Universities and community engagement: addressing the causes of social exclusion

Paper presented to “Regional knowledge and economic capacity”

session in “Regions: The Dilemmas of Integration and Competition?”

Paul Benneworth*, Catherine Hodgson*, David Charles, Lynne Humphrey

KITE, Newcastle University

A common vision of universities and communities?

Outline of the presentation

The rise of the knowledge economy and new forms of exclusion

The potential roles of university community service and development

Methodology – research project and paper

4 drivers of university community engagement

Towards a university typology

Rise of the knowledge economy

Economic growth driven by productivity growth:

Rising independence from traditional capital (land, labour, machinery…)

Increasing importance of TFP Knowledge

50% of growth 1945-85; contribution growing

Knowledge capital unevenly spreadRise of world cities, regional capitals

Stagnation of ‘ordinary’ cities

New forms of social exclusion

Particular types of places ‘cut off’ from knowledge economy (Moulaert et al, 2000).

Two kinds of problemExternal disintegration – capital has no need

Internal fragmentation – no local capacity

Knowledge economy about attracting investment (money, talent, technologies)

Can universities make excluded communities better at attracting investments?

Hierarchy of university contributions

The needs of society

The university experience

The discovery and development of talent

Knowledge

The arts

Preserving existing knowledge

Disseminating knowledge for learning

Applying knowledge in practice

Discovering knowledge via research

Acting as a centre for arts activity

Preserving existing knowledge

Disseminating knowledge for learning

Applying knowledge in practice

Discovering knowledge via research

Providing staff/ student satisfactionSource: Allen, 1989

University contributions to excluded communities

Universities as key knowledge actors

Universities have ‘social’ compact for funding

Wide range of potential contributions

Vs.

Excluded communities are weak stakeholders

Community Engagement as residual mission

Wrong side of ‘excellence/ relevance’ split.

Empirically understanding if potential is realised

University contribution frame (1)

Service LearningService Provision Faculty Involvement Student Volunteerism The Community in the Classroom Applied Research.Major Institutional Change

Source: Department of Housing & Urban Development, 1999.

University contribution frame (2)Source: CERI, 1982

Way of providing service

Mechanism for delivering service

University puts facilities at the disposal of the community

Use of equipment, premises, laboratories, laboratoriesUse of teachers and students to make direct contributionDrawing on the community in delivering occupational training

Execution of orders placed by community

Offering training as occupational, continuing education or culturalUniversity receives a payment from community for delivery of a serviceA near private contract between the buyer and the vendor

Analysis of needs of community

The university comes into the community as an outside expertThe university provides services for the community with some reference

to an ‘order’ by the community

Analysis of problems at request of community

University engages at community request in developing solutions University has the autonomy and freedom to suggest a range of

solutions away from overarching pressure.

University delivers a solution on behalf of the community

The university delivers a service for the community which is compatible with its institutional status

Barriers to university engagementBarrier Barrier faced by community in engagement

Structural divides Lack of influential community leaders

Incoherent and undemanding community

Misunderstanding of what is a university

Invisible discouragements to engagement

Focus on ‘activist engagement’

Policy issues Restriction to endorsed groups

Small scale project based engagement

Skills useful to public sector not community

Inapplicable linear knowledge transfer model.

Personal characteristics Lack of sensitivity to engagement language

Absence of boundary spanning individuals

Engagement helps clever ones to leave

Engagement with experts not the community

Methodology

ESRC Research project “Universities and excluded communities” within the “Regional contributions of Higher Education” programme

2 phases, 3 regions (North East, North West, Scotland).

Phase 1 – study of all 33 HEIs to characterise Community Engagement activity, policy, promotion, barriers and tensions.

Paper – (practical) – 5 illustrative cases of ‘something a bit different’

Fiches not approved: anonymous/ not discuss named cases

The Collegiate: Cornerstone@Everton

Chester University

Durham University

University ‘pen portraits’

University 1: teaching focused large former polytechnic with strong vocational links

University 2: former teacher training college teaching led with religious background

University 3: teaching focused with strong community mission

University 4: merger of polytechnics, now with growing research critical mass, teaching led.

University 5: 19th century collegiate university in former coal mining area

University (1): teaching-ledLong history of industrial engagement, partly on new campus funded by regeneration

High-level awareness of engagement –each faculty has representatives

Have reacted to community inquiries, only where existing linkages

Aim to use students to create linkages – placements transfer knowledge for free

Enthusiasm tied to individuals who move on – rules remain, spirit changes

Complex picture – how to interpret

Universities as site of competing rationales for engagement…

Social responsibility Institutional development

Seizing opportunities Serving the market

Why Show blue skies research benefits humanity

To develop a set of new university infrastructures

Allowing staff to benefit from community work

Maximise recruitment and retention

Mechanisms Supporting charitable/ voluntary activities

Building new campuses and setting engagement targets

Administrative changes & university PR

Pastoral support for excluded students/ family.

Teaching Sporadic and unplanned, ‘festival’ approach.

Compulsory community-based modules, courses

Where relevant, through placements and content

Creating modules/ courses meeting community needs

Research Helps university to get potentially useful research

Campus start point for ‘exploratory missions’

Opportunities for interested academics to use links

Shaping local research environment with partners

Benefits Subsidised access to facilities

Campus drives of regeneration/ gentrification

Placements build capacity and infrastructure

Graduates stay locally, giving community capacity.

Tensions Limited community influence - paternalistic

Gentrification vs local benefits

Reliant on enthusiastic academics, strong leaders

Information asymmetries, and unwanted courses.

Institutional configurationsSocial responsibility

Institutional development

Seizing opportunities

Serving market

University 1

University 2

University 3

University 4 ‑

University 5

The ‘stories’ within the HEI

Senior management

Centre/ Academic

Schools (T&R)

‘Missing middle’ of Community Engagement

‘University’

Social responsibilityInstitutional development

New research opportunitiesBetter community recruitment

Principled social contributionFacilitating personal advancement

Senior management

Centre/ Academic

Schools (T&R)

‘University’

Strategy/ policy

Research project

Resource Allocation

Community as justifying university’s

social compact

Community as interesting and worthy

study topic

Community as tapping into new markets for

services

Conclusions/ questions arising (1)

The complexity of engagementUniversities not simply managed – simple processes inhibit engagement

The pendulum of changeShort-term windows of opportunity for change

Who do universities take their orders from?Are capital projects really a vision?

Conclusions/ questions arising (2)

Universities as social enterpriseCorporate social responsibility vs social compact

Universities as reactive to communitiesHow do excluded communities influence the business of universities?

Local nodes in wider governance networks Do university/ community/ LA links create new opportunities for excluded communities?