Advertisement

Policies for Promoting University–Community Engagement in Practice

  • Paul BenneworthEmail author
  • Ben Jongbloed
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores policies by which governments have attempted to shift their higher education systems to situations where their universities are more structurally engaged with excluded communities. The central argument to this chapter is that there has been a tendency by governments to fund activities rather than system shift, and by exploring four examples which have–however tentatively–begun this process of system shift, it is possible to get an insight into the potentials and barriers to effective university–community engagement. This chapter explores four community engagement higher education policies: the Dutch Leading Social Institute for Urban Research (Nicis Institute), the Canadian Community–University Research Alliance (CURAs) programme, the English HEIF 3 Quantum and the UK Beacons for Public Engagement. This chapter notes that structurally funding community engagement by universities is an extremely expensive and long-term process. Where policies do not fit with universities’ existing activities, single project rounds—even long term ones like the CURAs or the Beacons–have difficulties in evolving from being discrete project interventions into wider cultures of valued public engagement within universities.

Keywords

Community Engagement High Education System Public Engagement Funding Stream Knowledge Mobilization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter draws on research undertaken both as part of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded project ‘universities and excluded communities’ (qv) as well as a Visiting Fellowship by Paul Benneworth and overseen by Ben Jongbloed to the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (2007–2009) entitled ‘The regional economics of higher education’, funded by the Institute of Governance & Innovation Studies at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. Many thanks are due to Paul Manners of the National Co-ordinating Centre, for Public Engagement, for providing the material that contributed to Sect.  13.6. As we have performed our own analysis upon and interpretation of his data, this section cannot be identified with his personal or professional views.

References

  1. AUCC. (2002). Trends in higher education. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.Google Scholar
  2. AUCC. (2005). Momentum: The 2005 report on university research and knowledge transfer. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.Google Scholar
  3. AUCC. (2008). Momentum: The 2008 report on university research and knowledge transfer. Ottawa: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.Google Scholar
  4. AWT. (2003). 1 + 1 > 2: de bevordering van multidisciplinair onderzoek (AWT Advies Nr. 54). Den Haag: Adviesraad voor Wetenschap en Technologie.Google Scholar
  5. Barrington (2004). Community-University Research Alliances (CURA) program: Analysis of data contained within the milestone and year 1 reports. Prepared for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.Google Scholar
  6. Benneworth, P. S. (2010). Five scalar challenges and barriers to innovative practice in regeneration management [Special issue]. Journal of Urban Regeneration Research, 4(1) 63–75.Google Scholar
  7. Benneworth, P., Humphrey, L., Hodgson, C., & Charles, D. R. (2010a). University approaches to engagement with excluded communities. Working Paper 2 ‘University learning with excluded communities’ project. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: KITE.Google Scholar
  8. Benneworth, P. S., Charles, D. R., & Madnipour, A. (2010b). Universitiesas agents of urban change in the global knowledge economy. European Planning Studies, 18(10), 1611–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benneworth, P. S., & Jongbloed, B. W. A. (2007, August 21). Valourisation policy for the humanities, arts and social sciences: Origins, policies, implications. Paper presented to Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies Seminar, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. A. (2009). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.Google Scholar
  11. Brownrigg, M. (1973). The economic impact of a new university. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 20(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charles, D. R., Conway, C., & Humphrey, L. (2002). Higher education business interaction survey 2002. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  13. Day, A. (2010, November 16–17). Universities and society: Is there a wider impact—Reflections from a funding council. Paper presented to Universities and their regional impacts: Making a difference to the economy and society, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  14. Fraser, D. (1999). Universities and communities: Cases from North East of England. In H. Gray (Ed.), Universities and the creation of wealth (pp. 95–107). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gummett, P. (2009, June 22). Effective policies for university-community engagement. Paper presented to HEIs’ Impact Initiative Symposium on excellence in engagement: Policies and practices for university-community engagement, KITE, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, B., Tremblay, C., & Downing, R. (2009). The funding and development of community university research partnerships in Canada: Evidence-based investment in knowledge, engaged scholarship, innovation and action for Canada’s future. Victoria: Office of Community-Based Research (University of Victoria)/Community Based Research Canada.Google Scholar
  17. HEFCE. (2004). Higher education business and community engagement survey 2003-04: Notes for guidance. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  18. HEFCE. (2006a). HEFCE circular 2006/30. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  19. HEFCE. (2006b). Special initiative: Beacons for public engagement: Invitation to apply for fund. HEFCE Circular 2006/49. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  20. HEFCE. (2008). Higher education innovation fund round 4: Invitation and guidance for institutional strategies. HEFCE Circular 2008/02. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamerbeek, H. (2005, December 28). Nieuwe topinstituten lopen zich warm: Eerste Maatschappelijke Topinstituut van start voor onderzoek grotestadsproblemen. Het Financiële Dagblad, p. 3.Google Scholar
  23. Kishchuk, N. (2003). Performance report: Phase 1 of the community university research alliances programme. Ottawa: SSHRC (Canada).Google Scholar
  24. Langlands, A. (2009, November 4). The contribution of higher education to the UK. Paper presented to Making an Impact: Universities and the Regional Economy, London, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Nauwelaers, C., & Wintjes, R. (2002). Innovating SMEs and Regions: The need for policy intelligence and interactive policies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NCIFHE. (1997). Report of the National Committee (the ‘Dearing’ report). Leeds: National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  27. Nicis. (2010). Jaarverslag 2009: Maatschappelijke Topinstituut Steden. The Hague: Nicis Institute.Google Scholar
  28. SSHRC. (2001). Community university research alliance backgrounder. Ottawa: SSHRC (Canada).Google Scholar
  29. Select Committee on Science and Technology (SCST). (2000). Science in society. Third report of the SCST 1999–2000, HL–38, London, HMSO.Google Scholar
  30. Science and Technology Committee (S&TC). (1999). Scientific advisory system: Genetically modified foods. First report of the Commons, S&TC 1998–99, HC 286-I, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  31. Science and Technology Select Committee (STSC). (2002). Government funding of the scientific learned societies. Fifth report of the Commons, S&TC 2001–02, HC 774–I, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  32. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B, & Stilgoe, J. (2006). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  33. Vos, H. (2010). An evaluation of co-decision making in the Dutch social housing sector. The Hague: SEV Realisatie/Laagland’advies.Google Scholar
  34. Wellcome Trust. (2002). Going public: Public attitudes to science and research. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  35. Zilahy, G., & Huisingh, D. (2009). The roles of academia in regional sustainability initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(12), 1057–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Higher Education Policy StudiesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations