It is clear to us that university–community engagement is complex, and potentially covers all university functions and activities. We will consider how policy has supported or obstructed principles community engagement through the lenses of teaching, learning and the student experience; third stream activities; and research. But first, we will explore what it means to talk of community engagement, communities and universities.
To begin to talk of university–community partnerships is to delve into the messiness of the nature and function of the university and how this has changed over time and in relation to different policy initiatives, whilst at the same time to expose the different ways in which ‘community engagement’ has been and can be conceptualised, supported or exploited. In this chapter we look at how universities can be differentiated in terms of their approach to community engagement and the different focus of engaged activities.
Community engagement is a term that is immediately both familiar and alien to universities. It is familiar because in the UK, Universities have always been in and of their communities. It is alien because, until fairly recently, engagement of any kind, far less of communities, has not featured as part of the core work of universities. Community engagement is most usually considered part of the Third Mission of universities—after teaching and research. It is variously referred to as (community) outreach, knowledge exchange (previously knowledge transfer), or (part of) public engagement. However, as we shall see, community engagement is as relevant to teaching and learning and to research as it is to third stream activities. Indeed, there is a view that community engagement should not sit alongside teaching and research, but should permeate all university activities: a shift from just one university function to the Engaged University .
We will consider the messiness and complexity of university–community engagement by looking at the nature of community as it might be applied to engagement with and by universities; the emergence of different kinds of universities with different emphases on engagement; and the nature of engaged activities that address different kinds of communities in different kinds of ways. But first, we need to consider what we mean by communities.
What Is the ‘Community’ in University–Community Engagement?
At its simplest, ‘community ’ in the context of university–community engagement is any body or grouping that is external to the university. However, in terms of university engagement, throughout the last 50 years, the emphasis has been on universities engaging with business and other agencies, usually at a regional level (see, for example, Goddard and Puukka 2008), with a focus on their role in wealth creation and economic development. For our purposes, we are defining community in diverse but more specific ways. Community, here, refers to all those bodies external to the university with an interest in social (rather than economic) development. This is a difficult distinction to maintain, as much of policy is framed in economic terms with social development very much subsidiary. Place is an important way of thinking about community , and community engagement certainly includes the ways in which universities relate to their hinterlands, to their localities—to citizens, local authorities, public services, local businesses and the community and voluntary sector . A university’s locality is at one and the same time a neighbourhood, a town or city, a region, and may in some circumstances include even wider geographical spaces. However, community goes beyond place and we include communities of identity (such as age, race, gender, sense of place), or of interest, where people are brought together through common experiences or shared values which underpin their actions. Communities of faith, of kin or of profession, as well as communities of opportunity (people connected to each other through a common experience such, for example, of a natural disaster, forced migration or health condition). Any university, at any one point in time, is embedded in, attached and connected to diverse communities and engagement can take different forms at institutional, faculty, departmental, course or staff and student individual levels. Most importantly, when we talk of community engagement we are cognisant of the roles that universities can and should play in addressing pressing social problems (Hooper 2016), and attention has to be paid to engagement with marginalised and excluded communities (Benneworth 2013; Conway et al. 2009; Kagan and Burton 2010) and to the role that universities can play in both understanding and contributing to greater social inclusion and equality through engagement. However community is understood, we must be aware of the dangers of assuming an entity that is united, homogenous and cohesive, rather than one in which the diverse differences and conflicts within and between groups play out in a myriad of ways.
What Is a University?
The HE system, too, is diverse and complex. We use the term university, or Higher Education Institution (HEI) to include all post-secondary higher education providers. Whilst universities may share a core purpose, there are differences in ethos and remit, which Howells et al. (2008) argue should be understood and encouraged. Denham (2005: 19) attempted to provide a definition of university, applicable to many different social, political, economic and religious contexts.
“A university is a complex higher education organisation that is formally authorised to offer and confer advanced degrees in three or more academic disciplines or fields of study.”
It is worth noting there is no mention here of research or any activities beyond the conferment of degrees. In addition, as we shall see, some institutions that are able to offer degrees are not, strictly universities. Watson , Hollister, Stroud and Babcock (2011: 15) take a different tack, suggesting that: “at its heart, the university is a reservoir of intellectual capital: its most fundamental purpose is about the creation, testing and application of knowledge”.
Collini (2012: 8) goes further to suggest four characteristics of the modern university:
- 1.Provides post-secondary education beyond the training of professionals
- 2.Furthers advanced scholarship or research which is not dictated by the need to solve immediate practical problems
- 3.These activities are pursued in a number of different disciplines of clusters of disciplines
- 4.Enjoys institutional autonomy as far as its intellectual activities are concerned. matters are concerned
Collini notes that as they have evolved over time, universities are one of the most enduring institutions, and have consistently been accorded large amounts of social trust. These characteristics probably underpin the recent debates on what is the point, value and public good of universities (Collini 2012). Clearly the teaching and research functions of universities are here but little mention is made of ‘third leg’ ‘outreach’ third mission’, ‘third stream’ ‘academic enterprise’ or knowledge transfer or exchange, all of which support knowledge-based i...