Universities’ Perspectives on Community Engagement

  • Paul Benneworth
  • Lynne HumphreyEmail author


This chapter makes the argument that despite the fact that utility has always been important to why universities exist, engaging with communities has been framed in ways that reinforce its perception as a transient, peripheral and even undesirable activity. The chapter begins by noting the way that the ‘idea of a university’ is used to create abstract arguments for what universities should do on the basis of what they have done. The chapter highlights four arguments which have evolved in ways that have made it difficult for community engagement to gain acknowledgement for its contribution to universities. Firstly, it is difficult to validate community knowledge as universally valid and excellent because of the way it becomes tied to local concerns. Secondly, there has been a tendency to frame universities’ societal contributions as being subordinate to an ‘intrinsic’ value to higher education which is somehow more valuable. Thirdly, increasing emphasis on individual benefits in public policy underplays the wider community formation role played by university–community engagement. Finally, the rise of league tables and notions of world-class universities have created a sense that community engagement is something that the best universities simply do not do. The chapter illustrates this with a case study of community engagement missions in Scottish universities, which finds a net effect of seeing that even well-meaning attempts to introduce community engagement find it fragmented and dissipated in trying to come to term with these tensions. The potential for university–community engagement to become a central mission for universities therefore depends on the future course of these debates.


High Education Community Engagement High Education System Continue Professional Development Host Society 
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.



This chapter draws on within the Economic and Social Research Council funded project ‘Universities and excluded communities’, part of the Regional Impacts of Higher Education Initiative. This initiative is co-funded by the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the Department for Education and Learning Northern Ireland. Many thanks are also due to Professor David Charles for his contribution to the discussion around the university engagement profiles typology in 9.4. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibilities of the authors.


