of

university-community engagement and the methodology that I chose to adopt. I

conducted a review of any sources of primary and secondary research that

had been carried out by my institution, the University of Chester, or external

consultants in relation to my research focus.

Stage 2: Planning (RQs 3-4)

In order to fulfil my research purpose, I gathered, collated and analysed a

body of primarily qualitative data which had been provided by academics and the

University’s Senior Corporate Communications Officer, in response to a range of

open questions which were incorporated in to selected data collection methods. I

looked in to narrative accounts of colleagues' opinions and perceptions of

university community engagement. I therefore felt that a phenomological approach

would be most reliable as this would be based on the study of subjective experience

so would hopefully enhance validity and transparency and ensure that

my research was ethically sound in order to identify key themes and produce

actionable outcomes.

Stage 3: Options Analysis

I had intended to complete an options analysis exercise in order to

ascertain the most relevant and valid form of data analysis method to undertake as

part of my research. It quickly became clear due to the sheer volume of qualitative

data that I had collected that a thematic analysis or inductive approach would be

most appropriate in order to allow themes to emerge from the data (Dawson, 2007),

to enable me to get closer to the data and to develop a deeper appreciation

25


and wider understanding of its content (Boyatzis, 1998). An inductive approach

“involves the search for pattern from observation and the development of

explanations – theories – for those patterns through series of hypotheses” (Bernard,

2011, p. 7).

3.2 Methods for Data Collection

Costley (2010) and Fox (2007) define a constructivist approach as that which

regards reality as being individually and socially derived. In a similar manner and

through my methodological design, I seek to give voice to the experiences and

perceptions of the participants in a drive towards “achieving authentic reflections of

their subjective reality” (Costley, et al., 2010, p. 84). I aim to uncover their beliefs,

values and motivations through a series of semi-structured interview questions, a

consideration of ethnographic theory and a process of thematic analysis. Through

the use of a reflexivity journal and interview summary forms, I attempted to create an

authentic narrative based on participant observations which also enabled me to be

reflective as I looked for emergent patterns and concepts, as well as negating any

concerns about interviewer objectivity due to the documented account of each stage

of the process. Introspective reflexivity is said to add considerably to the credibility

and usefulness of qualitative research (Roller, 2012). I hope that this process of

reflection will assist in the discovery of new insights in to the topic, or at least further

clarify or consolidate those views expressed by participants. As I completed the

reflexivity journal, I was able to reflect on the observation of clues and sequential

format of the interview questions. In doing so, I created “theories” of action by

extracting the tacit knowing that was implicit during those conversations (Schon,

1987, pp. 25-26). These methodological tools also enabled me to be “reflective-on-

action” during the data collection process and to create a “strangeness” (Costley, et

al., 2010, p. 122) between myself and the research subjects in order to remain

objective.

Costley et al (ibid: 6) discuss the “subjective nature of researching your own practice,

where there may be a lack of impartiality, a vested interest in certain results being

achieved”. This discussion reiterates Lawrence and Murray (2000) on insider bias

and validity. I attempted to reduce participant bias by opting to exclude the WAMG

26


from the sample population. I have also used triangulation methods of data

collection by interviewing a non-academic with relevant professional, work-based

knowledge of the subject at the University of Chester and two non-academic

participants in Ferrara. I was aware and acknowledged the possibility that some

participants might have had the perception that my research was impartial due to my

working role in the Directorate and that this could lead to a response effect.

Colleagues might have initially felt that I was intending to retrieve favourable data in

relation to their workload management or area of strategic focus. Borg (1981) speaks

about the eagerness of the respondent to please the interviewer. Examples from the

data in this regard included: “I’m not sure what you want me to say?” (Profile 11) and

“Is that what you wanted to hear?” (Profiles 2 and 6). In this respect, it became even

more vital that I implemented a research design with an awareness of the issues

represented, paid careful attention to feedback from participants and carried out a

thorough analysis and evaluation of the data. A concern of mine had I not followed

such an approach would have been that I simply sought out the answers which

supported my preconceived notions (ibid).

Given my limited knowledge of academic role responsibilities, I acknowledged that I

would not be able to use an entirely random sampling method as I would not be able

to guarantee that all participants in the sample population had previous experience

or specific role responsibility for university-community engagement. In order to

secure a valid and representative response, I subsequently decided to liaise with the

WAMG in order to seek guidance on the most suitable academic colleagues to

approach with a view to taking part in my research. I then used an exploratory

sampling technique (selecting participants from the WAMG-recommended list on a

first named, first served basis) in order to identify twelve academic colleagues from

across the six faculties at Warrington whom I then invited to a face to-face semi-

structured interview. Bell (1995, p. 66) defines a researcher’s methodological aim as

being to “obtain as representative a range of responses as possible…to provide

answers to key questions”. To this end and in order to be able to direct

generalizations to this “normal” population (Savin-Baden & Niekerk, 2010, p. 28), I

wanted to ensure that I engaged with the most suitable participants across the

faculties on campus. By adopting an exploratory sampling technique, I was able to

seek guidance from the WAMG in selecting suitable participants due to my limited

27


knowledge of the phenomenon area and its presence in academic role descriptors. A

significant disadvantage of this approach being the fact that my research was then

subject to the time pressures of other colleagues. I had produced my Schedule/Gantt

chart and planned to carry out my interviews between the 30th June 2014 and 29th

August 2014 but this timeframe proved to be unrealistic taking in to account the

annual leave arrangements of WAMG members and potential participants. Some

colleagues took considerably longer to respond to communications than others.

Whilst this wasn’t entirely surprising, it did affect my ability to adhere to the intended

pace of my logistical research arrangements. It therefore proved necessary to extend

the interview window to the 26th September 2014. A semi structured interview

format was the most appropriate choice for my purposes as I was able to follow the

guidelines of my set questions, but also to allow participants a degree of flexibility

and latitude within the framework (Bell, 1995). The conditions of the interview

afforded me the opportunity to contextualise the purposes of my research, which had

been forwarded to participants beforehand via a Participation Information Document

(PID) (see Appendix 2) and covering note. The PID worked to reduce any

ambiguities produced by the questions posed. Responses were then collated in

order to determine the final sample. Such a sampling approach was practical for

quick action and pragmatically sensible, given the total population of academic

colleagues on site and the time constraints that I was operating under. I

acknowledge that using a straw poll selection principle might have affected the

generalisability of my findings, but using a manageable number of participants

should have allowed me to make valid claims about their thinking.

28


3.3 Methods for Data Analysis

There are seventy members of academic staff at Warrington working within six

faculties. During the course of my employment as Executive Secretary and

in servicing the WAMG and Warrington Campus Management Committee

(WCMC) for over six years, I have learnt that academic roles at the campus tend to

be more outward-facing in comparison to those of support colleagues, in the sense

that they are often responsible for the convening and maintenance of strategic

partnerships with external organisations in an academic or curriculum design

context. In light of this, I conducted a total of 11 semi-structured interviews with

academic colleagues from the six represented faculties, as well as the Senior

Corporate Communications Officer with designated responsibility for Warrington.

Whilst carrying out research internationally, I interviewed 3 colleagues from the

University and Municipality of Ferrara. I believe that my decision to only engage with

academic colleagues in seeking their perceptions of university-community

engagement was both fair and relevant for my research purposes. In working to

obtain as representative a sample as possible, I am still giving a voice to those

academic colleagues whose views might not be sought on a regular basis and who

might not be represented in reports of quantitative averages. In this respect, my

sample could be described as representing the voice of the marginalised

(Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009) or those academic colleagues who fall in to the

category of junior or middle management and therefore do not routinely attend

strategic meetings such as the WAMG. I would envisage that as a consequence of

this approach, my research would be viewed as inclusive and participants might be

more inclined to engage with the process if they perceived the potential outcome to

be of particular benefit to them or their role. To counter this, a potential weakness of

this approach could lie in the fact that participants’ responses might not come from a

fully informed or reliable viewpoint with due consideration of strategic or operational

implications. Dobelli, R (2013) talks about outcome bias and not judging a

decision by its outcome; I acknowledge that there will be additional factors affecting

the level of university-community engagement per faculty/department and that a

one size-fits-all approach will not be appropriate when I come to make

recommendations for enhanced engagement in my actionable outcomes. I decided

to actively establish some delimitations on the scope of my project, namely choosing

29


not to include the WAMG in the exploratory sample on grounds of possible credibility

issues (Lawrence & Murray, 2000). I believed that interviewing heads of department

with designated strategic responsibility for university-community engagement could

invoke questions of capability and lead to biased responses.

I produced an interview schedule (Dawson, 2007) which consisted of a list of

primarily open questions based around the research subject. I chose a semi-

structured or guided interview format for the freedom and flexibility which it afforded

me; the freedom to deviate from the line of questioning, in order to pursue

“serendipitous findings and fruitful directions” (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009, p.

225). Whilst I would argue that such a framework was descriptively valid, in that the

interview schedule enabled me to tease out more descriptive and insightful

responses in most cases, I did experience certain challenges in relation to the

interpretative validity of the framework (Fox, et al., 2007). One example being

several participants’ tendency to pre-empt future themes due to the closely related

and at times overlapping nature of the questions. I observed that this

phenomenon would tend to be in direct correlation with the participant’s level

of understanding or familiarity with the subject matter, i.e. participants who had

been familiar with the concept of university-community engagement having a

perceived impact on either their role or the University more generally, would tend to

pause before making a response which was almost a sign or precursor of a well

considered response which still remained within the context or limitations of that

particular question.

I was keen to address those issues concerning externality which Underhill’s (2009)

report started to uncover when drafting my interview questions, in order to ascertain

whether perspectives have shifted in participants' social construction of reality

(Berger & Luckmann, 1966). I paid particular attention to the sequencing of

questions; starting with demographic and factual questions, designed to put the

respondent at ease, followed by a set of feeling, opinion and value questions. In

using such questions, I aimed to elicit meanings, interpretations and associations in

regard to the experiences described in the interview, whilst maintaining neutrality

(Patton, 2002). I made use of probes and transitions where relevant in order to make

the interview both time and cost effective for myself and the participant. I ended with

30


a closing question which allowed the participant to address, redirect or correct the

research agenda as they saw fit. I believe that this gave participants a sense of

autonomy in being able to contribute any further points, related or otherwise, to the

discussion. I recorded each interview on a dictaphone which provided me with a

complete and reliable record for analysis and enabled me to further reflect upon

particular sections of the conversation before making observations or drawing

conclusions. Hinds (Wilkinson, 2002) speaks about the importance of accurately

recording what was said and not what you think should have been said. Robson

(ibid) refers to this as a form of bias or selective attention. I then completed an

interview summary form immediately following each meeting. I transcribed each

interview recording via detailed notes after the cessation of the data collection and

interview summary process. This process took longer than I had originally

anticipated for various reasons: personal and work-related time constraints and the

sheer level of data that I collected from the 15 face to face interviews, 3 of which had

been carried out in Ferrara and followed a slightly different structure than those with

my University of Chester colleagues due to the language barrier.

The reliability and accuracy of recorded data was paramount as I set about

employing a thematic analysis approach (Boyatzis, 1998) in coding data by looking

for words or phrases that met the criteria of frequency across cases,

dominance in emphasis and repetition (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). Coding was

performed through a process of six phases ranging from familiarising myself with the

data (Phase 1), the generation of initial codes extracted from the interview summary

forms (Phase 2), to revisiting the data and reducing transcription records in to further

categorised codes (Phase 3/4), then combining of codes into overarching themes

which accurately depict the data (Phase 5), to deciding which themes make

meaningful contributions to the final report (Phase 6). I highlighted words or themes

which arose consistently throughout the interview paying particular attention to, in my

opinion, the five most pertinent research questions. Those questions being:

1. What do you understand university-community engagement to mean?

2. What types of university-community engagement activities currently take

place in your faculty/department?

31


4. What are the drivers and barriers to this type of engagement taking place?

(presented separately as question 4a and 4b)

5. Do you believe that university-community engagement has an impact, if so

how?

