Universities' Engagement with Excluded Communities

Making an Impact: Universities and the Regional Economy Wednesday 4th November 2009

Paul Benneworth, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, the Netherlands

Acknowledgements

Economic and Social Research Council

Ursula, Peter & Laura (Programme)

Funders’ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcw

Co-researchers (David, Lynne, Catherine)

CHEPS

Outline of presentation

The rise of the third mission

A challenging target group – socially excluded communities

Characteristics of university-community engagement

How does engagement fit as an HEI mission?

What can be done to support engagement?

The rise of the third mission

1980s depression – harnessing past investments in university knowledge

Late 1980s – idea of ‘entrepreneurial university’

1990s – formal governmental role – policies for regional impact

Now legally enshrined as formal taskNetherlands

Sweden …

Evidence base

First wave: multiplier effects (universities as businesses)

Second wave: Universities as benevolent but detached (regional profiles)

Third wave: Universities as constructive partnership players

Broad set of potential/ latent benefits

Restrictive policy approaches

Typical ‘third stream’ policy cycleEarly eye-catching experiments (HERDF)

Benign environment (HEROBAC)

Tightening/ squeezing (HEIF4)

Not unique to England – difficult to define third mission without targeting (cash) outputs

Wicked issues of university engagement

The expansion of Higher Education CAN create public benefits BUT is being channelled to targeting private beneficiaries.

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

Why look at excluded communities

Focus: socially excluded communitiesHigh needs, low capacity to engage

Disengaged from knowledge economy

Extreme case – convincing results

Evidence of improved third mission

‘Moral’ imperative for universities to demonstrate ‘not just businesses’

Our project…

2 year research project £135k Initiative Contribution, £30k Newcastle University, £10k licensing deal

Concern universities prioritising commercial engagement

Focus: engagement with socially excluded communities

Three regions*, 33 Universities (NE, NW, Scotland) 2 phases

1 – mapping exercise2 – detailed case studies of ‘co-learning’

Much activity…

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

Huge amount of engagement

Kitson argues 40% of academics ‘engage’

Engaged in processes of society regeneration and inclusion

Physical development, curriculum, service, governance

Different levels of engagement: corporate, faculty, academic, students

All kinds of universities engaging…

How applicable to prosperous regions?

Often peripheral within university

Symptoms: one-off projects; in business office;

used for PR; dominated by WP/ LLL;

structural suspicion; paper-chasing not behaviour changing

Hard to sustain long-term cultural change

Heavily dependent on a few enthusiastic leaders

Difficult to know/ measure/ capture

Phase 2: understanding engagement processes

1. Community mobilisationBuilding a learning community

2. Embedding within university Liverpool Hope: reinforcing pillars

3. Spinning-out activity into societyUpscaling ‘project’ into a social institution/ actor

Process (1): community mobilisation

Award winning community art project

Inner city communities, mid-sized city with problems

Creating a self-regulating community based around art

Active in ‘art’ world beyond locality

Process (2): embedding in university

Liverpool Hope: Mutually reinforcing pillars within HEIPhysical development: Cornerstone phase IV

Supporting community facility use: WAC, Collective Encounters

Curriculum: Community music, drama, dance

Research: Institute for Community Arts

Volunteering: Global Hope, SLA

Have to be woven together within one institution

University senior

managers

Urban Hope

Community groups

Funding agencies

Anchor Tenants

Academics

StudentsWECC

RLPO

Estates

Academics

Students

Community groups

SOS Children’s Villages

Academics

Students

MusicSpace

RLPO

Music activity

Faith Primary

DCFS

Finance

LWAC

EOC

‘Urban Hope’

‘In Harmony’

‘Service and Leadership Award’

Global Hope

Cornerstone

Student Services

Key learning communities

Intercommunity linkages

Volunteering projects

Hope’s sponsorship of

RLPO

LIPA students

Process (3): ‘spinning it out’.

From one-off project to recurrent actor£10m under management in 20 projects

Embedding social improvements in society(Semi-)detached relationships with university

Ensuring long-term survival and sustainabilityHave to survive outside the institution

Making the break – post ‘academic’ lifeTUPE, succession, transition…

Community Financial Solutions (Salford)

ReflectionsGood ideas emerge in universities…

…but not the place to grow them

Importance of upscaling & diffusionWhere is the policy support for that?

25 years of business engagement tells us…Technology transfer knowledge exchangeProcess in the round: venture fundingUniversities and non-exec directorsRewarding the ‘inventors’…