Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 64, Issue 5, pp 563–583 | Cite as

Mutualising the university: achieving community impact through an ecosystem

  • Philip Powell
  • Anita Walsh
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Public dissatisfaction with academic research, coupled with the rising costs of higher education (HE) and reduced government funding, are forcing academics to convince society of the benefits of their research. This article argues that pressures on higher education institutions (HEIs) in a market model create a need to be responsive to students and employers, and to demonstrate institutional impact. However, the assessment of this impact tends to be based on quantifiable data, statistics, etc. of the kind which work well for natural sciences, but pose challenges for social sciences. Thus, areas of impact are often overlooked which may be more immediate in their effect, and deliver benefits which go beyond those claimed for the current impact model. They derive from activities that involve formal learning in the curriculum, pre-labour market entry and executive education; informal extra-curricular activities; organisational benefit generated by individual students’ activities and by the co-creation of knowledge in jointly tailored programmes; a range of enterprise activities supporting student innovation and creativity; and public engagement, creating a space for debate and the exchange of views. Recognising this broad nature of impact across a range of contexts, the authors of this article suggest two mechanisms which might be helpful in thinking about identifying wider impact. The first, mutuality, involves co-operation between HEIs and their communities in a series of relationships, reaching beyond the transactional. The second, the development of an HEI-centred ecosystem – an intentional collaborative community –, provides a vehicle which harnesses synergy to enhance impact on a set of stakeholders across a variety of dimensions. The authors describe the characteristics of an ecosystem developed for an HEI in the United Kingdom (UK).