8. How could the communication of these activities and successes be improved?

I produced two rich pictures (see Appendix 5a and 5b) detailing any recurrent words

and then produced a series of Initial Coding Framework tables (see Appendix 6,

tables 1a – 1f) for each of the questions. I replicated the table format used by

Burnard et al (2008) in their paper on analysing and presenting qualitative data, as

the management and presentation of data particularly suited the purpose and tone of

my research. Although I found Phase 1 and 2 of the thematic analysis process a

timely and extremely intricate exercise, I was heartened to discover that data fit quite

neatly in to codes, which consequently made the process of combining these in to

overarching themes (see Appendix 7) which accurately depict the data during Phase

3, a relatively straightforward and fluid process. An example being in Question 1:

What do you understand university-community engagement to mean? The following

words were mentioned, all with the prefix of local: students, knowledge, area,

schools, trusts, health authority, businesses and communities. By selecting the

overarching theme of local, I was afforded the opportunity to make inferences about

participants’ geographic perceptions of local and regional, in order that this might

help to provide supporting information as to their level of engagement with the

community and viewpoint as to the impact of this type of engagement. Another

example from Question 1 would be the number of references to relationships

(connections, links, liaison and contacts) which I will therefore be including as a

major theme in my analysis.

In Question 4b: What are the barriers to this type of engagement taking place? I was

able to combine the following codes in to overarching themes: Communication/Social

Media: inter-faculty communication, number of people involved, different

approaches, different agendas, social media. Internal structures and logistics (or

internal/university organizational issues) (Clifford & Petrescu, 2012): siloes, little

collaboration or engagement, no recognition, no incentives, budgetary controls,

politics, bureaucracy (Ferrara), expense delays, time, financial cost, existing

32


workload, resources, insurance, safeguarding, health and safety, risk assessments.

Sustainability (or external/community and community-based partner issues) (ibid):

austerity cuts, funding cuts, government policy and administration.

Notes on this iterative process and reasons for interpreting and combining codes in

order to form themes were also included in my reflexivity journal. I believe that using

a triangulation approach of grounded theory and thematic analysis enabled me to

overcome the different weaknesses inherent in all methods (Dawson, 2007)

alongside capturing all the richness that the data provides. I acknowledge the

possibility of my interpreting a participant’s singular observational statement as

something more general and theoretical, but in light of the context of my research

focus I was aware that a purely qualitative method of inquiry would be most relevant.

In employing a grounded theory approach, I aimed to conceptualize what

participants were telling me in their responses through inductive thinking and

extracting codes from repeated words or ideas. I chose to employ such an approach

as I believed that in order for my research to be meaningful, respected and

something which can be acted upon and potentially generate new theory, I would

need to go beyond surface interpretations in order to get an accurate understanding

of the "big picture" (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 102). Otherwise my research would

simply be viewed as paying lip service to a much more complex issue.

33


3.4 Ethics

In order to ensure that my research project is ethically sound, I worked within the

guidelines of the 1998 Data Protection Act. I respected the autonomy of prospective

participants by inviting them to participate in the research project via e-mail with PID

and covering note attached. All participants were asked to sign a consent form

before engaging with the research process. I also informed participants of

my intention to audio record and type up transcript notes following the semi

structured interviews. Participants were offered full access rights to the data if they

so wished and all data was securely locked away in my office store cupboard. All

interview data was kept completely anonymous, with participants only

being identified via their job title and faculty/department. This approach was not

possible with the Senior Corporate Communications Officer, as she is the only

member of her departmental team to have a designated responsibility for work at

Warrington so in this respect she would be easy to identify from the data.

I stated in the PID that participants were fully entitled to withdraw from the process at

any time and without giving a reason. The Belmont Report (Research., 1979)

outlines three main considerations with regards to research ethics: respect for

persons, beneficence and justice. My research did not involve any participants with

diminished autonomy, therefore additional protection was not be required. I

worked to secure the well-being of participants at all stages of the interviewing

process by creating a welcoming, open and safe atmosphere. I did not identify any

monetary or material benefits to be distributed to participants, but I do believe that

some would have considered the experience to be therapeutic or developmental.

34


4 Findings

4.1 Overarching themes

Local

The University of Chester states that as part of its commitment to corporate social

responsibility, it will “interact effectively and positively with our regional and wider

community” (Wheeler, 2015). When asked what they understood university-

community engagement to mean, 100% of participants from the Warrington Campus

included the word local in their response. Participants representing creative

industries programmes (Media, Film Studies) and Policing made reference to the

wider region (Cheshire, Halton, Salford, Manchester), when speaking about work

experience placements, collaborative projects with industry partners and

volunteering opportunities. This is perhaps understandable for Media given the move

of the BBC to MediaCity, Salford and its close proximity to the campus. It does

however suggest that there might be some disparity between departments as to their

understanding or perception of what constitutes the community in university-

community engagement. This would appear to support comments made in the

section entitled Relationships and Collaborative Working, referring to the lack of a

consistent message as to the University’s expectations of academic colleagues in

respect of such engagement activities. It was the same two colleagues who also

referred to the staff and students of Warrington Campus as being an internal

derivative of the local community. Other participants did not identify internal

colleagues as being part of the local community or essentially representing a group

or body of people that should or could be engaged with. This was a very interesting

and unexpected point of discussion during my interviews with these two participants.

Admittedly, I had previously been much more focused on an outward-facing view of

the local community; that existing outside of the campus perimeter.

Geographical distinctions varied across participants as to the definition of the local

area. Some perceived the local community to include residents in the immediate

vicinity of the campus, whilst others extended their view further in to the centre of the

town. Institutions such as Warrington Wolves, Warrington Museum, Parr Hall,

35


Warrington Hospital and Warrington Borough Council were consistently referred to

as examples of local organisations.

Participants in Italy referred to the city of Ferrara as being “…a whole campus in a

sense” (Ave, 2014), due to the university buildings being located across the relatively

compact city centre. They did not refer to businesses or residents of Ferrara as

being members of the local community, instead choosing to adopt a more inclusive

approach in identifying anyone who works or resides in the city as being part of the

same network or group. Another marked contrast between participants of Warrington

and Ferrara would be the reference to national and international communities.

Participants in Ferrara regularly cited increased engagement and the sharing of good

practice with European partner institutions as being objectives of the UniTown

Network. I do believe that higher education institutions in the UK are starting to

mirror their European counterparts in this regard, by associating themselves more as

part of a wider EU community. The University of Birmingham would be a good

example with its presence on the EUROCITIES network; bringing together 130 of

Europe’s largest cities and 40 partner cities in working to drive policies to secure

economic growth and recovery at the EU and local level. With a strong focus on and

commitment to European strategic partnerships, The University of Birmingham views

its role as “maintaining our global connections…constantly creating new

ambassadors for the city-region, thereby laying the foundations for our future

prosperity” (Bore & Whitby, 2015). By concerning themselves with international

student numbers, national higher education league tables and improving the student

experience for those who chose to study in Ferrara, it became clear that improving

the proactiveness of the private sector in attracting tourists and students to Ferrara

was of paramount importance to both the university and municipality and it struck me

that perhaps this is where Warrington could learn from their example.

Internal structures and logistics

Whilst participants acknowledged the value and potential benefits of increased

university-community engagement, a third (33.33%) cited staff time, financial costs,

workload, departmental siloes and a lack of recognition and resources as barriers to

such engagement activities taking place and/or having an impact. There was a

36


commonality of thought between academic colleagues at Warrington and Ferrara

which centred on the personal motivation, drive and goodwill of colleagues to initiate

and develop such activities in their respective institutions, despite the lack of any

official recognition whether verbal or otherwise (see Appendix 9 for quotes).

Whilst this often referenced goodwill is commendable, it is important to note that

should these colleagues later become disillusioned or demotivated to engage in such

activities, they subsequently might not take place at all. Profile 12 stated “…there are

no targets, I don’t have to do it…if I stopped, it wouldn’t happen”. Clearly there is a

present and real need for such activities to be embedded much more in to the

curriculum (for students) and workload allocation (for staff) if the University wishes

for them to continue in to the future; as Profile 15 states, “the goodwill of people

changes over time”. In areas where this is already the case, such as the Department

of Sport and Community Engagement, participants still referenced time and resource

constraints in their feedback but it could be generally assumed that university-

community engagement activities would not cease as a direct result of these

pressures, as such activities are the very cornerstone of what the department is and

has been convened for. Nevertheless, these issues should be acknowledged and

dealt with at a senior management level.

Sustainability

On the whole there appeared to be a marked contrast between the contextual

perceptions of participants at Warrington and Ferrara regarding the issue of

sustainability. Academics at Warrington mostly spoke about the future survival of

their programmes, of meeting internal and policy-driven targets and enhancing the

employability of their student cohort. These inward-facing drivers to enhancing the

level of university-community engagement activities did not make reference to the

future sustainability of the local area or the town of Warrington more generally.

Indeed, only two participants made direct reference to “giving something back to the

local community” (Profile 3) and “meeting the needs of clients and the local

community” (Profile 1). Perhaps unsurprisingly, these two profiles represent

departments which have a specified strategic focus on community engagement

and/or engage consistently with the local community on joint projects. Colleagues in

37


Ferrara spoke consistently and passionately about the sustainability of the local area

in terms of economic, demographic and financial impacts. They clearly viewed the

role of the University of Ferrara to be pivotal in this regard and the interconnection

between the two institutions (university and municipality) as being the most viable

route of return.

Relationships and collaborative working

In this research project, as well as other notable literary texts (Senge, et al., 1994),

(Kemp, 2013), the role of collaborative working in the process of building community

vision and working to secure the sustainability of a collective future, is a strong

factor. Senge et al (1994, p. 502) hypothesized that this process often starts with

public education leadership and begins to pick up steam when “a critical mass of

people from all sectors begin to ask together: How will we be able to flourish, not just

survive?” Participants of my research project posed similar rhetorical questions

during the interview process (see Appendix 9 for more quotes):

Profile 1: “…to have an active, or sort of holistic role, in that we support the

community we are closest to…that we do something to enhance and grow our local

community…it makes a lot of sense and there are a lot of very positive reasons to

push for closer connections”.

Profile 2: “...we have to have that engagement, why wouldn’t you because they are

stakeholders…and, you know, the stakeholder involvement works both ways so I do

think it is a collaborative approach that has to be recognised perhaps a little bit more

but it won’t happen overnight”.

There was a shared consensus amongst participants that some internal difficulties

existed in the area of collaborative working between departments and faculties.

Some departments were said to be working to embed and formalise such

collaborative working practices more keenly than others (Profile 1/Department of

Media and Profile 10/Department of Sport & Community Engagement) on both a

strategic and vocational basis, whilst others reported to be simply adhering to

external policy drivers and articulated a climate of “ineffective response to external

factors”; “overly focused on numbers” and “employer frustrations” (Profile

38


9/Department of Social Work). Collaboration requires effective communication

between all engaged parties and information to flow freely in all directions in order to

ensure joint action in the pursuit of common goals (ibid: 516). Participants keenly felt

that inter-departmental personal relationships needed to be strengthened by

increased face-to-face meetings and campus-wide conferences and events. Perry et

al (Kemp, 2013, p. 65) defined three key features of institutional collaboration as

leadership, resources and organisations. In respect of organisations, I would argue

that a more strategic approach was required to university-community engagement on

behalf of individual faculties and departments at Warrington, and a much clearer

articulation of the University’s objectives in this area. Several participants queried the

University’s expectations of academic colleagues in respect of the level of

engagement with both other faculties and the local community and it was clear that

participants did not feel a consistent message was being conveyed by senior

management in this regard.

Students

It was clear throughout my interviews with participants that the best examples of

university-community engagement were those which involved service-learning

projects where students go out in to or engage directly with the local community on

projects which enhance their learning in an academic context. Examples include The

Hot Room projects as highlighted by Profile 1 (Wire 2 Wolves and History of

Warrington DVDs, Warrington Museum and Fairfield Community Centre) and the

rejuvenation of Ferrara city centre described by Profile 15 as the “contribution of

ideas for urban refurbishment” (Ave, 2014). McKoy et al (Kemp, 2013, p. 154) state

that evidence shows that service learning can “develop students’ skills, knowledge

and commitment to participate in addressing collective problems in the community

and society”. Several of my participants felt that by fostering and embedding a sense

of community spirit and responsibility whilst students are studying at Warrington, this

would then help them to develop into competent and responsible citizens of the

future. By becoming active participants in the future sustainability of the town, it had

been hoped by both Warrington and Ferrara colleagues that students would choose

to remain in the local area upon graduation, therefore contributing to future economic

impacts and reversing the declining and ageing population.

39


Colleagues in Ferrara used the following statements when describing the rationale

behind the UniTown Network and the close relationship between the town and

municipality:

Profile 13: “…to improve the quality of students’ lives in the city and to improve the

quality of the city’s services for the community…something not just made for the

students, but made with the students……students feel more like citizens, instead of

guests”.

