1. University engagement with hard-to-reach communities Understanding and Shaping Regions: Spatial, Social and Economic Futures Leuven, Flanders, 6 th -8 th April 2009 Paul Benneworth, David Charles, Catherine Hodgson, Lynne Humphrey, KITE, Newcastle University

2. Acknowledgements Economic and Social Research Council Ursula, Peter & Laura Funders’ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcw Co-authors

3. Outline of presentation Drivers for university’s changing roles Universities building social capital A policy-framework for engagement Can universities make a difference? Examples from the study: Survey of 33 HEIs in three territories One detailed case study

4. Universities in a changing world 3 inter-related drivers The knowledge economy Globalisation/ marketisation New urgent challenges Climate change Resource scarcity Demographic ageing

5. New challenges for HEIs Competitors & league tables New opportunities for valourisation New institutional roles for the university  The university ‘third mission’

6. The wicked issues of university engagement Universities CAN have great societal impacts BUT are being funded to create spinouts Universities CAN encourage all to engage BUT it is easier to channel it through an office Universities CAN engage for its own sake BUT driven by key targets, indicators, rankings

7. Can universities make this wider difference? Focus: socially excluded communities High needs, low capacity to engage Extreme case – convincing results Evidence of improved third mission Can/ do universities work with socially excluded communities … … to develop social capital? (not WP)

8. Our project… Two phases, two year, Original concern that universities in reality prioritising commercial engagement Focus: engagement with socially excluded communities Three regions*, 33 Universities (North East, North West, Scotland). 2 phases 1 – mapping exercise 2 – detailed case studies of ‘co-learning’

9. The classification Engagement Opening facilities Running projects Volunteering Cultural programmes Mandating student involvement Individual knowledge exchange Consultancy and evaluation Regeneration on the campus Community representation consultations Developing engagement strategies Providing non-accredited courses Access to facilities Pro bono spill- overs Tailoring activities Involving community in decisions

10. Did the communities benefit? CoreSpecial Researching excluded communities Running community benefit projects Regeneration on campus Opening up campus facilities ( ) Staff/ student volunteering Providing non-accredited education Mandating student community involvement ( ) Community in university governance ( ) Consulting with the community ( ) Developing specific engagement strategies ( ) Attracting communities onto campus  - £m benefits community - recurrent bridge into core funds ( ) –symbolic/ legitimacy benefits  - no wider access to university resources

11. Why did universities engage? 6 stories of regional engagement Social responsibility: university ‘expected’ to be good citizen: community engagement part of that. Institutional development: engagement gave access to resources for campus developments. Seizing opportunities: engagement raised interesting questions stimulating new research. Serving the market: engagement kept university in contact with key excluded community markets Commitment to ‘the cause’: engagement was pursued as something ethically desirable. Personal self-advancement: engagement supported an individual or research centre.

12. Phase 1 generalisations Systematic engagement ‘invisible’ Not a ‘typical’ engaged university The importance of visionaries building change Integration of engagement activities within other funding streams Regional offices, volunteering, Lifelong Learning, Widening Participation Elevating ‘community’ as more salient stakeholder

13. FDI in R&D Research labs Talent Science Spatial dev’t Industry Education Labour market Skills Culture Innovation Regional science Institutional ranking Priority national projects NIS Teaching Research ‘Community’ Engagement Competitiv e clusters Governance & social contract National policy funds Regional development World city Global resource flows Regeneration project

14. Phase 2: Cornerstone@Everton LIHE: the difficult university transition Appointment of new Vice Chancellor – Liverpool Hope – Hope Street links cathedrals Network of Hope – HE in church schools Church interest in urban justice St. Francis Xavier’s School, Everton Idea to build new campus Access Obj1, SDF, RDA, Widening Participation funding.

15. Community Engagement in Everton Deanery of Arts & Community (with DVC) Community Engagement opportunities/ requirement in curriculum Kite Festival in the Park £20m four phase redevelopment adjacent to St. Francis Xavier church Local recruitment of Porter/ catering staff Wider ‘family’ of activities – WAC, Collective Encounters, European Opera Centre.

16. Urban regeneration around Cornerstone

17. In Conclusion: success factors Axis of engagement – from the top of the university to the top of community Involving other institutions – church, school, NHS – and their assets Creating shared solutions to institutional problems Flagship projects - big community pay-off demand for community social capital

18. Wicked issues for engagement 1. Engagement shaped by policy at all levels 2. Internal university communities must approve ‘engagement’ 3. Do not forget the mundane in chasing the exciting 4. External pressures will influence achievements 5. Communities are not universities’ only stakeholders 6. Engaging is experimental implying tolerable failure 7. Engagement must not be a back route for undeserving projects