Keywords

impact mutuality ecosystem engagement employability stakeholders 

Résumé

Mutualiser l’université : exercer un impact sur la collectivité via un écosystème – Le mécontentement général envers la recherche universitaire, auquel s’ajoutent les frais croissants de l’enseignement supérieur et la réduction du financement public, contraint aujourd’hui les chercheurs à convaincre la société du bien-fondé de leurs travaux. Les auteurs de cet article constatent que les pressions exercées sur les institutions d’enseignement supérieur dans un modèle de marché créent la nécessité d’être réactif envers les étudiants et les employeurs, et de démontrer l’impact de l’institution. L’évaluation de cet impact a néanmoins tendance à reposer sur des données quantifiables, des statistiques et autres, qui par nature s’appliquent aisément aux sciences naturelles, mais posent des défis pour les sciences sociales. Certains domaines d’impact sont ainsi fréquemment négligés, qui éventuellement ont un effet plus immédiat et apportent des avantages dépassant ceux déclarés pour le modèle de marché. Ils découlent de facteurs variés : activités impliquant l’apprentissage formel dans le cadre du programme d’études, entrée anticipée sur le marché du travail avant l’activité professionnelle, et formation continue des cadres; activités informelles hors programme; avantage organisationnel généré par les activités individuelles des étudiants et par la cocréation de connaissances dans des programmes élaborés en commun; activités entrepreneuriales favorisant l’innovation et la créativité chez les étudiants; enfin engagement public créant un espace de débat et d’échange. Tenant compte de cette grande diversité d’impacts dans de nombreux contextes, les auteurs de l’article proposent deux mécanismes susceptibles de faciliter la réflexion sur l’identification d’un impact plus vaste. Le premier de ces mécanismes, à savoir la mutualité, implique une coopération entre les institutions d’enseignement supérieur et leurs collectivités, à travers un ensemble de relations dépassant le niveau transactionnel. Le second, qui consiste en l’élaboration d’un écosystème centré sur l’institution – ou communauté volontaire de collaboration –, fournit un vecteur qui capte la synergie et renforce l’impact sur un ensemble d’acteurs dans une grande variété de dimensions. Les auteurs décrivent les caractéristiques d’un écosystème élaboré pour une institution d’enseignement supérieur au Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J., & Dangerfield, B. (2000). Viewpoint: Applying the distinction between market-oriented and customer-led strategic perspectives to business school strategies. Journal of Business for Education, 75(3), 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchelor, J. (2003). More than tea and biscuits: The role of time banks and LETs in local economic development. Local Economy, 18(3), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benneworth, P., & Osborne, M. (2014). Knowledge, engagement and higher education in Europe. In C. Escrigas, J. Granados, B.L. Hall & R. Tandon (Eds.), Higher education in the world 5. Knowledge, engagement and higher education: Contributing to social change (pp. 204–217). Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) Series on the Social Commitment of Universities. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2010). The perils of confusing lifelong learning with lifelong education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(4), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birchall, J. (2008). The “mutualisation” of public services in Britain: A critical commentary. Journal of Cooperative Studies, 41(2), 5–16.Google Scholar
  7. Connolly, B. (2014). Critical pedagogy and higher education: Really useful civic engagement. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 157.Google Scholar
  8. Conservative Party. (2008). A stronger society: Voluntary action in the 21st century. Responsibility Agenda Policy Green Paper no. 5. (UK Government Consultation Document). London_ Conservative Party.Google Scholar
  9. Cornuel, E. (2007). Challenges facing business schools in the future. Journal of Management Development, 26(1), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobrow, S. R., Chandler, D. E., Murphy, W. E., & Kram, K. E. (2012). A review of developmental networks: Incorporating a mutuality perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 210–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elfert, M. (2015). UNESCO, the Faure report, the Delors report, and the political utopia of lifelong learning. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Escrigas, C., Granados Sanchez, J., Hall, B., & Tandon, R. (2013). Higher education in the world 5. Knowledge, engagement and higher education: Contributing to social change. Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) Series on the Social Commitment of Universities. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Fear, F., & Saunders, L. (2016). The “new” scholarship: Implications for engagement and extension. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 101–139.Google Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonca, S., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2012). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(3), 7–28.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Grand, A., Davies, G., Holliman, R., & Adams, A. (2015). Mapping public engagement with research in a UK university. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, B. L. (2009). Higher education, community engagement and the public good: Building the future of continuing education in Canada. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 35(1), 11–23.Google Scholar
  18. Holmwood, J., Hickey, T., Cohen, R., & Wallis, S. (2016). In defence of public higher education: Knowledge for a successful society. The alternative White Paper for higher education. London: Convention for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  19. Jacob, W. J., Sutin, S. E., Weidman, J. C., & Yeager, J. L. (2015). Community engagement in higher education: Policy reforms and practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kellner, P. (1998). New mutualism: The third way [pamphlet]. London: The Co-operative Party.Google Scholar
  22. Knights, B. (2007). Guest editorial. Academy Exchange, 6, 3–4.Google Scholar
  23. Kumari, P. (2017). One size won’t fit all: The challenges facing the Office for Students [report following a ten-month inquiry]. Southwark: Higher Education Commission (HEC)/Policy Connect. Retrieved 18 July 2018 from https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/sites/site_pc/files/report/1005/fieldreportdownload/hec-web.pdf.
  24. Laninga, T., Austin, G., & McClure, W. (2011). University-community partnerships in small town Idaho: Addressing diverse community needs through interdisciplinary outreach and engagement. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 4(2), 5–17.Google Scholar
  25. Liberversity. (2011). Practicing-freedom. Retrieved 16 May 2011 from https://wordpress.com/2011/04/30/liberversity.notes-on.
  26. Mason O’Connor, K., Lynch, K., & Owen, D. (2011). Student-community engagement and the development of graduate attributes. Education + Training, 53(2/3), 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathews, D. (2012). Civic engagement: Ships passing in the night? Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 2(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
  28. Mayo, E., & Moore, H. (2001). The mutual state: How local communities can run public services. New Economics Foundation Pocketbook No. 5. London: New Economics Foundation. Retrieved 18 July 2018 from https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/4e64e47c5e7f9a738d_bem6iiwr6.pdf.
  29. Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketization of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neary, M. (2016). Teaching excellence framework: A critical response and an alternative future. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12(3), 690–695.Google Scholar
  31. Niederman, F., Crowston, K., Koch, H., Krcmar, H., Powell, P., & Swanson, E. B. (2015). Assessing IS research impact [online article]. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 36, Article 7. Retrieved 18 July 2018 from https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol36/iss1/7.
  32. Oglesby, L. (2007). Lifelong learning: Reality or rhetoric? Academy Exchange, 6, 10–13.Google Scholar
  33. Osborne, M. (2007). Learning regions—from triple to quadruple alliance. Academy Exchange, 6, 36–40.Google Scholar
  34. Powell, P., & Walsh, A. (2018). Whose curriculum is it anyway? Stakeholder Salience in the context of Degree Apprenticeships. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(2), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rammell, B. (2016). Protecting the public interest in higher education. HEPI Occasional Paper 15. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). Retrieved 3 July 2018 from http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Hepi_Protecting-the-Public-Interest-in-Higher-Education-WEB.pdf.
  36. Steffens, U., & Grote, M. (2016). Does academic research have to have impact? EFMD Global Focus, 10(3), 22–26. Retrieved 3 July 2018 from http://globalfocusmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Issue_3_2016_research_impact.pdf.
  37. Syed, J., Mingers, J., & Murray, P. A. (2009). Beyond rigour and relevance: A critical realist approach to business education. Management Learning, 41(1), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tholen, G. (2017). Symbolic closure: Towards a renewed sociological perspective on the relationship between higher education, credentials and the graduate labour market. Sociology, 5(15), 1067–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tomlinson, M. (2018). Conceptions of the value of higher education in a measured market. Higher Education, 75(4), 711–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Willetts, D. (2013). Robbins revisited: Bigger and better higher education. London: The Social Market Foundation. Retrieved 3 July 2018 from http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Publication-Robbins-Revisited-Bigger-and-Better-Higher-Education-David-Willetts.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V., and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business, Economics and InformaticsBirkbeck, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options