university engagement with hard-to-reach communities paper presented to “unequal places: planning...
TRANSCRIPT
University engagement with hard-to-reach communities
Paper presented to “Unequal Places: Planning and Territorial Cohesion”
The UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference, 1-3 April 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 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
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
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