Profile 14 referenced the students of Ferrara as being an important source of

economy for the city and the municipality’s wish to offer a complete service to its

young people through the introduction and embedding of the informagiani service in

the centre of the city and by working to create a direct link between itself and the

university. In this respect, it appeared to be clear to me that colleagues in Ferrara

had instigated a much more strategic plan in their efforts to improve university-

community engagement and more pertinently, to highlight the role that students

might play in this process, than perhaps has yet been the case at Warrington.

Communication/Social Media

I wished to incorporate the subject of corporate communications in to my research

project given the nature of my award title and my personal belief that effective

university-community engagement relies heavily upon this precursor. I chose to

question participants about the methods of communication of university-community

engagement activities in their individual departments and also their thoughts as to

how such communications could be improved. I did not expect this line of

questioning to yield such a high level of feedback and I quickly learnt that this was a

subject which united opinion amongst participants. The general consensus was that

internal communication had greatly improved over the past two to three years, but

there was still room for improvement where inter-departmental communication and

engagement were concerned. Participants talked about siloes, colleagues feeling

isolated in their departments, not having time to engage with other departments and

a heavy reliance on informal chats along the corridor in order to keep up to date with

the workload of peers. Comments regarding siloes and colleagues feeling isolated

tended to come from professional programmes such as Health and Social Care,

40


Social Work and Education and were said to be related to issues such as split sites,

a faculty orientation bias towards Chester Campus and a lack of awareness of the

work of the WAMG and Warrington Campus Management Committee (WCMC),

however there was a general feeling across academic departments at Warrington

that internal communication could still be improved: This could aid the enhancement

of university-community engagement as colleagues would have a clearer picture of

the type of work that their peers are engaged with, the internal and external strategic

partnerships which currently exist and the possibilities of interdisciplinary working for

mutually beneficial outcomes (see Appendix 9 for quotes).

Other participants spoke positively about the benefits of regular staff meetings,

departmental e-bulletins and the Warrington’s Works Research Festival as an

opportunity and vehicle at which to promote and celebrate the work of academic

colleagues and to share good practice:

Profile 4: “I think off the back of Warrington’s Works is a really interesting question

because there we were, lots of different faculties together…oftentimes people are

doing similar things or they’ve got something, and you might teach totally different

subjects, but wait a minute; that might work…going to Warrington’s Works made me

realise ok, you’ve got lots of different departments here but there’s lots of things here

that we might be working on similar things…maybe it does create a sense of

community”.

Profile 2 spoke about a resistance on behalf of some academic colleagues to

engage with new technologies such as social media platforms. A departmental

champion was suggested in this regard and a couple of requests were made for

internal training in this area. Participants were united in their belief that increased

engagement with social media such as Facebook and Twitter and a better online

presence for Warrington on the University’s corporate website was the right direction

for the campus to take in order to promote itself and its activities to a wider audience,

as well as to improve staff and students’ awareness of departmental activities on

campus.

41


Engagement with the Department of Corporate Communications was also

referenced by several participants. Profile 5 spoke about the need for an effective

communications strategy which specifically focused on the University’s relationship

with the local community. I am not aware of the presence of such a document, apart

from the departmental business plan, which would not be made publically available.

Profile 6 felt that Warrington Campus was more engaged with its local town than had

been the case four years ago; this was thought to have been helped by the

University’s strong relationship with Warrington Wolves and engagement with the

2013 Rugby League World Cup Steering Group. Profile 6 also spoke about the

weekly deadline of the Warrington Guardian newspaper and its impact on the

retrieval of information from departments and the production and submission of

press releases:

Profile 6: “…we can only promote what we know about, unless people tell us, I guess

people don’t always want to blow their own trumpet…that goes for internal and

external communications.”.

Profile 8 felt that colleagues needed to make more use of internal marketing and

corporate communications and suggested having these as standing agenda items of

the WCMC. They felt that there was a lack of resource in their department which

prevented the effective delegation of internal communications activities. Some

departments had been proactive in the creation of their own closed group (private)

Facebook page for students on their programmes. These pages were currently being

monitored by internal colleagues and were not in any way overseen by the

Department of Marketing, Recruitment and Admissions (MRA). I think that if a

strategic decision was made to engage more proactively with social media on a

campus-wide level at Warrington, then such arrangements would need to be audited

and carefully considered in line with the University’s Human Resource Management

guidelines on the use of social media (Management, 2012).

42


4.2 Reflection on findings

A paradigm shift is needed in the minds of academic colleagues who might view

university-community engagement as being ineffective or possessing no impact or

return on investment. To achieve this shift, it will be necessary to break those deeply

embedded habitual and primary tendencies such as procrastination, impatience and

criticalness which “violate the basic principles of human effectiveness” (Covey, 2004,

p. 46). Covey defines such traits as features of one’s character ethic or basic

character and in order to change these attitudes and behaviours it will be necessary

to examine the basis from which they flow. In essence, this has been the rationale

for my completing this piece of primary research.

The majority of participants reported a widespread perception amongst their

academic colleagues of university-community engagement being placed in the

“important/not urgent” category of the time management matrix (ibid: 151). At this

point I think that it is important to reflect upon Savin-Baden and Niekerk’s (2010, p.

28) acknowledgement of truths being complex and fragile, and “places where issues

of power, consent and negotiation are mediated by our own values and biographies”.

Clearly all of the perceptions put forward by academic colleagues have been formed

and exist in their own individually constructed worlds and realities. Thinking more

positively about this position; it would appear that colleagues are perfectly placed in

Quadrant II or the heart of effective personal management (Covey, 2004) and simply

require the same proactivity displayed by some of their peers in order to think and

plan ahead for relationship building and increased engagement of this kind. Those

colleagues displaying a high degree of “response-ability” (ibid: 71) which is the ability

to choose your response and display behaviours of your own conscious choice

based upon values rather than as a product of circumstance based upon feeling

(Profiles 1,5 and 12), tended to be those who viewed university-community

engagement to be of value, who took personal responsibility for engaging with such

activities and who were proactive in those pursuits, regardless of whether their role

dictated them to do so. I would encourage the Provost of the Warrington Campus

and the WAMG to work to highlight, combine and reward the creativity and

resourcefulness of these individuals in order to create a proactive culture within their

individual departments and across the campus more generally. I would also highlight

the importance of fostering a dual view of the local community, to encompass both

43


the internal (Warrington Campus staff and students) and external community (local

residents, businesses, not for profit organisations, schools etc.) of the campus. If

colleagues felt more of a collective affinity with the campus and with Warrington as a

whole, then perhaps this would in turn have a positive effect on staff morale,

motivation, students’ perceptions of inclusivity and community, internal

communication and levels of engagement with local business.

Something which struck me throughout the data collection process was the

consistency of participants’ references to the role of students in the university-

community engagement process. This admittedly hadn’t occurred to me during the

methodological planning of my research project and with hindsight, including

Warrington students in the sample population might have offered some useful

insights in to their knowledge of the issue and its perceived relevance to them and

their experience whilst progressing their studies. The concept of “students as

citizens” (Branca, 2014) was reiterated throughout my conversations in Italy and was

clearly starting to be embedded in the hearts and minds of colleagues at the

University and Municipality of Ferrara. I think Ferrara’s progress to date in university-

community engagement endeavours is testament to the work of Branca in his role as

the University’s student representative in engagement with the municipality, the

town’s commitment to inclusivity and to the continued sustainability of both economic

and social growth. I think that the University of Chester, particularly its Warrington

Campus, could benefit greatly from engaging students more consistently in activities

such as sandwich placements, work experience, guest lectures and community

project work as this will not only enhance the visibility and reputation of the campus

but also contribute to students’ applied learning in real life contexts. As a starting

point, I would recommend that an audit be carried out with the intention of utilising

and co-ordinating the efforts of the wider university, more specifically those

departments at Warrington who currently engage with the local community, for

example Work Based Learning (WBL) and Careers and Employability. Through

utilising those networks and contacts which already exist, I believe that the campus

should be able to avoid duplication of efforts and improve the overall student

experience. The Youth Information Agency of Ferrara (or Informagiovani) is a free

public service hub whose mission is to provide useful, practical information which is

relevant to young people, not just students; information which is “indispensable to

44


developing active citizenship” (Policies, 2014, p. 2). The service provides free

counselling, seminar groups, careers guidance, computer access, European

exchange advice and discount cards for local leisure and entertainment

establishments. Profile 1 spoke about the importance of students experiencing a

sense of belonging when they arrive at Warrington and I think that this process could

be helped along if the University and Warrington Borough Council collaborated on

the production and distribution of local guide books, maps, local and national

volunteering and career opportunities and the promotion of leisure and sport

activities. Such materials could be distributed on campus at open and applicant

days, as well as being made available across the town in libraries, public offices and

educational institutions. Currently, there are no visible signs of the local council

wanting young people to choose to reside in the town after graduation.

Prince (Kemp, 2013, p. 40) refers to the students of Hampshire College, U.S having

contributed to an “intergenerational discourse” through the creation of a forum for

people involved in community schools, policing and health. Prince stated that there

was a need for every committee or commission to have a younger counterpart

organisation, in order to encourage conversations across professions and

community boundaries. One way in which this could be achieved at Warrington

Campus would be through the recently opened Multi-Agency Centre in White Hall.

Academic colleagues in Policing, Social Work and Nursing currently liaise and

collaborate in sharing facilities and maintaining a dialogue for the creation of

interdisciplinary programmes and initiatives. This open space for shared learning

could be used as a hub for students on programmes which regularly necessitate

engagement with the local community and local organisations. Unlike the University

of Ferrara, I believe that there is a real risk of students at Warrington experiencing a

lack of communication and engagement with the local area of Padgate and with the

wider town of Warrington. This would be due to a number of factors including the

location of the campus on the outskirts of the town, the lack of a visible relationship

between students and civic counterparts at the local town hall and a generalised lack

of awareness of the University’s attempts to mutually define and shape its individual

and collective interests with local government, business and community sectors. It

would be interesting to uncover statistics as to what proportion of the town’s

economic wealth can be attributed to its student population. Such data might form

45


part of some useful supporting information for a possible civic work-based learning

strategy and/or student information/leisure guide.

Some academic colleagues display behaviours indicative of “knowing-in-action”

(Schon, 1987, p. 25) when they contact the Senior Corporate Communications

Officer to communicate university-community engagement success stories for wider

circulation and promotion. This is learned behaviour which has developed as a result

of faculty or department-specific routinized response. It would be my

recommendation that WAMG works to galvanise academic colleagues in to being

reflective-in-action and thinking critically and proactively about how they can engage

more with university-community activities and the promotion of these activities. I

would also recommend that the Senior Corporate Communications Officer be invited

to present a report on the activities of her department at each meeting of the WCMC.

This would afford colleagues an appropriate opportunity to inform this member of

staff of upcoming university-community engagement activities and events taking

place in departments at Warrington, and would in turn allow her to be more effective

in the forward planning of writing press releases and booking advertisements in

regional publications. I also think that it would be highly beneficial to delegate the

responsibility of liaising with the Department of Corporate Communications to the

faculty or most appropriate departmental administrator at Warrington. At the present

time, this line of communication is increasingly one-way and will continue to fall

between the cracks as the size and scope of the workload demands on this

department continues to grow.

As noted earlier, if a strategic decision was made to engage more proactively with

social media on a campus-wide level at Warrington, the Provost would need to

consider the following factors: who would take responsibility for this; would there be

a departmental champion or a campus-wide person with a specific responsibility;

would MRA need to be involved; how would this be policed; what are the possible

ramifications for staff and students; how would such activities speak to the

University’s policies on social media, safeguarding and professional suitability.

46


5 Conclusion

5.1 Critical Reflections on Research Process

It had been my intention to model my actionable outcomes on a contemporary

theoretical framework in the field of university-community engagement. During the

process of interviewing participants and analysing data, I quickly discovered that it

would be a less than straightforward process to incorporate my findings in to a rigid

framework. This was due to the level of contextual complexity present in participants’

responses which related quite specifically to the Warrington Campus and as a result,

could not be so easily categorised by theme. I found that most models of

engagement focused predominantly on community engagement as a by-product of

scholarly research and were reactive in their response to social and political issues,

as opposed to reaching out to communities in a proactive, open and discursive

manner. As a relatively small campus, Warrington has a limited number of research

professors based on site, therefore most of the community engagement which takes

place is vocational or ad hoc. Whilst some of the engagement activities in

departments concern or indirectly reference political and economic issues in the

borough, the majority focus on enhanced service learning for students, student

employability and the sustainability of collaborative partnerships with local business,

schools and community groups. In this regard, I found the campus’s level and type of

community engagement to be less readily quantifiable yet more aspirational and far-

sighted than most contemporary models of engagement could accommodate.

Participants had been keen to acknowledge that the campus’s efforts in this area

were perhaps in their infancy and that the challenge ahead was a formidable but not

insurmountable one due to the commitment and self-motivation of key colleagues at

the campus.

There is admittedly a lack of standardised measurement instruments for the

evaluation of community engagement within the higher education sector. A particular

challenge in this regard being the wide variety of possible activities encompassed by

the term university-community engagement; the lack of a finite definition of the

concept; and the variety of approaches adopted in formulating measurement tools or

frameworks. The Russell Group created the Higher Education Community

Engagement Model (HECEM) in 2003, with the aim of capturing community activities

that are conducted over and above the institution’s core purposes of teaching and

47


research. The model is a three stage process which aims to provide quantifiable

evidence to demonstrate the value of community engagement and incorporates a

large scale survey and return process with internal staff. Data is then collated and

measured against pre-defined indicators and a communications plan produced for

both internal and external stakeholders of the institution. Indicators include the

number of hours contributed, the subject focus of projects, in kind contributions,

external funding and beneficiary numbers. Such a broad scope of quantifiable

requirements rendered this otherwise contextually relevant model unsuitable for my

purposes. In undertaking this research project, I have however in essence carried

out a mini version of the HECEM and I would be keen to build upon my findings by

engaging with such a larger scale evaluation model for the University of Chester.

5.2 Recommendations/implications for practice

The scholarship of engagement reflects a movement within American higher

education which focuses on a growing interest in broadening and deepening the

public aspects of academic scholarship. Acknowledging a disconnect between

academics and the general public, scholars have been finding creative ways to

communicate with and work for the good of the local community and to generate

knowledge with public participation. One such initiative has been the introduction of

civic work-based learning (WBL) models such as Y-Plan (Youth-Plan, Learn, Act,

Now) (Kemp, 2013) in the state of California. This model focuses on seeking the

views of young people on pressing community challenges, engaging students in civic

regeneration projects which enhance the physical and social spaces in communities

whilst offering high quality and meaningful WBL experiences to students. In giving

students access to such civic WBL opportunities and encouraging them to engage

with local government, I believe that the Warrington Campus can begin to foster and

embed a deeper sense of community spirit and affinity with the local town, in turn

developing competent and responsible citizens. Such a civic WBL strategy would

involve initial high level discussions between the Provost and Chief Executive or

senior directors of Warrington Borough Council. If approved, this would then also

involve departments across the wider University such as Careers and Employability,

Work Based Learning and individual programme leaders with regards to

incorporating such placements in to the curriculum. For the Warrington Campus,

such a strategy would fit nicely within the facet of public services programmes such

48


as those in the Warrington School of Management, Social Work, Health and Social

Care, Sport and Education.

Please see next page for framework for actionable outcomes.

49


Framework for actionable outcomes

1. Public scholarship

The yet to be opened Multi-Agency Centre in White Hall could provide an open and shared space for University colleagues, public service practitioners and community groups to address issues of wide concern to the local community such as regional development, environmental health, education and safeguarding. Academic colleagues in Policing, Social Work and Nursing currently liaise and collaborate in sharing facilities and maintaining a dialogue for the creation of interdisciplinary programmes and initiatives. This space for shared learning could be opened up to accommodate community forums and could also be used as a hub for students on programmes which regularly necessitate engagement with the local community and local organisations. The space is currently home to the campus’s new Director of Safeguarding Programmes and the Provost envisions locating other academic colleagues in this area who work in similar interdisciplinary roles. Opening the campus up to the local community in such a manner could also improve residents’ understanding and awareness of the University’s presence and role in the town.

2. Participatory research

Linking in to the Multi-Agency Centre in White Hall; the University could actively promote participation in community and research endeavours by reaching out to marginalized or excluded groups in the local area. Such work could tie in with established academic programmes on campus such as youth work, policing, social work and health and social care/mental health and learning disability. Through establishing a meaningful dialogue and providing access to shared facilities, the University can work collaboratively with these groups to collect information, analyse issues and ultimately promote public transformation.

Warrington Youth Club is currently running a campaign entitled Save Warrington Youth Zone, following a devastating fire last month at a local leisure facility which had been due to house their new Youth Zone. The campaign is appealing for £500k of additional funding to help build a new facility for the use of young people in the borough. The town has experienced isolated, yet serious incidents in the recent past related to youth behaviour and crime; perhaps the most serious of which taking place just outside of the campus’s perimeter in Padgate with the murder of Garry Newlove in 2007. Engaging with this cause will assist the

50


University in its continued attempts to further embed itself in to the hearts and minds of the local community, as well as working towards the future sustainability of the town by establishing meaningful relationships with its young people in the hopeful creation of responsible and engaged citizens of the future.

3. Community Partnerships

To improve and enhance the number of community partnerships at Warrington, the highlighting, combining and rewarding of the creativity and resourcefulness of university-community engagement champions will be pivotal in order to create a proactive culture within individual departments and across campus. Successful and flourishing partnerships such as that which exists with Warrington Wolves Rugby Club, have been built on the goodwill, dedication and self-motivation of key colleagues across the campus in departments such as Sport and Community Engagement. The sharing of resources and mutual promotion of social endeavours such as the Warrington Wolves Foundation has made this relationship mutually beneficial and the impact of which cannot be fully measured or underestimated. Similar partnerships exist with community groups in the Department of Media and with local business forums in the Warrington School of Management. Again, these collaborative partnerships have taken time and effort to get to the positive stage they currently enjoy, but there are many more opportunities for such engagement activities if effective departmental university-community engagement champions can be secured across the faculty spectrum.

The University needs to be foster a dual view of the local community; that of the internal Warrington Campus community and the local community outside of the campus perimeter. Identifying and positively reinforcing the concept of staff and students as part of a local community should encourage a collective affinity with the campus and with its efforts to embed itself further in to the fabric of the town.

Engaging students more consistently in activities such as sandwich placements, work experience, guest lectures and community project work will not only enhance the visibility and reputation of the campus but also contribute to students’ applied learning in real life contexts.

51


4. Public Information Networks

Closer collaboration between the University and Warrington Borough Council on the production and distribution of local guide books, maps, local and national volunteering and career opportunities and the promotion of leisure and sport activities could form part of a Student Information Network. Participants reported that some students had expressed dismay at not feeling fully informed about what the local area had to offer prior to their arrival at induction. Students had also expressed not feeling part of the town due to the campus’s geographical location. Such resources already exist in the community but are not being utilized effectively due to, I believe, a lack of communication between the University and relevant council departments. Departments such as Student Support and Guidance and Careers and Employability could work together in liaising with local borough colleagues to provide such information to prospective students both online and in hard copy across the town. This could also afford opportunities for enhanced engagement with retailers, restaurants, transport links and leisure organisations which would identify students and young people as their key demographic.

With the launch of the Institute of Policing and the ever visible presence of Cheshire Constabulary colleagues on campus, I think that it would be timely to promote this collaborative partnership in local press and to work towards facilitating closer communication links between local police officers/PCSOs and the residents they serve. Specially assigned PCSOs currently offer drop-in and information sessions for students on campus and I think that such a service would be very attractive and appreciated by local residents.

5. Civic skills or Civic Literacy

By engaging students more consistently in activities such as sandwich placements, work experience, guest lectures and community project work, the knowledge and skills gap between expert professionals working in the field and newly qualified graduates should be reduced. This should also afford students those skills which will be relevant to political and social participation and decision making. Similarly, by engaging with a new civic WBL strategy in collaboration with Warrington Borough Council, the University will afford students the opportunity to make reflective judgements on civic issues which are relevant and important to them and their local community, to gain experience and skills in the public sector, to assist in decision making as to their future careers and to increase the likelihood of them becoming competent and responsible citizens of the future.

52


Appendix 1: Schedule/Gantt Chart

53


Appendix 2: Participant Information Document (PID)

54


55


Appendix 3: Interview Schedule

Hi (name), thank you very much for your time today. I’d like to ask you a few questions about university-community engagement and to seek your views on the possible impact of such engagement. As you will have read in the Participation Information Document, I will be recording our conversation today on a Dictaphone. If you are happy for me to do this, I’d like you to please read and sign the consent form. Again to reiterate; all information will be kept entirely confidential and strictly anonymous.

So, just a few factual questions to begin with…

1. What is your job role in the Faculty/Department of (name)?

2. How long have you occupied this role?

3. Are you based at Warrington Campus full time?

Ok, thank you for that. So, the title of my research project is ‘Academic Perceptions of University-Community Engagement at the University of Chester’s Warrington Campus’.

With that in mind, may I ask…?

1. What do you understand university-community engagement to mean?

2. What type of university-community engagement activities currently takes place at Warrington in your department?

3. Which of these activities are you responsible for or involved in?

4. What are the drivers and barriers to this type of engagement taking place?

5. Do you believe that university-community engagement has an impact, if so how?

6. What are the drivers and barriers to this type of engagement having an impact?

7. How are university-community engagement activities and successes communicated in your department?

8. How could the communication of these activities and successes be improved at Warrington?

9. What are your thoughts on the progress of university-community engagement at Warrington, over the past two- three years?

10. Would you like to discuss any other issues in relation to university-community engagement that I haven’t covered?

56


Appendix 4: Interview Summary Form

Interviewee: Caroline Ford

Date of Interview: Tuesday 22nd July 2014

Time of Interview: 1:00 pm – 1:30 pm

Location: WMA105

Peter is away on annual leave, so I used his office to hold this interview. The location was suitable as it was quiet and airy.

I know Caroline less well than other participants, so I found that it took slightly longer than usual to establish rapport but not significantly so.

The interview schedule flowed well, but Caroline did ask me to repeat a couple of questions and seemed unsure of her answers for these. I think that this was due to Caroline speaking a lot about her involvement in and liaison with The Hot Room and perhaps she felt that she was repeating herself on occasion. I don’t think that this warrants the interview schedule being altered, as this hasn’t been the case in other interviews and I put this down to Caroline’s unique role in her department; she isn’t directly responsible for The Hot Room but engages in town-gown relations activities in conjunction with this enterprise. In this respect, she couldn’t speak directly on behalf of The Hot Room, only of her perspective on the impact of these activities.

The main themes which arose were The Hot Room, Engagement, Student Engagement, Teaching and Learning, Warrington Wolves, Community, Communication, Partnership, Relationships.

Caroline is aware of my contact details, should she wish to discuss any further matters in relation to my research project.

57


Appendix 5a: Rich Picture – Phase 2 codes

58


Appendix 5b: Rich Picture – Phase 2 codes

Appendix 6: Initial Coding Framework tables

59


Bold - Overarching themes (F) - Ferrara (University/Municipality)

Phase 2 - Table 1aQuestion 1What do you understand university-community engagement to mean? Local

StudentsKnowledgeAreaSchoolsTrustsHealth AuthorityBusinessesCommunitiesSupportEncourageEnhanceDevelopPromoteRelationshipsConnectionsLinksLiaisonContactsHolisticEvolvingNon-strategicInconsistentCommonality (F)Strategic (F)Partners (F)Regional (F)

Initial coding framework

60


Phase 2 - Table 1bQuestion 2What type of university-community engagement activities currently Studentstakes place in your faculty/department/offi ce? Projects

ExhibitionsClient-focused briefingsIgnite Business ClubWork Based LearningPlacementsCoaching/MentoringInternshipsVolunteeringSandwich YearUni-Town Network (F)Strategic (F)Joint venture (F)UniversityGuest LecturesPartnershipsBBCWarrington WolvesRFLCollegesWBCSchoolsCollege of PolicingCheshire West and ChesterCheshire Police


61


Phase 2 - Table 1cQuestion 4aWhat are the drivers to this type of engagement taking place? Raise awareness/profile of UoC

Effective leadership ProvostWarrington Academic Management Group

Soft Skills PassionEnthusiasmJob satisfactionGoodwill (F)

Hard Skills SkillsKnowledgeQuality of staffSurvivalSustainability (F)External policiesEmployabilityMeeting student needsMeeting employer needsProgramme deliveryVision/agenda at WarringtonNSSVice Mayor (F)Municipality (F)Citizens (F)


62


Phase 2 - Table 1dQuestion 4bWhat are the barriers to this type of engagement taking place? Time

Financial costExisting WorkloadInsuranceSafeguardingHealth and SafetyRisk assessmentsResourcesInternal communicationInter-faculty communicationNumber of people involvedDifferent approachesDifferent agendasInternal structuresSiloesLittle collaboration or engagementBudgetary controlsPoliticsBureaucracy (F)External factorsAusterity cutsFunding cutsGovernment policyLogisticsAdministrationExpense delaysNo recognitionNo incentives


63


Phase 2 - Table 1eQuestion 5Do you believe that university-community engagement has Universityan impact, if so how? Sense of confidence

AchievementMoraleMotivationJob SatisfactionApplication of learning to real world scenariosBroadens audienceEnhances approachabilityRegular communication/effectiveCollaborative workingMaintaining relationshipsIncreases awarenessIncreases knowledge/profile/perceptions/presence of UoCShare good practiceShare strategiesReputation and credibilityStudents as citizens (F)Embedding (F)Pool resources/financial savings (F)CommunityCreative inputFree resourcesSkilled expertiseRegular communication/effectiveAddresses skills gapsMeets needs of employersShare good practiceAdded valueImproves living quality (F)Student and citizen needs (F)Promotes and markets the city (F)Sustainability/rejuvenation (F)Fiscal advantages/private landlords (F)


64


Phase 2 - Table 1fQuestion 8How could the communication of these activities and successes Social Mediabe improved? Twitter

FacebookChampionsTrainingE-BulletinsNewslettersProactive communicationMore engagement with Corporate Communications/MarketingCross-faculty communicationRegular staff meetingsShare good practiceCommunications strategyWCMC/WAMG agenda item More interdisciplinary events: Warrington's Works


65


Appendix 7: Final Coding Framework table

Phase 3

Final coding framework Initial coding framework

1. Local Students

Knowledge

Area

Schools

Trusts

Health Authority

Businesses

Communities

2. Internal structures and logistics Effective leadership

Provost

Warrington Academic Management Group

Programme delivery

Vision/agenda at Warrington

Time

66


Financial cost

Existing Workload

Insurance

Safeguarding

Health and Safety

Risk assessments

Resources

Siloes

Little collaboration or engagement

Budgetary controls

Politics

Bureaucracy (F)

Administration

Expense delays

No recognition

No incentives

3. Sustainability Survival

67


Employability

Meeting student needs

Meeting employer needs

Austerity cuts

Funding cuts

Government policy

Reputation and credibility

Students as citizens (F)

Embedding (F)

Pool resources/financial savings (F)

Addresses skills gaps

Added value

Improves living quality (F)

Student and citizen needs (F)

Promotes and markets the city (F)

Sustainability/rejuvenation (F)

Fiscal advantages/private landlords (F)

68


4. Relationships and collaborative working Connections

Links

Liaison

Contacts

Commonality (F)

Partners (F)

Maintaining relationships

Increases awareness

Increases profile/perception of UoC

Share good practice

Share strategies

5. Students Projects

Exhibitions

Client-focused briefings

Ignite Business Club

Work Based Learning

Placements

69


Coaching/Mentoring

Internships

Volunteering

Sandwich Year

UniTown Network (F)

Strategic (F)

Joint venture (F)

Students as citizens (F)

Student and citizen needs (F)

6. Communication/Social Media Twitter

Facebook

Champions

Training

E-Bulletins

Newsletters

Proactive communication

More engagement with Corporate Comms/Marketing

70


Cross-faculty communication

Regular staff meetings

Communications strategy

WCMC/WAMG agenda item

Internal communication

Inter-faculty communication

Number of people involved

Different approaches

Different agendas

71


Appendix 8: Barker’s Scholarship of Engagement Taxonomy

A taxonomy based on five practices of engaged scholarship can be represented as follows:

Practice Theory Problems Addressed Methods

72


Public scholarship Deliberative Complex “public” problems requiring deliberation

Face to face, open forums

Participatory research

Participatory democracy

Inclusion of specific groups

Face to face collaboration with specific publics

Community partnership

Social democracy

Social change, structural transformation

Collaboration with intermediary groups

Public information networks

Democracy broadly understood

Problems of networking, communication

Databases of public resources

Civic literacy scholarship

Democracy broadly understood

Enhancing public discourse

Communication with general public

73


Appendix 9: Quotes from semi structured interviews

Internal Structures and Logistics

Profile 1: “…there is a lot more that I could do…or other lecturers…that would take up time and therefore doesn’t necessarily bring money back in to the University doing it at that point in time and also just in terms of workload…cos everyone does have a heavy workload basically as well”.

Profile 4: “…maybe time and resources, those are the kind of things that make it harder to develop new relationships in the community, whether that’s from the student’s or my perspective as a lecturer. It’s hard to keep on top of going to conferences, keeping up to date, meeting people; people change jobs all the time”.

Profile 8: “…I do find it frustrating the internal barrier of…working in siloes as opposed to…and I think that is driven in some respects by budgetary controls and I don’t look at it that way, I look at it like we are one organisation with one budget at the end of the day”.

Profile 15: “…The drivers are the goodwill of the people…we all share the idea that this interconnection between the Municipality and the University is a win-win situation, so that is the main driver. The main barrier is the lack of financial incentives to do this, the fact that all this is non-curriculum activity so this is done on the goodwill of people and it takes a lot of time. Another barrier is that this relationship is not institutionalised…there is nothing written somewhere that says the city and the University have to do these activities every year, for example”.

Sustainability

Profile 5: “…it comes back to the partnership between the person who is studying, you know, their employer and us…together we can all make that, make a change, but if one of those is not working properly then it can be a barrier…”

Profile 8: “…I don’t think I’ve ever come across an organisation such as a university where there is a difficulty in, looking at internal engagement to start with, in collaborative working. It’s very difficult I’ve found to get departments with faculties to work together as opposed to even faculties working together…I find that a very frustrating barrier…having worked for thirty years as a police officer in a very collaborative manner with other police forces, other agencies, both public and private sector, to work together for the greater good of delivering high quality services to our community”.

74


Communication/Social Media

Profile 12: “you might see a poster up saying guest lecture and that’s how you know that’s happening or there’s certain lecturers who work well together and they’ll tell you and then there’s others who kind of keep themselves to themselves…it just needs managing better, there are heads of departments for each of the faculties and they just need to communicate better…or maybe it’s just not filtered down to us”.

Profile 10: “We’ve got a little sort of seating area over there and we all sit around and catch up on what we’re doing. One thing we’ve been talking about recently is if we had a screen in there, like you have in the canteen, like a rolling “this is what’s going on”, and if each department had an area such as that, and I know some already do…I probably would notice stuff going on then…I do find that I am guilty I think of being so caught up in what I’m doing or the programme that I’m teaching, that there isn’t really an awful lot of time to notice what anyone else is doing”.

75


Appendix 10: Reflexivity Journal

Monday 9th June 2014

I sent an e-mail to the Warrington Academic Management Group today, introducing my research project and asking for the names of academic colleagues who might be suitable for participation. I sent this e-mail from my work e-mail address, but later considered that I should have sent this from my personal e-mail address as my research is separate from my University role.

I had a lengthy telephone conversation with Alec Charles, Head of Media today. He wanted to clarify my role as researcher and to confirm that my research project would be carried out as a student, and not as Executive Secretary to Peter Harrop. We discussed respondent bias and the fact that some colleagues might not feel comfortable speaking with me about their role or the impact of their engagement activities. Alec said that he would need to ensure that he followed ethical and safeguarding procedures, in asking his staff whether they would be interested in taking part in my research and if they would be happy to be approached in this regard. I appreciated having the opportunity to clarify my role and my methodology, as this subsequently made things clearer in my own head. He said that he would approach the colleagues he felt most suitable for this project, given their individual responsibilities for university-community engagement. He later confirmed that Lynne Connolly from the Hot Room would be interested to take part.

I proposed that I would be able to conduct my exploratory sample of participants today, which on reflection wasn’t realistic. I expected to receive replies from the WAMG straight away to my initial e-mail, but this didn’t happen. I will therefore have to prepare the individual PID documents and send these out as and when the names of colleagues come in. I will still randomly select the names of two colleagues per faculty from those that come from the WAMG, but I will have to do this in an incremental fashion as opposed to at the same time.

Tuesday 10th June 2014

I haven’t heard back from any WAMG colleagues today.

Wednesday 11th June 2014

Thursday 12th June 2014I spoke to Malcolm Carey, Head of Social Work, today about my research project and possible participants from the Faculty of Health & Social Care. He suggested Mandy Schofield, Lorraine Berry and Helen Fruin, as they have responsibility for placements and engaging with external bodies.

I spoke via e-mail with Lawrence Bellamy, Associate Dean of the Warrington School of Management. He suggested I spoke with him, Meryl Bradshaw, Tanya Hemphill or

76


Beth Morris. I explained that I wouldn’t be interviewing the Warrington Academic Management Group (him) and why.

I am yet to hear from the Department of Sport and Community Engagement, Faculty of Education and Children’s Services and the Faculty of Social Science (Policing). I am conscious of the fact that academic colleagues are busy with marking and many will be working from home. They might not have had chance to read my e-mail. I am slightly concerned that this might impact on my proposed timescales for my research.

I sent a PID and covering note to Alex Williams, Senior Corporate Communication Officer, today asking her whether she would be willing to participate. She responded to say that she would.

Friday 13th June 2014

I plan to chase up the remaining members of the WAMG today, who haven’t yet responded to my e-mail. I aim to get PIDs sent out to those colleagues who have already been identified. Where there are more than two possible colleagues identified per faculty, I will select in the order that those names were given. In doing so, I hope that these colleagues will be the most appropriate for my research purposes, as I can assume that these names were at the forefront of WAMG colleagues’ minds.

Monday 16th June 2014

Mandy Schofield had e-mailed yesterday to say that she was willing to take part in my research. I plan to actively select senior lecturers or lecturers, as opposed to deputy heads of departments. I believe that this approach will help to lessen any participant bias due to strategic nature of senior roles. To this end, I sent a PID via e-mail to Lorraine Berry from the Department of Social Work.


I e-mailed Naomi Sharples today, to explain that Malcolm Carey had given me three academic colleagues’ names from Social Work, and that I wished to have fair representation across Nursing/Mental Health and Learning Disability too, in order to represent the Faculty of Health and Social Care fairly. Naomi responded and identified Mandy Drake and Rana Din as possible participants. I send a PID via e-mail to Mandy Drake. I had to explain to Naomi, as I did Malcolm Carey, that WAMG members would not be included due to the possible bias associated with university-community engagement being part of their strategic roles. On reflection, I should have explicitly stated this point in my covering note to WAMG, asking them for names of potential participants.

I sent a follow up e-mail to Kirsty Taylor, Faculty Administrator for Policing at Warrington, alerting her to my earlier e-mail to Geoff Elvey, Head of Policing, and asking whether she could possibly help with the names of potential participants. I am

77


aware that Kirsty has a thorough knowledge and close working relationship with Policing colleagues.

I forwarded my original e-mail to WAMG to Jo Bacon, the new Associate Dean of the Faculty of Education and Children’s Services. The original e-mail went to Jo’s predecessor, Andy Hamill, and this might explain why I haven’t had a response as yet. It is my understanding that Andy is still with the University, but he might well be tied up with other things and hasn’t had the chance to respond.

I haven’t had a response from Kirstie Simpson yet and still await a second name from the Department of Media. I hope to get these by Friday (20th), in order to stay on track with my timeline.

Wednesday 18th June 2014

I received an e-mail from Jo Bacon today, who has been promoted to Associate Dean in the Faculty of Education and Children’s Services. She had copied in Vicki Silver and Lynn Sampson, asking them to contact me if they were interested in participating in my research project. I replied to all, expressing my thanks, and clarifying that I would be contacting potential participants separately with a PID and covering note.

Thursday 19th June 2014

I have been speaking with Peter (Harrop) about a possible Erasmus exchange to the University of Malta in October or November 2014. I would like to shadow or work in the office of colleagues in Corporate Communications, to hopefully learn more about their university-community engagement activities. Peter is very supportive and has a contact at the University of Malta, who he said that he would speak with and make some initial enquiries. I think that a commentary on this exchange and particularly best/shared practice, as part of my research narrative, would be most insightful. I have made contact with the Erasmus office at the UoC and await the next round of funding for the 2014/15 academic year. I will then submit an application, hopefully before the end of August 2015.

I am conscious of tomorrow being my stated deadline for collating participant responses and confirming my sample (1). I sent a gentle reminder/chasing e-mail to Kirstie Simpson and received a response with two suggested participants from her department: Jason Clare and Paul Humphries. I e-mailed both with a PID and asked for a response by Monday 23rd June 2014. I have decided to push my timescale back by one working day, and aim to confirm my sample on Monday 23rd June as opposed to Friday 20th June. I don’t think that it is realistic that I will hear back from everyone by tomorrow and I would like to give them the weekend in order to respond.


Lynn Sampson e-mailed today to say that Vicki Silver would be better placed than her to engage with my research project. I will therefore need a second academic colleague from the Faculty of Education and Children’s Services. Vicki Silver replied to say that she would be happy to participate in my research.

78


Monday 23rd June 2014

I received an e-mail from Jason Clare this morning, confirming his willingness to take part in my research project. I also received confirmations of participation from Lorraine Berry, Mandy Drake and Paul Humphries.

I e-mailed Nigel Reid from the Policing team, asking him who might be the most appropriate colleagues for me to approach from his department. I await a response. I also e-mailed Jo Bacon asking for an alternative colleague from the Education faculty.


I set up an interview schedule planner in Excel this morning. I have set aside dates during the period of July 4th to July 25th, 2014 for the semi structured interviews to take place. I have sent these options to confirmed participants and asked them to select the most convenient for their diaries. I have booked a couple of rooms in Tucker Building during this period and intend to block out the hours of 12.00 till 14.00 in order to carry out my interviews. I will use my hour’s lunch break so that my interviews don’t impact with my work responsibilities. I have found it more difficult than I anticipated to get a response from certain colleagues/departments to my original request for information. I am unsure whether this is a sign of reluctance on their part, or whether they simply haven’t had time to check their e-mails. It is a busy period for marking and many academic colleagues choose to work from home. I couldn’t realistically have waited till September/the new academic year to carry out my interviews, because this wouldn’t have left me enough time to complete my research project and submit by the start of December 2014. I wish to do so in order that I might graduate next March, 2015.

On the Erasmus exchange front, things seem to be progressing well. Peter’s contact at the University of Malta, Jo Butterworth, Head of Performing Arts, responded to his request for information and supplied us with the name of the Head of Corporate Communications and Alumni at the university. I have e-mailed this contact this week and expressed my interest in undertaking an Erasmus exchange at the institution. I await a response from her.

Thursday 26th June 2014

I have made quite a bit of progress this week. I have confirmed interview dates/times with Lynne Connolly, Paul Humphries, Vicki Silver and Alex Williams. It looks like I will have to extend my interview period by one week, as Lorraine Berry and Mandy Drake are not available for the three week timeframe I had set aside. I will be interviewing them during the first week of August 2014.

On reflection, I think asking the WAMG for their input as to which academic colleagues should be approached, might have slowed down the process somewhat. I have therefore been waiting for responses from WAMG before approaching

79


academic colleagues and I feel that this has inadvertently given the WAMG more power in the process than was intended. I originally asked for their input so that I could be sure that the most suitable colleagues were approached to take part. Otherwise, I might be e-mailing several people at the same time with no real knowledge as to whether they engage in university-community engagement activities and/or would have a view on such matters. I felt that by asking the WAMG, I would be able to achieve more reliable and valid responses.


I approached Caroline Ford from the Media department earlier this week, to ask whether she would be willing to participate in my research project. She confirmed that she would, and I sent her a PID. I am liaising with her on an interview date/time. I have approached Martin Metcalfe from the WSoM, on the recommendation of a colleague, after not hearing anything back from Tanya Hemphill. I am still waiting to hear from Jo Bacon, with regards to another Education colleague that I can approach. I have approached Nigel Reid and Mark Williams from Policing, but am yet to get a response.

Thursday 3rd July 2014

After the past week, I have been gearing up and making final preparations for the 2014 Warrington’s Works Research Festival. I have therefore not been able to do any work on my research project. I have continued to research a possible Erasmus exchange however and have found details of a UniTown Network Conference which was held in 2013 at the University of Ferrara in Northern Italy. The institution has been instrumental in researching this type of work across Europe and this conference is set to become an annual event. I have written to the institution asking for further details of the conference and stating my wish to undertake an Erasmus exchange at their facility, which would hopefully coincide with the 2014 conference. I await their response.

Friday 4th July 2014

I had my first semi-structured interview today with Lynne Connolly. I was anxious that the interview went well and that the questions were well received and thought-provoking. We met at 12.00 in the Tucker Building, which worked well because it is far enough away from my office for the interview to be viewed as separate to my daily work/role. I think this is mutually beneficial for me and Lynne. Lynne is very calm and easy to talk to, which made the process run smoothly. The interview ran perfectly to time, with a couple of minutes spare. I don’t expect them all to go so well!

My ten questions provoked a good level of discussion and Lynne answered openly and descriptively. I can already think of a handful of keywords which she touched upon several times, which might well emerge as themes when I reach the data analysis stage of my research. I think Lynne’s dual role (Senior Lecturer and Manager of The Hot Room) is unique in the sense that she could give me her perceptions from two different angles. Purely academic lecturer colleagues might have a more one-dimensional experience and viewpoint of university-community

80


engagement. Lynne was a perfect participant in this sense, as she clearly has significant experience of liaising with external community groups and businesses on a daily basis, both as a lecturer instructing and supporting students in such engagement as part of their studies, but also as a business manager with financial and strategic considerations. Lynne articulated how much she had benefitted from her attendance at Warrington’s Works yesterday; she said that she had the opportunity to meet and make useful connections with colleagues in other faculties, something she rarely gets to do. Her positive comments were particularly pleasing to me, given my role in the organisation of the event. It also got me thinking of additional conferences and events that might afford colleagues other such opportunities throughout the academic year.

Wednesday 9th July 2014

I received a reply from the University of Ferrara today, stating their wish for me to visit in late October and to meet the project managers of the UniTown Network Conference. They also say that they would like to share ideas and experiences regarding the concept, with a view to perhaps formalizing our universities’ connections. I am very excited about the prospect of this visit and of meeting key European colleagues in this area. I will discuss this further with Peter today.

I had my interview with Meryl Bradshaw today, from the Warrington School of Management. Meryl’s responses were very personal and faculty-specific, as opposed to Lynne’s which were much more wide-ranging and made reference to the Warrington Campus as a whole. In this respect, I found Meryl’s responses to be less insightful when thinking about my research focus as a whole; university-community engagement between the campus and the local area. Conversely, her responses will be particularly useful when looking to make recommendations as to how communication of such activities can be improved at a departmental and faculty level. The theme of communication was very prominent in this interview.

Friday 11th July 2014

I had my interview with Paul Humphries today, from the Department of Sport and Community Engagement. This was a very insightful and relevant interview, particularly given the fact that the department has proactively changed its name to incorporate the theme of community engagement, due to the increased level of activity in this area and strategic focus at head of department-level.

Monday 14th July 2014 – Friday 18th July 2014 (annual leave)

Monday 21st July 2014

81


After returning from a week’s leave, I have reviewed my responses and scheduled interviews to date. I have e-mailed participants who are yet to respond, informing them of my return and asking them to please contact me in order to confirm a date and time to meet. Caroline Ford from the Media department has asked me to meet tomorrow (Tuesday 22nd) at 1pm.

Tuesday 22nd July 2014

I interviewed Caroline Ford today, from the Media department. I don’t know Caroline that well but she was very easy to talk to and I got to learn more about her role, and particularly her links with The Hot Room which is managed by Lynne Connolly. Caroline has strong links with Warrington Wolves, on account of her managing the production of the Wire 2 Wolves DVD. Her responses were generally Media-specific but she did make occasional reference to the wider Warrington Campus. Reflecting on participants’ responses to date, I have found Lynne Connolly to be the most proactive in her thinking when it comes to university-community engagement at Warrington.

Wednesday 23rd July 2014

I interviewed Vicki Silver today from the Faculty of Education and Children’s Services. I know Vicki quite well, as she often meets with Lynda to discuss safeguarding issues at Warrington. Vicki gave some valuable insights in to the mindsets and perceptions of colleagues within her faculty, in relation to general engagement with Warrington Campus and the wider community. Vicki basically said that there is limited university-community engagement within her faculty, other than those activities which she is directly responsible for. She is only based at Warrington for two days a week, so her engagement itself is limited in scope. I wasn’t surprised to hear these comments, as I have been party to such discussions taking place throughout the course of my career at the University.

Thursday 24th July 2014

I interviewed Alex Williams today, from the Corporate Communications department. Alex is the Senior Communications Officer and is based at Warrington Campus for two days each week. I know Alex very well on a personal level, so this interview was very relaxed. Alex and I share a friendship, which I had to be certain would not impact on the interview itself. Alex had asked me several questions before the interview took place, regarding the content of the interview, the interviews, the formality and where the data would be circulated and to whom. I answered these questions in a professional manner, as I would have to any of the research participants. I was anxious to not trivialize the interview process, and to give no more or no less information than I had to other participants. Alex seemed relaxed throughout the interview but I did feel that she was giving the answers that the University or perhaps her line manager would expect. This is understandable I suppose, given Alex’s role and level of experience in PR. I can only hope and trust that these responses were genuine and from her perspective, not the ‘corporate line’.

82


This comes back to the ‘response effect’ and participants giving the answers that they think you want to hear or would be expected of them.

Friday 1st August 2014

I interviewed Mandy Drake today, from the Faculty of Health and Social Care (Nursing). I had never met Mandy before, so it was nice to speak to a new colleague and to put a face to the name. Mandy’s interview was a lot quicker than the others due to the fact that she answered very quickly and gave quite short and direct responses. She needed extra clarification on one question as I think she wasn’t clear on whether this was relevant to her/her role, but she did attempt to provide answers to all questions on the schedule. It was clear from this interview that Mandy’s faculty/department operates in siloes; she used this term during the course of the interview. Mandy was relaxed and open throughout the interview and I do believe that the answers she gave were all honest and from her perspective.

Tuesday 5th August 2014

I interviewed Geoff Elvey, Head of Policing Programmes, in the Faculty of Social and Communication Studies today. I know Geoff really well as he sits on the Warrington Academic Management Group and regularly has meetings with Peter. Geoff is very open and easy to talk to. Geoff’s interview was really interesting because he gave a totally fresh perspective on several of the questions I asked. Geoff is the senior member of staff in his department which admittedly goes against my methodological decision to not interview senior academic colleagues. I chose to be flexible in this regard because Geoff’s department is unique in that he is one of the only two members of staff that regularly engage in university-community engagement, so it was entirely appropriate and relevant that I interviewed him. In this respect, I think that I no longer need to interview another member of the Policing team. I might double check this with Jeremy but I feel confident after our last discussion that this will be fine. Geoff was the only research participant so far to refer to internal colleagues as part of the campus’s community. I asked him to talk about this further and highlighted that he had been the only colleague to do so. I found Geoff’s take on the concept very insightful. He also had some useful suggestions as to how to improve communication more generally at the campus. Perhaps building a career out of public service has allowed Geoff to view all colleagues, contacts, stakeholders as part of the community?

Monday 11th August 2014

I interviewed Lorraine Berry from the Department of Social Work today. I hadn’t met Lorraine before today, but have heard her name mentioned in meetings. It was nice to meet someone new after working at the campus for six years. Lorraine said the same and we had a nice, general chat about the campus, our respective job roles etc. Lorraine was very honest in her responses and clearly had some issues to get off her chest that have been preying on her mind. This was useful in order for me to get an insight in to her workload, the department’s priorities and external pressures. All of these elements helped to clarify her responses in my mind.

83


Wednesday 10th September 2014

Due to issues such as day job workload and family matters at home, I have not been able to dedicate as much time as I would have liked to my research project over the past month. My workload has increased due to Peter being given responsibility for Academic matters, in the role of Senior PVC (Academic), as well as the continued minuting and communication responsibilities for University Technical College Warrington (UTCW). I have felt quite pressured by this, as I am conscious of falling behind in my studies and losing focus on the project itself. In order to combat this, I have continued to read and make notes for my literature review. I feel more confident in my knowledge of a subject if I have been able to extensively read around it, before putting pen to paper. I acknowledge that this could be viewed as a delaying tactic, in order to put off starting work on my dissertation. This is certainly not the case and I have no concerns about my ability to meet my scheduled deadlines.

