Universities' Engagement with Excluded Communities

1. 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

2. Acknowledgements • Economic and Social Research Council • Ursula, Peter & Laura (Programme) • Funders’ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcw • Co-researchers (David, Lynne, Catherine) • CHEPS

3. 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?

4. 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 task • Netherlands • Sweden …

5. 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

6. Restrictive policy approaches • Typical ‘third stream’ policy cycle • Early eye-catching experiments (HERDF) • Benign environment (HEROBAC) • Tightening/ squeezing (HEIF4) • Not unique to England – difficult to define third mission without targeting (cash) outputs

7. 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

8. Why look at excluded communities • Focus: socially excluded communities • High 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’

9. 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 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 Much activity…

11. 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?

12. 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

13. Phase 2: understanding engagement processes • Community mobilisation • Building a learning community • Embedding within university • Liverpool Hope: reinforcing pillars • Spinning-out activity into society • Upscaling ‘project’ into a social institution/ actor

14. 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

15. Process (2): embedding in university • Liverpool Hope: Mutually reinforcing pillars within HEI • Physical 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

16. Intercommunity linkages Music activity ‘Urban Hope’ LIPA students LWAC Funding agencies Community groups Cornerstone EOC MusicSpace Students Urban Hope Anchor Tenants Estates RLPO Finance Academics Hope’s sponsorship of RLPO University senior managers Key learning communities Academics Student Services Academics RLPO Global Hope Students Students SOS Children’s Villages WECC Volunteering projects DCFS Faith Primary Community groups ‘In Harmony’ ‘Service and Leadership Award’

17. 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 sustainability • Have to survive outside the institution • Making the break – post ‘academic’ life • TUPE, succession, transition…

18. Community Financial Solutions (Salford)

19. Reflections • Good ideas emerge in universities… • …but not the place to grow them • Importance of upscaling & diffusion • Where is the policy support for that? • 25 years of business engagement tells us… • Technology transfer knowledge exchange • Process in the round: venture funding • Universities and non-exec directors • Rewarding the ‘inventors’…