UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY

PARTNERSHIPS FOR PROMOTING

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
INNOVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Series Editor: Patrick Blessinger

Previous Volumes
Volume 1 Inquiry-based Learning for Faculty and Institutional
Development: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for
Educators – Edited by John M. Carfora and Patrick
Blessinger
Volume 2 Inquiry-based Learning for the Arts, Humanities, and Social
Sciences: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for
Educators – Edited by Patrick Blessinger and John M.
Carfora
Volume 3 Inquiry-based Learning for Multidisciplinary Programs: A
Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators – Edited by
Patrick Blessinger and John M. Carfora
Volume 4 Inquiry-based Learning for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM) Programs: A Conceptual
and Practical Resource for Educators – Edited by Patrick
Blessinger and John M. Carfora
Volume 5 University Partnerships for Community and School System
Development – Edited by Barbara Cozza and Patrick
Blessinger
Volume 6 Emerging Directions in Doctoral Education – Edited by
Patrick Blessinger and Denise Stockley
Volume 7 University Partnerships for Academic Programs and
Professional Development – Edited by Patrick Blessinger
and Barbara Cozza
Volume 8 University Partnerships for International Development –
Edited by Patrick Blessinger and Barbara Cozza
Volume 9 Engaging Dissonance – Edited by Amy Lee and Rhiannon
D. Williams
Volume 10 University Partnerships for Pre-service and Teacher
Development – Edited by Barbara Cozza and Patrick
Blessinger
Volume 11 Refugee Education: Integration and Acceptance of Refugees
in Mainstream Society – Edited by Enakshi Sengupta and
Patrick Blessinger
Volume 12 Contexts for Diversity and Gender Identities in Higher
Education: International Perspectives on Equity and
Inclusion – Edited by Jaimie Hoffman, Patrick Blessinger
and Mandla Makhanya
Volume 13 Strategies, Policies, and Directions for Refugee Education –
Edited by Enakshi Sengupta and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 14 Perspectives on Diverse Student Identities in Higher
Education – Edited by Patrick Blessinger
Volume 15 Language, Teaching and Pedagogy for Refugee Education –
Edited by Enakshi Sengupta and Patrick Blessinger
Volume 16 Strategies for Fostering Inclusive Classrooms in Higher
Education – Edited by Jaimie Hoffman, Patrick Blessinger
and Mandla Makhanya
Volume 17 Strategies for Facilitating Inclusive Campuses in Higher
Education: International Perspectives on Equity and
Inclusion – Edited by Jaimie Hoffman, Patrick Blessinger
and Mandla Makhanya
Volume 18 Integrating Sustainable Development into the Curriculum –
Edited by Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick Blessinger and Taisir
Subhi Yamin
Volume 19 Teaching and Learning Strategies for Sustainable
Development – Edited by Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick
Blessinger and Taisir Subhi Yamin
Volume 20 University Partnership for Sustainable Development Edited
by Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick Blessinger and Taisir Subhi
Yamin
Volume 21 Civil Society and Social Responsibility in Higher Education:
International Perspectives on Curriculum and Teaching
Development – Edited by Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick
Blessinger and Craig Mahoney
Volume 22 Introduction to Sustainable Development Leadership and
Strategies In Higher Education – Edited By Enakshi
Sengupta, Patrick Blessinger and Taisir Subhi Yamin
INNOVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING AND
LEARNING VOLUME 23

UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS FOR
PROMOTING SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
EDITED BY

ENAKSHI SENGUPTA
Centre for Advanced Research in Higher Education, USA
International HETL Association, USA

PATRICK BLESSINGER
St. John’s University, USA
International HETL Association, USA

CRAIG MAHONEY
University of the West of Scotland, UK
Created in partnership with the International Higher Education
Teaching and Learning Association
 https://www.hetl.org/

United Kingdom – North America – Japan

India – Malaysia – China
Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2020

Copyright © 2020 Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: [email protected]

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by
any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior
written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The
Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions
expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the
chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-83909-439-2 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-83909-438-5 (Online)
ISBN: 978-1-83909-440-8 (Epub)

ISSN: 2055-3641 (Series)

CONTENTS

List of Contributors

Series Editors’ Introduction

PART I
PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Chapter 1 Introduction to Civil Society and Social

Responsibility in Higher Education: International Perspectives
on University–Community Partnerships
Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick Blessinger and Craig Mahoney
Chapter 2 Extending the Welcome: The Role of University–
Community Partnerships in Supporting Refugees in England
Agata A. Lambrechts
Chapter 3 A Problem, a Plan, and South African Youth:
Actively Involving the Youth in Tackling Social Issues
Ashiya Abdool Satar
Chapter 4 Addressing Avoidable Inequalities: The Role of One
University in Place-based Transformational Change
Claire Taylor, Nina Ruddle, Ken Perry and Clare Budden
Chapter 5 Internationalizing Institutional Accountability for
Engaging with Communities: The Carnegie Community
Engagement Classification
Mathew Johnson, John Saltmarsh, Georgina Manok and Gene
Corbin
Chapter 6 The Role of Community Partners in the
Development of Students’ Social Responsibility – Insights from
a South African Case Study
Martina Jordaan and Dolf Jordaan
Chapter 7 An Inter-organizational Case Study Between a
Public American University and Six US Corporations
Morgan R. Clevenger
Chapter 8 From Engagement to Strategy: The Journey
Towards a Civic University
Nicola Gratton
Chapter 9 Out in the Field: Experiential Learning Through
University–Community Partnerships
Sarah Haines and Chelsea McClure

PART II
POLICIES AND PEDAGOGIES
Chapter 10 Identifying with Borders and Boundaries: The
Place of Critical Pedagogy as Social Responsibility Education
David Wallace
Chapter 11 The Role of the Finnish and Australian
Universities in Achieving a Better and More Sustainable Future
for All
Ilkka Väänänen, Kati Peltonen and Sharon Lierse
Chapter 12 Differentiating University Community
Engagement: An African Tale in Civil Society – International
Perspectives on University–Community Partnerships
Nelson M. Nkhoma
Chapter 13 The Access Dilemma Revisited: Exploring the
(Missing) Links Between Governmental Policy, University
Strategies and Civil Society
Laila Nordstrand Berg and Rómulo Pinheiro
Chapter 14 Bridging the Gap Between the Community and the
Ivory Tower: A Case Study of University–Community College
Partnership Models
Mia Ocean, Lisa Calvano and Marian McGorry
Chapter 15 Social Justice in the Age of Philanthropy
Taylor Cobb and Shane Nelson

About the Authors

Name Index

Subject Index
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Laila Nordstrand Berg Western Norway University of Applied Sciences,

Sogndal, Norway
Patrick Blessinger International Higher Education Teaching and Learning
Association, USA
Clare Budden ClwydAlyn Housing Association, UK
Lisa Calvano West Chester University of Pennsylvania, USA
Morgan R. Clevenger Monarch Business School, Switzerland, and
Shippensburg University, USA
Taylor Cobb Girard College, USA
Gene Corbin University of Massachusetts, USA
Nicola Gratton Staffordshire University, UK
Sarah Haines Towson University, USA
Mathew Johnson Brown University, USA
Dolf Jordaan University of Pretoria, South Africa
Martina Jordaan University of Pretoria, South Africa
Agata A. Lambrechts University of York, UK
Sharon Lierse United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), France
Craig Mahoney University of the West of Scotland, UK
Georgina Manok Brown University, USA
Chelsea McClure Towson University, USA
Marian McGorry Delaware County Community College, USA
Shane Nelson Community College of Philadelphia, USA
Nelson M. Nkhoma University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Mia Ocean West Chester University of Pennsylvania, USA
Kati Peltonen LAB University of Applied Sciences, Finland
Ken Perry Do-Well (UK) Ltd, UK
Rómulo Pinheiro University of Agder, Norway
Nina Ruddle Wrexham Glyndŵr University, UK
John Saltmarsh University of Massachusetts, USA
Ashiya Abdool Satar University of South Africa, South Africa
Enakshi Sengupta International Higher Education Teaching and Learning
Association, USA
Claire Taylor Wrexham Glyndŵr University, UK
Ilkka Väänänen LAB University of Applied Sciences, Finland
David Wallace University of the West of Scotland, UK
SERIES EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION

INNOVATIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

TEACHING AND LEARNING
The purpose of this series is to publish current research and scholarship on
innovative teaching and learning practices in higher education. The series is
developed around the premise that teaching and learning is more effective
when instructors and students are actively and meaningfully engaged in the
teaching–learning process.
The main objectives of this series are to:

(1) present how innovative teaching and learning practices are being used
in higher education institutions around the world across a wide variety
of disciplines and countries;
(2) present the latest models, theories, concepts, paradigms, and
frameworks that educators should consider when adopting,
implementing, assessing, and evaluating innovative teaching and
learning practices; and
(3) consider the implications of theory and practice on policy, strategy, and
leadership.

This series will appeal to anyone in higher education who is involved in

the teaching and learning process from any discipline, institutional type, or
nationality. The volumes in this series will focus on a variety of authentic
case studies and other empirical research that illustrates how educators from
around the world are using innovative approaches to create more effective
and meaningful learning environments.
Innovation teaching and learning is any approach, strategy, method,
practice, or means that has been shown to improve, enhance, or transform
the teaching–learning environment. Innovation involves doing things
differently or in a novel way in order to improve outcomes. In short,
innovation is positive change. With respect to teaching and learning,
innovation is the implementation of new or improved educational practices
that result in improved educational and learning outcomes. This innovation
can be any positive change related to teaching, curriculum, assessment,
technology, or other tools, programs, policies, or processes that lead to
improved educational and learning outcomes. Innovation can occur in
institutional development, program development, professional
development, or learning development.
The volumes in this series will not only highlight the benefits and
theoretical frameworks of such innovations through authentic case studies
and other empirical research but also look at the challenges and contexts
associated with implementing and assessing innovative teaching and
learning practices. The volumes represent all disciplines from a wide range
of national, cultural, and organizational contexts. The volumes in this series
will explore a wide variety of teaching and learning topics such as active
learning, integrative learning, transformative learning, inquiry-based
learning, problem-based learning, meaningful learning, blended learning,
creative learning, experiential learning, lifelong and lifewide learning,
global learning, learning assessment and analytics, student research, faculty
and student learning communities, as well as other topics.
This series brings together distinguished scholars and educational
practitioners from around the world to disseminate the latest knowledge on
innovative teaching and learning scholarship and practices. The authors
offer a range of disciplinary perspectives from different cultural contexts.
This series provides a unique and valuable resource for instructors,
administrators, and anyone interested in improving and transforming
teaching and learning.

Patrick Blessinger
Founder, Executive Director, and Chief Research Scientist, International
HETL Association

Enakshi Sengupta
Associate Editor, International HETL Association
PART I
PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO CIVIL SOCIETY
AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN
HIGHER EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVES ON UNIVERSITY–
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Enakshi Sengupta, Patrick Blessinger and Craig
Mahoney

ABSTRACT
In a highly globalized, interconnected and interdependent world,
universities can no longer survive in isolation. The educational,
research and social actions have an impact on the community where
the university works as a change agent to promote society’s
fundamental values of democratic participation and social justice.
Sustainability education and awareness about social responsibility
(SR) are becoming crucial mainly for students, so that they are aware
of concepts such as economic prosperity, resource equity, energy
sustainability and environmental health concerns (Sengupta,
Blessinger, & Yamin, 2019). The SR of a university is to strengthen its
ties with the community through promotion of active citizenship,
volunteerism and developing a sense of civic and ethical
responsibility among students and staff. Universities can have a great
 influence on achieving social and economic progress of a country as
well as protecting the environment and addressing complex issues
that plague society. The role of universities is not only restricted to
exchange of knowledge but also in playing a leading role as an active
member of society. Universities have come out of their isolation to
accommodate and be a part of social change by actively engaging in
community life and not being confined to only classroom and
laboratory activities (Sengupta et al., 2019). This book provides
empirical evidence on how universities have considered SRs as their
prime focus and have engaged with civil society to enhance their
values. Case studies from Indonesia to the United Kingdom enrich the
book through their experience, interventions and narrations, which
can be replicated in other parts of the world to create a better society
and a more sustainable planet.
Keywords: University; partnership; community; social responsibility;
engagements; intervention; implementation; civil responsibility;
social justice; democratization; value; sustainable planet

INTRODUCTION
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are assuming a profound role in
today’s society to act as catalysts for social change with the potential to
address and mitigate a variety of social problems. Community–university
engagement has gained prominent ground toward creating a two-way
discourse that engages the community and the students to produce socially
relevant contemporary knowledge based on active participation from both
and bringing a solution to the table to make the world a better place to live.
The subject of community and university partnership is all encompassing
and involves the participation of all active stakeholders including the staff
and the faculty members. This two-way process provides beneficial
experiential learning platform for the students and creates a socially
responsible research platform for the faculty. Community also stands as
winner by gaining the opportunity to be a part of a sustainable livelihood
and enjoy empowerment and relief from poverty, unemployment and other
social issues. The indirect stakeholders like government and other civil
society organizations benefit by their active participation to address social
problems and create positive and mutually beneficial relations with the
university.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promoted by the United
Nations came into effect in 2015 and provided a common ground and a
framework that were adopted by 193 countries with 169 targets to be
achieved, which were divided among 17 goals (EUA, 2016). Universities
are now engaged in providing sustainable development through the goals
specified in 2015. Universities are involved in cutting-edge research, high-
quality education and ground-breaking innovations (Goals 4 and 9). Many
universities have integrated these SDGs, which are now an important part
of civil society (Goal 16), and they are excellent promotors of global and
local partnerships (Goal 17). Through their contributions to these four
goals, universities facilitate the achievement of all the other goals specified
in the SDGs (EUA, 2016).
Along with universities, the role of civil society remains unparalleled in
ushering in societal changes. Civil society is now beyond its traditional
definition of a third sector and is considered a vibrant and active member of
society acting as facilitators, conveners and innovators who, along with the
student community, is taking firm and bold steps toward inculcating social
responsibility (SR) and sustainability in every individual, mainly the
younger generation. The International Higher Education Teaching and
Learning Association is one such organization that supports the SDG
initiative and encourages heads of nonprofit colleges and universities,
associations and institutes to sign the Declaration on University Global
Engagement and to adopt the SDGs as a global policy framework for
organizing their global engagement activities to address complex global
challenges.
We live in an age of contradiction. On one hand we have prosperity and
on the other extreme poverty, we are in a paradoxical world of both plenty
and scarcity. The rapid growth of urbanization and the race toward
modernization continue to deplete us of our natural resources. Time has
come to judge our own responsibility and resort to introspection of our own
actions and their social relevance and impact. Along with business
conglomerates, the role of universities in this process cannot be overlooked.
The role of institutions of higher education (IHEs) is crucial in addressing
various social concerns as well as the national development. Academics
have termed this as the “social responsibility of universities,” and it is in
this capacity that the universities have the potential to erase the
discrepancies and inequalities prevalent in our societies. Recently published
GUNi Report has clearly argued:
Social responsibility emerges as the need to reconsider the social relevance of universities in
light of the encounter of the local with the global, regarding priorities, demands, impacts and
knowledge needs in the context of globalization. (Grau et al., 2017, p. 41)

The concept of SR is not a novel one; it is an integral part of any

academic debate and used often in the context of sustainability and
globalization (Vasilescu, Barna, Epure, & Baicu, 2010). A widely used
definition of SR is from the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development and states the following:
Corporate social responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically
and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce
and their families as well as of the local community and society at large. (CSR: Meeting
Changing Expectations, 1999)

The basic demand of SR lies in the fact that all stakeholders, be it business
corporations or educational institutions, should function in a responsible
manner with complete responsibility and commitment. Corporatization of
universities and its effort toward profit maximization has challenged its role
solely as a knowledge creator. Universities are building capacities toward
fulfilling their SR and are now transforming the curriculum to address
society’s socioeconomic need and encompassing introspection on the
university’s internal processed environment (Nejati, Shafaei, Salamzadeh,
& Daraei, 2011).

LITERATURE REVIEW
University social responsibility (USR) involves a multidisciplinary
integrated approach and encompasses many different areas such as active
citizenship, civil commitment, service to the community, community
engagement (CE) and outreach programs, promoting economic
development, encouraging students to think and act ethically to issues and
motivating staff and faculty members to be actively involved in social well-
being. Universities are expected to manage its social commitment along
with expanding its knowledge base, indulging in research, developing
human resource capacity among faculty and students in addition to
educating the nation (Shawyun, 2011; Vasilescu et al., 2010). Resier (2008)
defines the USR as a policy of the university containing in itself ethical
qualities that affect the performance of the university–community
relationship (students, faculty and administrative employees) and involve
responsible management of the educational, cognitive, labor and
environmental impacts, which is collectively produced by the university, in
an interactive dialogue with society to encourage a sustainable human
development. According to Mendez (2012), USR is an approach that
encompasses science, technology and research in which contributions to the
economically disadvantaged are given adequate value and attention.
The growing importance of this university–community alliance has also
led to a strong emphasis on measuring the outcome and output of these
activities. The benefits can be measured by repeated stakeholder
engagement and by measuring the worth of any such activities in bringing
about a general welfare of the masses. These impact measurement
initiatives provide justification in using the resources of the university and
its proximity toward achieving the outlined goals (Onyx, 2008).
Universities are viewing CE as a part of their strategic plan, although not
much literature is available to substantiate the claim (Hart, Northmore, &
Gerhardt, 2009). Universities are attempting to define the concept of
university–community partnership and are including the process and plans
in their websites, detailing the approach route that they are taking toward
implementing this concept (Tremblay, 2017). There is no doubt that all
academics have agreed in unison that USR is as important as teaching the
students in a university. The challenges lie in the fact that the vagueness and
ambiguity still rule the concept with no proper measuring tool or evaluation
criteria. There is a lack of standardized instrument that can measure the
success of the partnership (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). There has been a
growing tendency toward demanding accountability that has led to
academics trying to construct benchmarks and performance indicators,
which can account for the socioeconomic and cultural contribution at local
and regional levels (Hart, 2010). Work needs to be done in the field of
evaluating the process by which HEIs establish community partnerships and
what approach route will be adopted by them to sustain the process (Kezar,
2005).
An important component of the university’s research agenda is their
activity centered around the community. Universities can tailor their
research mission to produce quality research that can benefit both public
and the students who are involved with their faculty members in conducting
such research (Turk-Bicakci & Brint, 2005). USR provides a unique
platform to develop sustainability of science and research. As an important
stakeholder, government must encourage such partnership and help
supplement university’s efforts through funding, policies and creating
opportunities for training students in technology and science to meet the
needs of the marketplace and industry (Leitão & Silva, 2007).
Activities that facilitate university–community partnership has a wider
impact on four kinds of audiences (Ferman & Hill, 2004); they are the
educational institution that is actively involved in strategizing such a
partnership, faculty members, students and the community in which they
are located. Students are made more aware of the problems in the
community; they are connected to the practical aspect of life and are
actively involved in seeking solutions and negotiating with current
problems, which makes them a better candidate as a future leader. These
activities have direct impact on the student’s academic achievement as they
prepare them for academic learning and critical thinking. Faculty finds a
way to connect classroom to the practical world outside and reaps the
benefit by producing quality research journals on the work done in the field.
The institutional leaders take the opportunity to improve their relationship
with the nearby community and bridge the gap between community well-
being and the ivory tower syndrome. Community is benefited through the
programs that are being implemented by the institutions aimed at general
well-being of the people at large (Erickson, 2010).

CHAPTER OVERVIEWS
Extending the Welcome: The Role of University–Community Partnerships in
Supporting Refugees in England, by Agata A. Lambrechts, is about issues
around refugee rights that have come to public attention following the surge
in asylum application in Europe in 2015; several responses have been
developed by universities in England to extend the welcome to refugees in
both local communities and on their campuses. While some institutions act
on their own, others have created social relationships and collaborations
with local and national third-sector organizations, on which they can rely
for their experience of working with and access to refugees and other forced
migrants, in return offering their expertise and resources. The purpose of
this chapter is to describe one such collaboration setup to support refugees
residing in the City of York, in the North of England, UK. While not
perfect, the York University–community partnership for refugees is a
successful one, delivering tangible benefits for all the interested parties –
most importantly, for the forced migrants themselves. Within this chapter,
the partnership’s origins, its evolving aims and objectives, and the current
outcomes of the collaboration are discussed. The chapter concludes by
offering perspectives on the reasons why the partnership became successful,
as well as acknowledging its challenges and limitations, drawing valuable
lessons for both HEIs and community organizations in other parts of the
world.
A Problem, a Plan, and South African Youth: Actively Involving the
Youth in Tackling Social Issues, written by Ashiya Abdool Satar, provides a
theoretical and empirical examination of young people’s role in identifying
and solving problems in their communities from a social justice perspective.
The complex political processes in South Africa stymie a top-down
approach for advancing social justice. Therefore, this study focuses on a
bottom-up stance to nurture social justice efforts by concentrating on the
role of the youth, younger than 18 years, in initiating change in their
communities. Such engagement aligns with the principles outlined in the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 that
aims to enrich both the individual and the community (Dirsuweit &
Mohamed, 2016; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR), 1989). The University of South Africa (Unisa) is
involved in a community outreach program of this nature, commissioned by
Empowervate Trust, a South African nonprofit organization that manages
the Youth Citizen’s Action Campaign (Y-CAP), which equips learners with
the skills to solve societal issues in their respective communities. This
chapter thus attempts to clarify what active citizenship means to the youth
by focusing on the findings from focus-group interviews with South
African learners who are involved with community development projects
that advance social justice initiatives in their communities through the Y-
CAP endeavor.
Addressing Avoidable Inequalities: The Role of One University in Place-
based Transformational Change, written by Claire Taylor, Nina Ruddle,
Ken Perry and Clare Budden, explores one UK university’s influence and
involvement as a key partner within the 2025 Movement, a movement for
change with a collective vision to tackle avoidable health and housing
inequalities by 2025 in North Wales, UK. The approach to building 2025 is
founded in systems leadership and social movements resulting in
transformational change in the way we work, think and deliver across a
region as a collective. The innovative role of the university as a key partner
has shifted the perceptions of the university in the region and its capacity to
act as an instrument of Government, contributing to the political imperative
to support communities as part of the Well-being of Future Generations
(Wales) Act 2015. The chapter outlines the principles behind 2025 and the
university’s role to date, as illustrated through three case studies: Learning
and Leadership; Social Prescribing; and Healthy Homes–Healthy People.
The chapter reflects upon the challenges faced and how they have been
overcome. Finally, enablers for successful collective working are identified,
which have resulted in the university being able to utilize its expertise,
energy and education to work in partnership in order to tackle some of the
most complex issues facing our communities.
Internationalizing Institutional Accountability for Engaging with
Communities: The Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, by
Mathew Johnson, John Saltmarsh, Georgina Manok and Gene Corbin,
explores reciprocal partnerships between IHEs and communities, which
provide opportunities for IHEs to fulfill their core mission while at the same
time benefiting communities. One model of institutional accountability for
this type of partnership is the Elective Carnegie Community Engagement
Classification. As a process is underway to internationalize the US-based
classification, this chapter engages with a central guiding question: How
can we best adapt the CE classification’s institutionalizing framework for
CE – designed in the context of the United States – in a way that upholds
the integrity of engagement practices, adheres to effective strategies for
organizational change, and is sensitive to national, cultural, economic,
political, social and historical contexts? In addressing this question, the
internationalization strategy is focused on careful adaptation of the
application framework so that it can be applied in specific national higher
education (HE) contexts. The adaptation seeks to incorporate nationally and
culturally relevant CE approaches that are reflected in organizational
strategies at the institutional level, consistent with the internal logic of the
CE classification: valuing expertise of others, working against colonial
knowledge regimes and mindfully building toward increased epistemic
justice. This strategy can be a model for internationalization of other
processes for IHEs.
The Role of Community Partners in the Development of Students’ Social
Responsibility – Insights from a South African Case Study, by Martina
Jordaan and Dolf Jordaan, is about the Joint Community-based Project
(code: JCP), a compulsory macro undergraduate course that is offered by
the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology
at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. The course was introduced to
teach students the soft skills they will need as graduates and make them
aware of their SR. More than 1,600 students register for the course
annually. Generally, students work in 450 groups each year to help more
than 250 community partners. The course, which has received recognition
at institutional, national and international levels, requires students to work
in a community for at least 40 hours, after which they reflect on their
learning experience through a report, presentation and YouTube video. The
identification and selection process of community partners is based on
contextual criteria, while new cohorts of students can recommend new
community partners each year. Community partners’ tasks include project
coordination and student assessment based on the course’s assessment
criteria. This chapter discusses how community partners are identified,
coordinated and sustained within a macro community service course. It also
provides a conceptual framework to highlight community partners’ roles
and their impact on the students’ social development based on qualitative
case study research.
 An Inter-organizational Case Study between a Public American
University and Six US Corporations, by Morgan R. Clevenger, explores
corporate involvement in HE, which remains highly visible and
controversial. While best practices can be found, many gray areas exist in
the actions motivating both parties. This organizational analysis examines
corporate citizenship through the inter-organizational relationships of a
public USA doctoral university and six US corporate partners as framed
through Cone’s (2010) corporate citizenship spectrum between 2006 and
2010. The literature has shown that little research exists regarding the
behavior aspects of these inter-organizational relationships. Triangulation of
data is provided by 36 interviews, 12,609 pages of documents and audio-
visual materials, and a campus observation of 407 photographs. The
research indicates three themes as to why HE desires involvement with
companies: viable resources, student enrichment and real-world
connectivity. Further, there are four themes explaining what motives and
ROI expectations companies have to be involved with HE and include:
workforce development, community enrichment, brand development and
research. Finally, three themes emerged regarding ethical considerations
between these inter-organizational relationships with HE and companies.
First, generally no ethical dilemmas were found. Second, several general
ethics discussion topics created five clusters of interest: public relations,
solicitation, policies and stewardship, accountability and transparency, and
leadership behavior. Third, five ethical concerns were shared.
From Engagement to Strategy: The Journey Towards a Civic University,
authored by Nicola Gratton, talks about a time between 2002 and 2018,
when UK universities were being increasingly measured in economic and
financial terms, Staffordshire University established a dedicated public
engagement unit. Staffed by an experienced team of “pracademics” (Posner,
2009), the Creative Communities Unit (CCU) engaged with community
members and voluntary organizations through teaching, research and
consultancy. Underpinning CCU practice was a clear set of principles
influenced by those of community development, including participation,
inclusion and action-driven practice. However, despite strong community
connections, the work of the unit remained isolated with little coordination
for public engagement at a strategic level in the university. This chapter
charts the work of the CCU over its lifespan and its influence on a
strategically embedded Connected Communities Framework through which
civic engagement is supported across the institution. It explores how the
alignment of grass roots activity through the CCU shifts in UK policy and a
clear, institutional strategic vision for civic engagement enabled the move
from public engagement as a small team activity to an institutional
commitment. It concludes with a reflection on the enabling conditions that
supported the journey toward a civic university.
Out in the Field: Experiential Learning through University–Community
Partnerships, by Sarah Haines and Chelsea McClure, describes two courses
in which university students were involved with community partners, in one
case a local school system and in the other a local nonformal educational
institution. The authors begin with a discussion of the benefits of civic
engagement through service learning in an academic setting and describe
how they integrated socio-scientific issues of local importance and a
service-learning aspect into our courses. The authors follow with a
discussion of the impacts the project has had on each of the partners
involved in the collaboration. The authors then conclude with lessons
learned as a result of the project and future plans for the partnership.
Identifying with Borders and Boundaries: The Place of Critical
Pedagogy as Social Responsibility Education, by David Wallace, speaks
about an approach to SR in HE, which will be proposed and informed by a
canon of literature and theorizing on critical pedagogy (Darder, Baltodano,
& Torres, 2009; Freire, 1971; Giroux, 2011). Rooted in the work of
education theorist Paulo Freire (1971, 1993) critical pedagogy embodies a
set of critical dispositions about community, politics and education. Freire
(1971, 1993) posited the nature of hope through transformative action in
communities in which community empowerment arises from emerging
critical consciousness and informed action. In common with the ideals of
university–community partnerships critical pedagogy connects both to a
community development mission and to an educational mission. However,
though these principle philosophies of critical pedagogy may be inferred in
the literature on civic universities, on HE and public engagement, and on
wider aspects of SR in HE (Goddard & Kempton, 2016; UPP Foundation,
2019; Webster & Dyball, 2010), the chapter will explore how they may be
more centrally located in analysis and in practice development.
 The Role of the Finnish and Australian Universities in Achieving a
Better and More Sustainable Future for All, authored by Ilkka Väänänen,
Kati Peltonen and Sharon Lierse, adopts an international perspective and
discusses the policies and activities that the universities both in Finland and
Australia have undertaken in order to strengthen and develop the prosperity
for achieving a better and more sustainable future for all. SR is approached
from the broad-based perspectives – especially how research and
development activities of universities can be seen as platforms for
university–community partnerships. This chapter first opens up the driving
forces behind the universities’ SR. The second section portrays how SR is
implemented in the Finnish and Australian universities. The following
section addresses the significance of universities’ research and development
activities in promoting SR. Finally, the chapter ends with the discussion on
the action models, which supports the SR in university–community
partnership.
Differentiating University Community Engagement: An African Tale in
Civil Society – International Perspectives on University–Community
Partnerships, by Nelson M. Nkhoma, begins with the question how do
African faculty members at public universities in different disciplines view
civil society as they create partnerships with society? The role of the
university in society was enshrined in the call for Africanization of
universities (Aina, 1994; Ajay, Goma, & Johnson, 1996; Ashby, 1964). The
expectations that HE should sustain national aspirations of African
countries (Preece, 2013) required developing an educational system, which
is differentiated but with resemblance of Western HE and civil society. The
Association of African Universities founded in 1967 was one of the
pioneers of the notion of creating African university (Cloete & Maassen,
2017; Court, 1980; Preece, Ntseane, Modise, & Osborne, 2012; UNESCO,
1962). UNESCO (1962) extrapolated that the African university must be a
factor in social progress and seeks to free the African socially, culturally,
economically and politically and build a kind of civil society. This chapter
argues that there is no general concept picked out by the expression “CE
with civil society” in the way actors reference it in practice: CE is theory-
laden such that it can only be understood from within the theoretical,
practical and historical contexts in which it originates. Although the idea of
CE with civil society still retains critical value, the article argues that the
problem is not the shortage of or lack of CE with civil society but the
oversupply and hierarchy of what is conceptualized as effective strategies
for engagement with civil society. This creates a situation that positions
universities as failing at engaging with the civil society as actors vie for
whose approach represents better the needs of society.
The Access Dilemma Revisited: Exploring the (missing) Links between
Governmental Policy, University Strategies and Civil Society, authored by
Laila Nordstrand Berg and Rómulo Pinheiro, discusses the access to HE as
a topic that has been on the global policy agenda for decades. HEIs are
inherently biased toward serving the needs and expectations of the middle
classes to the detriment of more disadvantaged groups. This creates a
significant dilemma in democratic contexts, as in the country of this study,
Indonesia. This chapter focuses on the (missing) link between actors who
have the potential to influence the development of the sector, consisting of;
government, HEIs, industry and local stakeholders. Evidence based on the
data suggests that there is a missing link on how influential the different
actors in civil society are regarding developing and implementing policies,
and how this is affecting widening participation in HE.
Bridging the Gap between the Community and the Ivory Tower: A Case
Study of University–Community College Partnership Models, by Mia
Ocean, Lisa Calvano and Marian McGorry, focuses on the SR of public
universities and community colleges to expand access to HE through
collaboration. HE has historically been riddled with hierarchies, including
selective admissions, institutional rankings and faulty narratives about the
inferiority of community colleges. More recently, there has been a shift in
the relationship between community colleges and universities as
universities begin to see the value of reaching out to their communities,
diversifying their student bodies and providing alternative pathways to a
bachelor’s degree. We begin by arguing that public universities should
collaborate with their community college counterparts to right historical
wrongs, serve the broader community and maximize the use of public
resources. We then present a case study of a concurrent-use partnership
model between our institutions and highlight the everyday practices that
contribute to successful implementation. We conclude by describing the
benefits of collaboration for institutions and students with the goal of
showing that SR and organizational effectiveness go hand in hand.
 Social Justice in the Age of Philanthropy, by Taylor Cobb and Shane
Nelson, provides a review of the language, key examples and an analysis of
social justice practices in HE philanthropy. By describing how American
HE is supported by philanthropy, the authors articulate the need to have
collective approaches that create an equitable distribution of resources. The
authors utilize research centered on equity, inclusion and diversity to
encourage leaders to consider applying additional perspectives when
analyzing philanthropy in HE. This combination of multidisciplinary
scholarship offers a synthesis of research to show readers how social justice
advances and improves philanthropy within HE. Social justice in the age of
philanthropy concludes with key recommendations for advancement offices
across campuses and organizations.