  1. Aquino Febrillet, M. (2006). Las reformas de Córdoba: 88 años después. DiárioDigitalRD (Dominican Republic). Accessed 2 Feb. 2009.
  2. Allen, M. (1988). The goals of universities. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. (2009). The idea of a university. In K. Withers (Ed.), First class? Challenges and opportunities for the UK’s university sector (pp. 13–29). London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett , R. (2000). Realising a compact for higher education. In K. Moti Gokulsing & C. DaCosta (Eds.), A compact for higher education. Ashgate: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond all reason: Living with ideology in the university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baumunt, Z. (1997). Universities: Old, new and different. In A. Smith & F. Webster (Eds.), The post-modern university? Contested visions of higher education in society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2008). The social impact of the arts: An intellectual history. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Bender, T. (1988). Introduction. In T. Bender (Ed.), The university and the city. From medieval origins to the present (pp. 3–10). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Benneworth, P. (2009). The challenges for 21st century science: A review of the evidence base surrounding the value of public engagement by scientists. Science for all working paper. London: Department for Business, Industry and Science/ Science for All.Google Scholar
  10. Benneworth, P. (2010). Universities and regional engagement, Modern executive report. Brussels: the European Centre for the Strategic Management of the University.Google Scholar
  11. Benneworth, P., Humphrey, L., Charles, D. R., & Hodgson, C. (2008). Universities and community engagement: Addressing the causes of social exclusion. Paper presented to Regions: The silemmas of integration and competition, International Conference of the Regional Studies Association, Prague, Czech Republic, 27–29 May 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Biggar, N. (2010). What are universities for? Standpoint, 24, 76–79.Google Scholar
  13. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Brink, C. (2007). What are universities for? Vice Chancellor’s Lecture, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 27 Nov. 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Browne Review. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher education funding and student finance. London: IRHEFSF.Google Scholar
  16. Bryson, J. (2000). Spreading the message: Management consultants and the shaping of economic geographies in time and space. In J. R. Bryson, P. W. Daniels, N. Henry, & J. Pollard (Eds.), Knowledge, space, economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Callon, M. (1999). The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology Society, 4(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (1982). The university and the community: the problems of changing relationships. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  20. CHERPA Network. (2010). Design phase of the project, designing and testing the feasibility of a multi-dimensional global university ranking. U-Multirank interim progress report. Accessed 11 Nov. 2010.
  21. Cooke, E. D. (1970). Analyzing university student contribution to the economic base of the community. Annals of Regional Science, 4, 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cortez Ruiz, C. (2008). Challenges and operations for university-based civic service in Latin America. In GUNI (Ed.), Higher education in the world 3: New challenges and emerging roles for human and social development. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Daalder, H. (1982). The sudden revolution and the sluggish aftermath: A retrospective since 1968. In H. Daalder & E. Shils (Eds.), Universities, politicians and bureaucrats: Europe and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Delanty, G. (2002). The university and modernity: A history of the present. In K. Robins & F. Webster, The virtual university: Knowledge, markets and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Deitrick, S., & Soska, T. (2005). The University of Pittsburgh and the Oakland Neighborhood: From conflict to cooperation or How the 800-Pound Gorilla Learned to Sit with—and not on—Its Neighbors” in D. C. Perry & W. Wiewel (Eds.), The university as urban developer: Case studies and analysis. New York: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  26. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fischer, F. (2009). How German is it? An essay in epistemological eclecticism. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning (pp. 65–94.). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Flexner, A. (1930). Universities: American, British, German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1, Winter), 1–35 (MIT Press).Google Scholar
  31. Harvie, C. (1994). The Rise of Regional Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Howie, G. (2003). A reflection of quality: Instrumental reason, quality audits and the knowledge economy. Critical Quarterly, 44(4), 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402(December), C81–C84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gopal, P. (18 October 2010). My fears for the arts and humanities. Guardian Newspaper. Accessed 11 Nov. 2010.
  35. Greenwood, D. (2007). Who are the real problem-owners. In A. Harding, A. Scott, S. Laske, & C. Burtscher (Eds.), Bright satanic mills: Universities, regional development and the knowledge economy. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  36. Guston, D. H., & Keniston, K. (1994). Introduction: The social contract for science. In D. H. Guston & K. Keniston (Eds.), The fragile contract: University science and the federal government (pp. 1–41). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hennings, G., & Kunzmann, K. R. (1993). Local economic development in a traditional industrial area: The case of the Ruhrgebiet. In P. B. Meyer (Ed.), Local economic development. London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hyde, J. K. (1988). Universities and cities in medieval Italy. In T. Bender (Ed.), The university and the city. From medieval origins to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jonathan, R. (1997). Illusory freedoms: Liberalism, education and the market. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 31(1), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (2000). Renewing the covenant: Learning, discovery, and engagement in a new age and different world. Washington: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.Google Scholar
  41. King, R. (1995). What is higher education for? Strategic dilemmas for the twenty-first century university. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(4), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action—How to follows scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Leach, R. (2002). Political ideology in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  45. Leadbeater, C. (2000). Living on thin air: The new economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  46. Lepori, B., Benninghoff, K., Jongbloed, B., Salerno, C., & Slipersæter, S. (2007). Changing models and patterns of higher education funding: Some empirical evidence. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation : Specialization and performance in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  47. Newman, J. H. (1854). The Idea of a University. Oxford: Clarendon Press (reprinted paperback edition, 1976).Google Scholar
  48. McClintock, M. E. (1974). The university of Lancaster: Quest for innovation, a history of the first ten years 1964–1974. Lancaster: The University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  49. McLellan, C. E. (1988). To live for science: Ideals and realities and the University of Berlin. In T. Bender (Ed.), The university and the city. From medieval origins to the present (pp. 181–197). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. McGregor, P. (2010). Do universities matter to regions? How do universities make an impact. Paper presented to Universities and their regional impacts: making a difference to the economy and society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 16–17 November 2010.Google Scholar
  51. Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martin, B. R. (2003). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 7–29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. May, T., & Perry, B. (2006). Urban knowledge exchange: Devilish dichotomies and active intermediation. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 1 (1–2), 6–24.Google Scholar
  54. MEN, & MESR. (2007). Massification et démocratisation. Paris: Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale & Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche. Accessed 11 Nov. 2010.
  55. Melody, W. (1997). Universities and public policy. In A. Smith & F. Webster (Eds.), The post-modern university? Contested visions of higher education in society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Penman, J., & Ellis, B. (2003). Mutualism in Australian regional university-community links: The Whyalla experience. Queensland Journal of Education Research, 19(2), 119–136.Google Scholar
  57. Phillipson, N. T. (1988). Commerce and culture: Edinburgh, Edinburgh University and the Scottish Enlightenment. In T. Bender (Ed.), The university and the city. From medieval origins to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  59. Rüegg, W. (1992). Themes. In H. de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A history of the university in Europe (pp. 3–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington: World Bank. Scholar
  61. Shils, E. (1988). The university, the city and the world: Chicago and the university of Chicago. In: T. Bender (Ed.), The university and the city: From medieval origins to the present (pp. 210–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, A., & Webster, F. (Eds.). (1997). The post-modern university? Contested visions of higher education in society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  63. U-MAP. (2008). Mapping diversity? Developing a European classification of higher education institutions. CHERPA Consortium: Enschede.Google Scholar
  64. UUK. (2006). The economic impact of UK higher education institutions. London: Universities UK. Accessed 8 Nov. 2010.Google Scholar
  65. van Vught, F. (2008). “Mission Diversity and Reputation in Higher Education”. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Vught F., & Westerheijden, D. (2010). Multidimensional ranking: A new transparency tool for higher education and research. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(3), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wittrock, B. (1985). Before the dawn: Humanism and technocracy in university research policy. In B. Wittrock, & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system, the public policies of the homes of scientists. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Higher Education Policy StudiesThe University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Modern Languages, Literatures & CultureRoyal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations