University engagement with hard-to-reach communities

Higher Education making a difference to economies & communities

Belfast Castle, 28th January 2009

Paul Benneworth, David Charles, Catherine Hodgson, Lynne Humphrey, KITE, Newcastle University

Acknowledgements

Economic and Social Research Council

Ursula, Peter & Laura

Funders’ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcw

Co-authors

Outline of presentation

Drivers for university’s changing roles

Universities building social capital

A policy-framework for engagement

Can universities make a difference?

Examples from the study:Survey of 33 HEIs in three territories

One detailed case study

Universities in a changing world

3 inter-related drivers

The knowledge economy

Globalisation/ marketisation

New urgent challengesClimate change

Resource scarcity

Demographic ageing

New challenges for HEIs

Competitors & league tables

New opportunities for valourisation

New institutional roles for the university

The university ‘third mission’

The evolving policy agenda (England)

Mid 1990s: ad hoc EPSRC, HERDF, DoE

1997: Dearing & Chapter 12

1999: Creation of the RDAS

2000: HEROBAC & The Regional Mission

2001: HEBCIS

2006: HEIF 3 and the 10%

2008a: ‘a new university challenge’

2008: HEIF 4 ‘what’s measured, matters’

The wicked issues of university engagement

Universities CAN have great societal impacts BUT are being funded to create spinouts

Universities CAN encourage all to engage BUT it is easier to channel it through an office

Universities CAN engage for its own sake BUT driven by key targets, indicators, rankings

Can universities make this wider difference?

Focus: socially excluded communitiesHigh needs, low capacity to engage

Extreme case – convincing results

Evidence of improved third mission

Can/ do universities work with socially excluded communities …

… to develop social capital? (not WP)

Our project…

Two phases, two year,

Original concern that universities in reality prioritising commercial engagement

Focus: engagement with socially excluded communities

Three regions*, 33 Universities (North East, North West, Scotland). 2 phases

1 – mapping exercise

2 – detailed case studies of ‘co-learning’

The classification

Engagement

Opening facilities

Running projects

Volunteering

Cultural programmes

Mandating student involvement

Individual knowledge exchange

Consultancy and evaluation

Regeneration on the campus

Community representation

consultations

Developing engagement strategies

Providing non-accredited courses

Access to facilities

Pro bono spill-overs

Tailoring activities

Involving community in decisions

Did the communities benefit?Core Special

Researching excluded communities

Running community benefit projects

Regeneration on campus

Opening up campus facilities ()

Staff/ student volunteering

Providing non-accredited education

Mandating student community involvement ()

Community in university governance ()

Consulting with the community ()

Developing specific engagement strategies () ()

Attracting communities onto campus

- £m benefits community

- recurrent bridge into core funds

() –symbolic/ legitimacy benefits

- no wider access to university resources

Archetypal benefit projects…1

Undertaking research with excluded communities

MMU Community Psychology research on ‘University-community engagement’.

Durham/ Newcastle Beacon for Community Engagement

Running projects that seek to improve the lot of the community.

Community Financial Solutions unit Salford University

Archetypal benefit projects…2

Integrating university campus developments within wider regeneration projects

Cornerstone Campus, Liverpool Hope

Queen’s Campus, Stockton (Durham)

Opening facilities up on the campus for use by community groups

Sporting Edge, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk

Why did universities engage?6 stories of regional engagement

Social responsibility: university ‘expected’ to be good citizen: community engagement part of that.Institutional development: engagement gave access to resources for campus developments.Seizing opportunities: engagement raised interesting questions stimulating new research.Serving the market: engagement kept university in contact with key excluded community markets Commitment to ‘the cause’: engagement was pursued as something ethically desirable.Personal self-advancement: engagement supported an individual or research centre.

Phase 1 generalisations

Systematic engagement ‘invisible’

Not a ‘typical’ engaged university

The importance of visionaries building change

Integration of engagement activities within other funding streams

Regional offices, volunteering, Lifelong Learning, Widening Participation

Elevating ‘community’ as more salient stakeholder

FDI in R&D

Research labsTalent

ScienceSpatial dev’t

Industry

Education Labour market

Skills

Culture

InnovationRegional science

Institutional ranking

Priority national projects

NISTeaching

Research

‘Community’ Engagement

Competitive clusters

Governance & social contract

National policy funds Regional development

World city

Global resource flows

Regeneration project

Phase 2: Cornerstone@EvertonLIHE: the difficult university transitionAppointment of new Vice Chancellor –

Liverpool Hope – Hope Street links cathedralsNetwork of Hope – HE in church schools

Church interest in urban justice St. Francis Xavier’s School, Everton

Idea to build new campusAccess Obj1, SDF, RDA, Widening Participation funding.

Community Engagement in Everton

Deanery of Arts & Community (with DVC)

Community Engagement opportunities/ requirement in curriculum

Kite Festival in the Park

£20m four phase redevelopment adjacent to St. Francis Xavier church

Local recruitment of Porter/ catering staff

Wider ‘family’ of activities – WAC, Collective Encounters, European Opera Centre.

Urban regeneration around Cornerstone

Urban Hope

Creating new self-funding community centresLHU builds building, finds anchor tenants, creates community organisation, hands overBased on CSR funds (United Utilities), Surestart, European Funds.LHU manages capital build for a feeProperty covenanted with a charge from LHU for change of usExample: Kensington Life Bank – 6/ 7 local members

Kensington Life Bank

In Conclusion: success factors

Axis of engagement – from the top of the university to the top of community

Involving other institutions – church, school, NHS – and their assets

Creating shared solutions to institutional problems

Flagship projects - big community pay-off demand for community social capital

Wicked issues for engagement

1. Engagement shaped by policy at all levels

2. Internal university communities must approve ‘engagement’

3. Do not forget the mundane in chasing the exciting

4. External pressures will influence achievements

5. Communities are not universities’ only stakeholders

6. Engaging is experimental implying tolerable failure

7. Engagement must not be a back route for undeserving projects