CONCLUSION
Universities are gearing up to respond to the needs of the corporate world
and various industries. Stakeholders of the universities are raising questions
about their social relevance, identity, purpose of existence and the value
delivered by them. Universities are facing a challenge from online delivery
of instructions and students are seeking the difference between knowledge
imparted on an online mode and the ones delivered by traditional
universities. Curricula are scrutinized and evaluated and their relevance
judged to measure the significance of such education. Universities cannot
afford to be complacent any longer. They need to revisit and refurbish the
existing mode of lecture delivery and justify the relevance and credence of
their existence. Universities are part of society that is being pressurized by
ever-increasing poverty, lack of employment, scarcity of career developing
opportunities along with mass migration and conflict. While these
challenges are plaguing society along with its IHEs, these problems can be
converted into learning opportunities. Students, when exposed to such real-
life issues, can be encouraged to think critically, debate and find solution
toward eradication and mitigation of such issues. The community–
university partnerships then become a golden opportunity for both
university leaders and students to justify the knowledge imparted by them.
This engagement can co-create knowledge and pave the way to deliver
meaningful research work.

REFERENCES
Aina, T. A. (1994). Quality and relevance: African universities in the 21st century. Accra:
Association of African Universities.
Ajay, L. F., Goma, K. H. L., & Johnson, A. G. (1996). The African experience of higher education.
Accra: Association of African Universities.
Ashby, E. (1964). African universities and Western tradition in tropical areas. London: George Allen
and Union.
Business in the Community (BITC). (2007). Universities that count. Retrieved from
http://www.healthyuniversities.ac.uk/uploads/files/universities_that_count.pdf
Cloete, N., & Maassen, P. (2017). Roles of universities and the African context. In J. Muller, N.
Cloete, & F. van Schalkwyk (Eds.), Castells in Africa: Universities & development. Cape
Town: African Minds.
Court, D. (1980). The development ideal in higher education: The experience of Kenya and Tanzania.
Higher Education, 9(6), 657–680.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. (Eds.). (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.).
Oxon: Routledge.
Dirsuweit, T., & Mohamed, S. (2016). Vertical and horizontal communities of practice: Gender and
geography in South Africa. South Africa Geographical Journal, 98(3), 531–541.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2016.1222949
Erickson, M. S. (2010). Investigating community impacts of a university outreach program through
the lens of service-learning and community engagement. Graduate Theses and Dissertations
11875, Iowa State University (pp. 5–18). Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11875
European Commission. (2006). Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a
pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility. COM 136 final.
Ferman, B., & Hill, T. L. (2004). The challenges of agenda conflict in higher education community
research partnerships: Views from the community side. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(2), 241–
257.
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seaboury.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Continuum.
Goddard, J., & Kempton, L. (2016). The civic university in the leadership and management of place.
Newcastle: Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University.
Grau, F. X., Escrigas, C., Goddard, J., Hall, B., Hazelkorn, E., & Tandon, R. (2017). Editors
introduction. In GUNi (Ed.), Towards a socially responsible university: Balancing the global
with the local. Higher Education World Report 6 (pp. 37–51). Girona: Global University
Network for Innovation (GUNi).
Hart, A., Northmore, S., & Gerhardt, C. (2009). Auditing, benchmarking and evaluating public
engagement. Bristol: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement.
Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration
of the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831–861.
Leitão, J., & Silva, M. J. (2007). CSR and social marketing: What is the desired role for universities
in fostering public policies? MPRA Paper 2954. University Library of Munich, Germany.
Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/pramprapa/2954.htm
Mendez, M. (2012). University social responsibility: Balancing economic & societal benefits of
university research. The Journal of Science Policy & Governance.
Nejati, M., Shafaei, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Daraei, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and
universities: A study of top 10 world universities’ websites. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 440–447.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted in 1989. Geneva: OHCHR.
Onyx, J. (2008). University community engagement: What does it mean? International Journal of
Community Research & Engagement, 1, 90–106. Retrieved from
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/ijcre/article/view/512/843
Posner, P. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public
Budgeting & Finance, 29(1), 12–26.
Preece, J. (2013). Towards an Africanisation of community engagement and service learning.
Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 114–122.
Preece, J., Ntseane, P. G., Modise, O. M., & Osborne, M. (2012). Community engagement in African
universities. Perspectives, prospects and challenges. Leicester: NIACE.
Resier, J (2008). Managing university social responsibility (USR). Retrieved from
http://international-sustainablecampus network.org
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.
Sengupta, E., Blessinger, P., & Yamin, T. S. (2019). Introduction to university partnership for
sustainable development. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Tremblay, C. (2017). Impact assessment: Community engaged research at the University of Victoria.
Victoria: Community-University Engagement, University of Victoria.
Turk-Bicakci, L., & Brint, S. (2005). University-industry collaboration: Patterns of growth for low-
and middle-level performers. Higher Education, 49, 61–89.
UNESCO. (1962). Conference on the development of higher education in Africa. Paris: UNESCO.
UPP Foundation. (2019). Truly civic: Strengthening the connection between universities and their
places. London: UPP Foundation.
Vasilescu, R., Barna, C., Epure, M., & Baicu, C. (2010). Developing university social responsibility:
A model for the challenges of the new civil society. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
2, 4177–4187.
Webster, T., & Dyball, M. (2010). Independent review of beacons for public engagement evaluation
findings, final report for RCUK, HEFC and the Welcome Trust. London: People, Science and
Policy Ltd.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 3–14
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023001
CHAPTER 2
EXTENDING THE WELCOME: THE
ROLE OF UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS IN SUPPORTING
REFUGEES IN ENGLAND
Agata A. Lambrechts

ABSTRACT
As issues around refugee rights have come to public attention
following the surge in asylum application in Europe in 2015, several
responses have been developed by universities in England to extend
the welcome to refugees in both local communities and on their
campuses. While some institutions act on their own, others have
created social relationships and collaborations with local and
national third-sector organizations, on which they can rely for their
experience of working with and access to refugees and other forced
migrants, in return offering their expertise and resources. The
purpose of this chapter is to describe one such collaboration setup to
support refugees residing in the City of York, in the North of England,
UK. While not perfect, the York university–community partnership for
refugees is a successful one, delivering tangible benefits for all the
interested parties – most importantly, for the forced migrants
themselves. Within this chapter, the partnership’s origins, its evolving
aims and objectives, and the current outcomes of the collaboration
 are discussed. The chapter concludes by offering perspectives on the
reasons why the partnership became successful, as well as
acknowledging its challenges and limitations, drawing valuable
lessons for both higher education institutions and community
organizations in other parts of the world.
Keywords: Refugees; asylum seekers; higher education; community;
collaboration; social responsibility

Universities in England have long embraced working with businesses and

third-sector organizations locally, regionally, nationally and internationally,
to maximize their social impact while also developing students’ skills.
Many universities now integrate social responsibility into their mission
statements, including their research and teaching missions. They observe
the changing social realities around them and actively engage in work with
existing organizations – sharing resources and knowledge – and many
encourage innovative student enterprise, to respond to persistent and new
societal challenges, both locally and globally. One such, certainly not new,
but a growing challenge is a global displacement. The number of internally
displaced people and refugees1 has increased dramatically in the past years,
due to several long-term geopolitical and religious conflicts, and the
instability that follows, in countries like Syria, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan,
South Sudan, and Yemen. At the end of 2018, as reported by the United
Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR, 2019a) more than 70.8 million people
were forcibly displaced worldwide, including 25.9 million refugees and 3.5
million asylum seekers.
Although the majority of displaced people remain in their countries of
origin or move just across national borders to neighboring states, as
conflicts and violence and, increasingly, natural disasters fuel large-scale
and protracted displacement, a growing number of refugees are seeking
safety beyond their immediate region. In 2015 alone, over a million people
came to Europe (UNHCR, 2015), many undertaking perilous journeys
across several countries and the sea in an attempt to seek safety and better
lives for themselves and their children. Although the numbers have gone
sharply down since the 2015 peak of this so-called “European refugee
crisis,” the underlying factors that led to the mass movements have not
disappeared and some observers believe that the numbers will rise again in
a near future (Trilling, 2018). The arrival of so many refugees and migrants
in a relatively short space of time has exposed the flaws of the existing
asylum system and caused serious tensions between European Union
Member States over how to handle this flow of irregular migration (Collett
& Le Coz, 2018). Disagreements about funding, sharing of responsibility,
harmonization of procedures and appropriate integration policies continue.
Some countries in the region – Germany in particular – took a clear lead,
accepting more than their fair share of asylum applications and doing a
great deal more than required of them by the EU Council Directive laying
down the minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers.2
Elsewhere, including in the UK, state responses to the global challenge of
displacement and the most recent surge of new arrivals at their borders have
been branded as less than adequate (e.g., Human Rights Watch World
Report 2018: European Union, 2018).
In the face of slow and unhelpful policy responses to the “crisis” from
both the European and national governments, England (and other home
nations) has witnessed a groundswell of public support for refugees, with
thousands of citizens traveling to Europe to support the new arrivals, and
many more volunteering their time and skills from home – for example, by
teaching English or befriending refugees here (McKernan, 2016).
Mirroring the public response, many of the universities in England have
joined in the efforts to welcome and support refugees in their local
communities and on their campuses. Several universities have announced
sanctuary scholarships, while others opened their facilities and decided to
offer access to their services to refugee communities.
While some institutions may venture into this often unfamiliar area on
their own, the most successful schemes seem to be those that not only act to
meet the social needs of those with refugee background but also create
social relationships and collaborations (here, with community organizations
and local government), to enhance the wider society’s capacity to act.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe one such collaboration setup to
support refugees residing in the City of York, in the North of England, UK.
The information was gathered through two in-depth interviews, four
questionnaires and email correspondence with the key stakeholders.
The relationship began when members of the York St John University
(YSJ), local government and third-sector organizations identified the need
for improving the language training provision for locally residing refugees
and asylum seekers, and formed a partnership that now also includes
national refugee support organizations. While not perfect, the York
university–community partnership is a successful one, delivering tangible
benefits (as described below) for all the interested parties – not least for the
refugees themselves. The following sections describe the partnership’s
origins, explain its evolving aims and objectives, and present the current
outcomes of the collaboration. The chapter concludes by offering
perspectives on the reasons why the partnership became successful,
acknowledging its challenges and limitations, and reflecting on how a
similar/adopted approach could be followed in other towns and cities both
in England and beyond.

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT FOR

UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
IN ENGLAND
The public role of universities is by no means new. Indeed, it would be hard
to find a university in England that did not include a commitment to civic or
public service in their founding mission statement. But, over time, the
environment within which the universities were operating has changed. In
the late twentieth century, universities in England (and elsewhere) have
been faced by the challenges of mass expansion, a decrease of public
expenditure, diversification of provision, commercialization and
internationalization. Under these changing circumstances, they have
become evermore competitive, fighting for students, resources and status,
and so, many have drifted away from their public purpose (Scott, 1993).
The social dimension of higher education, however, has once more
became a central issue at the confluence of the twentieth and the twenty-
first century, emphasized at a global level by UNESCO (1998, 2009)
declarations, and in Europe by both the European Commission (2011,
2013). The focus in England, dominating political and media discussions
and directing university practice, including spending, has been firmly on the
issues of access and successful progression for students from disadvantaged
groups. Government policies, all part of this widening participation agenda,
have encouraged, and later obligated universities to build strategic
partnerships with schools and community organizations, and to increase
institutional investment to deliver outreach activities and support
progression.3
Increasingly, universities’ policies and practices have also been affected
by the concerns around sustainability, human rights and responsible
management, as well as both the academic (Goddard, 2009) and public
arguments (Sodha, 2018) about the accountability and relevance of modern
universities. Many institutions have been rethinking their structure,
curricula, research and teaching strategies, reconnecting with their roots and
trying to live up to the value declarations long published on their webpages
and in their prospectuses (Pausits, 2015). Indeed, the concepts of social
innovation, corporate and/or university social responsibility, and public or
community engagement (the latter terms becoming the leading discourse in
the recent years) have now become a permanent fixture of most of
England’s universities’ current mission statements. This is likely to develop
further in the future, as some institutions move from civic engagement to
become “civic universities,” enshrining their strategy in Civic University
Agreements, following the recommendations made by the UPP Foundation
Civic University Commission (2019).4
Most institutions today focus on the social benefits of their efforts,
across all three of their core functions:

(1) Research with impact. The impact of research on the society and its
challenges has been systematically assessed in England since the early
2000s. Public/community engagement has been identified as a key
route to realize the impact by the UK Research Councils (now replaced
by the UK Research and Innovation).
(2) Teaching and preparing students for socially responsible, engaged
citizenship (often through service or community-based learning).
(3) As well as forming partnerships with various business and community
partners to contribute to the economic, social and cultural success of the
local and global communities (service).

Evaluating Public/Community Engagement

Several tools have now been developed for evaluating the
public/community engagement, including estimating the social value added
by university–community partnership activities in England. These include
the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s regional
benchmarking tool (HEFCE, 2002), the University of Bradford’s REAP tool
(Pearce, Pearson, & Cameron, 2008), and the recently developed tests for a
civic university (including an impact test) from the UPP Foundation Civic
University Commission (2019) – although neither of these frameworks or
standards for evaluation is yet systematically used across the sector.5 As a
matter of fact, to date, the partnership at the center of this study has not
been formally evaluated by the partners themselves. However, its focus and
activities have been reviewed as part of the YSJ application for an award of
University of Sanctuary status, which it has achieved in the Autumn of
2018 (more on this in the following). An examination of the University’s
final submission, paired with in-depth semi-structured interviews,
questionnaires with open-ended questions and email correspondence with
the representatives of partner organizations form the basis for this study,
exploring the role that such collaborative relationships – with all their
challenges – may play in supporting refugees.

CONTEXT FOR THE PARTNERSHIP IN

YORK
Public/Community Engagement in YSJ6
The YSJ has been committed to delivering equitable education,
transforming lives through the advancement of knowledge, promoting
understandings and creating new opportunities, since its inception in 1841
(YSJ, 2016). Today, with moderate enrollment rates, it prides itself for a
strong sense of community, both among the students and the staff, and
continues – in a variety of ways – its work for the public good. This
commitment to social impact was recognized in 2016 when they became the
second university in the country to achieve the Social Enterprise Gold
Mark.7 Applying for the Mark allowed the University to begin a systematic
collection of evidence of the ways in which it engages with the local
community, now summarized in the “Social Innovation Overview” (YSJ,
n.d.). This is continuously reviewed and added to, particularly as the
University is now also applying for a HE-specific Engage Watermark8
award – granted by National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement
to institutions with a proven record of a strategic institutional approach to
public/community engagement.
Listed among YSJ public/community engagement undertakings, and
featuring heavily on the University webpages, are the activities aimed at
supporting refugees and other forced migrants in York and the rest of the
region. These include a Sanctuary Scholarship program (with five students
supported in 2018/2019), development of curriculum materials for social
enterprise programs for refugees, research (including dissemination of
findings), outreach activities in Middlesborough (a dispersal city north of
York), weekly on-campus drop-in sessions and sports training at the
University’s sport park for young refugees.
In October 2018, having undergone a review of the full range of the
activities taking place, the University was granted a University of
Sanctuary9 status. It is one of only 10 universities in the UK and the third
university in Yorkshire to have received the accolade (as of June 2019).
Central to YSJ application – and the focal point of the University’s efforts –
has been its leadership of the English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
Opportunities Group and an active role in the concurrently running Refugee
Co-ordination Group. It is the work of these two groups that share
membership but have a different scope that is reviewed in the following as a
“York university–community” partnership. Briefly, however, before we
move on to that discussion, the context in which the partnership was
developed and in which it continues to operate is necessarily explained.
 Refugees in York
Despite often-negative government and popular responses over the
centuries, England and the City of York itself have a long tradition of
providing sanctuary to refugees. Today however – despite its promise to
welcome those who need to claim sanctuary in England10 and the wider
commitment to equality, diversity and human rights, pledged in 2017, when
York declared itself a UK’s first Human Rights City11 – York is not a home
to many refugees or asylum seekers (Migration Yorkshire, 2018).
This is a direct consequence of increasingly restrictionist and hostile
policies and legislation for forced migrants, adopted by the UK government
since the mid-1990s. Since then, asylum seekers have been removed from
the mainstream welfare system and became reliant on the support of
National Asylum Support Service, which provides them with (often sub-
standard) accommodation and small weekly personal allowance. Their right
to work has also been removed, funded language provision restricted, and
access to social housing is largely limited to dedicated dispersal areas,
chosen by the central government on the basis of availability and
affordability (and York is an expensive city in this part of the country). This
has caused a widespread exclusion and destitution among asylum seekers,
refugees and other forced migrants (Malfait, Cottrell, & Scott-Flynn, 2017;
Refugee Council, 2017).
Local volunteers are aware of a small number of asylum seekers who
have moved here independently in 2017 and 2018, and those granted
refugee or other protection status can of course remain – or move to York,
but York is a relatively expensive city to settle in. As Migration Yorkshire
(2018) reports, there are currently no asylum seekers housed in the City of
York through the dispersal system.
As far as I am aware, there is no citywide data on all asylum seekers and
refugees in York (gathering such data would be difficult, and indeed, it is
questionable whether collecting and storing such data would be ethical), but
I have been told once that there were probably over a hundred refugees and
asylum seekers in the city – prior to 2016. Since 2016, York has taken part
in the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement (VPR) program, with 16
households – some 30+ adults and 40+ children resettled by 2018. This
massive – for York – influx of newly arrived refugees created challenges for
the local council, and the existing and new organizations in the third sector,
considering the limited funding available to assist with both language
learning and integration (despite the provisions for the resettled refugees
being very generous when compared to those who arrive in the UK through
other routes12). As the VPR program has been extended for a further five
years (until 2025), the numbers of refugees resettled to York as well as
those arriving here individually to join the existing diaspora may grow in
the future, putting further pressure on the services available, and making the
existence of a successful partnerships between the university, the Council
and the community organizations all the more important.

Community Partners
The particular roles and strengths of all partners and the reasons for their
involvement are explained in the next section. First, however, presented is a
little contextual information about key partners.
Refugee Action York (RAY) is a local charity established in 2002 to work
with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in and around the City of York.
They run weekly support sessions for families, and a youth club, where they
offer English and Turkish language classes, information and support
service, as well as regular talks and information from various York service
providers and organizations. They engage in outreach and campaigning, co-
organize the Refugee Week activities in the city and organize events outside
of it, to raise awareness about the contribution that refugees can make to
our society and challenging myths and misconceptions about them. In the
past year (2018) RAY has been regularly supporting 36 families/single
people, with a rough estimate of 85% of refugees, asylum seekers or
stateless.
City of York Council (CYC) is responsible for all local government
services in the City of York, including the responsibility for advice and
assistance (for 12 months) for each resettled refugee individual and family,
including providing ESOL classes at an appropriate level. The Council has
developed some excellent practice around support for those who arrived in
York under the VPR (including the collaborations as described in the
following), practices which are now being extended to those who have
come through the asylum system despite the funding arrangements, which
make this extension of support complex and challenging.
York Museum Trust (YMT) is a charitable trust, protecting and
conserving the collections, gardens and buildings of York museums and
galleries. It regularly collaborates with partners to ensure the accessibility
of the sites and events, and to contribute to the development of the
economic and cultural life of all residents and visitors to York. YMT has
recently become involved in developing guides and materials for English
language learners.
Other partners (attending meetings as members or guests) include the
University of York and York College, private language schools and several
local (York City of Sanctuary), regional (Migration Yorkshire) and national
charitable organizations (Refugee Council, Red Cross).

THE PARTNERSHIP: ORIGINS, AIMS AND

OUTCOMES
The ESOL Opportunities Group
When the first individuals and families started arriving in York under the
VPR in 2016, it became apparent that the free English language provision
available in the city was inadequate. Although the Council received some
funds to ensure suitable language training is made available to all new
(VPR) arrivals, the voluntary sector organizations – namely RAY and York
City of Sanctuary – became alarmed not only by the insufficient in their
view funded provision but also the potential tensions that the different
levels of state-funded support could create between the existing refugee
community, those who arrive in York on their own – as either asylum
seekers or refugees who have gone through the asylum process in the UK –
and the new VPR arrivals. Further, although a lot of good work was
happening in the city, there was no coordination of services, and it soon
transpired that there was some “unnecessary doubling of provision” (Carrie,
Manager, RAY), with some precious funds not always being spent most
effectively. For example, free language classes or social meetings were
offered by different providers on the same days/times, resulting in small
attendance at both sessions, and lack of activities/support available to
refugees on other days of the week. This is why both the Council and the
voluntary organizations responded swiftly and positively when they have
first received an invitation to a networking meeting, sent by the YSJ in
early 2017.
On the University’s part, the initial interest was a pragmatic one – they
wanted to increase numbers and to diversify cohorts of participants in their
free English language lessons, delivered by their CELTA13 teacher trainees
(who have to deliver six hours of assessed practice as part of their
program). To address this issue, Emma – the Head of International
Programmes in YSJ, together with a few academic members of staff,
decided to set up a networking group, inviting organizations with interest in
English language classes. The initial aim of the group was to map out the
ESOL provision in York, identifying the gaps that refugees and asylum
seekers may fall through, and to identify how the free sessions at YSJ can
help fill these gaps (and at the same time benefit the University by
recruiting attendees for the teacher trainee-led sessions).
From there, as Emma described it, the partnership has developed “quite
organically.” In the space of a few months, the occurring duplications –
resulting largely from a previous lack of communication – were ironed out,
and a database of all available courses in York was created. Gaps in the
provision, such as a lack of language training available in the summer,
insufficient free provision for young people under 18 (but not in school) and
lack of beginner-level courses, were identified as key issues to be addressed
by the ESOL Opportunities Group. Various organizations and private
providers were pulled in to help fill these gaps where possible, with existing
core partners adjusting their work to provide a full week – and year – of
language support. The YSJ itself committed to offering several funded
places on their general English program, which runs over six weeks in the
summer, later extending the offer to programs running at different parts of
the year on a need-by basis.
The impact of this now coordinated full(-er) English language provision
in the city, responsive to the needs of learners, has been invaluable for
refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants. Access to a widened range of
classes, including full-time courses over several weeks – courses that would
normally be way beyond what refugees or asylum seekers could pay for –
has, of course, contributed to improved language skills. Beyond that – as
reported by Carrie (RAY) – the classes have had “a huge impact on
(participants) self-esteem and confidence.” The opportunity to take part,
particularly in the full-time courses, has also simply given the participants
“something to do, somewhere to go,” and “a bit of structure to their day.”
For most of the recent arrivals – either not allowed to work (if awaiting a
decision on their asylum application), unfit to work (the “vulnerability”
criteria for the VPR included medical needs) or unable to work (because of
lack of the language skills or work experience) – “the days can just be a bit
endless, and they can begin to feel quite isolated.” Having something to go
to every afternoon, meeting new people and making connections has
become a lifeline for those taking part.
The Council and voluntary organizations have benefited from the
opportunity to network and share details of their activities, improving the
effectiveness and efficiency of their efforts in supporting refugees and
asylum seekers. They have – in return – shared their expertise of working
with this particular group and offered the YSJ access to their “service
users,” directing them to the university-run courses. It was reported by
Emma (YSJ) that having refugee learners in the free courses has been
“enormously positive” for their teacher trainees who now get a much more
“authentic experience” and can work with a reliable cohort of students who
turn up to classes on regular basis. For the full-time courses, Emma noted
that the fee-paying students benefited from more diverse classrooms and
resulting opportunities for inter-cultural communication. She also stressed
that her teaching team’s morale and job satisfaction has improved
immensely as a result of being able to work with students with very
different motivations for learning the language, from those who they
usually teach (the international students whose parents are paying for the
course usually take part to improve their language skills prior to a
registration on an undergraduate or a postgraduate degree program. Refugee
students, as Emma said, “want to be able to communicate with their child’s
school. They want to work towards hopefully being able to settle and work
in the country”).
 The outcomes and benefits of the partnership, however, have now gone
beyond the mapping of and better coordination of English language
provision. Although the partnership has begun as a network of parties with
different motives for setting up of this collaboration, it is also a network of
people – people who happen to share values, understandings and vision, and
who have managed to quickly build trust – giving the partnership the
potential to do so much more. While the mapping-out exercise was still
underway, the members of the group became keen to develop it further and
agreed on some additional aims for the group. Firstly, they regularly
facilitate cross-agency volunteer training, including sessions on
safeguarding and on refugee trauma and how it might manifest itself in a
class setting or in a group. An additional session is run for volunteers
interested/involved in the teaching of English, providing them with some
basic teaching strategies and conversations starters. The Council and the
University can share their expertise in these relevant areas, experience in
facilitation of training, facilities in a central city-center location,
administrative support for communications and bookings as well as funding
for refreshments. Useful content and great organization are repeatedly
resulting in high attendance and completion of the full three-part program
by the would-be and current volunteers (to date, over 50 people took part).
This reduces the workload for the volunteer organizations and builds their
capacity, as the participants can get involved in the work of any
organization without the need for additional training (in those particular
areas). Secondly, the Group provides opportunities to network and shares
resources for the staff and volunteer teachers working with asylum seekers
and refugee learners – opportunities and resources that were lacking in the
past, resulting in feelings of isolation as reported by the volunteer teachers.
Next, although this particular project is still in its early stages, the Group
aims to get more support from local schools, sending YSJ teacher trainees
and other students to support the refugee children with the English language
and to support school staff who may not have appropriate training.
Having taken on the position of the chair of the Group, and championing
its work in the University, Emma has become an unofficial contact point for
YSJ staff interested in opportunities to support the refugees locally. Her
efforts have eventually come to the attention of the YSJ Social Innovations
Director, who was able to further link Emma and the Group with other
related activities going on in the University. This included, for example,
introducing the Group to the work of an YSJ Visiting Fellow, who is
designing a curriculum prototype for adult educators working with migrants
and refugees, or sharing the information about the University Sanctuary
Scholarships, which Emma was then able to promote to potential refugee
applicants – initially through the ESOL Group members/their organizations,
and later through networks of those attending the meetings of the Refugee
Co-Ordination Group.