On a positive note, my Erasmus exchange application is moving apace. Peter has approved this and I have completed the relevant documentation and forwarded to the Research and Knowledge Transfer Office. I await their formal approval. I have been liaising via e-mail with my contact at the University of Ferrara (Silvia in the International Office), who has been most helpful and accommodating. She is currently brokering a couple of meetings for me with the project managers of the UniTown Network.

I interviewed Jason Clare today from the Department of Sport and Community Engagement. Jason has been on annual leave for most of August, so today was the earliest date that Jason was available to meet with me. Jason is very easy to talk to and was very open and detailed in his responses. He also explains things very well and in terms that you might be able to relate to. In this respect, the interview went smoothly and was quite insightful. Jason and Paul (Humphries) had similar responses, which wasn’t surprising given that they work in the same department and most likely share the same responses to certain stimuli, particularly relating to a strategic approach to university-community engagement; taking in to account their departmental title and objectives.

Tuesday 16th September 2014

I managed to get hold of Paul Moran this week and scheduled an interview for today. Paul has been on annual leave since the beginning of August. I admit that I hadn’t accurately factored in such time delays when I produced my original Gantt chart. I assumed that I wouldn’t be able to get hold of some academic colleagues for a couple of weeks at the most during August, but certainly not the whole month and part of September too. I therefore have had to amend my Gantt chart accordingly and extend some deadlines for Phase One of my primary research. I have only met Paul twice before; at the Warrington’s Works Research Festival and at a Warrington Academic Management Group meeting. On both occasions I hadn’t had the opportunity to speak with Paul on a one to one basis.

I had sent Paul the Participant Information Document (PID) prior to the interview, but Paul asked a number of questions about my research, which suggested that he

84


either hadn’t read it or couldn’t recall its contents. As a result, I spent approximately 10 minutes at the start of the interview clarifying my research title, focus and rationale. Paul said that he isn’t based at the Warrington Campus and admitted at the start of the interview that he didn’t have much of an idea as to the type of university-community engagement activities that take place in his faculty at the campus (Education and Children’s Services) or indeed in other faculties. It occurred to me at this point that perhaps Paul hadn’t been a suitable participant for my research, given that I had specifically asked the Warrington Academic Management Group (WAMG) to recommend academic colleagues, ‘who currently engage in such (university-community engagement) activities and/or would have a view on such matters.’ I did find it particularly difficult to speak with the Associate Dean of Education in this regard, as my e-mails had sometimes not been responded to. In light of this, I decided to contact Paul myself and to ask if he would be interested and willing to take part in my research project. After hearing Paul speak at the Warrington’s Works Research Festival on the subject of inclusion, in collaboration with colleagues from another faculty and outside agencies, I assumed that Paul would have direct responsibility for or experience of such matters relating to university-community engagement. As it turned out, the interview felt more like a casual conversation relating to my research aims and the campus more generally.

Wednesday 24th September 2014

After interviewing Meryl Bradshaw a few weeks ago from the Warrington School of Management, I have found it difficult to pin down another research participant in that department. I have contacted Tanya Hemphill and Martin Metcalfe several times, but have received no response. Lawrence Bellamy, Associate Dean, suggested that I ask Steph Hodge to take part. Steph was willing and positive about the opportunity to hear more about my research and to communicate her views, since joining the University earlier this year. Steph had previously worked for Warrington Collegiate Institute, an Associate College of the University.

Steph was very easy to talk to and clearly had a lot to say about the subject of university-community engagement. Steph came across as very proactive in her activities in this regard, and was clearly very passionate about the positive impact such activities can have on students, staff and the local community. Steph said that she felt quite alone in her plight to increase and promote such activities in her department, saying that if she wasn’t proactive in this regard, she didn’t believe they would happen at all.

Wednesday 1st October 2014

I submitted to the final version of my Erasmus exchange application to the Research and Knowledge Transfer Office today. I had been required to submit full budget costings on an updated version of the application form. I was told that my application had been approved on a provisional basis, subject to final sign-off by the Director of the R&KT Office.

Wednesday 8th October 2014

85


I received confirmation that my Erasmus exchange has been approved by all parties today and I am now able to submit the Mobility and Grant Agreement to the University of Ferrara for signature. I have done so today, as I am acutely aware of the tight timescale that I am working towards (my departure date is Saturday 1st November 2014). I await the return of these signed documents.

Wednesday 15th October 2014

I booked Monday 6th and Monday 13th October off as study days, in order to catch up on my reading and to do some research on the University of Ferrara. I feel less anxious than I did last week about my falling behind in my studies. If I didn’t have my Erasmus exchange looming on the horizon (in a positive way!), I think I wouldn’t feel as anxious about being ‘up to date’ with current reading on university-community engagement. I want to be completely confident before I leave for Italy that I am able to answer any questions relating to my institution and my research project.

I will need to slightly amend my Gantt chart this week. I am currently a week behind schedule, as a result of family/personal commitments which continue to take up a great deal of my time. My sister is getting married and I am helping out with planning etc. The wedding is on Saturday 25th October, so I fully expect that my free time will increase exponentially after this date.

Monday 27th October 2014

I returned to the office today after a couple of days leave for my sister’s wedding. I started making final preparations (checking in online for my flight to Ferrara, reconfirming meeting dates/times with my contact at the University of Ferrara) for my trip on Saturday and felt much better after receiving a final itinerary for my exchange. I have liaised with the Corporate Communications team at Chester and have secured a couple of gifts to take over, as a gesture of goodwill from our institution to theirs. I have my tutorial with Jeremy tomorrow which I am looking forward to, as I would like to seek his advice on my proposed interview questions for my meetings with project managers of the UniTown Network at Ferrara, as well as on a couple of matters relating to my research dissertation. I feel like this trip has come around so quickly, which is probably because I have been so focused on my sister’s wedding and getting everything ready for that. I plan to finish reading a couple of books this week and to do some final research on the University of Ferrara, in order that I feel fully versed and prepared for my visit.

Tuesday 28th October 2014

I had my tutorial with Jeremy today and I feel much more at ease after it. Jeremy said that he had no concerns about my progress and as long as I completed my research dissertation and my final 20 credit module by September 2015, this would be fine in order to graduate in November 2015. This was welcome news as I do intend to work to this deadline. Jeremy said that it was a good idea to have a set of interview questions for my visit to Ferrara, and suggested that I simply adapt the Phase 1 interview questions from my research project. This was a really useful suggestion and will mean a lot less work for me this week. I will also feel much more

86


confident going in to a meeting situation with pre-prepared questions that I also feel confident enough to answer in respect of my own institution.

Jeremy posed the question as to whether I really needed to complete Phase 2 of my research project; the online survey which would be compiled following the data analysis (themed analysis) from Phase 1. I had considered this question myself, as I said that I didn’t truly believe that I would stand to gain any additional or particularly diverse data from entering in to Phase 2. If I decided not to enter in to Phase 2, I would simply state this and the reasons why as part of my narrative. Again, this would buy me a bit of much welcomed time in the medium term as I begin writing.

Saturday 1st November 2014

I arrived in Ferrara, northeastern Italy this afternoon. Ferrara is a medieval city close to Bologna and has a university dating back to 1391. I have been liaising with Silvia Pilot from the International Office at the University of Ferrara and she has organized meetings for me on Tuesday through to Thursday of this week. These meetings are with project managers of the UniTown Network, as well as the Representative of the Students of the university. I had a good walk round today in order to get my bearings and I didn’t see any visible signs of the university in the main city centre; buildings, signage etc. Apart from the presence of a small number of young people walking around, I wouldn’t have immediately been struck by the fact that Ferrara is a ‘university town’. In hindsight and in writing this a week later, I now know that there are in fact university buildings dotted around the city centre. To be fair, these still aren’t as immediately visible as I would expect, certainly in comparison to our signage at Warrington and Chester. Ferrara, both university and city, wish to be known and revered as a ‘UniTown’ and I think that improved signage both in and out of the city centre could go some way towards assisting this aim. I have already used some of my newly learnt Italian phrases, as English isn’t widely spoken in Ferrara. I hope that this doesn’t interfere with my interviews this week. I had, perhaps naively, assumed that English would be widely taught at the university. Typical Brit!

Tuesday 4th November 2014

I met with Silvia Pilot at 10am today at the university. Silvia gave me a tour of the university building which she occupies, which was a 5-10 minute walk from my hotel. Silvia’s English was very good, which was somewhat of a relief. I did welcome the opportunity to use some of my Italian language however and this was one of my favourite aspects of the trip. My first meeting was with Daniele Branca, Representative of the Students. Daniele would be our equivalent of the Students’ Union Vice-President, but pointedly, Daniele had some additional role responsibilities which incorporated liaison with the Municipality on the UniTown Network project and regular communication with this and other local municipal departments and public organisations. I was immediately struck by how involved the Representative of the Students and indeed the students of Ferrara had been in town-gown affairs. So much so, that during my interview with Daniele I started to question why I too hadn’t interviewed any students or the CSU VP at Warrington about university-community engagement. It became clear to me that the students of Ferrara are very much at the forefront of all discussions regarding the city, the university and future strategic plans. This makes absolute sense and is certainly worth considering in respect of

87


communication and level of engagement with students at Warrington. I recorded my interview with Daniele and will be including this conversation as part of my thematic analysis work next week.

Wednesday 5th November 2014

I was due to meet with Massimo Maisto, Vice - Mayor of the city of Ferrara and Head of Culture, Tourism and Youth this morning, but unfortunately he was called to an urgent press conference. His Director of Culture, Tourism and Youth, Marie-Therese Pinna, attended the meeting in his absence. Pinna works for the Municipality of Ferrara. Coincidentally, I also met Massimo Maisto later that day as I walked to another meeting at Piazza Municipale where his office is based. My interview with Pinna was very enlightening and broad in its context. We discussed the relationship between the university and the city; the events and festivals held in Ferrara each year, local tourism, the demographics and ageing population of the city, local industry and drew comparisons between Ferrara and Chester/Warrington. I mentioned my initial observations of Ferrara (noted in Saturday 1st’s extract) to Pinna and enquired as to why local restaurants and eating establishments close so early during the week. I explained that I had gone out to eat at 7.30 pm only to be told that everywhere had stopped serving food! Pinna made some general observations about the mindset of some local residents; they did not view Ferrara as a tourist city and therefore chose to open and close their establishments whenever they saw fit, and not in response to tourist or even in fact student demand. This had been a particular bone of contention between the city/municipality and local publicans, especially during event and festival season which saw a large number of international delegations visiting Ferrara and complaining of there being nothing to do during the evening time. Pinna hopes to improve this situation and continues to form a dialogue with local publicans. Again, at the end of our conversation I had been struck by just how important this relationship between university and city was considered to be on both sides. Both university and municipality were acutely aware of the need to work in unison for the good of current and future students and for the future sustainability of the city itself.

Thursday 6th November 2014

I met Silvia at 10.30 am today and we walked to Piazza Municipale in order to visit the Informagiovani Office, which is an information centre for students and young people of the city (up to aged 35 years)…I was pleased to learn that I still just qualified, by the skin of my teeth! The centre offered similar services to our departments of student support and guidance and careers and employability. Importantly however, this centre was not a part of the University of Ferrara in any respect. This is remarkable on many levels as it clearly makes a powerful statement as to the municipality’s commitment, regard and investment in the students and young people living in its city. The centre was very busy that day and I was told that they can expect up to 30 young people per day, coming in to the office and seeking advice on careers, university courses, work placements in Italy and abroad, student benefits etc. I didn’t interview the manager of the centre with my pre-prepared questions as I didn’t feel that all of them would be relevant. Instead we had a wide ranging discussion; via a translator as the manager of the centre didn’t speak any

88


English, about relevant issues to the centre and to my research. Communication between the university, the municipality and the centre was the main focal point of our discussion and was clearly very effective in its application. I would describe these three organisations as the ‘communication triangle’ of the city. Students and young people were able to visit the centre and use the internet facilities, as well as qualifying for various discounts and benefits at local businesses across the city. All of these services were free of charge to the students and young people. I came away with lots of reading materials from the centre.

