Advertisement

Learning from History

Previous Attempts to Measure Universities’ Community Impacts
  • Ben Jongbloed
  • Paul BenneworthEmail author
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Community Engagement Performance Measurement Approach Carnegie Classification Community Engagement Activity Russell Group 
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

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.

References

  1. AUTM. (2008). AUTM U.S. licensing activity survey: FY 2007. Deerfield: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, J. (1999). Ackoff’s best: His classic writings on management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, R. (2000). Realising a compact for higher education. In K. Moti Gokulsing & C. DaCosta (Eds.), A compact for higher education. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (1982). The university and the community: The problems of changing relationships. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  8. Charles, D. R., & Benneworth, P. S. (2001). The regional mission. The regional contribution of higher education. The national report. London: Universities UK.Google Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. Charles D, & Conway C. (2001). Higher education business interaction survey . Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  11. Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: Intentions and insights. Change, 40(1), 38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Florax, R. (1992). The university: A regional booster? Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  14. Fujita, K., & Child-Hill, R. (1995). Global Toyotaism and local development. International Journal of Urban and Rural Research, 19(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garlick, S., & Langworthy, A. (2006). Assessing university community engagement. Discussion paper for the AUCEA Benchmarking Project. Canberra: AUCEA.Google Scholar
  16. Goddard, J. B., Charles, D., Pike, A., Potts, G., & Bradley, D. (1994). Universities and communities. London: CVCP.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. HEFCE. (2007). Funding higher education in England: How HEFCE allocates its funds, HEFCE circular 20/2007. Swindon: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2007). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langworthy, A. (2007). The challenge of benchmarking community engagement: The AUCEA pilot project. http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2007/program/papers/e21.pdf.
  23. 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.
  24. Lawton Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: A review of the evidence. Environment and Planning, 25, 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCormick, A. & Zhao, C.-M. (2005, September/October). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change, 37(5), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. PURE. (2010). PASCAL observatory PURE Brussels report. Glasgow: PASCAL Observatory. http://www.obs-pascal.com/system/files/Brussels+Report.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2010.
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Mineola: Dover Books.Google Scholar
  34. UNICO. (2002). Annual UNICO-NUBS survey of university commercialisation activity. Nottingham: Nottingham Business School.Google Scholar
  35. UUK. (2009). The impact of universities on the UK economy. London: Universities UK.Google Scholar
  36. 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.
  37. 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.Google 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