The Refugee Coordination Group

The need to coordinate work and activities in support of refugees and other
migrants living in York beyond the language provision was discussed in the
ESOL Opportunities Group on several occasions. While Emma’s team’s
strengths and expertise lay with language training, there was a room for the
University to help in different ways too.
It so happened, that sometime in late 2017, an ESOL group member –
Carrie (RAY), had to deal with the aftermath of an error in judgment of a
social worker who – with best intentions – requested multiple groups and
agencies to provide support for the same family, which resulted in a lot of
confusion, wasted time and resources, and some resentment among
volunteers. To ensure that such duplication is avoided in the future and to
improve efficiency and ensure that the limited resources of RAY – and
other groups and organizations working with refugees and migrants in York
– are used effectively to support as many people in need as possible, Carrie
decided to set up a Refugee Coordination Group. Like the ESOL Group, the
newly formed group started small, with members meeting in an informal
setting to learn about each other’s ongoing work and to share what are the
particular interests and strengths of each organization/group. The
membership has since grown – again, in a very organic way, based on
recommendations of existing partners, and the group is currently chaired by
a member of the Council, offering a link between the group and the local
authority – including its resources.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, a key area of concern mentioned in one of the
very first meetings of the Refugee Coordination Group was that of English
language learning opportunities – Carrie as a member of the ESOL Group
was able to quickly confirm that this work is already being done and invited
Emma and later the Social Innovations Director, Mike, to join the new
group, to ensure that no duplication of effort is (again) unnecessarily
created. Although the membership of both groups is now largely
overlapping, current plans are for the two to stay separate, with the remit of
the ESOL Group remaining clearly around the language and the Refugee
Coordination Group taking responsibility for all the other areas.
To contribute to the work of what can be described as a new arm of the
existing partnership, the University has offered its premises to facilitate
various events and a weekly social/drop-in session to be run by RAY, and in
June 2018, it became an official sponsor of the Refugee Week in York,
jointly co-organized by many of the partner organizations. The University
has opened its sports facilities, and later provided staff time to run activities
for the city’s young refugees. Members of staff were approached regarding
job shadowing opportunities for youth and adults, and students are regularly
encouraged to volunteer with the partner organizations.
All of the said activities have been documented by Emma and Mike, in
preparation of the final submission for the award of the City of Sanctuary
status, with the work and impacts of both the ESOL Opportunities Group
and – to a somewhat lesser extent perhaps – Refugee Coordination Group,
playing a crucial part in the application. Although not appropriate for that
application, the outcomes related to increased satisfaction of partnership
members, their organizations’ increased efficiencies, savings of time and
other resources, increased awareness and interest around issues related to
refugees (in the University), among others, cannot be overlooked. Indeed,
the partnership, with its two arms, has now become an exemplar of the good
practice for the University, a project that truly reflects the ethos of the
institution and enhances its performance in pursuing its values and its
mission. A similar approach to mapping out University provisions related to
other areas of interests is now being applied more widely. This genuinely
collaborative engagement with the community partners has increased the
University’s influence and affirmed its position as a community-focused
organization, and in particular, one that cares about the most disadvantaged
and marginalized members of the local community. Although to pass the
UPP Foundation’s test for a civic university, partnership impact evidence
would need to be collected in the future – not an easy task as many refugees
and asylum seekers will access multiple points of support as a result of the
collaborative work, and thus potentially being counted more than once – the
partnership could serve as perhaps the best example of YSJ’s work on its
way to becoming a truly civic university.

CONCLUSIONS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM

THE YORK UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIP FOR REFUGEES
As described previously, the York partnership between the University, the
Council and voluntary sector organizations, has to date resulted in a
substantial increase of the amount of support available to forced migrants
living in York. Most significantly perhaps, the language provision has been
extended to include all levels of study and to cover the whole
school/academic year. The networking and learning about each other’s work
and strengths, and number of projects that have been delivered jointly, have
all contributed to an increased efficiency and effectiveness of support,
financial (and time) savings, increased awareness and triggered, or
reinforced, positive attitudes among staff and volunteers, and – in particular
for the University – enhanced reputation. It has transpired, through the
interviews and correspondence with the key members of the partnership,
that what can be achieved by the partners working together is significantly
higher than the sum of the work that could be delivered by the individual
groups and organizations. In particular, in the context of the hostile policies
of the national government, and the often negative opinions about migrants
present in the media, the partners recognized the value in different facets of
the community – the local government, the university and third-sector
organizations working visibly together to support refugees and other
migrants, creating a true culture of welcome in the city.
Although the contexts in York differ significantly from that of dispersal
areas and larger cities both in England and elsewhere, which often have
both much larger groups of forced migrants within their local communities
and a much greater number of organizations working with and for those
communities – both posing additional challenges – it should be noted that
all of the participants in this study considered that similar university–
community partnerships could (and indeed should) be established in other
locations.
Several themes emerged in discussions about the perceived reasons for
the success of the York partnership, summarized here to aid the formation
of such new collaborations. Perhaps, the most important one was the early
established acknowledgement and respect of the knowledge and experience
that exists both within the university and within the community. While the
YSJ was able to share its expertise in language teaching and its somewhat
more substantial resources, it is the community organizations that have
access to and extensive experience in front-line support of the forced
migrants. Learning from the collaborator voluntary organizations and the
Council, the University was able to rethink some of their ideas and respond
to the actual, and not just assumed issues faced by migrants within the York
community.
All parties have also noted that the partnership has started small and
other partners have been identified and invited by the existing members
slowly, once trust – a vital ingredient of any collaboration – has been built
between the original members. The partnership has been from the start
genuine and mutually respectful, with all organizations willing to share and
communicate, and make decisions in truly democratic ways throughout.
The participants in this study have all focused their accounts on these
interpersonal factors, citing breakdown in communications and not
delivering on agreed actions – and thus breaking the trust built – as the
biggest dangers to the continued success of the partnership.
Finally, although the motives for setting up the collaboration differed
between the stakeholders, the groups have very quickly developed a
common understanding of the aims and objectives for the partnership. This
later included an agreement to keep the scope of the two groups separate.
To assure the continued focus of each group and a subsequent success of the
partnership, and crucially to avoid the gaps in continuity of work in case of
the changes in personnel (the biggest threat to maintaining of the
partnership cited by the partners), it was suggested in our discussions that a
written memorandum of understanding is created for both groups. Such
agreements should be open-ended, acknowledging the need for an
incremental approach in the development and work of the partnership,
which will necessarily evolve as the needs of the migrant community
change, and the trust between the partners develops. Recording long-term
commitments of the University – not least through acknowledgement of the
time commitments necessary – and aligning the goals of the partnership
with the institutional mission and values, as well as its strategic plan, will
confirm the sustainability of the partnership. It will also give both the
internal staff and external partners the:
access, space, resource and permission to act: access to knowledge, practice and personnel;
space in the sense of room for manoeuvre: resource in terms of accessing budgets and
permission to ask and expect. (Mike, YSJ)

NOTES
1. Internally displaced people seek safety from natural disasters, conflict or persecution in other
parts of their own country. Refugees are people seeking protection in a state other than their own.
They are referred to as asylum seekers until their legal status as a refugee is recognised under the
international law (UNHCR, 2019b).
2. Council Directive (2003).
3. For an overview of widening participation strategy in England (since 2010) see Connell-Smith
and Hubble (2018).
4. Over 50 universities have already pledged commitment to local communities through Civic
University Agreement by May 2019. https://upp-foundation.org/over-50-universities-pledge-
commitment-to-local-communities-through-civic-university-agreement/
5. A useful framework for the European Higher Education Area has been produced as part of an
EU-funded comparative research project on the social responsibility of European universities
(Amorim et al., 2015).
6. Having initially adopted the term “social innovation,” YSJ is gradually shifting toward the
“public/community engagement” terminology, as used widely particularly by England’s research-led
universities.
7. Seven English universities now hold the Social Enterprise Mark, including three with the Gold
Mark (as of June 2019). https://www.socialenterprisemark.org.uk.
8. http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/nccpe-projects-and-services/engage-watermark/about-
engage-watermark
9. https://universities.cityofsanctuary.org
10. As a City of Sanctuary, a status achieved in October 2016. https://cityofsanctuary.org
11. https://www.yorkhumanrights.org
12. The differences in the support available to, and the resulting difference in experience between
those who arrived through one of the resettlement schemes and those who have gone through the
asylum system have been described as a “two-tier system” (All Party Parliamentary Group on
Refugees, 2017) – a term which has been used in my own conversations with the voluntary sector
representatives taking part in this study.
13. Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of participants in this study and
give special thanks to Emma Taylor and Dr Mike Calvert (YSJ), Carrie
Wheater (RAY), Sarah Mortimer (YMT) and Fiona Himsworth (CYC) who
have taken the time out of their busy schedules to share with me their
experiences and expertise.

REFERENCES
All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees. (2017). Refugees welcome? The experience of new
refugees in the UK. Retrieved from www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/refugees_welcome-inquiry
Amorim, J. P., Arenas, B., Burgos, D., Borcos, A. F., Carrasco, A., de Carvalho, L. X., … Rodrigues,
F. (2015). University social responsibility: A common European reference framework. Final
Public Report of the EU-USR Project. Retrieved from http://www.eu-usr.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/04/D1.4-Final-Report-Public-Part-EN.pdf
Collett, E., & Le Coz, C. (2018). After the storm. Learning from the EU response to the migration
crisis. Retrieved from
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/EUCrisisResponse_FINALWEB.pdf
Connell-Smith, A., & Hubble, S. (2018). Widening participation strategy in higher education in
England. Briefing Paper No. 8204. House of Commons Library, London.
Council Directive. (2003). Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum
standards for the reception of asylum seekers. OJL 31/18, 06.02.2003.
European Commission. (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for corporate social responsibility.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission. (2013). European Council conclusions on the social dimension of higher
education Brussels: 2013/C 168/02. Brussels: European Commission.
Goddard, J. (2009). Reinventing the Civic University. Retrieved from
https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/reinventing_the_civic_university.pdf
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2002). Evaluating the regional contribution of an
HEI: A benchmarking approach. Retrieved from www.ncl.ac.uk/curds
Human Rights Watch. (2018). World report 2018: European Union. New York, NY: Human Rights
Watch.
Malfait, R., Cottrell, S., & Scott-Flynn, N. (2017). Migrant destitution: Survey and consultation:
Final report. London: Homeless Link.
McKernan, B. (2016, October 1). ‘You can’t just close your eyes’: The British volunteers risking
their lives to help refugees cross the Med safely. The Independent. Retrieved from
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-syria-volunteers-
mediterranean-uk-men-women-helping-a7339221.html
Migration Yorkshire. (2018). York local migration profile. Summary document. Leeds: Migration
Yorkshire.
Pausits, A. (2015). The knowledge society and diversification of higher education: From the social
contract to the mission of universities. In A. Curaj, L. Matej, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott
(Eds.), The European Higher Education area: Between critical reflections and future policies.
(pp. 267–284) Heidelberg: Springer.
Pearce, J., Pearson, M., & Cameron, S. (2008). The ivory tower and beyond: Bradford University at
the heart of its communities. Participatory Learning and Action, 58, 82–86.
Refugee Council. (2017). Refugees without refuge: Findings from a survey of newly recognised
refugees. Stratford: Refugee Council.
Scott, P. (1993). The idea of the university in the 21st century: A British perspective. British Journal
of Educational Studies, 41(1), 4.
Sodha, S. (2018). BBC Radio 4 – Analysis, what are universities for? Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09v32jp
Trilling, D. (2018, June 5). Five myths about the refugee crisis. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/05/five-myths-about-the-refugee-crisis
UNESCO. (1998). World conference on higher education. World declaration on higher education for
the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2009). World conference on higher education: The new dynamics of higher education
and research for societal change and development. Communique. Paris: UNESCO.
UNHCR. (2015). A million refugees and migrants flee to Europe in 2015. Press Releases, December
22, 2015.
UNHCR. (2019a). UNHCR – Figures at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-
at-a-glance.html. Accessed on June 25, 2019.
UNHCR. (2019b). UNHCR – Who we help. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/uk/who-we-
help.html. Accessed on June 25, 2019.
UPP Foundation Civic University Commission. (2019). Truly civic: Strengthening the connection
between universities and their places. London: UPP Foundation.
York St John University. (2016). York St John awarded the Social Enterprise Gold Mark. Retrieved
from https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/news/2016/ysj-awarded-the-social-enterprise-gold-mark/.
Accessed on June 18, 2019.
York St John University. (n.d.). Social innovation activity at YSJ. Retrieved from
https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/about/social-innovation/social-innovation-activity-at-ysj/. Accessed
on June 18, 2019.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 15–29
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023002
CHAPTER 3
A PROBLEM, A PLAN, AND SOUTH
AFRICAN YOUTH: ACTIVELY
INVOLVING THE YOUTH IN TACKLING
SOCIAL ISSUES
Ashiya Abdool Satar

ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a theoretical and empirical examination of
young people’s role in identifying and solving problems in their
communities from a social justice perspective. The complex political
processes in South Africa stymie a top-down approach for advancing
social justice. Therefore, this study focuses on a bottom-up stance to
nurture social justice efforts by concentrating on the role of the youth,
younger than 18 years, in initiating change in their communities.
Such engagement aligns with the principles outlined in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 that
aims to enrich both the individual and the community (Dirsuweit &
Mohamed, 2016; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, 1989). The University of South Africa is involved in a
community outreach program of this nature, commissioned by
Empowervate Trust, a South African non-profit organization that
manages the Youth Citizen’s Action Campaign (Y-CAP), which equips
learners with the skills to solve societal issues in their respective
 communities. This chapter thus attempts to clarify what active
citizenship means to the youth, by focusing on the findings from focus-
group interviews with South African learners who are involved with
community development projects that advance social justice
initiatives in their communities through the Y-CAP endeavor.
Keywords: Y-CAP; Empowervate Trust; social justice; community
development; South Africa; community outreach; youth citizenship;
social ambassadors; active engagement; university–community
partnerships; University of South Africa; institutional citizenship;
engaged scholarship

INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a theoretical and empirical examination of the role
of young people, below the age of 18, in identifying and solving problems
in their communities from a social justice perspective. Agbiboa (2015)
notes that the challenges associated with promoting social justice in Africa
are steeped in the complex process of overhauling political dispensations,
which requires complicated policy changes. Moreover, Musau (2018) and
Agbiboa (2015) add that society generally views the youth as agents of
dissension and entropy – a negative view that obscures the positive role that
the youth can and do play in promoting social justice through community
development. Excluding the youth from the higher-level political processes
that endorse civic responsibility, influence, and engagement, therefore,
directly affects their present and future well-being. Sayed (2016) and
Berents and McEvoy-Levy (2015) agree that state governing structures
disregard the tactical potential of young people in developing their
societies. Berents and McEvoy-Levy (2015) further argue that age
categorizations are relative and dependent on political and cultural
structures that, by design, truncate the voices of the youth in deliberations
related to social justice.
It is against this backdrop of innate challenges in ensuring social justice
through policy changes that the present study is grounded, thereby focusing
on the role of the youth in initiating change in their communities and
advancing social justice from the grassroots level. In this regard, this study
contends that not only adults but also the often-overlooked youth should
become involved in playing roles as active citizens working to uplift their
communities.
Furthermore, this chapter particularly focuses on the collaboration of the
University of South Africa (Unisa) with Empowervate Trust, a South
African non-profit organization (NPO) that manages and commissions the
Youth Citizens Action Program (Y-CAP) that equips learners with the skills
to solve societal issues in their respective schools and/or communities. Y-
CAP is a youth development program that empowers and motivates new
generations of active citizens.
This chapter also seeks to clarify what active citizenship means to the
youth, by focusing on the findings from focus-group interviews with South
African learners involved with community development projects that
advance social justice initiatives in their communities through the Y-CAP
endeavor. In this way, the study enables us to understand how Y-CAP
promotes the tenets of social justice through sustainable community
development within the South African context by encouraging and
facilitating active citizenship behavior among learners through creating
meaning from actual activities performed as part of their daily lives.

IS MY PROBLEM BIG ENOUGH FOR YOU TO

NOTICE?
Culture, Politics, Society, and the Development Agenda in South
Africa and the Region
Although deliberations concerning the development agenda of Africa
strongly focus on social justice in the region, the constraints of inadequate
centralized governance systems and insufficient social cohesion in
multicultural settings serve to widen the chasm of social inequity (De
Coninck, 2013; Taylor, 2013). In South Africa, despite the laudable
transition to democracy in 1994 after the fall of Apartheid, the unjust
system of racial, social, political, and economic discrimination, the new
government grapples with the social inequalities that continue to plague the
country. Thus, without serious critical reflection and action in terms of the
social justice agenda in South Africa, and the region, political systems
cannot bridge the gap of inequities in the region fast enough to meet the
rapidly expanding needs of their diverse populaces. What is required is an
alternative form of promoting social justice that is proactive rather than
reactive, in addressing social issues at the ground level.

Social Justice: Defined, Practiced, or Envisaged?

Contemporary views of social justice refer to the pursuit of social equity
that encompass the entirety of human freedoms, political participation, fair
treatment, social cohesion and inclusion, equity, and personal and social
development (see Closson, 2009; De Coninck, 2013; Culp, 2013; Sayed,
2016; Taylor, 2013). In other words, the overarching premise of social
justice is the pursuit of holistic human development, not only in terms of
material progress but also to develop capacity and create opportunities for
personal and communal betterment that exemplifies the requirements of the
modern world.
Although the foundations of social justice are based on the Utopian
“principles of equality, distribution and redistribution, solidarity,
subsidiarity, inclusion, fairness, equity, equality, and nation-building,” it
cannot be emphasized enough that the pursuit of social justice varies
depending on regional, national, and (particularly) localized contexts
(Taylor, 2013, p. 17). A careful analysis and understanding of the lived
experiences of people in their local context are therefore vital for
uncovering the unique needs and aspirations of localized communities, to
create an environment of inclusive social justice. Taylor further argues that
issues of social justice extend beyond the question of economic (in)equities,
to include reflections on “social inequalities related to ethnicity, gender,
language, racial differences, spatial inequalities, age, religion, and other
criteria” (p. 17).

Community Development: Whose Responsibility Is It to Take

Responsibility?
Community development exemplifies the “social” and “cohesive” aspects
of the notion of social justice (Culp, 2013; Taylor, 2013). According to
Hlagala and Delport (2014) and Cavaye (2004), community development
improves the situation of a local community not only economically,
socially, and environmentally, but also functionally, through members’
collective efforts. Community development efforts encourage citizens to
actively engage in identifying challenges in their vicinities and to seek
sustainable solutions to localized problems through their participation.
Howard and Wheeler (2015) and Closson (2009) add that societies can
overcome many of the obstacles to sustainable development efforts by
matching creative strategies and processes with long-term thinking and
impact. Expanding constructive and inclusive public participation processes
is one way of dealing with this issue. Increasing public participation can be
a challenge in practice, however, as community members often fail to see
the merits of becoming involved. Promoting active youth civic engagement
offers a sustainable solution to overcoming this challenge.

Breaking the Rules: (Not) Too Young to Cut the Red Tape!
The Youth, Social Responsibility and Active Citizenship
Active citizenship refers to all actions associated with being a good citizen
through understanding and critically implementing ethical principles in
social interactions (Brownlee, Scholes, Walker, & Johansson, 2016; Zaff,
Boyd, Lerner, & Lerner, 2010; Jans, 2004). As such, active citizenship is a
dynamic and interactive social learning process that takes into consideration
the context of personal and social experiences, and encourages changes in
the way individuals think and react to challenges in their immediate
environments (Dirsuweit & Mohamed, 2016; Howard & Wheeler, 2015;
Mansouri & Kirpitchenko, 2016; Vickery, 2016). For Berents and McEvoy-
Levy (2015) and Howard and Wheeler (2015), active citizenship starts with
identifying the needs and aspirations of disadvantaged groups and works to
articulate and organize politically around their needs and aspirations, by
placing them at the forefront (rather than at the end) of the political debate.
However, society, as Lister (2007), Moosa-Mitha (2005), and Stasiulis
(2002) observe, generally disregards the notion of children as agents of
change, despite the urgent need to explore children’s roles as social
ambassadors. This approach necessitates the requirement to interact with
children and include them in the dialogues on active citizenship to garner
their views on what they understand of the concept and how they want to
approach it. These learning processes require that the youth work alongside
members of their societies and critically reflect on social challenges through
active engagement in their communities, as this has the potential to enrich
both individual and community development. The youth, arguably, need to
become advocates for social justice, if they are to improve the well-being of
vulnerable populations in their vicinity. Benson, Scales, Hamilton, and
Sesma (2007, p. 903) thus note, “[a]dolescents bring particular energy to
their relational and social world, which is particularly important to
understand phenomena in lived contexts.”
Encouraging the youth to play meaningful roles as social actors in their
communities is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child, adopted in 1989, and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) (to which 195 countries are signatories), that state that
children have the right to shape not only their futures but also those of their
respective communities through active citizenship (see Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1989; Ruck, Keating,
Saewyc, Earls, & Ben-Arie, 2016; Steiner 2019; UNDP, 2017; United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2010). It is
worth noting that involving the youth in addressing social challenges in
their communities cannot merely be achieved through the formal schooling
system (conventionally tasked with producing socially responsible citizens
who take responsibility for their actions by engaging with moral values)
(Brownlee et al., 2016; De Coninck, 2013; Mansouri & Kirpitchenko, 2016;
Zaff et al., 2010). Early literature in this field (see Ahrari, Othman, Hassan,
Samah, & D’Silva, 2014; Cavaye, 2004; Christens, 2012; Veldhuis 2005)
argued that learning active citizenship should start as early as possible and
that in most countries the preparation of citizens through formal schooling
is not adequate in this respect and would require partnerships with interest
groups.
 UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS: UNISA AND
EMPOWERVATE TRUST
Universities have a fundamental role to play in promoting social justice
through what is known as “engaged scholarship” (Cherrington, Scheckle,
Khau, De Lange, & Du Plessis, 2019, p. 167). Bhagwan (2018) and
Williamson et al. (2016) explain that engaged scholarship refers to socially
responsible academia that collaborates with the wider community within
their specific context to encourage mutual and sustainable development.
One way of fostering engaged scholarship is through community outreach
programs that equally benefits the community and the institution of higher
learning. Bhagwan (2017) notes that community outreach programs can
foster the development of partnerships between academic departments,
advocacy groups, and the youth to revitalize their localities. In other words,
universities need to collaborate actively with local neighborhoods to
provide communities with life-long skills and knowledge that will enable
them to address their challenges autonomously.
Reaching out to communities and engaging with the social aspirations
and desires of these localities, as Bhagwan (2017) and Williamson et al.
(2016) note, provides a foundation for the practical application of the tenets
of social justice. Engaged scholarship, as Bhagwan (2018) explains,
therefore entails the juxtaposition between research, instruction, and service
to humanity, and
should refocus the traditional norms of academic life toward participatory epistemology and
the co-creation of knowledge that changes the student role to that of knowledge producer and
shifts community groups from being research participants to active collaborators in
knowledge generation and problem-solving. (p. 47)

Part of this process requires the active involvement of young people in

identifying challenges in their communities, as they have the first-hand
experience of the context of the situation and the specific needs of the
particular locality (Bhagwan, 2017; Shiller, 2017). “Hence, students and
faculty become the agents of social change by creating, learning, and by
scholarly processes that explicitly address such problems with the intent of
fixing them” (Bhagwan, 2017, p. 316).
 In this light, Bhagwan (2018, p. 32) argues that “[t]he call for advancing
community engagement activities has rekindled interest in enabling
institutional citizenship and developing greater civic responsibility in higher
education.” In this way, universities can utilize their knowledge and
resources to enact meaningful change in local communities. Moreover,
universities need to engage not only with local communities but also with
the youth in these communities to steer the revitalization of these
neighborhoods and to provide a greater praxis for youth involvement in
community development. This can be done by partnering with interest
groups in reaching out to communities in need, just as Unisa has partnered
with Empowervate Trust in the Y-CAP venture.

METHODOLOGY
This study employed a qualitative research design to answer the research
questions and made use of the inductive thematic analysis method proposed
by Braun and Clarke (2006). As with other analytical methods in qualitative
research, thematic analysis requires that data be examined and interpreted in
order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical
knowledge while systematically organizing information into categories
related to the research, using a constructivist stance (Bengtsson, 2016;
Bowen, 2009; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Fereday, & Muir-Cochrane, 2006;
Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Olsen, 2012). The ontological stance of
constructivism acknowledges the interdependence of the individual and
shared meaning systems that form the basis of social constructions in
communities of practice (Adom, Yeboah, & Ankrah, 2016; Bada, 2015;
Esin, Fathi, & Squire, 2014). To understand how the construction of
knowledge among and between learners facilitates active citizenship
behaviors, the researchers used three semi-structured focus-group
interviews at a central location, involving learners who participated in the
program. Each focus group comprised of 6–12 learners. These learners
were purposively sampled from various provinces across South Africa to
include multiple participants’ perspectives, having obtained informed
consent from their guardians. The focus-group interviews were audiotaped
after securing permission from the participants and their educators, in their
capacity as guardians. All interviewees and focus-group participants were
assigned with numerical identifiers to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.
Three researchers facilitated the entire process of data collection and
analysis, ensuring inter-coder reliability and encouraging multiple
perspectives in the interpretation of data, to attain optimum validity
(Cornish, Gillespie, & Zittoun, 2014; Noble & Smith, 2015; Sanjari,
Bahramnezhad, Fomani, Shoghi, & Cheraghi, 2014). Interviews were
conducted until data saturation was achieved (Hancock, Amankwaa, Revell,
& Mueller, 2016). Recorded interview data were then transcribed and
analyzed using the six steps of the Braun and Clarke (2006) method of
analyzing both latent and semantic meanings while identifying themes in
the process of understanding how communal experiences facilitate shared
constructions of knowledge and understanding (Braun & Clarke, 2006;
Clarke & Braun, 2013; Noble & Smith, 2015; Riegler, 2012).

THE YOUTH CITIZENS ACTION PROGRAM

Empowervate, an NPO, runs Y-CAP, a competition-based flagship program
that encourages active citizenship. Empowervate Trust was established in
2013 to run the Y-CAP initiative (founded in 2009 and initially overseen by
Afrika Tikkun). While the Deutsche Bank South Africa Foundation has
been Y-CAP’s founding sponsor since the latter’s inception, the Department
of Basic Education (DBE) has been the strategic and implementation
partner since 2009. In 2014, UTi SA Mounties Division (UTi was acquired
by DSV A/S in 2016, and the group is now the fifth largest global freight
forwarding company in the world) came on board as a sponsor, along with
other NPOs such as Heartlines and the International Youth Council of South
Africa. Unisa has been the pro bono research partner since 2013.
Y-CAP commenced with four participating provinces in 2009 but has
since then empowered thousands of learners with essential and empowering
life skills thanks to a toolkit, which enables them to develop unique active
citizenship programs in their schools. Ongoing research has facilitated the
continued evolution of the program and the toolkit (adding more features to
the Y-CAP toolkit to benefit the learners). The competition element of the
program helps motivate learners to get involved and empowers them by
fostering participation. More than 19,000 learners who have participated
since 2010 have left an indelible mark on their schools and communities in
the process of acquiring and learning life skills they will use well past their
Grade 12 year.
Y-CAP is a social action initiative that provides adolescent learners
(ranging from 12 to 17 years of age) in grades 6, 7, 9, and 10, in all nine
provinces, with an opportunity to drive positive social, environmental, and
academic change, while becoming active and responsible citizens. Learners
receive Y-CAP toolkits from Empowervate Trust to assist them in
identifying challenges (that include social, academic, and environmental
concerns) in their schools and communities. In collaboration with the DBE,
Empowervate invites schools across the country to participate in the
program through various communication campaigns and the distribution of
the toolkits to the schools by the ministry of education’s district
coordinators. Learners, supported by their educators, follow the step-by-
step guide, as described in the Y-CAP toolkit, to find creative and
innovative solutions to a problem and then to implement a course of action.
The program was initially targeted at Grade 10 learners exclusively, as
this is the phase in which young people’s transition into adulthood begins
and core life decisions have to be made. However, in 2016, Grade 7 learners
(12–15 year olds) were also invited to participate in the competition in an
attempt to target youth in the early stages of core skills and leadership
development. The inclusion of the Grade 7s proved to be a milestone for
early youth development as Y-CAP aims to empower learners to be
proactive in solving or mitigating the challenges they face in their schools
and communities. The program now includes a wider range of learners, as
described previously.
Participating learners are required to look at problems in and around the
school and to choose an issue they wish to resolve, before following the
recommended action steps, thereby producing a team of proactive learners
who are positive role models in society. The findings from the focus-group
interviews indicated that learners from across the country who participated
in the program flagged a range of social problems in their schools and
communities, such as, inter alia:

a lack of road signs;

 poor sanitation in schools;
elderly people in the community requiring help with daily chores;
drug addiction;
teenage pregnancies;
littering;
a lack of numeracy and/or literacy skills;
eliminating late-coming at school; and
encouraging parents to plant their own vegetables.

The learners managed to identify problems that were unique to their

respective contexts and identified possible solutions. One group of youths
began a drug awareness program in their area and involved the police, the
local municipality, and businesses in the area to partner with them in this
initiative. The youth’s resilience, creativity, and initiative in facilitating
community development and social justice have been astounding.
The program, which emphasizes teamwork and careful planning, goes
through various levels of competition, culminating in the national
championships where provincial winners compete for the top three
positions in the high school and primary school categories, respectively.
Judges from various sectors (such as Justice Edwin Cameron –
Constitutional Court Judge, Alice Brown – African Centre for the Study of
the United States, Cristianne Wendler – US Department of State – PEPFAR,
and Jennifer Charlton – Heartlines, for example) have assessed the projects
over the years (see Empowervate, 2019). Although the emphasis is not on
winning but on active citizenry and empowerment, the award offers an
incentive that acknowledges the hard work all participants put into their
projects and encourages interaction, participation, and social cohesion at the
events held as part of the program.
The winners of the provincial and national competitions derived an even
greater benefit, having being exposed to learners from different provinces
who proposed different solutions to challenges affecting the youth. These
learners also experienced social cohesion and value-sharing with their peers
from diverse backgrounds, languages, and cultures, while winning schools
benefited by receiving financial rewards from the investors, Deutsche Bank
South Africa Foundation and UTi SA, to expand the impact of the projects
in their schools. Winning schools received prizes ranging from R10,000
(around £600) to R1,000 (around £60) and winning teams win various
prizes (such as laptops and access to computer programs such as Microsoft
Office, for example), which differ each year. In 2019, the educators
supporting the winning teams also received prizes and incentives.
Allowing learners to become agents of change who exhibit positive
values is a sound way of boosting their confidence and self-esteem, and
developing their practical, communication, organizing, project
management, teamwork, and leadership skills. Moreover, the program
encourages a problem-solving and values-driven mindset, which is the
precursor to social entrepreneurship, by introducing an element of financial
literacy in the program. By following the structure laid out in the toolkits,
project leaders need to draw up a business plan and provide a detailed
budget for their proposed ventures and a balance sheet accounting for their
income (money raised through sponsorships, for example) and expenses
(monetary outlay related to project goals). The toolkit provided details on
how to involve sponsors, investors, and/or partners in the projects. Some
learners from rural schools were truly creative, and some collaborated with
local municipalities and construction companies in the vicinity to help them
build ablution blocks at their schools. Learners participating in the program
also had to provide projected expenses for sustaining the projects in the
event that they win the prize money in the national competitions, thereby
instilling a sense of responsibility and a mindset of sustainable action plans
in them. Since there is a major youth unemployment problem in South
Africa, this is an important solution. Y-CAP thus endeavors to encourage
the youth to make positive lifestyle choices and decisions and to develop
leadership skills that will benefit not only themselves but also their
communities – an undertaking that aligns with South Africa’s youth
development goals.

Too Young to Make a Difference? The Role of the Youth in

Promoting Social Justice
“Young people constitute one-quarter of the world’s population and one-
third of the population in developing nations” (Commonwealth Secretariat,
2017, p. 54). Seeing that young people constitute a large proportion of the
population in Africa, they can play a valuable and lasting role in community
development, if their participation is planned carefully and focuses on their
strengths (see Benson et al., 2007; Ruck et al., 2016).
As Agbiboa (2015, p. 41) points out, “Africa’s youth are resourceful and
have a lot of energy and potential that can be channeled in a constructive
manner.” Agbiboa also notes that youth across the African continent have
the innate ability and motivation to become innovative entrepreneurs, which
represents potential that can be tapped into, to address the growing
(un)employment gap in the region. In this respect, learners who participated
in the Y-CAP initiative perceived themselves as having acquired some skills
to help them with their own business one day. Entrepreneurship is, in fact, a
lifelong learning process, which should start as early as primary school. The
Y-CAP competition includes practical learning experiences, which could
provide learners with some insights and skills for creating and identifying
entrepreneurial opportunities, as these participants’ comments confirm:
If you want to open your own business, firstly you have to check around where you are
staying, that is, the target. What is it that is importantly needed there? So you have to check
with the people around where you live if the product you want to buy will sell because there
will be no need for you to go out and buy something the people do not need. (Focus Group 1,
Participant 5)

Opening a business […] yeah, maybe in the future, for example, [it] requires that I should
have a plan and I should know why […] I have to open the business because there should be a
reason behind [it], and [I] must be organized. To have this business, there are certain steps
you must follow to reach your goal. So, I think the Y-CAP toolkit can really empower
someone to reach this goal. (Focus Group 2, Participant 3)

Concerning structured interventions that facilitate community

engagement among the youth, although Buisic and Dordic’s (2018) study
particularly focuses on the role of physical education in promoting social
responsibility in young people, the main point of the article is the influence
of structured interventions in developing judicious and socially responsible
behaviors among adolescents. Just as the different elements of personal and
social responsibility were inculcated through the physical education classes
in Buisic and Dordic’s study, Y-CAP provides learners with a practical
toolkit to facilitate the process of solving societal problems in their
respective schools and/or communities. The toolkit comprises various steps
that help learners identify and map community challenges, and find and
implement actions aimed at actively solving a targeted problem
(Empowervate, 2018).
Hlagala and Delport (2014, p. 65) add to this debate, explaining that
youth participation and interaction in community-based issues are vital
elements of positive youth development, as these aspects:
directly [contribute] towards achievement of the purposes of youth work by identifying and
developing young people’s capacities – physical, moral, spiritual and emotional; identifying
and accepting young people’s responsibilities as individuals, citizens and group members; and
evaluating the context within which young people live and act.

Youth development refers to an organized process of guiding the

development of young people by encouraging their moral maturation
through intrinsic and extrinsic motivators to inculcate active citizenship
behaviors that would benefit individuals and communities alike (Brennan,
Frumento, Bridger, & Alter, 2013; Houwer, 2016). Moreover, leadership
skills (such as team management) and exposure to positive peer influence
encourage the constructive development of the youth and foster their moral
development (Benson et al., 2007, p. 912). In essence, while working
through the carefully planned steps of the Y-CAP toolkit, the learners
collectively focus on their strengths to solve the challenges in their
respective communities or schools over the long term. They share common
resources such as schedules, reports, language, and awareness to negotiate
meaning and enable learning – all considered to be core youth development
skills. Hastings and McElravy (2017) add that strong leadership skills –
which entail intergroup interactions, managing group dynamics in terms of
roles and responsibilities, as well as managing conflict – encourage positive
youth development. The Y-CAP participants’ responses indicated that
learners benefited most in terms of acquiring abilities such as:

showing respect to teammates and learning planning skills;

realizing the value of dedication and commitment;
being punctual;
managing their time;
brainstorming for solutions;
staying optimistic (positive);
constantly monitoring their progress; and
 overruling others when the situation demanded it.

All these demonstrate sound leadership qualities. The learners’ self-

esteem also improved, mostly because they experienced feelings of
confidence, being unique, being respected, being treated with compassion,
and being able to show resilience, all while learning and applying new
skills. Most learners enjoyed being relied on, being motivated and working
with older people (especially authorities in the school), which boosted their
self-esteem. Their responses also indicated that they perceived themselves
to be empowered to help others and to have gained new knowledge and a
sense of commitment. By solving social, environmental, and academic
problems, they felt capable of helping others by providing advice, tutoring
and mentoring them, and/or teaching them the value of respect. The
responses further indicated that aspects such as co-operation, consensus,
and a positive outlook strengthened teamwork and engendered team spirit.
The learners felt that a great deal of self-development had taken place
since their participation in Y-CAP began, mainly because of their newfound
self-confidence, their ability to network, as well as their exposure to others
and the urban areas in the big cities. They felt that they benefited most in
terms of acquiring personal and interpersonal skills, such as self-awareness,
assertiveness, and the ability to listen, communicate, and negotiate, thanks
to their participation in the Y-CAP. Interestingly, the learners also cited the
research and writing skills that they acquired, as being beneficial to them.
Benson et al. (2007, p. 895) note that positive youth development
requires young people’s interaction and activism in their ecological contexts
(in the family and community, at school, in clubs, in teams and
relationships) to allow society to develop “from many lines of inquiry (e.g.
resiliency, prevention, public health).” This perspective is reflected in the
literature (see Chaskin, 2009; Checkoway, 2011; Closson, 2009; Hlagala &
Delport, 2014), which increasingly acknowledges the importance of youth
participation in community development.
A Nigerian study by Udensi, Sira, Daasi, Emah, and Zukbee (2013), on
youth participation in community development programs, affirms how
crucial it is for the youth to engage in community development efforts if
these are to be sustainable. Hart (2013) and Cornwall (2010) concede that
the youth’s involvement in community development not only equips them
with crucial life skills but also builds competencies and self-esteem that
benefits their respective communities and their personal growth.
In this respect, by using the Y-CAP toolkit as a group, learners create
meaning from the actual challenges that they apply to their daily lives,
which Wang (2016) refers to as the social construction of knowledge. This
concept implies that learning does not only occur in a classroom setting, but
also through social co-participation (where learners co-create and share
knowledge with others). In the Y-CAP program, learners became
empowered to assist others because of group dynamics, having first acted as
individuals, and later as members of a team, to solve complex problems. In
doing so, they gained mutual respect, accommodated various perspectives,
and finally worked together to find creative and realistic solutions, which
gave them inner strength.
Agrifoglio (2015), Catalano (2015), and Wenger (2011) thus explain that
the learning effort becomes collective (rather than individual) when an
entire community benefits from the information since the learning takes
place in the context in which it will also be applied.

CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

Under the overarching umbrella of social justice, the study, on which this
chapter was based, focused on the central and interrelated themes of
positive youth development, active citizenship, and community and social
development. This was particularly applicable to the youth in primary and
secondary schools across South Africa who participated in the Y-CAP
initiative. The empirical strand of the research, through qualitative focus-
group interviews, emphasized the role of the Y-CAP endeavor in
encouraging civic engagement among young people, thereby engendering
youth, community, and social development in pursuit of social justice at the
grassroots level. It was established that the Y-CAP toolkits provide learners
with a framework for identifying and addressing social challenges in their
localities and promote the development of core skills related to positive
youth development, such as learning to take an initiative to inspire change
in their communities. The Y-CAP toolkit presents learners with several
practical steps for achieving success in solving the problems they identified
in their respective communities before proposing possible solutions. The
steps include:

how to form and manage a team and the associated roles and
responsibilities thereof;
finding target markets and brainstorming solutions;
planning the actions and budgeting;
taking action; and
talking about the project and its expected outcomes (communication and
motivation).

An analysis of the data and the synthesis of the findings revealed that Y-
CAP offers an important foundation for encouraging positive youth,
community, and social development, by engaging learners in community
activities and challenges, thereby instilling in them a sense of civic
responsibility. This aligns with the overall theoretical framework of the
present study, which is based on promoting social justice from the ground
level up. It is also clear from the learners’ responses that their participation
in the Y-CAP initiative assisted them in becoming the change agents they
desired to be, by creating meaning from the real activities that occur in their
daily lives. Moreover, the learners perceived themselves as having being
empowered as they understood the value of planning, budgeting, showing
respect, and time management (among many other benefits). They also felt
capable of helping others by dispensing advice, tutoring and mentoring
them, as well as solving social, academic, and environmental problems.
Given that these are enduring characteristics in anyone’s life, these skills
will stand them in good stead in making valuable contributions to their
communities in the long term.
Nonetheless, the fact that the study could not include participants from
all the provinces that took part in Y-CAP is a limitation. While these
findings go a long way in demonstrating that there was value for both
learners and their communities in participating in the Y-CAP initiative, the
findings cannot be generalized. It is therefore recommended that future
studies should, as far as possible, include all nine provinces of South Africa,
in order to be fully representative of the dynamics of this country. Further
studies that measure the impact of youth participation and that of the Y-
CAP campaign should also be considered.
The findings revealed that participation in the Y-CAP initiative
facilitated active citizenship on the part of the youth, which benefited not
only themselves, but also communities in the long term, and created a
platform for greater reflection of social challenges in their schools and local
communities. The findings also revealed that the cultivation of social
learning through social co-participation empowered learners with the skills
and knowledge to address the identified challenges proactively, thereby
making them aware that they have the power to enact change in their
environments.

REFERENCES
Adom, D., Yeboah, A., & Ankrah, A. K. (2016). Constructivism philosophical paradigm: Implication
for research, teaching and learning. Global Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences,
4(10), 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Constructivism-
Philosophical-Paradigm-Implication-for-Research-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf
Agbiboa, D. E. (2015). Youth as tactical agents of peacebuilding and development in the Sahel.
Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, 10(3), 30–45.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2015.1082927
Agrifoglio, R. (2015). Knowledge preservation through community of practice: Theoretical issues
and empirical evidence. London: Springer.
Ahrari, S., Othman, J., Hassan, S., Samah, B. A., & D’Silva, J. L. (2014). Active citizenship by
active learning. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14(20), 2450–2459.
https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2014.2450.2459
Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR
Journal of Research and Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-
05616670
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nursing
Plus Open, 2(2016), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A., Jr. (2007). Positive youth development:
Theory, research, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 895–933). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons.
Berents, H., & McEvoy-Levy, S. (2015). Theorising youth and everyday peace (building).
Peacebuilding, 3(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2015.1052627
Bhagwan, R. (2017). Community engagement within a social work programme in rural India. Social
Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 53(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.15270/52-2-572
Bhagwan, R. (2018). University-community partnerships: Demystifying the process of engagement.
South African Review of Sociology, 49(3–4), 32–54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2019.1570324
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brennan, M. A., Frumento, P. Z. C., Bridger, J. C., & Alter, T. R. (2013). Introduction: Theory,
practice, and community development. In M. A. Brennan, J. C. Bridger, & T. R. Alter (Eds.),
Theory, practice, and community development (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brownlee, J. L., Scholes, L., Walker, S., & Johansson, E. (2016, October). Critical values education
in the early years: Alignment of teachers’ personal epistemologies and practices for active
citizenship. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 261–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.009
Buisic, S., & Dordic, V. (2018). The effectiveness of Hellison’s model of personal and social
responsibility in physical education teaching. Physical Education and Sport, 16(3), 663–676.
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUPES171110060B
Catalano, A. (2015). The effect of a situated learning environment in a distance-education
information literacy course. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 653–659.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.008
Cavaye, J. (2004). Understanding community development. Retrieved from https://increate.med-
ina.org/static/assets/uploads/share/Step6-tools/Understanding-Community-Development-
2004.pdf. Accessed on February 18, 2019.
Chaskin, R. J. (2009). Toward a theory of change in community-based practice with youth: A case-
study exploration. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(10), 1127–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.012
Checkoway, B. (2011). What is youth participation? Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 340–
345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.017
Cherrington, A. M., Scheckle, E., Khau, M., De Lange, N., & Du Plessis, A. (2019). What does it
mean to be an ‘engaged university’? Reflections from a university and school-community
engagement project. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 14(2), 165–178.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197918779945
Christens, B. (2012). Targeting empowerment in community development: A community psychology
approach to enhancing local power and well-being. Community Development Journal, 47(4),
538–554. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bss031
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing
strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123. Retrieved from
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?
volumeID=26&editionID=222&ArticleID=2222
Closson, R. B. (2009). Teaching social justice through community engagement. International Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), Article 10.
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030110
Commonwealth Secretariat. (2017). Youth mainstreaming in development planning: Transforming
young lives. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Cornish, F., Gillespie, A., & Zittoun, T. (2014). Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. In U. Flick
(Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 79–93). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cornwall, G. (2010). Youth participation in local (community) level development: A development
strategy. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and
Economic Studies (SALISES) Conference, March 2002, St. Augustine, Trinidad.
Culp, J. (2013). The problem of undemocratic side effects of democracy promotion. In J. De
Coninck, J. Culp, & V. Taylor (Eds.), African perspectives on social justice (pp. 26–41).
 Uganda: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
De Coninck, J. (2013). Furthering an African perspective on social justice: East Africa social justice
group. In J. De Coninck, J. Culp, & V. Taylor (Eds.), African perspectives on social justice
(pp. 3–11). Uganda: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Dirsuweit, T., & Mohamed, S. (2016). Vertical and horizontal communities of practice: Gender and
geography in South Africa. South Africa Geographical Journal, 98(3), 531–541.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2016.1222949
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Empowervate. (2018). Y-CAP toolkit. Johannesburg: Empowervate Trust.
Empowervate. (2019). Celebrating 10 years of empowering and motivating active citizens at public
schools. Johannesburg: Empowervate Trust. Retrieved from
https://www.empowervate.org/wp-content/uploads/Empowervate-10th-Anniversary-
Publication-2019-Digital-FINAL.pdf. Accessed on October 12, 2019.
Esin, C., Fathi, M., & Squire, C. (2014). Narrative analysis: The constructionist approach. In U. Flick
(Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 203–216). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/160940690600500107
Hancock, M. E., Amankwaa, L., Revell, M. A., & Mueller, D. (2016). Focus group data saturation: A
new approach to data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 21(11), 2124–2130. Retrieved from
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss11/13/
Hart, R. A. (2013). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in
community development and environmental care. London: Routledge.
Hastings, L. J., & McElravy, L. J. (2017). Building a theory of positive youth leadership identity.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Rural Futures Institute. Retrieved from
http://ruralfutures.nebraska.edu/building-a-theory-of-positive-youth-leadership-identity/.
Accessed on June 10, 2019.
Hlagala, R. B., & Delport, C. S. (2014). Ideologies and theories for youth practice work.
Commonwealth Youth and Development, 12(1), 59–74. Retrieved from
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/43497/Hlagala_Ideologies_2014.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Houwer, R. (2016, October 14). Development in youth work: Critical theories and questions [Web
log]. YouthREX: Research and Evaluation Exchange. Retrieved from
https://exchange.youthrex.com/blog/development-youth-work-critical-theories-and-questions.
Accessed on June 18, 2019.
Howard, J., & Wheeler, J. (2015). What community development and citizen participation should
contribute to the new global framework for sustainable development. Community
Development Journal, 50(4), 552–570. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsv033
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jans, M. (2004). Children as citizens: Towards a contemporary notion of child participation.
Childhood, 11(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568204040182
Lister, R. (2007). Why citizenship? Where, when and how children? Theoretical Inquiries in Law,
8(2), 693–718. Retrieved from
https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Why_citizenship_Where_when_and_how_children_/947
2847
Mansouri, F., & Kirpitchenko, L. (2016). Practices of active citizenship among migrant youth:
Beyond conventionalities. Social Identities Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture,
22(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2015.1119680
Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005). A difference-centred alternative to theorization of children’s citizenship
rights. Citizenship Studies, 9(4), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020500211354
Musau, Z. (2018, July). Youth can be agents of positive change. Africa Renewal. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/april-2018-july-2018/youth-can-be-agents-
positive-change. Accessed on February 25, 2019.
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-
Based Nursing, 18(2), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the
rights of the child (CRC) adopted in 1989. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx. Accessed on July 24, 2019.
Olsen, M. (2012). Document analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of case study research (pp. 318–320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riegler, A. (2012). Constructivism. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Paradigms in theory construction (pp. 235–
256). New York, NY: Springer.
Ruck, M. D., Keating, D. P., Saewyc, E. M., Earls, F., & Ben-Arieh, A. (2016). The United Nations
convention on the rights of the child: Its relevance for adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 26(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12172
Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical
challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: The necessity to develop a specific guideline.
Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 7(14). Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263394/
Sayed, Y. (2016, September 16). Social justice starts at school. Mail & Guardian: Education.
Retrieved from https://mg.co.za/article/2016-09-16-00-social-justice-starts-at-school.
Accessed on March 25, 2019.
Shiller, J. T. (2017). University-community civic collaboration: Reaching for social justice in
university partnership. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 9(3), 5–18.
ISSN 1934-5283.
Stasiulis, D. (2002). The active child citizen: Lessons from Canadian policy and the children’s
movement. Citizenship Studies, 6(4), 507–538.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1362102022000041286
Steiner, A. (2019). Southern development solutions for the sustainable development goals: UNDP
and South-South Cooperation. New York, NY: UNDP.
Taylor, V. (2013). Social justice: Reframing the “social” in critical discourses in Africa. In J. De
Coninck, J. Culp, & V. Taylor (Eds.), African perspectives on social justice (pp. 12–25).
Kampala: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Udensi, L., Sira, D., Daasi, G., Emah, D. S., & Zukbee, S. (2013). Youth participation in community
development (CD) programmes in Cross River State: Implications for sustainable youth
development in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13(5), 61–67.
Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/736c/5aee5f90acd6377b171b5595e45611a3a66d.pdf
United Nations Development Programme. (2017). Regional project for Africa’s emergence,
promoting structural economic transformation and human development. New York, NY:
UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa.
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2010). UNESCO SHS strategy on
African youth: Towards an enabling policy environment for youth development and civic
 engagement in Africa (2009–2013). 184 EX/INF.11, 7 April. UNESCO, Paris.
Veldhuis, R. (2005). Opportunities for education and learning for active citizenship. Retrieved from
https://llw.acs.si/ac/09/cd/full_papers_plenary/Veldhuis.pdf. Accessed on March 5, 2019.
Vickery, A. (2016). ‘I worry about my community’: African-American women utilizing communal
notions of citizenship in the social studies classroom. International Journal of Multicultural
Education, 18(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v18i1.1061
Wang, V. C. X. (2016). Theory and practice of adult and higher education. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business
Press.
Williamson, H. J., Young, B. R., Murray, N., Burton, D. L., Levin, B. L., Massey, O. T., & Baldwin,
J. A. (2016). Community-university partnerships for research and practice: Application of an
interactive and contextual model of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 20(2), 55–84. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5295659/
Zaff, J. M., Boyd, Y. L., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-
group and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9541-
6

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 31–46
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023003
CHAPTER 4
ADDRESSING AVOIDABLE
INEQUALITIES: THE ROLE OF ONE
UNIVERSITY IN PLACE-BASED
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
Claire Taylor, Nina Ruddle, Ken Perry and Clare
Budden

ABSTRACT
This chapter explores one UK university’s influence and involvement
as a key partner within the 2025 Movement, a movement for change
with a collective vision to tackle avoidable health and housing
inequalities by 2025 in North Wales, UK. The approach to building
2025 is founded in systems leadership and social movements resulting
in transformational change in the way we work, think and deliver
across a region as a collective. The innovative role of the university
as a key partner has shifted the perceptions of the university in the
region and its capacity to act as an instrument of government,
contributing to the political imperative to support communities as
part of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The
chapter outlines the principles behind 2025 and the university’s role
to date, as illustrated through three case studies: Learning and
Leadership; Social Prescribing; and Healthy Homes–Healthy People.
The chapter reflects upon the challenges faced and how they have
 been overcome. Finally, enablers for successful collective working
are identified, which have resulted in the university being able to
utilize its expertise, energy and education to work in partnership in
order to tackle some of the most complex issues facing our
communities.
Keywords: Inequalities; place-based; transformation; change;
university; civic engagement; civic mission; community; partnership;
leadership

INTRODUCTION
Wrexham Glyndŵr University was established in 2008 and is located in
North East Wales. Its origins can be traced back through the establishment
of the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education in 1993, itself a result
of a merger of several colleges including the Wrexham School of Science
and Art, established 1887. The University is proud of its history of
developing higher-level skills and knowledge, working collaboratively to
use research and practitioner experience to inform learning and teaching,
meet the needs of industry and enrich the different communities that we
serve.
The University was established to support the economic and social
development of its region, continuing the ethos of its predecessor; indeed,
the University’s sense of, and contribution to, “place” is critical. In 2018, a
Vision and Strategy to 2025 was launched, stating that: “Our mission is to
inspire and enable; transforming people and places and driving economic,
social and cultural success” (Wrexham Glyndŵr University, 2018).
Therefore, the regional economic, social and cultural priorities of North
Wales and cross-border into North West England inform all aspects of the
University’s strategy, from its business links to curriculum content.
However, in addition, we also take our civic mission seriously and this is
a thread running through the goals and objectives of our vision and strategy.
At a primary level, this comprises our core business to provide education,
training and research opportunities, which are aligned with current demand
and which prepare our graduates to be able to function and contribute in a
world that may look very different in future decades. We are also aware of
the resource we can offer to the community, sharing knowledge and being
generous with our time, in a way that goes above and beyond strict
requirements of the curriculum. It is this aspect of our mission that is
explored in this chapter.
Our civic engagement strategy sets out our key focus to become a civic
university, that is, transformative, responsive and demand led. We set out to
achieve this by working in partnership across the region on the shared
ambition to support the growth and resilience of people and communities to
achieve economic, social and cultural success. Within this there is a strong
focus on being visionary, to respond to the drivers for change by pioneering
new approaches, responding to public service austerity innovatively and
rethinking the space that universities traditionally occupy. Therefore, we are
using our experience and expertise and role as “educators” to explore new
and different ways of working and delivering change on a number of levels.
The civic engagement strategy is shaped around five main overarching
aims, with associated actions and projects to drive delivery against each
area:

Leadership of place.
Active citizenship.
Support schools and young people.
Innovation and social capital.
Enable, engage and develop the civic mission.

