1 / 23

University engagement with hard-to-reach communities

University engagement with hard-to-reach communities. Higher Education making a difference to economies & communities Belfast Castle, 28 th January 2009 Paul Benneworth, David Charles, Catherine Hodgson, Lynne Humphrey, KITE, Newcastle University. Acknowledgements.

durin
Download Presentation

University engagement with hard-to-reach communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Acknowledgements • Economic and Social Research Council • Ursula, Peter & Laura • Funders’ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcw • Co-authors

  3. 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

  4. Universities in a changing world 3 inter-related drivers • The knowledge economy • Globalisation/ marketisation • New urgent challenges • Climate change • Resource scarcity • Demographic ageing

  5. New challenges for HEIs • Competitors & league tables • New opportunities for valourisation • New institutional roles for the university The university ‘third mission’

  6. 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’

  7. 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

  8. Can universities make this wider difference? • Focus: socially excluded communities • High 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)

  9. 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’

  10. Opening facilities Access to facilities Regeneration on the campus Cultural programmes Volunteering Pro bono spill-overs Mandating student involvement Providing non-accredited courses Engagement Running projects Consultancy and evaluation Tailoring activities Individual knowledge exchange consultations Involving community in decisions Developing engagement strategies Community representation The classification

  11. Did the communities benefit?

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. Talent Regeneration project National policy funds Regional development Global resource flows Labour market Education Innovation Research labs Science Regional science Skills Spatial dev’t Industry FDI in R&D Culture Competitive clusters Research Teaching ‘Community’ Engagement Priority national projects NIS Institutional ranking Governance & social contract World city

  17. Phase 2: Cornerstone@Everton • LIHE: the difficult university transition • Appointment of new Vice Chancellor – • Liverpool Hope – Hope Street links cathedrals • Network of Hope – HE in church schools • Church interest in urban justice • St. Francis Xavier’s School, Everton • Idea to build new campus • Access Obj1, SDF, RDA, Widening Participation funding.

  18. 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.

  19. Urban regeneration around Cornerstone

  20. Urban Hope • Creating new self-funding community centres • LHU builds building, finds anchor tenants, creates community organisation, hands over • Based on CSR funds (United Utilities), Surestart, European Funds. • LHU manages capital build for a fee • Property covenanted with a charge from LHU for change of us • Example: Kensington Life Bank – 6/ 7 local members

  21. Kensington Life Bank

  22. 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

  23. Wicked issues for engagement • Engagement shaped by policy at all levels • Internal university communities must approve ‘engagement’ • Do not forget the mundane in chasing the exciting • External pressures will influence achievements • Communities are not universities’ only stakeholders • Engaging is experimental implying tolerable failure • Engagement must not be a back route for undeserving projects

More Related