Abstract
This chapter explores how university–community engagement has emerged in the indicators which governments and universities have adopted to try to measure universities’ societal activities. University–community engagement has often been subordinated to easier-to-measure activities such as graduate employment, spin-off companies created or number of patents. This chapter analyses six attempts that have been made to measure the societal value of universities’ activities in a variety of different national settings. The central argument in the chapter is that effective performance measures for university–community engagement need to fulfil three criteria, they need to capture the resources made available to the community, capture in some way how external partners value the university activity, and clearly define what they mean by what is ‘good’ or excellent in engagement activity. This has consequences both for the way that policy-makers seek to promote university–community engagement and also for a much wider range of activities which frame that activity. Most important is that community engagement can never really be a satisfactory activity until there is clarity and cohesion as to what constitutes ‘good’ community development.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AUTM. (2008). AUTM U.S. licensing activity survey: FY 2007. Deerfield: Association of University Technology Managers.
Ackoff, J. (1999). Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management. New York: Wiley.
Barnett, R. (2000). Realising a compact for higher education. In K. Moti Gokulsing & C. DaCosta (Eds.), A compact for higher education. Aldershot: Ashgate.
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.
Benneworth, P., Humphrey, L., Hodgson, C., & Charles, D. R. (2010). University approaches to engagement with excluded communities (Working Paper 2, University learning with excluded communities project). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: KITE.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120.
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (1982). The university and the community: The problems of changing relationships. Paris: OECD.
Charles, D. R., & Benneworth, P. S. (2001). The regional mission. The regional contribution of higher education. The national report. London: Universities UK.
Charles, D., & Benneworth, P. (2002). Evaluating the regional contribution of an HEI: A benchmarking approach. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2002/02_23.htm.
Charles D, & Conway C. (2001). Higher education business interaction survey . Bristol: HEFCE.
Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: Intentions and insights. Change, 40(1), 38–41.
Duggan, K., & Kagan, C. (2007). We don’t believe you want a genuine partnership: University work with communities. Paper presented to Community Work and Family Conference, 12–14 April 2007, Lisbon, Portugal.
Florax, R. (1992). The university: A regional booster? Aldershot: Avebury.
Fujita, K., & Child-Hill, R. (1995). Global Toyotaism and local development. International Journal of Urban and Rural Research, 19(1), 7–22.
Garlick, S., & Langworthy, A. (2006). Assessing university community engagement. Discussion paper for the AUCEA Benchmarking Project. Canberra: AUCEA.
Goddard, J. B., Charles, D., Pike, A., Potts, G., & Bradley, D. (1994). Universities and communities. London: CVCP.
Goldstein, H., & Drucker, J. (2006). The economic development impacts of universities on regions: Do size and distance matter? Economic Development Quarterly, 20(1), 22–43.
Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
HEFCE. (2007). Funding higher education in England: How HEFCE allocates its funds, HEFCE circular 20/2007. Swindon: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
HEFCW. (2006). HEBCI—Guidance, cardiff, higher education funding council for Wales. http://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/working_with_he_providers/data_collection/HE-BCI_guidance_2005-06.pdf.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2007). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.
Langworthy, A. (2007). The challenge of benchmarking community engagement: The AUCEA pilot project. http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2007/program/papers/e21.pdf.
Langworthy, A. (2008). Indicators of university community engagement: Learning from the AUCEA benchmarking pilot (Australian University Quality Agency Occasional Paper No. 11). Melbourne: AUQA. http://www.auqa.edu.au/files/auqf/paper/paper_11_paper.pdf.
Lawton Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: A review of the evidence. Environment and Planning, 25, 98–114.
McCormick, A. & Zhao, C.-M. (2005, September/October). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change, 37(5), 51–57.
McGregor, P. G., Hermannsson, K., Lisenkova, K., & Swales, J. K. (2009). Impact of HEIs on the Scottish economy: New evidence from an HEI-disaggregated input-output approach. Fraser Economic Commentary. http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/economics/fairse/backissues/Fraser_of_Allander_Economic_Commentary,_Vol_33,_No_1.pdf.
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final report presented to the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. OECD-CREI.
OECD. (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.
Paytas, J., Gradeck, R, & Andrews, L. (2004). Universities and the development of industry clusters. Report prepared for the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Economic Development.
PURE. (2009). Benchmarking universities in regions: Some thoughts arising from benchmarking in Melbourne (PURE Briefing Paper No. 16). Glasgow: PASCAL Observatory. http://www.obs-pascal.com/system/files/No.+16+PURE+Briefing+Paper+-+Benchmarking.doc.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2010.
PURE. (2010). PASCAL observatory PURE Brussels report. Glasgow: PASCAL Observatory. http://www.obs-pascal.com/system/files/Brussels+Report.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2010.
Stella, A., & Baird, G. (2008). Community engagement and inclusion in Australian Higher Education: A thematic analysis of AUQA’s cycle 1 audits (Australian University Quality Agency Occasional Paper No. 15). Melbourne: AUQA.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Mineola: Dover Books.
UNICO. (2002). Annual UNICO-NUBS survey of university commercialisation activity. Nottingham: Nottingham Business School.
UUK. (2009). The impact of universities on the UK economy. London: Universities UK.
Vetenskap & Allmänhet (VA). (2007). Measuring societal engagement—Proposed indicators for resource allocation and academic merit rating. http://www.v-a.se/downloads/Engagementindicators_Feb2008.pdf.
Webber, H. S. (2005). The university of Chicago and its neighbours: A case study in community development. In D. Perry & W. Wiewel (Eds.), The university as urban develop: Case studies and analysis. New York: Sharpe.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the special session on higher education indicators, as part of the ENID-PRIME Indicators Conference in Oslo, 26–28 May 2008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P. (2013). Learning from History. In: Benneworth, P. (eds) University Engagement With Socially Excluded Communities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4875-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4875-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4874-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4875-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)