A key thread running through is the focus on leadership of place,

supporting and leading projects across the region and nationally through the
establishment of partnerships with a range of organizations and sectors. In
particular, a partnership with leadership practice, Do-Well (UK) Ltd
(http://www.do-well.co.uk/) has been a catalyst for our innovative approach
to public service leadership education and practice. This organization
provides strategic, policy and practical support to a range of public and
third-sector organizations and working with Do-Well has enabled the
University to draw on both practical and current leadership experience and
challenges that we have married with the principles of our civic engagement
strategy to really drive and support change across the region and wider.
Although three specific case studies are outlined in this chapter, through
this partnership the University has supported with expertise and resource a
number of projects. For example, the Let’s Get Moving North Wales (NHS
Wales, Public Health Wales, 2018) campaign is bringing partners together
to improve health and well-being of the population of North Wales, through
increasing opportunities for people to move more. We are also a key partner
in Sports North Wales, a new partnership approach to rethinking
community sports commissioning and delivery across the region. We have
facilitated and led the visioning sessions and helped shape the approach to
drive innovation across all sectors. We have developed a strong partnership
with local Community Voluntary Councils across the region, supporting a
sub-regional approach to volunteering and ensuring we maximize the
impact and provide higher-level qualifications in partnership. Supporting
schools and young people is a strategic focus for Welsh Government and we
are leading a key part of a pan-Wales approach to supporting school
governors and leaders with systems leadership in partnership with the Open
University, Cardiff University and Higher Education Funding Council. In
addition, the University is represented on a number of key national and
regional projects that enable and drive our civic mission including the
Regional Centre of Expertise Cymru. Through this we are leading on Social
Prescribing as part of a network of organizations that facilitate learning
toward sustainable development in local and regional communities and this
is part of a global learning space for sustainable development (RCE Cymru,
2018).
Overall, the University is working within an established strategy for
civic engagement, with clearly identified themes and objectives.
Collaborative working and active partnerships are essential for success and
underpin the University’s focus on leadership of place, supporting and
leading place-based projects across the region and nationally.

THE CHALLENGE: TACKLING INEQUALITY

Inequality is one of the biggest collective challenges faced across the UK
(RSA, 2018) and is a particular issue for North Wales, where people living
in the most deprived areas are expected to live around 13 fewer years than
those people living in the least deprived (NHS Wales,, Public Health Wales,
2017). This evidence, coupled with an increasing focus on social
determinants of health inequalities (Marmot, 2015), plus the drive of
leaders across regional civic society and public services framed the
collective challenge across the region – to identify and tackle avoidable
inequalities faced by individuals and communities across North East Wales.
In 2014, a social movement called 2025 began in North Wales to tackle
this complex challenge, created by a small group of leaders across housing,
health and local authority services. The University joined the 2025
Movement in 2017, recognizing that action needed to be taken. It was also
timely for the University as the Welsh Government outlined a new vision
for reinventing the civic mission of universities (Higher Education Funding
Council for Wales (HEFCW), 2018). Also uniquely, Wales is the first
country globally to legislate for improving the social, economic,
environmental and cultural well-being of the nation, through the ground-
breaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (Future
Generations Commissioner, 2015). Therefore, these key political and social
imperatives provided an ideal context for a “social movement.”
The pioneering founders of 2025 wanted to tackle inequality with a fresh
and different approach that cut across sectors, organizations, behaviors and
cultures, taking significant personal and professional risks through
developing a new approach in a highly regulated setting that was innovative
and not “compliant” in the current systems and organizations in which they
worked. Therefore, the 2025 Movement has become an innovative, place-
based partnership with a clear mission to end avoidable health inequalities
in the region by 2025 (2025 Movement, 2015).
Harnessing “systems leadership” (The Leadership Centre, 2016) has
been the key to growing the movement, leading to long-term
transformational change in the way we work, think and deliver across the
region. In learning to lead across boundaries – between organizations,
departments, sectors or places – a more sustainable, long-term approach to
large-scale transformational change is possible, driven by collective
responsibility rather than single points of disconnected isolation.
 2025: WORKING IN THE GAPS
The approach to building 2025 as a social movement was founded upon
wanting meaningful social change unhampered by system and
organizational boundaries (Moyers, 2014). This meant a focus on “working
in the gaps” – spaces where organizations were not working together
effectively to drive change. As a result of this work, the movement now
brings together senior leaders and practitioners across a range of
organizations covering social housing, local authorities, police and fire
services, Public Heath Wales, the regional health board and Wrexham
Glyndŵr University. All partners hold a shared belief that the collective
wanted to do something that could help tackle the “avoidable” health
inequalities – recognizing that some inequalities are less, or not, avoidable,
but taking action through the systems leadership principle of starting
somewhere and doing something.
A “Just Do Teams” (JDT) approach was developed in 2016/17 once the
challenge was clear. “JDT” were formed around the areas of concerns or
growing need, driven by key people from different organizations to test and
pilot different approaches. The level of the leaders for each JDT did not
matter and the way the JDT developed and focused was also not
prescriptive. The main focus was to drive collective action, working
together to make a positive difference to the priority areas, which were
identified as:

Place-based regeneration in Flintshire.

Healthy Homes–Healthy People.
Mental health and housing.
“Made in North Wales” Social Prescribing.
Learning and Leadership.
Tackling health inequalities for homeless people.
Facilitating improvements in hospital discharge.
Adverse childhood experiences.

The following case studies illustrate the University’s role across three of
the priority areas: Learning and Leadership; Social Prescribing; and Healthy
Homes–Healthy People.
 CASE STUDY 1: LEADING AND LEARNING
TOGETHER THROUGH A CO-CREATED
PUBLIC SERVICE LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
The political, social and economic imperatives of increasing demand on
public services, coupled with decreasing resources and “wicked problems”
(Grint, 2008), which are novel and intractable, demand new ways of
thinking, working and collaboration. Therefore, as the 2025 Movement
gained momentum, Wrexham Glyndŵr University recognized the
significant impact that a systems leadership approach (Atkinson, Loftus, &
Jarvis, 2015) was having on the coalition. This approach focused on
leadership across departmental, organizational and sectoral boundaries,
through influence and facilitation. The University recognized the need for
senior leaders across the coalition to support and nurture a new wave of
future leaders able to work in a whole systems approach through a
professional development program.
In designing a development program the University looked to mirror the
five ways of working outlined by the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act
(Future Generations Commissioner, 2015). This legislation required a
number of public bodies and organizations to work together in ways that
had not been explored before. The five ways of working have at their heart
the need to maintain a long-term rather than purely short-term view of the
issues to be tackled and proposed solutions. In addition, ways of working
have to integrate approaches across different bodies, involve people, act
collaboratively and work in a way that seeks to prevent problems from
occurring in the first place.
Therefore, in the context of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act
(Future Generations Commissioner, 2015) it was important that the
University promoted a co-created approach for developing the curriculum.
This was done through stakeholder engagement sessions and discussions
with key influencers to explore the potential and appetite across sectors,
levels and professions for an education program focused on tackling the key
challenges of working across boundaries. The engagement was done on a
number of levels including with housing associations, private-sector
organizations and third-sector organizations. The ambition was for a
leadership program to be co-created and “owned” by all those who shaped
and informed the content, ensuring long-term and sustainable leadership
focused on tackling the challenges faced across all sectors. This
engagement culminated in the University hosting a Leadership and
Learning 2025 conference in April 2018 with over 120 delegates and a key
focus to:

understand the context and priorities across North Wales and how,
through leadership and learning, we can collectively tackle the complex
issues faced across all sectors;
explore how the 2025 Movement influences and supports public
leadership and the aims of the Wellbeing of Future Generations (Wales)
Act 2015;
understand the business case for investment in learning and public
leadership from the perspective of the private and third sectors; and
create opportunities for engagement in the co-creation of a public service
leadership program.

The University developed and delivered a pilot “taster” session of

Systems Leadership with the Inspiring Resilient Communities Group
(Flintshire Public Service Board, 2017) for a number of professionals from
different sectors and professions. As a result of this, the University
committed to delivering a full module for those willing to progress, to
introduce the concept and theory of systems leadership. We delivered a
short course 20 credit module “Introduction to systems leadership”.
Learning outcomes focused on the need and context for change, foundations
for systems theory, knowing and navigating the difference between
management and leadership, the foundations for building personal and
community resilience and approaches to working across whole systems.
Thirteen students completed this pilot program in early 2019 and it has had
positive feedback, especially in relation to work on developing public
narratives (Ganz, 2012), a leadership practice that helps develop powerful
stories to motivate others to join in action. The feedback from the
pioneering cohort and co-creators has had a significant impact:
 I’ve been on loads of courses in the past… I know the theory inside out… but this is different
– this isn’t about theory it’s about what you practically can do, and that’s the big difference
I’ve found. (Senior Manager, Local Authority A)

In the public sector because of austerity and because of resources becoming more scarce,
there is a real need to have a programme that will bring future leaders and current leaders
together. I think working in partnership is the only way forward to deliver better public
services. (Senior Officer, Local Authority B)

After the programme people will continue to work together and in the future we’ll see people
moving across sectors more easily - and that can only be a good thing, developing more
transferable skills. (CEO Housing Group)

Following the short course, the University now plans to develop a full
Masters level program in Public Service Leadership. The program will be
designed with accessibility and flexibility in mind, reflecting feedback from
the pilot sessions. In this respect, component parts will be delivered as
shorter standalone modules to address a particular challenge or focus on
certain issues. The program will have contributions from current, future and
past key leaders and change makers from across the region and beyond.
Key to success will be the alumni support network, generated through
program participation. When students are back in the “systems” in which
they work, the University (working with JDT) will support students to
apply and develop systems leadership approaches and techniques from the
course. This will in turn support further development of the place-based
program as it evolves and helps transform public services across Wales. In
this way, a network of like-minded leaders is developing across the region,
equipped to facilitate change across boundaries and confident to work
energetically “in the gaps” in order to transform lives and communities.

CASE STUDY 2: “MADE IN NORTH WALES”

SOCIAL PRESCRIBING
A “JDT” was established to develop a “Made in North Wales” Social
Prescribing project supported by the 2025 Movement, Wrexham Glyndŵr
University and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB).
BCUHB is the largest health board in Wales, caring for a population of over
700,000 people, with responsibility for a full range of primary, community,
mental health and acute hospital services (NHS Wales, 2019). The
partnership is a response to the challenge of how we reimagine health
services, shifting from paternal models of care through the National Health
Service (NHS) delivered by BCUHB for empowering people to take control
of their own healthcare choices and to engage them in local community
activities with a focus on prevention and well-being. The key challenge is
an evolving evidence and research base that means the approach is currently
only piloted across the region. It is not funded by core NHS budget and
therefore attracts varying level of adoption by clinicians. In addition, there
are varying levels of funding for smaller schemes focused within the third
sector that have little impact if not connected on a regional level to share
and capture learning.
Social prescribing is a local, regional and national challenge recognized
by the Future Generations Commissioner (2019) in Wales as a national key
policy priority as one approach to relieving pressures on the NHS and
moving away from an over medicalized model of care. As such, the
University has worked with the 2025 Movement and the Well North Wales
program in BCUHB across the region to initiate the project, shape and
develop its focus and define the model for future delivery, capturing and
sharing models as they grow to address local demand for supporting
improved health and well-being. As a University, we are leading the
Community of Practice (CoP) network for practitioners, and we are also
leading the development of a co-created education framework to support
delivery, starting with a Social Prescribing module.
The CoP was established in October 2018 funded by the civic mission
monies secured by the University from the HEFCW. It provides a wider
platform for sharing across Wales, connecting with other CoPs and also
being a partner in establishing a collaborative bid for an all Wales Institute
for Social Prescribing Research. This is a long-term sustainable model that
brings together key practitioners from across a range of background
together to try and develop, improve, connect and share practice related to
Social Prescribing. To date over 200 practitioners have attended the CoP
and this will grow moving forward, with a number of future networking
events planned to grow the learning community.
Alongside the CoP initiative, we have developed and delivered a short
course to a cohort of 10 Social Prescribing practitioners. The aim of the
pilot, funded by HEFCW as part of the University’s civic mission focus,
was to look at how a Social Prescribing certificate delivered by the
University could ensure there is a level of education that supports the
implementation of a new model of health and well-being across the region,
therefore providing confidence and consistency in this model. The purpose
of piloting the short course with practitioners was to provide a focus and
evidence base to demonstrate how education and a learning community can
influence the thinking and approach to delivering and embedding a new and
evolving model of Social Prescribing across the region.
Practitioners that attended the course were from a range of professional
and sector backgrounds: clinical, non-clinical, link workers, social workers,
community development officers and volunteers, sports officers, mental
health charity officers, third sector officers and local authority and health
board staff from across the whole geographical region. The course provided
significant feedback that has led to some key actions as a result.
Practitioners recognized real value in the educational approach and the need
to undertake a formal module, particularly to build credibility in the model
and to recognize the number of roles that support “Social Prescribing”
given the varying titles/roles and different settings. The opportunity to
network and understand different models supported learning and reflection,
highlighting the need to recognize local responses to local needs and
challenges that can vary across the region. As an outcome from the
feedback the University is now developing different levels of education in
Social Prescribing from a short one hour master class to raise awareness to
a Masters level qualification.

CASE STUDY 3: HEALTHY HOMES–

HEALTHY PEOPLE
The “Healthy Homes–Healthy People North Wales” JDT focuses on
creating healthy homes, people and communities by removing residents
from fuel poverty, improving health and well-being, and reducing avoidable
health inequalities. Over 3,000 vulnerable homes have been identified
across the region where families are living in cold, damp or unsafe homes
which affect their health, safety and well-being. Those living in private-
sector rented accommodation in particular were often falling in between
“services” for support for fuel poverty, therefore widening the inequality
gap and missing out on access to support (Warm Wales, 2018). Conversely,
those living in owner-occupied accommodation or living as tenants within
council or housing association provision subject to robust regulation
generally had support from landlords or access to personal resources to
address or tackle this issue.
Led by Flintshire County Council in partnership with North Wales
Energy Advice Centre, Ground Work North Wales, and Care and Repair
North East Wales, initially the focus was on Flintshire, a local authority
area. The project quickly moved into a regional approach due to the impact
and success, funded by Warm Wales and by Wales and West Utilities. The
project involved home visits to support households referred from agencies
and partners as those vulnerable to or at risk of fuel poverty. Referrals came
from organizations such as housing associations, local authorities, primary
healthcare providers and third-sector organizations offering health and well-
being services. Visits involved looking at four key areas: home and
personal/family safety; money maximization; family and personal support;
and affordable energy looking at the best tariff for heating to reduce costs,
helping with debt and energy efficiency methods. As a key partner in this
initiative, the University supported the project with student volunteers from
the BSc Mental Health and Wellbeing program. Students volunteered their
time to attend home visits which were then accredited as work placement
learning. The focus of each home visit was to engage, encourage, educate
and empower individuals and families in order to support them to take
control and make changes and access support where needed.
The University’s work with the 2025 Movement on the Healthy Homes–
Healthy People project has been featured in the Universities UK report
“The Nation’s Lifesavers” (Made at Uni, 2019), a focus on the exceptional
100 universities working to keep Britain healthy. The impact of the project
has been recognized further with the project manager being awarded “Heat
Hero” in the House of Commons. This project shows the direct impact that
a university working in partnership with students and organizations can
have, both in providing innovative student learning opportunities and in
demonstrating its civic mission in action, in this case through having a
positive impact on fuel poverty and inequality across wider society in North
Wales.

CHALLENGES FACED
Wrexham Glyndŵr University has been active at the heart of the 2025
social movement, demonstrating civic engagement in practice. The three
case studies outlined previously show notable successes and considerable
impact over a relatively short time, but this has not been without its
challenges for the University and the wider 2025 network. For example,
initial challenges were received from organizations that did not understand
the approach and the structure of an informal partnership to drive change.
Traditionally, public-sector bodies and even many third-sector organizations
in the UK operate with a focus on hierarchical decision-making and
governance structures, which are counter to an approach founded upon
systems leadership. Systems leadership is an “art” approach to change
making and not a “science.” It is founded in ways of feelings, perceiving,
thinking, relating, doing and being, where strong relationships and trust are
key (Atkinson et al., 2015).
Initial challenges around the approach used were overcome by
supporting this different form of leadership development through short
course provision and mentoring (facilitated by Do-Well) that developed a
commitment and energy from individuals and organizations. Key to this
commitment was the existence of a good understanding from all partners of
the collective challenge being faced and the need to test and drive change
through working in new ways together on a regional level. Critically,
opening up membership of 2025 to any organization or individual meant
that the network was inclusive and accessible.
There was also a need to acknowledge the inevitable clash between
“new power” values, embodied in the development of an informal network
marked by self-organization, collaboration, agility, wide participation and
transparency and the “old power” which is traditionally formal, managerial,
institutional, competitive and reliant on experts and specialists with long-
term affiliation and less overall participation (Heimans & Timms, 2018).
Individuals and organizations were challenged to understand the drivers and
concepts of the 2025 Movement that could clearly be explained by
contrasting the old and new power values, although it is important to note
that it was not a case of one being good and one bad, but that they are
different and have a different role to play in society. The creation of fora for
open discussion and debate such as the CoP for Social Prescribing and the
systems leadership short course provided safe spaces in which to consider
these issues.
There was even some skepticism about the new approach which led to a
number of individuals in senior organizational roles challenging the
establishment and purpose of the movement – perhaps because of a
perceived loss of control. The adaptive leadership approach (which systems
leadership draws upon) recognizes that people fear loss more than they fear
change for a number of reasons (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). For
some, there may have been a fear of loss of perceived “status” or lack of
control/governance or accountability to an informal partnership such as
2025 tackling a complex challenge. In order to address this, the movement
promoted an open and inclusive invitation to all. Anyone interested in or
sharing the same challenge could come along and join, resulting in the
creation of a critical mass of people from across the region committed to
seeing change.
There was also need to develop a proof of concept to evidence that the
approach could work by “JDT” working on projects. This was achieved
through the first annual report of the coalition (2025 Movement, 2018)
which recognized and articulated the different organizational and cultural
needs and requirements to drive change and to mobilize and grow the
movement. Through a series of case studies commonly structured to cover
project aim, costs, work to date, challenges, successes, learning and work to
do, the report represents a powerful evidence library with regard to the
performance and effectiveness of the 2025 Movement and the JDT concept
in particular.

SUCCESS ENABLERS
Early success on key projects was galvanized through highly successful,
thought provoking and well-managed conferences disseminating ideas
around key themes. These gained a lot of support quickly across the region
and developed a wider membership for the movement. It was recognized
that movements don’t just “happen,” and that a strong structure, good
organization, focus and parity in approach of partners around the table were
essential. In this respect, key partners, including the University all equally
contributed a modest financial sum to provide support for conference
organization and “JDT” program management. This has proved to be a
sound structure for connecting and reporting key projects and ideas but also
for promoting equity around the table, supporting a dispersed leadership
approach (Atkinson et al., 2015) through varying levels from Chief
Executive Officers to project managers.
The key to the whole success of the movement and the future growth is
the resilience and drive of senior leaders to persist particularly in the early
days of its development. The bravery and the boldness of leaders such as
the 2025 Chair and the independent facilitation of Do-Well cannot be under
estimated. This approach was new and challenged the approaches in current
systems and some of the “thinking” of how we should work in public
service and across sectors.
A key challenge to any social movement is resourcing activity but the
University was able to secure funding from HEFCW directly linked to civic
mission activity and this has been a significant success enabler in the first
18 months of our engagement with 2025 (HEFCW, 2018). Importantly, the
funding has enabled the University to create a role that leads on civic
engagement strategy, connecting with partners from across public, private
and third sector to identify and explore key opportunities and projects that
can help tackle the challenges faced. By securing a dedicated role, the
University is able to demonstrate commitment to being an active partner in
place-based transformation.
On a national scale, the political driver that exists in the Wellbeing of
Future Generations Act should not be under estimated. The Act provides an
excellent context to support and ensure the growth of the University’s
engagement with its civic mission and to support the work of 2025 in
particular. In tackling the global challenge of sustainable development the
legislation has not only helped support the “case” for the content of the
work being done with 2025 but it also directly delivers on the five ways of
working embodied within the Act to collaborate, integrate, involve, prevent
and ensure a long-term approach (Future Generations Commissioner, 2015).
The Healthy Homes–Healthy People project is a good example of the five
ways of working in practice. This project tackling fuel poverty would not
have made the wide connection to Social Prescribing, with the Health
Board and University without 2025. This would have led to University
students not being able to take advantage of an innovative, impactful and
real-world learning scenario through work placement opportunities.
2025 across the region has been a force for good and driver for change,
highlighting the power of a collaborative cause that can influence whole
systems change. The movement has rapidly established a reputation for
filling a void in the multi-agency health inequalities agenda across North
Wales, and not with just the “usual” delivery agencies. Most importantly
though, all the projects, including the three highlighted in this chapter that
illustrate University involvement, are wider than the remit of the lead or
organization. Rather, the network, built upon connections and relationships,
is a key success enabler for influencing on change both on and within
systems and organizations. An extensive conference and workshop program
has been an important factor in disseminating good practice, forging new
working relationships and enhancing the scope of individual projects. 2025
has been the catalyst to enable these programs to collectively thrive, extend
and succeed, demonstrating that the overall success really is greater than the
sum of the individual parts.

CONCLUSION
The 2025 Movement continues to grow in partners, priorities and success,
and is ideally placed to provide a regional platform for delivering impactful
prevention activities and projects in North Wales. Key has been a shared
vision, a strong set of values and a vibrant network that has strengthened
the connectivity and impact of the project and the way of working across
the region. The University is a dedicated and committed partner to the 2025
movement and our civic engagement strategy sees ongoing work with 2025
as an important vehicle for tackling our very real regional challenges. The
innovative role of the University as a key partner has shifted the perceptions
of the University in the region and its capacity to act as an instrument of
Government, contributing to the political imperative to support
communities as part of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act
2015. In reinventing its approach to civic mission, the University is working
collectively on some of the most complex issues facing our communities,
using our resource, expertise, energy and education to work in partnership
(Goddard, Hazelkorn, Kempton, & Vallance, 2016). In particular, through
expanding our educational program of whole system change that has been
created and is “owned” by partners we are keen to ensure the approaches
exemplified in this chapter can be emulated and extended, creating a real
force for transformation for the benefit of individuals and communities
locally, regionally and nationally.

REFERENCES
2025 Movement. (2015). 2025 Movement. Retrieved from https://2025movement.org/
2025 Movement. (2018). 2025 Movement first annual report. Unpublished manuscript.
Atkinson, J., Loftus, E., & Jarvis, J. (2015). The art of change making. London: The Leadership
Centre.
Flintshire Public Service Board. (2017). A well being plan for Flintshire 2017–2023. Retrieved from
https://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/Resident/Council-and-Democracy/Flintshire-Public-
Services-Board.aspx
Future Generations Commissioner. (2015). Future Generations Act. Retrieved from
http://futuregenerations.wales/about-us/future-generations-act/
Future Generations Commissoner. (2019). Future Generations Act priority areas. Retrieved from
https://futuregenerations.wales/fgcw-priority-areas/
Ganz, M. (2012). Public narrative, collective action. Retrieved from
www.marshallganz.usmblogs.com
Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (2016). The civic university: The policy and
leadership challenges. London: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Grint, K. (2008). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions. Retrieved from
http://leadershipforchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Keith-Grint-Wicked-Problems-
handout.pdf
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Heimans, J., & Timms, H. (2018). New power. How it’s changing the 21st century- and why you need
to know. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. (2018). Circular-enhancing civic mission and
community engagement. Retrieved from
https://www.hefcw.ac.uk/documents/publications/circulars/circulars_2018/W18%2007HE%2
0Enhancing%20civic%20mission%20and%20community%20engagement.pdf
Made at Uni. (2019). Lifesavers made at uni. Retrieved from https://madeatuni.org.uk/wrexham-
glyndwr-university/addressing-avoidable-inequalities
Marmot, M. (2015). The health gap: The challenge of an unequal world. London: Bloomsbury.
Moyers. (2014). Marshall Ganz on making social movement matter. Retrieved from
https://billmoyers.com/segment/marshall-ganz-on-making-social-movements-matter/
NHS Wales. (2019). Betsi Cadwalader University Health Board. Retrieved from
https://bcuhb.nhs.wales/
NHS Wales, Public Health Wales. (2017). North Wales geographical level information. Retrieved
from http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/87493
NHS Wales, Public Health Wales. (2018). Public Health Wales – Let’s get moving North Wales.
Retrieved from http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/92311
RCE Cymru. (2018). The sustainability lab. Retrieved from http://planet.cymru/en/wales-rce-
wcfg/#tab1
RSA. (2018). Britain’s new giants. Retrieved from https://www.thersa.org/discover/britains-new-
giants
The Leadership Centre. (2016). The revolution will be improvised part II. Retrieved from
https://www.thinklocalactpersonal.org.uk/_assets/News/The_Revolution_will_be_Improvised
_Part_II.pdf
Warm Wales. (2018). Healthy homes healthy people North Wales project. Retrieved from
https://www.warmwales.org.uk/healthy-homes-healthy-people/
Wrexham Glyndŵr University. (2018). Wrexham Glyndŵr University vision and strategy to 2025.
Retrieved from https://www.glyndwr.ac.uk/en/media/156309%20Strategy%20English.pdf

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 47–59
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023004
CHAPTER 5
INTERNATIONALIZING
INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR ENGAGING WITH COMMUNITIES:
THE CARNEGIE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION
Mathew Johnson, John Saltmarsh, Georgina Manok
and Gene Corbin

ABSTRACT
Reciprocal partnerships between institutions of higher education
(IHEs) and communities provide opportunities for IHEs to fulfill their
core mission while at the same time benefiting communities. One
model of institutional accountability for this type of partnership is the
Elective Carnegie Community Engagement (CE) Classification. As a
process is underway to internationalize the US-based classification,
this chapter engages with a central guiding question: How can we
best adapt the CE classification’s institutionalizing framework for CE
– designed in the context of the United States – in a way that upholds
the integrity of engagement practices, adheres to effective strategies
for organizational change, and is sensitive to national, cultural,
economic, political, social, and historical contexts? In addressing this
question, the internationalization strategy is focused on careful
 adaptation of the application framework so that it can be applied in
specific national higher education contexts. The adaptation seeks to
incorporate nationally and culturally relevant CE approaches that
are reflected in organizational strategies at the institutional level,
consistent with the internal logic of the CE classification: valuing
expertise of others, working against colonial knowledge regimes, and
mindfully building toward increased epistemic justice. This strategy
can be a model for internationalization of other processes for IHEs.
Keywords: Internationalization; Institutional accountability;
assessment; university-community engagement; community
partnerships; colonial histories; epistemic injustice; social justice;
university social responsibility

INTRODUCTION
Reciprocal partnerships between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and
communities provide opportunities for IHEs to fulfill their core mission and
benefit communities. For IHEs, these partnerships result in new forms of
research, improved teaching and learning, and reinvigoration of social
contributions and responsibilities. For students, new opportunities are
created to develop public values and civic commitments in fulfillment of
the public purposes of IHEs (Bringle, Studer, Wilson, Clayton, & Steinberg,
2011; Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, & Corngold, 2007; Hunter & Brisbin,
2000). For communities, civil society organizations can be strengthened,
and new approaches to social justice can be developed through partnerships
with IHEs.
One model of institutional accountability for this type of partnership is
the Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification (hereafter the
CE Classification) of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. Looking inward from society to IHEs, the CE Classification is
not focused on what is often referred to in a non-US context as “the third
mission” (Benneworth, et al., 2018, p. 23) or “orphan mission” (p. 38) of
universities to provide social, economic, and other direct benefits to the
communities in which they reside. Rather, the CE classification focuses on
the first two missions, research and teaching, and as such is positioned as
central to the core knowledge activities of higher education. Looking
outward from IHEs to the community, the CE Classification is primarily
oriented toward third sector, civil society organizations comprising
community groups, non-governmental organizations, indigenous groups,
charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional
associations, and foundations. As such, the CE Classification pushed IHEs
to reframe these third-sector entities and actors as knowledge co-creators
and partners rather than passive – and often framed as needy – knowledge
or service consumers. The CE Classification thus serves as an
accountability process for the institutionalization of CE as constitutive of
research and teaching in IHEs in the United States. The CE classification
has also emerged as a field-building touchstone by incorporating shared
definitions, frameworks of practice, and commitments to continuous
improvement from across the CE movement in the United States.
Building on 15 years of practice with the CE Classification, and in
response to non-US IHEs requests for access to the process, the CE
Classification is now implementing an internationalization strategy. This
can be a model for internationalization of other processes for IHEs,
particularly those related to accountability. The central question guiding the
process of internationalization is:
How can we best adapt the CE classification’s institutionalizing framework for community
engagement - designed in the context of the US – in a way that upholds the integrity of
engagement practices, adheres to effective strategies for organizational change, and is
sensitive to national cultural, economic, political, social, and historical contexts?

In addressing this question, the internationalization strategy is focused

on careful adaptation of the application framework so that it can be applied
in specific national and local higher education contexts. The adaptation
seeks to incorporate nationally and culturally relevant CE approaches that
are reflected in organizational strategies at the institutional level, consistent
with the internal logic of the CE Classification: valuing expertise of others,
and working against colonial knowledge regimes. The adaptation is thus
mindfully building toward increased epistemic justice (Fricker, 2007).
DEFINING CE: THE CORE OF PARTNERSHIP
The development of CE in the United States has been challenged by
overlapping terminology even prior to the consideration of a global context.
A tradition described by Sandmann (2008) as “definitional anarchy” (p. 91)
has often resulted in the interchangeable use of multiple terms – such as
service learning, community-based participatory research, public
scholarship, and more – to describe similar phenomena. Scholars (Giles,
2008; Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2016; Sandmann, 2008) note a conceptual
evolution leading to convergence around the core concept of engagement as
a “big tent” (Giles, 2008, p. 98) under which there can be a range of terms
used and, at the same time, clarity and precision around the qualities and
characteristics of engagement.
The CE Classification established a definition of CE that is guiding and
informing new practices on many campuses in the United States and
beyond:
[T]he collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities
(local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and
resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity... to enrich scholarship, research, and
creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare educated, engaged
citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues;
and contribute to the public good. (Defining Community Engagement, n.d.)

This definition emphasizes the “mutually beneficial exchange of

knowledge and resources” and relationships characterized by norms of
“partnership and reciprocity” (Defining Community Engagement, n.d.).
This focus requires that the community must be a collaborative partner
rather than being utilized instrumentally by the academy for scholarly goals
(Bringle, Hatcher, & Clayton, 2017; Mitchell, 2013; Saltmarsh, Giles,
Ward, & Buglione, 2009; Sandmann, 2008; Vogelgesang, Denson, &
Jayakumar, 2010). At the core of CE then is a reorientation to community
partners and members as co-researchers, co-teachers, and colleagues as is
now accepted widely as the goal for community-engaged institutions in the
United States. Moving to an international context while seeking to preserve
this core reorientation adds further complexity to a quest for common
understanding and definitions. As McIlrath (2014) notes, beyond the
difficulties posed by language taking on different meanings in different
contexts, movements aimed at social impact have origins in different
understandings, perspectives, and critical theories. For example, Boyer’s
(1996) view of the public benefit of IHEs to democratic society shaped CE
in the United States, while Vasconcelos, Gandhi, and Freire, among others,
shaped CE in other countries and regions (McIlrath, 2014). Many of the
literatures within this field often exclude other traditions that have long
histories of critical CE such as ethnic studies, black studies, and gender
studies. In addition, most of the literatures US scholars cite are originally
written in English, thus excluding whole bodies of knowledge and
perpetuating colonial histories and epistemic injustices (Fricker, 2007). As
Ray (2018) argues following Delgado (1984), “inequality is reproduced
(and whiteness is institutionalized) by citation patterns as earlier periods of
overt exclusion are legitimated by an almost ritualistic citation of certain
thinkers.”
According to Hollister (2017), “university social responsibility” is the
phrase most widely utilized around the world to describe “the public and
community service activities and impacts of institutions of higher
education” (p. 5). This general term is akin to what “Global North”
institutions frequently refer to as “civic engagement” or “community
engagement” (Hollister, 2017, p. 5). While widely used, it is not clear that
this term captures the core implications of the CE definition used by the CE
Classification (Defining Community Engagement, n.d.). Shek, Yuen-Tsang,
and Ng (2017) build upon the work of Vasilescu, Barna, Epure, and Baicu
(2010) to propose that university social responsibility is “the responsibility
shared by universities in contributing to social betterment through the
integration of social responsibility policies into institutional management,
teaching, research, services and public activities” (p. 13). This definition
more closely approximates the CE Classification understanding. Hoyt
(2017a) argues that “To create more equitable communities, praxis is what
matters, not spending inordinate amounts of energy trying to perfectly
classify all types of experience” (p. xix). In fact, Hoyt (2017b) recognizes
“common vision and strategy” despite “significant variation with respect to
goals, outcomes, and nomenclatures across and within regions of the world”
(p. 2). According to Hoyt (2017a, 2017b), these commonalities are derived
from two common practices: (1) reinforcing multidirectional flows of
knowledge and (2) building inclusive systems of power. This again is
clearly in line with the core understanding of the CE Classification.
Similarly, a European project, “Towards a European Framework for
Community Engagement in Higher Education,” identified “a number of
important dimensions” that “typically characterise university-community
engagement” (Benneworth et al., 2018, pp. 25–26):

a. There is an outside ‘community’ engaged with a core university

knowledge creation activity (teaching or research) …
b. There are ‘productive interactions’ within these communities, in
which the community benefits in some way from those interactions
(it is not broadcasting engagement) …
c. There is a mutual benefit that is built in both university and
community: university knowledge helps societal partners to achieve
their goals, societal partners’ knowledge enriches the university
knowledge process …
d. There is co-determination within the knowledge community, so both
university and community partners shape activities as part of
ensuring that both benefit from it …
e. There is an interdependence between the university and community
derived from the mutual benefit that allows societal partners to
meaningfully influence the decisions made by university actors …
f. They are driven by a knowledge process logic: mutual interaction
enriches the university knowledge activities even where this does
not correspond with a directly visible income stream …
g. Participating partners have found working routines, norms and
values that allow the necessary mutual respect to facilitate the co-
determination which engenders the mutual benefit ….

Thus, the concept of the “engaged university” is becoming more

common in both the United States (Holland & Gelmon, 1998; Hollander &
Saltmarsh, 2000) and worldwide (Hoyt & Hollister, 2014; Watson,
Hollister, Stroud, & Babcock, 2011). As an institutional undertaking, CE is
infused into the instructional structures, policies, practices, and cultures
with regard to teaching and research. In a “consultative document” issued
by the Association of Commonwealth Universities, a global network of
universities, Bjarnason and Coldstream (2003) wrote that:
engagement defines the whole orientation and tone of a university’s policies and practices
since mission-statements, strategic planning, teaching and learning policies and research
directions must evince and encourage active respect for the concerns and challenges faced by
society. (p. 312)

For any accountability tool to be useful, there needs to be clarity about what
institutions are being held accountable for and there needs to be
accountability for the entirety of institutional practices. Clearly, there is
widespread agreement on the core understanding of the CE Classification
that communities are sources of knowledge and collaboration and must be
incorporated into the teaching and research practices of IHEs as partners
rather than receivers or objects of study.

THE CALL FOR A CLASSIFICATION IN THE

UNITED STATES
By the late 1990s, CE in US higher education, by its many names, had
developed to the point where IHEs were pursuing a process of
institutionalization, aligning practices, structures, and policies across
campus with CE. Founded on the purpose of generating and disseminating
knowledge in the context of democracy built on the necessary contribution
of educational institutions, IHEs thus enhanced the pursuit of their mission
through engagement. Institutionalizing meant focusing on (1) engagement’s
impact on student educational experience; (2) engagement’s integration into
faculty scholarly experience –teaching and research; and (3) the required
engagement focused budgets, professional staffing, and other infrastructure
successfully. The 1999 Presidents’ Declaration on the Civic Responsibility
of Higher Education (Ehrlich, 1999) called for:
recognition of civic responsibility in accreditation procedures, Carnegie Basic Classifications
(described below), and national rankings, and to work with governors, state legislators, and
state higher education offices on expectations for civic engagement in public systems.
 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has been
committed to the improvement of undergraduate education in the United
States, and the Carnegie Classification (Basic Classification) was created to
distinguish mission differentiation, degree level, and specialization. All US
accredited two- and four-year colleges and universities are assigned a Basic
Carnegie Classification based on an analysis of their publicly available data
sets. The rich heterogeneity of higher education institutions in the United
States, captured in the Basic Classification, has been a hallmark of
innovation and excellence. In the early 2000s, however, guided by Thomas
Ehrlich, who was a co-author of the 1999 President’s Declaration (Ehrlich,
1999), the Foundation began to realize that the Basic Classification was
being used by IHEs to mark movement toward greater and greater claims of
scholarly specialization and reputation. In so doing, IHEs were in danger of
neglecting their distinctiveness and no longer reflecting on their
institutional approach to public purpose. To remedy this, the Foundation
sought to develop “elective” classifications focused on distinctive features
of institutions and based on a process of self-study. Elective classifications
would be built to facilitate institutional change through self-assessments,
similar to those done for accreditation and national review to improve the
educational effectiveness.
The Carnegie Foundation created the first “special-purpose
classification,” the CE Classification, and “open[ed] the possibility for
involving only those institutions with special commitments in the area of
community engagement” (McCormick & Zhao, 2005, p. 56). The first
round of CE Classification took place in 2005 (Driscoll, 2008). Thus, the
CE Classification was designed to respect the diversity of institutions and
their approach to CE, encourage institutions to undertake a process of
inquiry, reflection, and self-assessment, and to honor an institution’s
achievements while promoting ongoing development of their programs
(Driscoll, 2008). The CE Classification was not designed as a ranking tool,
but is evaluative in that campuses are either classified or not. As of 2019,
361 US-based campuses have achieved the CE Classification (Carnegie
Classification, n.d.). Campuses seek the CE Classification to undergo a
structured process of institutional self-assessment and self-study resulting in
an external review by experts in the field. The application process also
brings disparate parts of the campus together to advance a unified agenda,
serving as a catalyst for change, fostering institutional alignment for
community-engaged teaching, learning, and scholarship. Campuses also
seek the CE Classification as a way of legitimizing and celebrating the
impact of CE that may not have received public recognition and visibility.
The classification can be used as a way to demonstrate accountability;
namely, that the institution is fulfilling its mission to serve the public good.
The power of the CE Classification, however, is as a tool for change.
The documentation framework provides campuses with a blueprint for the
long-term institutionalization of CE and its alignment across campus
programs, units, structures, and policies. The documentation used for the
CE Classification is secondary to its larger purpose. The Foundation’s goal
with the CE Classification, as an “extension and refinement of its
classification of colleges and universities” (Driscoll, 2008, p. 41), was to
encourage change on campuses that would improve teaching and learning,
and advance mission fulfillment of the public good purpose of higher
education (McCormick & Zhao, 2005, p. 52). At an individual campus
level, the CE Classification allows campuses to claim an institutional
identity around CE through a classification that is based on “the best
practices that have been identified nationally” (Driscoll, 2008, p. 40).
Creating an institutional identity around CE is viewed as a means toward
change in campus culture, structures, and practices across an institution.
Driscoll (2008) writes that:
this kind of alignment is critical if a significant change in mission is to be sustained and
should be the goal of institutions that are in the early phases of community engagement. (p.
40)

This alignment “can also serve as the object of self-assessments as more

advanced institutions mark their progress and identify areas for
improvement in their commitment to community engagement” (Driscoll,
2008, p. 40).
Campuses that make serious, dedicated commitments to CE change the
core culture of their institutions. This is a process that is intentional,
strategic, with long-term commitments and formal obligations. It shapes
and clarifies the campus identity. For campuses making these kinds of
commitments, the CE Classification provides an opportunity for rigorous
self-assessment and public recognition.
 A CALL FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CE
CLASSIFICATION
Since 2005, the CE Classification has run in the United States for five
cycles and in each cycle surfaced increasing international interest. While
campuses from outside the United States were requesting access to the US
CE Classification, leaders at the 2014 Talloires Network Leaders
Conference in Cape Town, South Africa, called for global university
ranking systems to “take civic engagement seriously” (Jongsma,
MacGregor, Makoni, Warden, & Sharma, 2015). The conference report
suggested that a “gather[ing of] a group of universities [to] tell the rankings
that [they] will collectively withdraw if they don’t take civic engagement in
the future” (Jongsma et al., 2015, p. 8). The Talloires Network (n.d.) has
grown into a global network of 388 higher education institutional members
in 77 countries with a focus on CE. In the following year, Anthony Monaco,
President of Tufts University in the United States and founding member of
the Network, along with Cheryl De La Rey, then Vice Chancellor of the
University of Pretoria in South Africa, published a blog post that received
wide distribution and attention entitled World University Rankings Blog:
should global league tables consider community engagement? In the post
they argue that “… in addition to improving the rankings, we should
develop an international civic engagement classification system” while
pointing out that “in the United States, the Carnegie Community
Engagement Classification has been highly successful, setting a high
standard for engagement and determining which institutions meet it”
(Monaco & De La Ray, 2016). They further argue that:
An international classification along similar lines would do more than reward excellence. It
would provide new legitimacy, recognition and visibility. It would promote and support
sensible differentiation among academic functions. It would strengthen accountability,
helping institutions to demonstrate that they are addressing the important needs of their
communities. (Monaco & De La Ray, 2016)

The CE Classification framework was piloted with nine campuses in

Ireland in 2015–2016 as a process of self-assessment without classification,
through a partnership with the Talloires Network (Ireland Pilot, (n.d.)).
Campuses represented all sectors of Irish higher education. This was the
first time that the CE Classification had been applied in a non-US context.
The pilot was precipitated because campuses, and the Ireland National
Higher Education Authority, were interested in instruments that could
effectively measure campus engagement with local communities. The CE
Classification was identified because it has emerged, as Benneworth et al.
(2018) writes, as:
probably the most important of the tools…in terms of the level of recognition and influence
that it has achieved at the national level in the United States. In turn, it provides a source of
inspiration at the global level for developing tools that assess, recognise and reward
institutions for their community engagement achievements. (p. 120)

The pilot was designed to assist campuses with institutional self-

assessment to improve practice and strategizing for organizational change.
Participating campuses were eager to better understand what was needed to
institutionalize CE, and in understanding the broader landscape of campus–
community engagement within their country as a whole. They each went
through a yearlong process of gathering evidence of CE for self-assessment.
The pilot was also a test of the CE Classification – designed for use within
the US context of CE and higher education – in a different national and
cultural context. Carnegie Foundation leaders and CE Classification
administrators were interested in what could be learned from a pilot about
the feasibility of an international CE classification system. Campuses that
participated in the pilot were recognized by the Foundation for their
participation, and due to the results of the Ireland pilot, the Foundation
decided to proceed with developing an international strategy for the CE
Classification.
One lesson from the Ireland pilot was that the original design of the CE
Classification, to accommodate the vast array of institutional heterogeneity
in the United States and allow institutions to claim their distinctiveness, was
a good platform from which to think about international contexts.
Benneworth et al. (2018) capture this complexity and flexibility of the CE
Classification by noting that CE activities and commitments do not lend
themselves to performance indicators based on statistical control measures
“because of the huge diversity and diffuseness of their nature, their often
informal character and their stubborn resistance to being reduced to a small
number of summative variables” (p. 32). Benneworth et al. (2018) further
convey that CE “covers such a wide range of activities that it is impossible
to generate simple headline metrics that would cover the definition in a
satisfactory manner” (pp. 76–77). The CE Classification design requires:
a more nuanced approach in which these complex processes were compared with other
similar organisations to understand whether performance was as good as might reasonably be
expected, i.e. a benchmarking approach. (Benneworth et al., 2018, pp. 76–77)

It does not:
provide inter-institutional comparisons and therefore remains context-specific: each
institution is assessed independently. The advantage of such an approach is that it provides
recognition for excellent performance (and therefore provides an incentive for achieving such
a level of performance) without the negative implications of providing results in the form of a
league table. (Benneworth et al., 2018, p. 123)

In the transition of the CE Classification’s administrative and research

home from the New England Resource Center for Higher Education at the
University of Massachusetts Boston to the Swearer Center at Brown
University, international interest in the Classification was again surfaced for
consideration. Built on solicitations from international institutions along
with the Talloires Network call and the Monaco and de la Rey piece, John
Saltmarsh, Director of the CE Classification, and Mathew Johnson, the new
Co-director of the CE Classification, worked with the Foundation to secure
authorization to explore internationalization further. Johnson and colleague
Georgina Manok became the internationalization project directors.
From the beginning, Johnson and Manok wanted to figure out how to
facilitate, if possible and desirable, locally relevant versions of both the
institutional and the field theories of change that had developed in the US
context. They sought partners outside the United States to join in exploring
how, if at all, the US CE Classification framework might be useful, and in
what ways it might need to be adapted to be relevant to their local contexts,
if desirable. The first iteration of this collaborative design sought to create
an international learning community of seven institutions from around the
world. When the request for proposals was released, it became clear that
clusters of institutions from Australia and Canada were ready and eager to
dive in together and that organizing national clusters fit well into a theory of
change for the field in those locations. Soon, two nationally representative
clusters had emerged, and each represented a diversity of institutional type,
geography, and size in their respective context. Sixteen institutions in
Canada and ten institutions in Australia joined the project. Ten additional
Australian institutions joined with an “observer” status. This represents
about one-fourth of the university sector in Australia and one-sixth of the
university sector in Canada.
In partnership with Simon Fraser University and the McConnell
Foundation, the Canadian cohort convened to explore the CE Classification
and consider how it might support CE in the Canadian context. In
partnership with Charles Sturt University and the University of Technology
Sydney, an Australian cohort convened to consider the same. Each cohort
institution agreed to send a team to a multiday start-up retreat where they
could learn about the CE Classification. These retreats also knitted the
cohorts together as a national learning community. Participants agreed to a
variety of follow-up video conference meetings, a mid-project retreat, and a
closing retreat. Participating teams work to complete the US framework
across a full academic year. Through this process, they benefit from the
self-study process and identify gaps and needed revisions or redesign of the
framework for it to have the highest degree of relevance in their respective
national contexts. At the end of the process, each campus (1) submits a
completed application, (2) facilitates a site visit with US National Review
Panel members and members from other cohort institutional teams, and (3)
receives feedback on their application. Based on their experience of the US
framework and self-study process, these national cohorts will also be
invited to draft an Australian and a Canadian CE Classification framework,
respectively.
The implementation of this new strategy is at about the midpoint at the
writing of this piece, yet there is already much to be learned. Insights from
convenings, individual campus support calls, and monthly support cohort
calls in both national locations include:

(1) Both national settings are in the midst of “indigenization” of the

university sector, which will have significant impact on their rethinking
of the framework for each location, and suggest iteration on the US
framework. This reinforces the multidirectional flow of knowledge
(Hoyt 2017a, 2017b) of this internationalization strategy.
(2) Both cohorts claimed social justice as a core value animating their
personal and institutional commitment to the work.
(3) Both cohorts have consciously connected institutional transformation
and sector transformation, and have expressed desire for a more robust
national learning community as an outcome of the project. This
suggests the potential for the CE Classification to play a field-building
role in international contexts as it has in the United States.
(4) Both cohorts feel pressure from national and/or provincial governments
to demonstrate public value, often in commercial terms or in research
rankings. Both cohorts hope that a national CE Classification,
paralleling the US classification, might serve as a direct or
complementary measure for government demands to demonstrate
value. This suggests that the CE Classification can play a similar role in
international contexts to the role it has played in the United States by
providing an alternative classification – in the United States to the
Carnegie Basic Classification system – for institutions to claim a
distinctive CE character.
(5) The structure of the pilot process has been important to both cohorts.
Both have reflected on the elimination of the reputational risk of failing
to be classified. Since the goals of the pilot are to give campuses an
opportunity to analyze their individual institutional readiness and
surface the changes that will need to be made in the existing framework
for national relevance, rather than classification, reputational risk has
been eliminated. This mirrors the promise of anonymity in the US CE
Classification process – that assures no campus that applies and fails to
be classified will be publicly known. Still, the pilot process has the
added benefit of creating a knowing, collaborating learning community.
There may be implications for the US CE Classification process here
worth reflecting on. Can the US system find a way to foster the
knowing, learning community while preserving the elimination of
reputational risk?
(6) While both Canada and Australia, like the United States, are white
settler former British colonies, their unique histories with regard to
indigeneity, race, class, and access to university education will demand
attention in the design of the local framework. There will be many
opportunities for learning across national contexts as our CE seeks to
 be more racially conscious and critically oriented. While indigenization
is a present concern in both Australian and Canadian higher education,
critical theorizing about racial histories, institutional diversity, and
inclusion in higher education seems less present than it is in the United
States, for example. Likewise, critical race theory is present, though
often still marginalized, in the US higher education context but
decolonization theory and analysis lags significantly behind the work of
both Canadian and Australian higher education.
(7) Both cohorts have so far followed the same typical cycle experienced
by US institutions in terms of the self-study year. As in the United
States, institutions began the process with high enthusiasm and
confidence, which waned as they began to think more deeply about
how exactly they would answer the specific questions in the application
framework, and slid further into doubt and questioning of the
usefulness of the process as they realized the gaps in their institutional
readiness. However, unlike the US process, the cohort structure has
allowed these institutions to work together through the lows toward
growing confidence in the process and begin to build institutional
systems and change initiatives that will address the gaps. In the United
States, many institutions who express intent to apply do not actually
ever complete an application, and many of those who do complete
applications report this cycle experience. We suspect that those that do
not complete do not have the support to move through the inevitable
doubt and questioning phase on to completion. Again, we believe this
may have significant implications for the US process.
(8) Internationalization, done in a way that is consistent with the Carnegie
definition of CE, will lead to transformation of the US framework just
as CE leads to transformation of campuses.

CONCLUSION
The process of internationalizing the Carnegie CE Classification is
revealing that perhaps the best way to adapt a US framework in a way that
is sensitive to national cultural, economic, political, social, and historical
contexts is to create networks of campuses. These networks can create
learning communities, collectively inform relevant revisions to the US
framework based on practice and context, and can improve campus
engagement practices in the process. This kind of collaborative, networked
improvement, grounded in a tool for accountability, may also have benefits
beyond CE and the classification itself. It has the potential to have an
impact on local communities in ways that improve the lives of the people in
those communities through strengthening civil society organizations.
Classification, unlike ranking tables, is built on the idea that self-study in
the context of a collaborative learning community can lead to transformed
IHEs. As Holland (2009) points out in a study of the early classified US
campuses, the CE classification:
represents an opportunity to consider the impact of community engagement on academia, …
provid[ing] an interesting portrait of institutional change in action: changes that illustrate how
community engagement is helping colleges and universities become more explicit about their
missions, the learning environment that students experience, the design and rewards for
faculty work, and the ways they develop and sustain dynamic partnership relationships with
other entities. The process of measuring and reflecting on implementation of community
engagement may well be illuminating wider, more fundamental changes in tertiary
institutions as they seek to improve and demonstrate performance and value. (Holland, 2009,
pp. 86–87)

These have been some of the benefits of the CE Classification for

institutions in the United States. It remains to be seen whether and how this
process will be useful and relevant in the same way in the international
context.

REFERENCES
Benneworth, P., Ćulum, B., Farnell, T., Kaiser, F., Seeber, M., Šćukanec, N., … Westerheijden, D.
(2018). Mapping and critical synthesis of current state-of-the-art on community engagement
in higher education. Zagreb: Institute for the Development of Education.
Bjarnason, S., & Coldstream, P. (Eds.). (2003). The idea of engagement: Universities in society.
London: Association of Commonwealth Universities.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach. 1(1),
11–20.
Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Clayton, P. H. (2017). 16: The scholarship of civic engagement:
Defining, documenting, and evaluating faculty work. To Improve the Academy, 25(1), 257–
279.
Bringle, R. G., Studer, M., Wilson, J., Clayton, P. H., & Steinberg, K. S. (2011). Designing programs
with a purpose: To promote civic engagement for life. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(2), 149–
 164.
Carnegie Classification. (n.d.). About, The Carnegie Community Engagement Classification
Retrieved from https://www.brown.edu/swearer/carnegie
Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing
undergraduates for responsible political engagement. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Defining Community Engagement. (n.d.). Defining Community Engagement, The Carnegie
Community Engagement Classification Retrieved from
https://www.brown.edu/swearer/carnegie/about
Delgado, R. (1984). The imperial scholar: Reflections on a review of civil rights literature. University
of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132(3), 561–578.
Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: Intentions and insights.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 38–41.
Ehrlich, T. (1999). Presidents’ declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education and campus
assessment of civic responsibility. Higher Education. Paper 125. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/125.
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. London: Oxford University
Press.
Giles, D. E. J. (2008). Understanding an emerging field of scholarship: Toward a research agenda for
engaged, public scholarship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(2),
97–106.
Holland, B. A. (2009). Will it last? Evidence of institutionalization at Carnegie classified community
engagement institutions. New Directions for Higher Education, 147(Fall), 85–98.
Holland, B. A., & Gelmon, S. (1998). The state of the engaged campus: What have we learned about
building and sustaining university and community partnerships. AAHE Bulletin American
Association for Higher Education, 51(1), 3–6.
Hollander, E., & Saltmarsh, J. (2000). The engaged university. Academe, 86(4), 29–32.
Hollister, R. (2017). The project: Theoretical framework and global institutional experience. In D.
Shek & R. Hollister (Eds.), University social responsibility and quality of life: A global survey
of concepts and experiences (pp. 3–9). Singapore: Springer.
Hoyt, L. (2017a). Preface. In L. Hoyt (Ed.), Regional perspectives on learning by doing: Stories from
engaged universities around the world. (pp. xvii-xx) East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.
Hoyt, L. (2017b). Introduction. In L. Hoyt (Ed.), Regional perspectives on learning by doing: Stories
from engaged universities around the world. (pp. 1–20) East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.
Hoyt, L. M., & Hollister, R. M. (2014). Moving beyond the Ivory Tower: The expanding global
movement of engaged universities. In B. Hall & R. Tandon (Eds.), Knowledge, engagement
and higher education: Rethinking social responsibility (pp. 129–139). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hunter, S., & Brisbin, R. A. (2000). The impact of service learning on democratic and civic values.
PS – Political Science and Politics, 33(3), 623–626.
Ireland Pilot. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brown.edu/swearer/carnegie/ireland-pilot
Jongsma, A., MacGregor, M., Makoni, M., Warden, R., & Sharma, Y. (2015). Rankings must take
civic engagement seriously, say university leaders. In Talloires network conference: Cape
Town, 2014, Medford, MA: Talloires Network, Tufts University. Retrieved from
http://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu
McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C. M. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(5), 51–57.
McIlrath, L. (2014). Community-university engagement – Global terms and terrain. In C. Escrigas, J.
Granados, B. L. Hall, & R. Tandon (Eds.), Higher education in the world 5. Knowledge,
engagement and higher education: Contributing to social change (pp. 39–44). Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Mitchell, T. D. (2013) Critical service-learning as a philosophy for deepening community
engagement. In A. Hoy & M. Johnson (Eds.), Deepening community engagement in higher
education: Forging new pathways (pp. 263–269). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Monaco, T., & De La Ray, C. (2016). World University rankings blog: Should global league tables
consider community engagement? Retrieved from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/world-university-rankings-blog-shouldglobal-
league-tables-consider-community-engagement
Ray, V. (2018). The racial politics of citation. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/04/27/racial-exclusions-scholarly-citations-
opinion
Saltmarsh, J., Giles, D. E., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. M. (2009). Rewarding community-engaged
scholarship. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(147), 25–35.
Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2016). The inheritance of next-generation engagement scholars. In M.
A. Post., E. Ward, N. V. Longo, & Saltmarsh, J. (Eds.). Publicly engaged Scholars: Next
generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 15–33). Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A
strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1),
91–103.
Shek, D. T. L., Yuen-Tsang, A. W. K., & Ng, E. C. W. (2017). USR network: A platform to promote
university social responsibility. In D. Shek & R. Hollister (Eds.), University social
responsibility and quality of life. Quality of life in Asia (Vol. 8 pp. 11–21). Singapore:
Springer.
The Talloires Network. (n.d.). Who We Are, The Talloires Network. Retrieved from
https://talloiresnetwork.tufts.edu/who-we-are/. Accessed on 20 May 2019.
Vasilescu, R., Barna, C., Epure, M., & Baicu, C. (2010). Developing university social responsibility:
A model for the challenges of the new civil society. Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2, 4177–4182.
Vogelgesang, L. J., Denson, N., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2010). What determines faculty-engaged
scholarship? Review of Higher Education, 33(4), 437–472.
Watson, D., Hollister, R., Stroud, S. E., & Babcock, E. (2011). The engaged university: International
perspectives on civic engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 61–74
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023005
CHAPTER 6
THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY PARTNERS
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS’
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – INSIGHTS
FROM A SOUTH AFRICAN CASE
STUDY
Martina Jordaan and Dolf Jordaan

ABSTRACT
The case study in this chapter is the Joint Community-based Project
(code: JCP), a compulsory macro undergraduate course that is
offered by the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and
Information Technology at the University of Pretoria in South Africa.
The course was introduced to teach students the soft skills they will
need as graduates and make them aware of their social responsibility.
More than 1,600 students register for the course annually. Generally,
students work in 450 groups each year to help more than 250
community partners. The course, which has received recognition at
institutional, national and international levels, requires students to
work in a community for at least 40 hours, after which they reflect on
their learning experience through a report, presentation and YouTube
video. The identification and selection process of community partners
is based on contextual criteria, while new cohorts of students can
recommend new community partners each year. Community partners’
 tasks include project coordination and student assessment based on
the course’s assessment criteria. This chapter discusses how
community partners are identified, coordinated and sustained within
a macro community service course. It also provides a conceptual
framework to highlight community partners’ roles and their impact
on the students’ social development based on qualitative case study
research.
Keywords: Community partners; social responsibility; University of
Pretoria; South Africa; engineering; Joint Community-based Project;
JCP; sustainable community engagement; successful levels of
involvement; partnership; service learning; attitude; higher education;
impact; relationship; conceptual framework; macro classes; soft skills

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN THE

SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
Although it has been 25 years since democracy was established in South
Africa, significant socioeconomic inequalities prevail in the country. It is
specifically evident in the national secondary school low completion rate
(Ashwin & Case, 2018). In addition, the General Household Survey
(Statistics South Africa, 2018) indicated that only 33.8% of youths aged
between 18 and 24 years were attending educational institutions, and 11.6%
of this group had progressed to tertiary education. Consequently, the
privilege to attend university still belongs to a minority of the population
(Jordaan, 2013; Swartz, Ivancheva, Czerniewicz, & Morris, 2019).
In this context, it is imperative that South African higher education
institutions demonstrate their responsiveness to critical challenges in
society by adjusting their strategic goals and curriculum transformation
efforts to instill a sense of social responsibility and commitment to the local
community in graduates. Now, more than ever, higher education institutions
should produce graduates who can contribute to nation-building and the
development of a more humane and just society. These graduates should be
equipped with the skills and knowledge to uplift society (Fenzel & Peyrot,
2005; Osman & Petersen, 2010). To address South Africa’s social
inequality, Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation
of Higher Education (Department of Education (DoE), 1997), called on
higher education institutions to “demonstrate social responsibility and their
commitment to the common good” (DoE, 1997, p. 11). The white paper laid
the foundation for integrating community engagement into teaching,
learning and research in higher education (Erasmus & Van Schalkwyk,
2011).
Similarly, the South African White Paper for Post-school Education and
Training in South Africa (Department of Higher Education and Training
(DHET), 2013) affirms the importance of community engagement in higher
education institutions. This national regulatory framework firmly integrated
community engagement into the core domain of higher education (DHET,
2013). To adhere to the national guidelines, Exit Level 10 of the
Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) subsequently requires
engineering curriculums to ensure that a student can “participate as a
responsible citizen in the life of local, national and global communities by
acting professionally and ethically” (ECSA, 2014).
The most popular approach for incorporating the concept of community
engagement into the curriculum is through service-learning courses in
which students participate in organized service activities and receive
academic credits for performing community service (Osman & Attwood,
2007). The outcomes include tasks that meet specific needs in a targeted
community through the execution of a project that enables students to
understand the relationship between the curriculum outcomes and the
community’s dynamics. These projects also allow students to understand
their learning experience through critical reflection. The aims are that
students comprehend their social responsibility (Bender, 2008; Jacoby,
1996), develop their citizenship, and grow personally to be socially
responsible citizens (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). The service-learning
endeavor must be meaningful and relevant to the community, which creates
in-depth learning opportunities for students (Grobbelaar, Napier, & Maistry,
2017).

LITERATURE REVIEW
 The Relationship with the Community Partner
In the current case study, community partnerships rely on relationship-
building practices and processes between the university, the community and
the course outcomes. The literature (Chan, Ng, & Chan, 2016; Geringer,
Stratemeyer, Canton, & Rice, 2009; Matthews, 2019; Rinaldo, Davis, &
Borunda, 2019) confirms the value of stakeholders’ shared interest in
community engagement endeavors to both higher education institutions and
their local communities.
Higher education institutions and communities expect community
engagement projects to be productive and transformative for all
stakeholders, which requires a carefully managed balance between the
university’s needs and those of the community partners to deal with the
dichotomy of perceptions. On the one hand, communities perceive higher
education institutions as separate and external to society, while higher
education institutions, on the other hand, manage their community outreach
projects as a charity or service to the less fortunate (Bringle & Hatcher,
2002; Jacoby & Associates, 2003).
Socially responsive higher education institutions allow for the
development of a collective understanding of problems and enable a
sustainable relationship in which challenging tasks are completed through
the sharing of resources, skills, knowledge and funding (Roehlkepartain &
Bailis, 2007).
The value of community engagement for students is well articulated
through academic evidence that indicates that undergraduate students often
reflect positively on the impact of community engagement (Astin & Sax,
1998; Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000; Astin et al., 2006; Eyler,
Giles, & Braxton, 1997; Fenzel & Peyrot, 2005; Moely, McFarland, Miron,
Mercer, & Ilustre, 2002). It allows students to develop skills such as
authentic, creative problem-solving, effective teamwork, decision-making,
communication and negotiation skills, which will prepare them for the labor
market (Jacoby, 1996). Scholars indicate that service-learning experiences
during the first and second years significantly increase the likelihood of
volunteerism after graduation compared to students who did not experience
service learning (Bielefeldt & Canney, 2014; Hall & Keen, 2018). In
summary, the research shows a relationship between positive previous
community service experience and future social awareness that extends to
participation in a variety of communities and organizations beyond the first
five years after graduation (Astin & Sax, 1998; Johnson, 2004; Osborn,
Alkezweeny, & Kecskes, 2015). However, this chapter aims to investigate
how community partner’s involvement impact student’s social awareness
and social responsibility in a non-service-orientated discipline in a
developing country.

CASE STUDY
The South African socioeconomic context demands of students in the fields
of engineering, built environment and information technology to fully
embrace their social responsibility as professionals by serving their local
communities and critically scrutinizing the impact their work has on society
(Hoosain & Sinha, 2018). Therefore, the aim is to integrate the social
attributes of empathy, altruism and social justice in the curriculum to
empower students with the required social responsibility skills (Bielefeldt &
Canney, 2014) to allow them to interact effectively with people from
different socioeconomic backgrounds (Oakes et al., 2002; Vogelsang,
Versnik Nowak, & Tornabene, 2010). In response to this need, the Faculty
of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology at the
University of Pretoria in South Africa developed the Joint Community-
based Project (code: JCP) course, which is a compulsory undergraduate
course in all its degree programs. The course’s core objectives are to expose
students to real-life problems and to allow them to become aware of their
social responsibilities. They have to understand how they can use their
newly acquired academic knowledge for the betterment of the broader
community. Therefore, students must learn to work in a multidisciplinary
and multilingual environment and practice various life, interpersonal and
leadership skills (Jordaan, 2013; Jordaan & Mennega, 2019).
The 8-credit JCP course is presented as an open-ended, project-based
course that includes 40 hours of community work and 40 hours of various
reflective assignments, including a final report and presentation, and the
development of a YouTube video (Jordaan & Jordaan, 2017). The course’s
biggest challenge is the student-to-staff ratio of 1 to 1,499 students (2018)
and 1,598 students (2019), and most of the students enroll in their second
year of study (Jordaan, 2014; Jordaan & Mennega, 2019).
The course is uniquely diverse because it includes students from 16
different degree programs, various nationalities, socioeconomic and cultural
groups. Students are diverse with regard to their previous community
service experience as well. In a survey to the students at the beginning of
the 2018 academic year, almost half of the students (47.37%) indicated that
they had no previous community outreach experience. The student’s
inexperience in any previous community outreach projects confirms the
importance to achieve the outcomes of the course.

METHODOLOGY
The research discussed in this chapter aims to determine the community
partners’ role in the students’ development of social responsibility
awareness. The research contributes to the development of a conceptual
framework to evaluate the community partners’ level of involvement and
the impact this involvement has on the achievement of the course’s
objectives. The research question aims to determine if the community
partners’ involvement during the execution of projects has an impact on the
development of students’ social responsibility and their performance.
The research design allowed the authors access to qualitative descriptive
segments to answer the research question. The first source of qualitative
data was collected from the final reflective reports of the 2018 cohort (n =
1,499) that completed the course. The data were coded and analyzed
thematically for emergent themes. A second data source was an alumnus
survey of the 2010 to 2013 cohort (n = 820), which provided reflective data
of the course’s long-term impact.

THE COURSE’S COMMUNITY PARTNERS

One criterion in the selection of community partners relates to the projects’
locations and the level of impact the execution of projects may have.
Community partners must preferably be based on communities with which
the students are unfamiliar, such as disadvantaged communities in urban
and rural areas. One of the legacies of Apartheid is that students often do
not have the opportunity to be exposed to the diverse communities in South
Africa. Community partners include pre-schools, primary and secondary
schools, zoos, non-profit organizations, animal shelters and sanctuaries.
Many organizations, for example, local city councils and government
departments, assist students with sponsorships to complete projects in these
communities. The most successful projects include teaching computer skills
to community members, repairing old computers for communities, helping
secondary school learners with Mathematics and Physical Sciences,
renovating school buildings and participating in animal-related projects
(Jordaan, Belino, & Paredes, 2012).

The Role of Community Partners

The course’s success depends on the relationships among its lecturer,
students and community partners. The partnership selection process
requires communities to provide unique opportunities for students to
achieve the course outcomes. For this reason, the identification of a specific
contact person within the partnering community is crucial to the successful
completion of the projects.
Community partners often experience challenges to accommodate the
students in their attempt to achieve the project outcomes. Worrall (2007)
states that community partners’ challenges in working with service-learning
programs include time constraints in the academic calendar, students’ lack
of preparation, the incompatibility of students’ and community
organizations’ schedules, and inadequate faculty involvement.

The Development of Successful Sustainable Partnerships

A successful partnership in the context of the macro community service
course relies on the development of trust between the stakeholders
involved, which include the community partners, lecturer and students.
Trust ensures that each stakeholder makes a meaningful contribution to the
students’ project (Council on Higher Education (CHE), 2008). Therefore, it
is essential to be transparent with all participants about the goals, objectives
and outcomes of the project (CHE, 2008) as the development of a
successful partnership depends on clear and continuous communication
between the partners during all the stages of the project. Firstly, a successful
community partnership can only develop when the projects’ purpose and
logistical and financial processes and procedures have been communicated
to the communities (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). The diversity of the course’s
community partners increases the importance of efficient two-way
communication. To explain this, the community must allow the project to
proceed, while the lecturer must share information about students’ allocated
budget and the expected outcomes they must achieve to succeed. The
lecturer must also inform the community partners of what is expected of
them.
Secondly, a successful new community partnership relies on the
approval of the project’s location through interaction between the course’s
lecturer, the students and a network of existing community partners.
Existing sustainable partners tend to forward new project requests for
consideration at the beginning of the academic year. If students identify a
new community partner, the feasibility of the proposed project and
partnership is discussed with the lecturer during a project proposal session.
The lecturer then contacts the new partner to discuss the course’s processes
and partnership expectations and requests approval of the proposed project.
Thirdly, the selection of a community member to act as a coordinator or
supervisor is essential as a compassionate and dedicated person on-site
increases the likelihood of a project’s success and generates positive
feedback from students with regard to their experiences. Students’ positive
reflection at the end of their projects could be attributed to a coordinator or
supervisor who provided support and helped them not only to learn but also
to learn from their mistakes (Billig, 2007). In rural communities, the
community member also acts as spokespersons for the local or tribal
leadership or governing structure or as a mediator for the approval of the
project.
Fourthly, community partners receive official acknowledgement for their
voluntary involvement in the success of the students’ projects and the
course’s sustainability. After the students’ final presentations, the JCP
course office sends a formal letter of appreciation to community partners
and shares the final link to the YouTube video (Jordaan & Jordaan, 2017).
 Lastly, the community partner’s coordinator or supervisor acts as
students’ external evaluator and verifies the hours that they have completed.
They must approve students’ videos before their YouTube status is changed
to “publicly available” and they must ensure the acknowledgement of the
community in the YouTube video. Several community partners, for
instance, rhinoceros’ sanctuaries, do not approve the YouTube videos’
public status for safety purposes of the rhinoceros. Students must also give
written permission for their videos to be published on YouTube. If students
work with minors or vulnerable children, they must blur out these
individuals’ faces to ensure that the children remain unidentifiable.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JCP

STUDENTS
There is a relationship between students who have a relatively high social
responsibility awareness as an outcome of their civic engagement project
and the community partners’ level of involvement (Tyler & Haberman,
2002).
The research results that were the foundation for the development of a
conceptual framework indicates the impact the community partners’ level
of involvement on the students’ social responsibility awareness. The
qualitative data that were collected from the final reflection reports of the
2018 cohort were analyzed to identify themes that represent a relationship
between students’ experiences and their social responsibility awareness.
The following themes summarize the 2018 students’ reflections:

Students had a positive experience during their community project when

a community partner provided guidance and the project was well
organized.
Students’ reflections showed more evidence of social responsibility
awareness after completing projects in disadvantaged communities or
communities that were significantly different from their own
socioeconomic context.
Highly involved community partners had a positive impact on students’
feedback and social responsibility awareness.
 Students were inclined to reflect less on their social responsibility
awareness after working with indifferent or unattached community
partners.
Students were highly conscious of reflecting on the importance of the
university’s brand during their community engagement projects,
irrespective of the level of community partner involvement.

Data from the 2010 to 2013 alumni survey alumni reflected that the
course was imperative to instill an awareness of their social obligation. In
the feedback from students’ final reflective reports, the words linked to
social responsibility or citizenship had the highest density in the self-
reflection section. The following two excerpts are examples of feedback
from students and alumni:
The course reminded me of my social responsibility and that I should also take responsibility
in my community. It intrigued the spirit of volunteering (a student from the 2018 cohort).

Apart from showing me that I have a social responsibility, it has also taught me how easy it is
to make a difference, and you do not have to break the bank to do so. This makes it possible
for me to come up with ideas for possible projects (alumnus).

Both qualitative studies validate the impact the course has on students’
mindfulness of their social responsibility and the vital role that the
community partner fulfills in enhancing students’ level of awareness of
their responsibility in local communities. The course coordinator’s ability to
sustain partnerships is essential to ensure that community partners are
committed to contributing to students’ understanding of their responsibility
in their future careers.

Community Partners’ Levels of Involvement

Community partners’ contribution has a direct impact on students’
experience of and dedication to the project. According to Bowers (2017),
Tyler and Haberman (2002) grouped partnership involvement along a
continuum from exploitive to protective, indifferent, supportive and, finally,
to committed ways of being. Bowman, Brandenberger, Lapsley, Hill, and
Quaranto (2010) added the notions of transactional, transitional and
transformational levels of engagement to the range of partner involvement.
Table 1 provides a conceptual framework of the levels of community
partners engaged in the JCP course based on students’ feedback and its
impact on students’ learning experience and social responsibility awareness.
The levels of Tyler and Haberman (2002) where partnerships are grouped
from exploitive, to protective, indifferent, supportive and finally to
committed ways of being and Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans
(2010) who indicated the level of negotiation and leveraging that must take
place to keep the collaboration alive provide the academic foundation to
align students’ feedback and research results.
Table 1 shows the diversity in levels of community partners’
involvement in students’ projects. At the lowest level, community partners
are uninvolved instigators. Community partners who do not oversee the
project process or interact with students receive project outcomes of a lower
quality than community partners who interact with the students. The
uninvolved partners identify a specific project but do not want to get
involved. However, they put pressure on the students to deliver a high-
quality outcome, but they are not willing to assess students or monitor their
hours. In such cases, the lecturer appoints a student mentor, or in cases
where several groups are working in a specific community, a student project
leader takes on the community partner’s responsibility to supervise the
project. However, the community partners’ expectation of a high-quality
project often contributes to students completing the project only to protect
the institution’s brand and to pass the course.
At the second-lowest level of participation, community partners act as
administrators to identify the project and complete the necessary
administration, but they do not get involved in the students’ learning
experience. These projects’ quality is not supervised, but a high-quality
outcome is expected, and while students are frequently dedicated to these
projects, these partners increase the likelihood that students complete their
projects for passing the course and brand protection purposes only.
Protective community partners are concerned about the safety and
security of the students and advise them during the project’s execution.
Students show a limited level of social mindfulness and report some
satisfaction with the community engagement endeavor.
The most successful projects are completed under the supervision of
supportive and fully committed community partners. The transformational
and transformative partners show high levels of involvement and oversee
students’ safety and well-being while they execute their projects. These
partners are often sustainable partners with a previous positive experience
to ensure that students demonstrate high levels of social responsibility
awareness and experience personal satisfaction with their contribution to
community outreach.

Table 1. The Adopted Conceptual Framework of Community Partners’

Involvement and Impact on Students’ Social Responsibility Awareness.

The conceptual framework implies different processes to manage

projects and ensure the success of the different projects and students who
execute the projects. Knowledge of the types and levels of partnership
allows the lecturer and students to plan accordingly to protect the
university’s brand and students’ safety while achieving the course’s
outcomes.

Examples of Successful Supportive and Committed Community

Partnerships
A community partner at a local zoo is an example of a committed partner
who is highly engaged in all the phases of the projects and ensures that the
projects are managed to deliver high-quality outcomes on time. At the
beginning of the academic year, the supervisor on site identifies different
projects that require various skill levels and shares the list of projects with
the lecturer.
During the implementation of the project, the supervisor not only acts as
a mentor but also monitors each project through regular quality control.
Most of the students are willing to do more than is expected of them and
find additional sponsorships for their projects.
The following reflective quote is evidence of students’ social
responsibility awareness and satisfaction with their contributions:
I found that the project itself was very insightful and that the course helped me to understand
how my degree can fit into the world and make a small, but meaningful difference in the
world through the act of helping others and the community in general. The community leader
also made working there so much easier as she showed tremendous support in aiding us.

Another example of transformative community partner is a local non-

profit organization that has created a pre-school forum that empowers
disadvantaged pre-school teachers to provide better education to children in
the community. The pre-school forum identifies possible projects related to
the program criteria and submits the requests to the lecturer.
The pre-school forum organizer and the principal of the pre-school in
question monitor each project’s execution. The pre-school principals report
their experiences with the students at the pre-school forum meetings.
Students experience high levels of satisfaction and social responsibility
awareness when they work at pre-schools. The following is an example of
the reflections often received from students:
Seeing and experiencing first-hand the passion that the personnel have working at pre-schools
and how the staff works with the children, taught us that there is little that comes close to
seeing the joy when a child’s heart is thankful for what someone has done or the value that
has been added to their lives. The course reminded me of my social responsibility and that I
should also take responsibility in my community.

Reflective feedback received from the alumni survey also indicates

increased levels of student satisfaction and awareness of the importance of
their social responsibility, notably when they participated in well-structured
projects that are managed by committed partners. Reflections from the
alumni included the following:
It opened my eyes to the reality faced by a lot of South Africans, which was much different
from the life I was living. It inspired me to always look for ways in which I can benefit my
community – primarily through my work. I am now able to drive initiatives through my
organisation to benefit those less fortunate around us and to select our work based on the
impact it will have on others.

CONCLUSION
Higher education institutions’ community engagement initiatives can
partially address the critical social challenges that ordinary South Africans
face each day. However, most of the students have more social privileges,
ability, educational knowledge and power than the communities with which
they engage. Because of the legacy of Apartheid higher education institutes
need to instill a sense of social responsibility in students so that they have
the responsibility to plough their expertise back into local communities.
This chapter provides an overview of a macro community engagement
course in a higher education institution in South Africa. Students who are
enrolled in the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information
Technology at the University of Pretoria in South Africa are studying
toward non-service-related degrees. At the beginning of the academic year,
almost half of these students indicated that they have never been involved
in a community engagement project. Through a compulsory undergraduate
course, the JCP course, students have to complete 40 hours of community
service to gain the social responsibility awareness and soft skills they will
need after graduation.
The challenge is to manage such a large course in which the average
class size is 1,600 students per year. The course’s success depends heavily
on the development of trust among the lecturer, students and community
partners. The identification of the project site through interaction between
the course’s lecturer, students and a network of existing community partners
ensures that students complete projects that meet a specific need. Projects’
successful execution and positive feedback from students concerning their
experiences are associated with passionate, dedicated coordinators or
supervisors on site. Acknowledging community partners for the role they
play throughout the projects’ execution is crucial to their sustainable
involvement in the course.
The research reported in this chapter shows that students’ social
responsibility awareness related to the community partners’ level of
involvement and the community in which students execute their projects.
Students are more inclined to reflect positively on social awareness and
responsibility when the community partners are committed and supportive,
and when an individual mentors or guides students on site. The developed
conceptual framework provides a foundation for the critical evaluation of
community partners. It emphasizes the need for diverse processes to
manage and ensure the success of the different projects and groups of
students who are allocated to the different levels of partners to complete
their projects. The framework empowers academic staff with knowledge
about the types and levels of partnerships to assist them and their students
in planning accordingly to not only protect the university’s brand and the
safety of the students but also to achieve the course’s outcomes.
Even though some students have a sense of social responsibility before
they start the JCP projects, some of them reflected afterwards that the
course influenced their awareness of their social responsibility and
citizenship positively. This chapter provides a case study and shows the
value of involved community partners and the relationship between these
partners and students’ reflections on their experience and social
responsibility awareness.

REFERENCES
Ashwin, P., & Case, J. M. (2018). Higher education pathways: South African undergraduate
education and the public good. Cape Town: African Minds.
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Service
Participation, 39(3), 251.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service-learning affects
students. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Misam, L. J., Anderson, J., Denson, N., Jayakumar, U., &
Yamamura, E. Y. (2006). Understanding the effects of service-learning: A study of students
and faculty. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.
Bender, G. (2008). Exploring conceptual models for community engagement at higher education
institutions in South Africa: Conversation. Perspectives in Education, 26(1), 81–95.
Bielefeldt, A. R., & Canney, N. (2014). Impacts of service-learning on the professional social
responsibility attitudes of engineering students. International Journal for Service-learning in
Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 47–63.
Billig, S. H. (2007). Unpacking what works in service-learning: Promising research-based practices
to improve student outcomes. In J. Kielsmeier, M. Neal, & N. Schultz (Eds.), Growing to
greatness 2007: The state of service-learning (pp. 18–28). Saint Paul, MN: National Youth
Leadership Council.
Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents
and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2),
297–318.
Bowers, A. M. (2017). University-community partnership models: Employing organizational
management theories of paradox and strategic contradiction. Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement, 21(2), 37–64.
Bowman, N., Brandenberger, J., Lapsley, D., Hill, P., & Quaranto, J. (2010). Serving in college,
flourishing in adulthood: Does community engagement during the college years predict adult
well-being? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 14–34.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The
Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239.
Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of engagement.
Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516.
Chan, K., Ng, E., & Chan, C. C. (2016). Empowering students through service-learning of
community psychology: A case in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 20(4), 25–36.
Council on Higher Education. (2008). Service-learning in the disciplines. Lessons from the field.
Pretoria: CHE.
Department of Education. (1997). Education White Paper 3: A programme for the transformation of
higher education. Pretoria: DoE.
Department of Higher Education and Training. (2013). National White Paper for post-school
education and training in South Africa. Building an expanded, effective and integrated post-
school system. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Engineering Council of South Africa. (2014). Whole qualification standard for bachelor of science in
engineering (BSc (Eng))/Bachelor of Engineering (BEng): NQF Level 7. Retrieved from
https://www.ecsa.co.za/RegisterDocuments/FileNames/(BSc(Eng))%20%20Bachelors%20Of
%20Engineering%20(BEng)%20Programmes.pdf
Erasmus, M., & Van Schalkwyk, F. (2011). Community participation in higher education service
learning. Acta Academica, 43(3), 57–82.
Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., Jr, & Braxton, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning on college students.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 5–15.
Fenzel, L. M., & Peyrot, M. (2005). Comparing college community participation and future service
behaviors and attitudes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 23–31.
Geringer, S. D., Stratemeyer, A. W., Canton, A., & Rice, W. (2009). Assessing service-learning
outcomes in a principles of marketing course: A team-based vs. individual-based approach.
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 14(1), 1–12.
Grobbelaar, H., Napier, C., & Maistry, S. (2017). Reinforcing paternalism? The need for a social
justice approach to prepare students for community engagement at universities of technology.
Journal for New Generation Sciences, 15(1), 74–93.
Hall, K. S., & Keen, C. H. (2018). Impact of a postcollege service-learning year: From self to social
justice. Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 33–48. doi:10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.03
Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. The Jossey-Bass
higher and adult education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Jacoby, B., & Associates (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, D. I. (2004). Relationships between college experiences and alumni participation in the
community. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 169–185.
Jordaan, M. (2013). A blended approach to service learning. The Faculty Engineering, Built
Environment and Information Technology at the University of Pretoria. In R. N. P. Osman
(Ed.), Service learning in South Africa (pp. 206–229). Cape Town: Oxford Press.
Jordaan, M. (2014). Community-based project module: A service-learning module for the Faculty of
Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology at the University of Pretoria.
International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering Special Edition, (Fall), 269–282.
https://doi.org/10.24908/ijsle.v0i0.5553
Jordaan, M., Belino, M. C., & Paredes, C. R. (2012). International perspectives on service-learning.
In T. H. Collegde (Ed.), Convergence: Philosophies and pedagogies for developing the next
generation of humanitarian engineers and social entrepreneurs (pp. 178–203). State College,
PA: International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering.
Jordaan, M., & Jordaan, A. J. J. (2017, June). Using YouTube as a reflection tool for a service-
learning module. In Fourth Biennial Conference South African Society for Engineering
Education (SASEE), Cape Town.
Jordaan, M., & Mennega, N. (2019). Engineering graduate attributes: Skills gained during a service-
learning module. The International Journal of Adult, Community and Professional Learning,
26(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.18848/2328-6318/CGP/v26i01/21-34
Hoosain, M. S., & Sinha, S. (2018). Integrating ‘Engineering Projects in Community Service’ into
engineering curricula to develop graduate attributes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
the South, 2(1), 60–75.
Matthews, S. (2019). Partnerships and power: Community partners’ experiences of service-learning.
Africanus: Journal of Development, 49(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-6522/5641
Moely, B. E., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S., & Ilustre, V. (2002). Changes in college
students’ attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning
experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 18–26.
Oakes, W., Duffy, J., Jacobius, T., Linos, P., Lord, S., Schultz, W. W., & Smith, A. (2002,
November). Service-learning in engineering. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Frontiers in
Education, Boston, MA. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing LLC.
Osborn, D., Alkezweeny, J., & Kecskes, K. (2015). Beyond the university: An initiative for
continuing engagement among alumni. Metropolitan Universities, 26, 171–187.
Osman, R., & Attwood, G. (2007). Power and participation in and through service learning.
Education as Change, 11(3), 15–21.
Osman, R., & Petersen, N. (2010). Students’ engagement with engagement: The case of teacher
education students in higher education in South Africa. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 58(4), 407–419.
Rinaldo, S. B., Davis, D. F., & Borunda, J. (2019). Delivering value to community partners in
service-learning projects. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 8(1), 13.
Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Bailis, L. (2007). Developing partnerships for service-learning: Starting
points for community-based organizations. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning
Clearinghouse.
Statistics South Africa. (2018). General household survey 2017. Pretoria: Stats SA. Retrieved from
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0318/P03182017.pdf
Swartz, R., Ivancheva, M., Czerniewicz, L., & Morris, N. P. (2019). Between a rock and a hard place:
Dilemmas regarding the purpose of public universities in South Africa. Higher Education,
77(4), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0291-9
Tyler, J. B., & Haberman, M. (2002). Education-community partnerships: Who uses whom for what
purposes? Metropolitan Universities, 13(4), 88–100.
Vogelsang, L., Versnik Nowak, A. L., & Tornabene, L. (2010). FotoFeedback as an assessment
methodology. In Proceedings from American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance National Convention and Exposition. Indianapolis, IN: AAHPERD.
Worrall, L. (2007). Asking the community: A case study of community partner perspectives.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 5–17.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 75–88
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023006
CHAPTER 7
AN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL CASE
STUDY BETWEEN A PUBLIC
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AND SIX US
CORPORATIONS
Morgan R. Clevenger