From the centre, Silvia and I walked down to the Faculty of Architecture in order to meet Professor Gastone Ave, who is responsible for the Scientific Committee of the UniTown Network. Professor Ave is located in a very impressive building, which was actually refurbished by the students of his faculty. The building retained its original features, yet had been given a modern makeover. Professor Ave gave me a tour of the building and its grounds, which had previously housed a mental hospital. He told me that there were in fact some wards still operating in an adjacent building. The whole area had been rejuvenated following the refurbishment of the university building ten years ago. The area had previously been run down and vulnerable to petty crime, but there was now a real campus feel to it and complementary businesses had started to spring up alongside the faculty. I interviewed Professor Ave with my pre-prepared questions and he had some very interesting and strategic insights in to the university’s objectives and long term aims regarding UniTown Network and community engagement on the whole. Professor Ave said that he would be very keen for Chester to join the Network, which is free of charge, as he already has Cambridge, Newcastle and Durham on board. The Network is essentially an online forum enabling the sharing of best practice and joint initiatives amongst ‘Uni-Towns’ in Europe. I must put on record that I found colleagues at the University of Ferrara to be engaging, welcoming and genuinely interested in my research. Professor Ave said that he will be visiting the University of Newcastle in a few months and would love to drop in to Chester/Warrington, in order to meet Peter and myself and discuss future collaborations.

Monday 10th November 2014

I returned to the office today but haven’t been feeling too well. I caught a cold and flu-like symptoms whilst I was in Italy and it hasn’t shifted as yet. After a week out of the office, I returned to over a hundred e-mails and lots of meetings to organise, agendas to write, files to produce and record etc. I didn’t have chance to speak to Peter very much about my trip which was disappointing. He was rushing over to Chester Campus for a Deans Group meeting at 12.30 pm so we had a passing conversation. I hope that I am able to discuss the trip further with him, as I do feel it was incredibly productive and positive.

Thursday 13th November 2014

89


I am starting to feel anxious again about the amount of writing I need to start and my difficulties in finding the time to start this process. I have a little reading left to complete for my literature review, which I would like to finish before embarking on writing this chapter. I don’t like to start writing when I feel like I still have things to learn on a subject. I feel pleased that I have been able to maintain my reflexivity journal throughout the process so far. At least I am getting something down on paper! My workload has increased significantly since Peter became Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic). I didn’t complete WBIS work during work’s time but I didn’t use to feel so tired when I got home as I do now. It has been a busy few months of my life with my sister’s wedding and all, so I didn’t expect to be able to dedicate as much of my free time as I would have liked to my research. I don’t feel comfortable about this though, I don’t like the feeling that I am behind where I should be.

Friday 14th November 2014

I had an e-mail conversation with Jeremy today, regarding the submission of my research project. We discussed deadlines for the first, second and final draft of my dissertation. I settled on 20th April 2015 for the final submission. This will then give me three months in which to complete my final 20 credit module, in order to graduate in November 2015.

Monday 17th November 2015 – Sunday 30th November 2014

I have been collating, coding and extracting themes from my interview data over the past fortnight. I did this in accordance with the Thematic Analysis guidelines that I have read as part of my literature review. This process is taking me longer than I anticipated for various reasons; personal and work-related time constraints and the sheer level of data that I collected from the 15 face to face interviews. 3 of these had been carried out in Ferrara and followed a slightly different structure than those with my University of Chester colleagues due to language barriers and the focus of the questions being particularly directed at academics in my institution.

I generated my initial start codes whilst completing my Interview Summary Forms. This is Phase 1 of the Thematic Analysis process. With the interview fresh in my mind, I summarized the main discussion points and also noted down any keywords which reoccurred during the session. From the outset of completing this process, I could see particular patterns or themes which began to emerge from the data. The summary forms have acted as a reference point for myself and have also enabled me to further contextualize the participants’ comments.

During Phase 2 of the process, I revisited the data and began reducing it to codes in order to perform further categorization. I assigned codes to the data set based on, in my opinion, the five most pertinent research questions. I then produced an Initial Coding Framework table for each of those questions. The questions being:

1. What do you understand university-community engagement to mean?2. What types of university-community engagement activities currently takes

place in your faculty/department?4. What are the drivers and barriers to this type of engagement taking place?

(presented separately as question 4a and 4b)

90


5. Do you believe that university-community engagement has an impact, if so how?

8. How could the communication of these activities and successes be improved?

Although I found Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Thematic Analysis process a timely and quite intricate exercise, I was heartened to discover that data fit quite neatly in to codes, which consequently made the process of combining these in to overarching themes during Phase 3, a relatively straightforward and fluid process. An example being:

Question 1: What do you understand university-community engagement to mean?The following words were mentioned, all with the prefix of local: students, knowledge, area, schools, trusts, health authority, businesses and communities.

This enabled me to neatly categorize these words under the overarching theme of local, which will also give me the opportunity to make inferences about academic colleagues’ perceptions of local and regional and how this perception affects their level of engagement with the community and viewpoint as to the impact of this type of engagement. Another example from Question 1 would be the number of references to forms of support: encourage, enhance, develop and promote. Similarly, the number of references to relationships: connections, links, liaison and contacts. I therefore intend to include both ‘support’ and ‘relationships’ as major themes in my analysis.

Another example would be from Question 4b: What are the barriers to this type of engagement taking place? I was able to combine the following codes in to overarching themes:

Logistics and internal structures: time, financial cost, existing workload, resources, siloes, little collaboration or engagement, no recognition, no incentives, budgetary controls, politics, bureaucracy (F), expense delays, insurance: safeguarding, health and safety, risk assessments.Communication: inter-faculty communication, number of people involved, different approaches, different agendasSustainability: austerity cuts, funding cuts, government policy, administration

All in all, the Thematic Analysis process has taken me 14 days to complete as opposed to 5 which had been set aside, so I need to adjust my Gantt chart accordingly. As a result, I intend to ask Jeremy whether it would be acceptable to submit the first draft on 5th January 2015. This will give me some quiet days between Christmas and New Year in which to get some writing done.

December 2014 and January 2015

During the months of December 2014 and January 2015, I have been reviewing my notes from the literature review that I completed as part of my Designing Practitioner Research module and completing further reading of updated literary texts and online

91


materials about university-community engagement. I am now conscious that I have a much more thorough grasp of the subject and as such I should be able to more effectively critically evaluate the texts and apply these theories to my research context. I therefore began re-writing my literature review in early December 2014 and started to compile a list of my most useful quotations and how I might incorporate these in to relevant sections of my dissertation.

I was ill over Christmas 2014 with tonsillitis and unfortunately didn’t get to write as much as I would have anticipated. I was disappointed with this outcome as it meant that I had to put the deadline of my submission of my first draft back by another week. Jeremy did not see a problem with this and was very supportive. He said that he wouldn’t be able to look at my work till at least the 12th January 2015 anyway. This was reassuring and I was able to come back to work on the 6th January 2015 with a renewed focus and clean bill of health. I submitted the first draft of my dissertation on the 17th January 2015 which consisted of the first two chapters. I received my feedback on the 19th January 2015 with some revisions to be made. I updated my Gantt chart accordingly and proposed a final submission date of the 4th May 2015.

February 2015

Throughout February I have continued to write and am due to submit my second draft on the 13th April 2015 which will consist of my previous revisions and the Research Methodology and Data Analysis sections. I haven’t been entirely clear on the expected contents of individual sections of the Data Analysis chapter; Data Analysis and Findings appear to be very similar and I intend to seek Jeremy’s guidance on this. My thinking is that the overarching themes will go in to the Findings section, along with relevant and more detailed quotes/references to data.

92


Reference List

Ave, G. (2014). Ferrara, Italy.Barker, D. (2004). The Scholarship of Engagement: A Taxonomy of Five Emerging Practices. Journal of

Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123-131.Beer, A., & Cooper, J. (2007). University-Regional Partnership in a Period of Structural Adjustment:

Lessons from Southern Adelaide's Response to an Automobile Plant Closure. European Planning Studies, 15(8), 1063-1084.

Bell, J. (1995). Doing Your Research Project (Second Edition ed.). Bucks, UK: Open University Press.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality New York, U.S: Anchor Books.Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology (5th Edition ed.). California, U.S: AltaMira

Press.Bore, A., & Whitby, M. (2015, April, 2015). Alliances among cities and universities. University And The

City, April, 2015, 7-8.Borg, W. R. (1981). Applying Educational Research: A Practical Guide for Teachers. New York, U.S:

Longman.Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code

Development. Thousand Oaks, U.S: SAGE Publications.Branca, D. (2014). Ferrara, Italy.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualititative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 102.Clavelle, P. (2001). Progressive Approaches to University-Community Relations. Connection(Winter

2001).Clifford, D., & Petrescu, C. (2012). The keys to university–community engagement sustainability.

Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(1), 77-91.Costley, C., Elliott, G., & Gibbs, P. (2010). Doing Work Based Research: Approaches to Enquiry for

Insider-Researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Second Edition ed.). London, UK: Pocket

Books, Simon & Schuster.Dawson, C. (2007). A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Oxford, UK: How To Books Ltd.Dempsey, S. (2010). Critiquing Community Engagement. Management Communication Quarterly,

24(3), 359-390.Dobelli, R. (2013). The Art of Thinking Clearly. London, UK: Sceptre.Fox, M., Martin, P., & Green, G. (2007). Doing Practitioner Research. London, UK: Sage Publications Goddard, J., & Vallance, P. (2013). The University and the City. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Hogner, R. H., & Kenworthy, A. L. (2010). Movign Forward Together in Sustainable, Effective, and

Partnership-Oriented Ways: Connecting Universities and Communities Through Global Leadership Service Projects. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(2), 245-266.

Holland, B. (2001). Toward a Definition and Characterization of the Engaged Campus: Six Cases. Journal of Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 20-29.

Kemp, R. (2013). Town and Gown Relations: A Handbook of Best Practices. North Carolina, US: McFarland and Co Inc.

Klump, R., & Bickl, M. (2015, April 2015). The University And The City. Times Higher Education.Lawrence, B., & Murray, L. (2000). Practitioner-Based Enquiry: Principles and Practices for

Postgraduate Research. London, UK: Falmer Press.Lawton Smith, H. (2007). Universities, Innovation and territorial development. Environment and

Planning, 25(1), 98-114.Management, H. R. (2012). Guidelines on the Use of Social Media Chester, UK: University of Chester.

93


Micci, R. (2014). 2014 Warrington Campus Student Survey. Unpublished Online Student Survey. University of Chester.

Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Edmonds, V., & Watters, C. (2011). Inner City Engagement and the University: Mutuality, Emergence and Transformation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 287-315.

n.d. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Third Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, U.S: SAGE Publications.

Perry, B., & Harloe, M. (2007). External Engagement and Internal Transformations. Universities, Localities and Regional Development. In A. Harding, A. Scott & C. Burtscher (Eds.), Universities, Regional Development and the Knowledge Economy (pp. 25-37). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Policies, M. o. F.-D. f. Y. (2014). Youth Information Agency - Informagiovani. In M. o. Ferrara (Ed.). Ferrara, Italy: Municipality of Ferrara.

Research., N. C. f. t. P. o. H. S. o. B. a. B. (1979). Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Maryland, U.S.

Roller, M. (Producer). (2012, 01.12.2014) Interviewer Bias & Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. Research Design Review: A Discussion of Qualitative & Quantitative Research Design Issues. Online Blog

Savin-Baden, M., & Niekerk, L. (2010). Relocating truths in the qualitative research paradigm. In M. Savin-Baden & C. Howell-Major (Eds.), New approaches to qualitative research: wisdom and uncertainty. London, UK: Routledge.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass.Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. London,

UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2015). Managing change in our future cities. The Impact of a World-Class Civic

University(3).Underhill, E. (2009). A Review in to the effectiveness of the current marketing strategy at Warrington

Campus. Unpublished Primary Research. University of Chester.Vanderstoep, S. W., & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research Methods for Everyday Life. San Francisco,

U.S: Jossey-Bass.Weill, L. V. (2009). The President's Role in Cultivating Positive Town-Gown Relations. Society for

College and University Planning (SCUP), Planning for Higher Education(37 no4 Jl/S).Wheeler, T. (2014). University of Chester Mission and Values. from

http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/the-university/our-mission-valuesWheeler, T. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved 10.04.2015, 2015, from

http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/corporate-and-public/corporate-social-responsibilityWilkinson, D. (2002). The Researcher's Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Practitioner Research:

Routledge.

94

http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/corporate-and-public/corporate-social-responsibility

http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/the-university/our-mission-values

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213

shelley marie hanvey triple nelm 2015 1223962

Documents

impact of university

shelley hanvey student

module title

university of chester

academic colleagues

wbis award title

academic positions

assignment title