ABSTRACT
Corporate involvement in higher education remains highly visible and
controversial. While best practices can be found, many gray areas
exist in the actions motivating both parties. This organizational
analysis examines corporate citizenship through the inter-
organizational relationships of a public US doctoral university and
six US corporate partners as framed through Cone’s (2010) corporate
citizenship spectrum between 2006 and 2010. The literature has
shown that little research exists regarding the behavior aspects of
these inter-organizational relationships. Triangulation of data is
provided by 36 interviews, 12,609 pages of documents and audio-
visual materials, and a campus observation of 407 photographs. The
research indicates three themes as to why higher education desires
involvement with companies: viable resources, student enrichment,
and real-world connectivity. Further, there are four themes explaining
what motives and ROI expectations companies have to be involved
with higher education and include: workforce development,
 community enrichment, brand development, and research. Finally,
three themes emerged regarding ethical considerations between these
inter-organizational relationships with higher education and
companies. First, generally no ethical dilemmas were found. Second,
several general ethics discussion topics created five clusters of
interest: public relations, solicitation, policies and stewardship,
accountability and transparency, and leadership behavior. Third, five
ethical concerns were shared.
Keywords: corporate citizenship; corporate citizenship spectrum;
inter-organizational relationship; organizational analysis;
partnership(s)

This case study examines corporate citizenship through the inter-

organizational relationships between a US public research university and
six corporate partners (i.e., two small, two medium, and two large). The
research is framed through Cone’s (2010) corporate citizenship spectrum.
Research questions include: (1) Why does a higher education institution
accept corporate citizenship engagement and financial support? (2) Why do
US corporations engage as corporate citizens in relationships with a higher
education institution? (3) What ethical concerns arise in the engaged inter-
organizational relationships between corporations and a higher education
institution? To create win–win scenarios, leaders must understand motives
and expectations of both higher education institutions and corporations as
well as foster and implement ethical standards (Clevenger, 2019; Groves &
LaRocca, 2011).
Participation by corporations in supporting and engaging with higher
education remains highly visible and controversial for academicians and
practitioners (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; Ciconte & Jacob, 2009; Cone,
2010; Gould, 2003). While best practices can be found, too many gray areas
exist in the actions and motivations for corporate citizenship behavior in
relation to higher education. Likewise, higher education is consistently
pushed to foster partnerships and to create ongoing resources. Limited
exploration exists about these specific inter-organizational relationships.
This topic continues to be important and timely as education continues to be
a high-priority concern for United States. (For a comprehensive discussion,
see Clevenger & MacGregor, 2019.) The research adds to the dialog about
defining expectations and boundaries for organizations (Clevenger, 2014).

LITERATURE REVIEW
This organizational analysis explores inter-organizational relationships,
which are “concerned with understanding the character, pattern, origins,
rationale, and consequences of such relationships” (Cropper, Ebers,
Huxham, & Ring, 2008, p. 4). Several theories provide contextual
considerations to view inter-organizational relationship behaviors – both
anticipated and actual. First, Ebers (1999) promoted four dynamics of
organizational relationships including “the parties’ motives, ... the pre-
conditions and contingencies of forming inter-organizational relationships,
... the content, and ... the outcomes” (p. 31). Second, Aldrich (1979)
indicated four-dimensional considerations of formalization, intensity,
reciprocity, and standardization of reoccurring organizational behavior.
Third, organizations constantly monitor how to act and to react to partners
through organizational learning and respective inter-organizational
engagement, including understanding, reevaluation, and adjustment
(Aldrich, 1979; Ebers, 1999; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003; Ring & Van de Ven,
1994).
Organizations needing resources do not operate in a vacuum and “must
inevitably interact with their social environments” (Pfeffer & Salancik,
2003, p. 19). This interaction often comes in the form of inter-
organizational relationships. Such relationships are beneficial when
partnering with compatible organizations on common or complementary
goals (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; Samans, 2005; Sanzone, 2000). One
highly visible aspect of interaction between higher education institutions
and corporations is financial (Eddy, 2010; Fischer, 2000; Gould, 2003;
Rhodes, 2001; Rose, 2011). Higher education is funded by a combination of
tuition, government aid, and private support from individuals, foundations,
and corporations. As governments cut funding, more of a burden falls on
the private sector – especially corporations – to help fund higher education
purposes and goals (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; Ciconte & Jacob, 2009;
Drezner, 2011; Gould, 2003; Johnson, 2006; Rhodes, 2001). Several factors
have caused rising costs of higher education and, thus, the justification for
corporate involvement. Such financial challenges include state-of-the-art
technology, labor intensity to educate students holistically, new programs to
meet current world demands, and opportunity costs of inclusivity. At the
time of the study highlighted in this chapter, corporations had a significant
financial impact on higher education through various contributions, which
constituted 16.9% of all funding dollars contributed and nearly 10% of
higher education budgets (Kaplan, 2011). Corporations have a 10-year
aggregated average of 15.52% of all funding dollars contributed to higher
education and nearly 10% of higher education budgets (Kaplan, 2018).
Additionally, according to data submitted to the National Science
Foundation (NSF) through the annual survey of Higher Education Research
and Development Expenditures (via the National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics (NCSES)), in 2017 nearly 6% of all research and
development spending came from business and corporate sources (NCSES,
2017). Further, since 1953, such corporate allocation has steadily increased
(NSF, 2011).
Saul (2011) said, “We need to be concerned about letting corporations
dictate our social values, but this is not likely to happen” (p. 184). Higher
education institutions should help to set social agendas and then to create
value propositions for funding partners such as corporations (Madzik,
Budaj, & Chocholláková, 2018). Saul explained that corporations are
defined as “impact buyers” looking for solutions to challenges (p. 184).
Funding from corporations often comes with clearly defined expectations
and limitations (Fischer, 2000; Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Molnar, 2002).
Debate about whether higher education institutions should receive corporate
funding continues with varying viewpoints. “Companies seldom give
resources out of altruistic motivations. Support for higher education is a
strategic investment” (Sanzone, 2000, p. 321). Note, however, that
motivations and ethical behaviors have also been a concern of higher
education institutions because of some dishonest solicitation, donor
manipulation, and institutional mission abandonment – among other factors
– in Caboni’s (2010) quantitative study of 1,047 fundraisers’ behavior in
American colleges and universities. Creating positive, productive
relationships requires win–win solutions for both parties (Bruch & Walter,
2005; Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; Eddy, 2010; Siegel, 2012). Do they exist?

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

To explore these inter-organizational relationships, a single-embedded case
study (Yin, 2009) is used to investigate the social inter-organizational
dynamic between a university and six of its corporate partners—two small,
two medium, and two Fortune 500. Such engagement is identified with
corporate citizenship, which the World Economic Forum (2002) defined as:
The contribution a company makes to society through its core business activities, its social
investment and philanthropy programmes, and its engagement in public policy. The manner in
which a company manages its economic, social and environmental relationships, as well as
those with different stakeholders, in particular shareholders, employees, customers, business
partners, governments and communities determines its impact. (p. 1)

Lens for Research: Cone’s (2010) Corporate Citizenship Spectrum

While others have hinted at the existence of a business-society spectrum,
Cone (2010) crafted a visual concept about such relationships that is used in
this study (see Fig. 1). The spectrum illustrates four categories identifying
key corporate citizenship functions: Philanthropy, Cause-related Branding,
Operational Culture, and DNA Citizenship Ethos. The spectrum is used to
understand how each company acts in relation to the higher education
institution. (For a deeper discussion, see Clevenger, 2019.) Fig. 1 provides
visual representation to the range of purposes and motives of corporate
citizens and delineates the various relationships corporations have with
other organizations, including higher education (Clevenger, 2014, p. 20).
 Fig. 1. Cone’s (2010) Corporate Citizenship Spectrum gave visual
representation to the range of purposes and motives of corporate citizens
and delineates the various relationships corporations have with other
organizations, including higher education. Parenthetical interpretations were
added by the researcher for reader simplicity (Clevenger, 2014, p. 20). [For
reader simplicity, the researcher added parenthetical interpretations.].

Philanthropy is altruistic and resources are provided to further a cause to

enhance the well-being of humanity without involvement by the giver
(Ciconte & Jacob, 2009). Cause-related branding has a reciprocity
expected in the long term and involves expectations (Carroll & Buchholtz,
2017; Cone, 2010; Morgan, 2006). Operational culture refers to companies
that view colleges and universities as a strategic key in their corporate
identity and behavior, so contributions are given with expectation of
assisting with implementation (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2017; Cone, 2010).
The DNA citizenship ethos means that the corporation – from the ground up
– considers the triple bottom line of sustainability (i.e., people, profit, and
planet) as strategically integral into how it does business and is ingrained in
the corporation’s mission (Cone, 2010; Saul, 2011).
Data sources included 36 face-to-face interviews, more than 12,609
pages of documents and audio-visual materials, and a campus observation
of 407 photographs (Clevenger, 2014). Triangulation included
crosschecking information and conclusions through the use of multiple
procedures: creating an audit trail, member checking, participant feedback,
peer coding, and external peer review (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009;
Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). Document and audio-visual materials
review encompassed various marketing materials of the organizations from
2006 to 2010 to understand their missions and stated intended behavior.
Actual behavior data were observed from records, organizational materials,
and third-party sources. Semi-structured and open-ended questions were
used to conduct the interviews of educational and corporate leaders. A
campus observation of the university investigated if and how any
corporations were recognized in a visual or physical way through artifacts,
yielding 407 photographs illustrating all named spaces on the main campus.
Overall, 14% of named spaces or artifacts were business related and
included one of the six companies studied. Analysis across embedded units
compared similarities and differences in motivations and expected return on
investment for corporate engagement.
Once the project was approved by the Institutional Review Board,
organizational participants were recruited and selected from an organized,
purposeful list based upon simple characteristics. One US higher education
institution and six US-based corporations that supported and were engaged
with the higher education institution in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010
served as the basis for the research. These years included both stable and
challenging economic years in the United States (Cohen, 2010; Kaplan,
2011; Rose, 2011). Individual participants were selected based on
appropriate individuals after securing the organizational participants. The
process of establishing research relationships was vital in the study. Gaining
entry and building rapport with the university, the university foundation,
and corporate participants took time and finesse. Note, however, that all
organizational participants desired confidentiality so remain unnamed as
well as individual participants are unnamed.

The Higher Education Institution Participant

Financial data were available to view corporate support of higher education
from the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Council for Aid to Education’s
Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) surveys, which are the nation’s
leading source of data on private giving to education through an annual
survey (Kaplan, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). The survey collated
information regarding “amounts, sources, donor-specified purposes, and
forms of private gifts, grants, and bequests” (Kaplan, 2011, p. VSE-10/37).
Reporting categories in the VSE included alumni, parents, faculty and staff,
students, other individuals, foundations, corporations, religious
organizations, fundraising consortia, and other organizations.
The 2006–2010 VSEs (Kaplan, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) were
reviewed from printed copies, and a consolidated 5-year list was compiled
to identify all higher education institutions that received corporate
philanthropic support in any year. It was coincidental, not incidental, in
participant consideration that all 33 institutions were designated in the
Carnegie Classification™ system as doctoral/research. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching™ developed the Carnegie
Classification® system for all higher education institutions in 1973 – and
revised a half dozen times over the years and now maintained by the
Indiana University at Bloomington’s Center for Postsecondary Research
since 2015 – as a framework to recognize and to describe institutional
diversity and aimed at grouping institutions with peer institutions for
research purposes and to ensure adequate representation of institutions for
sampling based on institution type, faculty, or students. Higher education
institutions are divided into five major categories, and then each category is
sub-divided into public and private institutions. The five categories include
doctoral/professional universities, master’s colleges and universities,
baccalaureate colleges, associate’s degrees from community colleges, and
specialized institutions (Carnegie Foundation, 2019). Doctoral/Professional-
granting universities conduct research and award at least 20 doctoral
degrees annually. Master’s colleges and universities award at least 50
master’s degrees but fewer than 20 doctoral degrees annually. Baccalaureate
institutions award at least 10% of all degrees at the baccalaureate level but
fewer than 50 master’s degrees or 20 doctoral degrees annually. Associate-
level colleges award only associates degrees or less than 10% of all degrees
as baccalaureates. Finally, special focus institutions are those institutions
awarding baccalaureate or higher-level degrees in a single field or set of
related fields; tribal colleges are inclusive of those institutions related by
membership in the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
Networking to recruit a participant university included initial telephone
calls and emails to known colleagues at several of the potential participant
universities. No contact was able to secure a commitment from a university
using this initial strategy. Further networking was required and included
sending a recruitment letter, a formal abstract proposal, and the researcher’s
résumé to all 33 universities’ presidents on high-quality stationery and
mailed first class US Postal Service in catalog envelopes. The abstract
proposal included a summary of Cone’s (2010) corporate citizenship
spectrum, sample interview questions, and the matrices for document and
audio-visual collection. Follow-up was made to each institution by
telephone to identify an individual of authority to review and accept or
reject the project, selling the research scope, and recruiting a university for
the study. The first institution that agreed to allow accessibility for the study
and agreed to engage six corporations was formally invited to participate.
Selection of one university in the top 33 was based on accessibility and
willingness to participate. Access to organizations required an internal
champion. “A champion is someone who sees the value in what you do and
is willing to advocate on your behalf inside an organization or to a third
party” (Saul, 2011, p. 163). In this case, a higher education vice president
began as the champion to help organize access. The participant university in
this research opted to remain confidential and unnamed in the study.
Because a specific university is indicated, the remaining references to the
participant university are denoted as the University. In order to describe the
essence of the university, data elements and relevant text from a literature
review have been used to help picture the scale, scope, and complexities of
the University.
The University is a large, public research university with multiple
campuses and world-class facilities. As a top-tier University of the 150
public and private research universities in the United States, this University
is one of the top-rated institutions in the country. Additionally, the
University is one of the most well-established and influential universities in
the world and is a leader in research and sustainability. Educational units at
the University includes more than a dozen colleges and schools across a
range of programs and centers in many disciplines including law, health
sciences, business, education, liberal arts, and social sciences as well as the
fields of science, technology, engineering, and math. The University is
concerned with both humanities and professional studies – the disciplines of
which universities are made. As a mission-driven organization, the
University strives for academic excellence and supports research.
The University is particularly keen on providing access to a high-quality
educational experience to a wide range of diverse students. Programs at the
University serve a broad demographic. The educational environment
provides for success both academic and personal and collaborative. The
University has renowned, top-notch, outstanding, highly credentialed
faculty and leadership as well as some of the United States’ brightest and
stellar students – both have received prestigious national and international
honors. Examples include National Merit Scholars and National
Achievement Scholars, as well as Council for Advancement and Support of
Education achievements, Fulbright Scholars, and Nobel Prize faculty. Many
faculties have received competitive funding and/or national organization
awards in their respective disciplines. Faculties have a commitment to
teaching.
An institutional culture promotes strong teaching and learning for
applicable, real-world issues. The University’s goal is to provide a highly
skilled and educated workforce to society. Graduates’ education is
immediately relevant to the modern corporate landscape. While
emphasizing quality educational opportunities and citizenship aligned with
the University’s core values, the University measures its success by student
achievement, faculty research and scholarship, alumni accomplishments,
and contributions to society. The University is a public asset and serves
many constituencies. The University believes it has a responsibility to serve
all citizens and be a resource. Additionally, the University strives for
excellence in its impact and engagement of its students, service to the
community and state, and to the contributions to the world.
The University Foundation also opted to remain confidential and
unnamed in the study. Because a specific university is indicated, the
remaining references to the university’s foundation will be the University
Foundation. In order to describe the essence of the University Foundation,
data elements are used to help picture the scale, scope, and complexities of
the University Foundation. The University Foundation exists to support and
advance the activities of the University. As a 501(c)(3) entity (i.e., non-
profit), the University Foundation is an organization operated for the benefit
of the university and is a public charity, non-profit corporation, or non-
profit, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The University
Foundation focuses on philanthropic investment to support a vast array of
student needs, research, and other needs through contributions, gifts, and
grants. The leadership and board of the University Foundation provide
fundraising and investment and asset management to support the University
through perpetual and annual gifts. The fundraisers of the University
Foundation secure private gifts from individuals, corporations, and
foundations that are compatible with the mission of the University.

The Six US Corporate Participants

As part of the University and University Foundation’s agreement to
participate in the study, they were responsible to help recruit corporate
participants. Such insider advocacy through established relationships was
vital to gaining access to key corporate decision-makers to commit to the
study. Foundation research staff prepared a list of 20 medium and 13
Fortune 500 companies to approach. The University Foundation corporate
relations officer also became a champion and networked with Unit
development staff in the University’s schools and colleges to identify a
handful of potential small companies for the study. An executive summary,
researcher vita, and introductory email were used for the University
Foundation corporate relations officer to introduce the project to potential
participant corporations. The first two medium companies approached
agreed quickly after introductory emails and a brief researcher presentation.
Four introductions and follow-up presentations to small companies were
made before two agreed to participate. Six Fortune 500 companies were
approached to participate before two said “yes” after review of the research
requirements and consent agreement, several planning phone calls, and
internal management and legal approvals. The six corporations signed
consent agreements and desired confidentiality, so they are unnamed in this
study. All companies were helpful in assisting the researcher in gathering
needed documents or audio-visual materials and in coordinating interviews
with corporate executives and key management. To describe the essence of
the six corporations, data elements and relevant text from a literature review
are used regarding the scale, scope, and complexities of each will be
identified by size and labeled A or B and referenced from this point forward
as: Small Company A, Small Company B, Medium Company A, Medium
Company B, Fortune 500 Company A, and Fortune 500 Company B.
The six corporations were selected from those US corporations that were
actively engaged with the University and consistently contributed
financially from 2006 to 2010 to the higher education institution selected
for the study. Resources included any and all types from the corporations
such as corporate cash direct from net income profits, in-kind goods and
services, scholarships, corporate foundation grants, public-partner
arrangements, partnerships, sponsorships, research contracts, vendor
relationships, and employees engaging as volunteers.
 Using only US companies allowed the study to concentrate on a discrete
corporate population. Businesses in the United States are classified on a
number of factors including type of registration, gross annual revenues,
number of employees, and industry classifications (Carty & Blank, 2003;
Ringleb, Meiners, & Edwards, 1997; U.S. Census, 2008; U.S. Small
Business Administration, 2011). The six corporations involved in the study
represented a variety of industries and ranged in age from less than a decade
old to more than a century. All companies operate in multiple states, and
some operate in multiple countries. Some companies are family owned;
some, privately held; and some, publicly traded. Four of the companies
have corporate foundations. All six corporations have been actively
engaged with the University in varying capacities for the framed time
period of 2006–2010. Table 1 exhibits classification of the six participant
corporations. To simplify categorization and maintain confidentiality, the
2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI) of only 20 categories is
utilized for classification.

Table 1. Classification of Corporate Participants

Industry (Based on CSRI Codes) Ownership
Small Company A Computers Privately held
Electrical and electronics
Small Company B Services Privately held
Transport and logistics Limited liability company
Medium Company A Services Closely held
Family-owned business
Medium Company B Utilities Publicly traded
Fortune 500 Company A Industrial products Publicly traded
Fortune 500 Company B Consumer products Publicly traded

Note: Exhibited are the six corporate participants’ industry classifications based on The 2010
Corporate Social Responsibility Index (2010) and type of corporate ownership interest (Clevenger,
2014, p. 246).

Small Company A. Small Company A is identified as both categories of

electrical and electronics and computers within the CSRI. Small Company
A is a privately held corporation that is independently owned. The
Company has a multi-state presence. This Company works on a variety of
technological systems, devices, and protocols for both government and
commercial sectors. Small Company A does not have a corporate
foundation and has no university alumni ties. Table 2 illustrates corporate
participants’ alumni connectivity with the University and number of
foundations.

Table 2. Corporate Participants’ Alumni Connections and Existence of

Corporate Foundation(s)
Alumni Connections Corporate
Foundation(s)
Small Company None None
A
Small Company None None
B
Medium Some including executives and management 2
Company A
Medium Several 1
Company B
Fortune 500 Active group of university alumni engaged in various projects includes Several
Company A some executives and management
Fortune 500 Active group of university alumni engaged in various projects 3
Company B

Note: Exhibited are the six corporate participants’ level of alumni connectivity with the university
and number of corporate foundations (Clevenger, 2014, p. 247).

Small Company B. Small Company B is identified as both categories of

services and transport and logistics in the CSRI. Small Company B is a
privately owned LLC and operates in multiple states. Small Company B
provides a variety of technology services, communications, and logistics for
a variety of companies. The Company’s goal is to work together with
customers to develop relationships to promote success. The leadership of
the Company is well respected and has received accolades and awards for
ethics, excellent customer service, leadership, and superior sustainability
practices. Small Company B does not have a corporate foundation and has
no University alumni. Small Company B is a local company but has
provided services regionally, statewide, and nationally.
Medium Company A. Medium Company A is identified as a services
company within the CSRI. This corporation is in the industrial goods and
services industry and is a closely held, family-owned company that is part
of a group of companies. Examples of services include trades such as
masonry, steel work, and glazier. Original family descendants are still
involved with the company along with local shareholders. The Company
operates on Christian principles and family values. A main business
philosophy is to build strong, long-lasting relationships with clients.
Concerning the environment, Medium Company A emphasizes an
obligation to be good stewards of precious resources. The company has
received awards for excellence. This company operates in several states.
Medium Company A has two corporate foundations. Additionally, two
affiliated divisions of Medium Company A operate family foundations.
Medium Company A has a few executives and management as well as
employees who are alumni of the University.
Medium Company B. Medium Company B is identified as utilities in the
CSRI. This mature, publicly traded company provides a range of energy
products and services in a multi-state region. The Company emphasizes
customer value, dedication to shareholders, growth, improving
communities, and minimizing impact on the environment. Medium
Company B has received numerous awards and high rankings for customer
satisfaction, leadership, environmental efficiency, sustainability, community
commitment, and social performance. The Company highly values
employees’ efforts. The Company has built strong relationships with
diverse businesses. Several Medium Company B employees are University
alumni.
Fortune 500 Company A. Fortune 500 Company A identified as
industrial products under the CSRI. This multinational, publicly traded
company operates in many states and many countries. The division
participating in this study began as an American corporation and was
acquired as a subsidiary division of a corporation in another country
through various mergers and acquisitions during several decades of growth.
The Corporation manages a diverse portfolio of products and services
including communications, tele-communications, energy, engineering,
health, financial services, technology, manufacturing, logistics, and a
myriad of other areas. Fortune 500 Company A focuses on long-term
products and services creating sustainability and value for stakeholders.
These determinations emphasize a culture of stewardship behavior for the
Company. Fortune 500 Company A provides value to shareholders. One
report provided illustration of the Company’s focus on people. The
company has also received awards and high rankings for sustainability,
environmental advocacy, compliance, and risk management. The Company
claims it is a good corporate citizen. Fortune 500 Company A has several
corporate foundations. Fortune 500 Company A has an active group of
University alumni engaged in various projects. Fortune 500 Company A has
some executives, key employees, and recruiters who are alumni of the
University.
Fortune 500 Company B. Fortune 500 Company B identified as
consumer products in the CSRI. This multinational, publicly traded
company operates in a few states and several countries. The division
participating in this study began as an American corporation and was
acquired as a subsidiary division of a family-based corporation in another
country. The Corporation produces a wide range of products and
technologies. The Company has received a variety of awards and excellent
rankings from numerous third parties for sustainability, financial
performance, innovation, ethics, human resources practices, and employee
training. Fortune 500 Company B is committed to maximizing shareholder
profits while balancing the other triple bottom line factors of the
environment and society for the long-term success of the company. Fortune
500 Company B is a leader in sustainability and corporate citizenship. The
Company believes strongly in employees’ contributions to corporate
success including teamwork. Fortune 500 Company B has three
foundations. Fortune 500 Company B has an active group of University
alumni engaged in various projects.

Higher Education and Corporate Leader Interview Participants

Participants from the University, the University Foundation, and the six
corporations were identified for face-to-face interviews. Contacts
recommended participants at each organization and included those leaders
involved in the process of decision-making regarding the inter-
organizational relationship. At a minimum, at least one participant per
organization had to be identified. Ideally, as many as five individuals per
organization created enough information for saturation.
 FINDINGS FROM THE RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
Valuable findings emerged from the data. Table 3 illustrates the major
themes to each research question and appear in order of prominence
contextually from the data. The major themes emerging to answer research
question one: Why does a higher education institution accept corporate
citizenship engagement and financial support? from the researcher’s
dissertation includes the areas of viable resources, student enrichment, and
real-world connectivity. Four main themes are presented for research
question two: Why do US corporations engage as corporate citizens in
relationships with a higher education institution? The four major themes
include: workforce development, community enrichment, brand
development, and research.
Of special interest to inter-organizational relationships are the findings
for question three. Most interviewees – both higher education and corporate
leaders – could not think of any ethical concerns or dilemmas or provide
any specific examples, so generally no ethical dilemmas were found. While
ethical issues do occur and many topics of ethical concerns or dilemmas
were discussed when asked about ethical concerns, there was no single,
overshadowing ethical problem cited likely because of the depth of
transparency required today as well as deep and wide training programs and
watchdog third parties for organizational behavior. Second, several general
ethics discussion topics relating to ethical behaviors were noted by
interviewees, which created five clusters of topics of interest relating to
ethics: public relations, solicitation, policies and stewardship,
accountability and transparency, and leadership behavior.

Table 3. Summary of Themes Answering the Research Questions

Research Questions Themes
1. Why does a higher education institution accept corporate citizenship engagement and Viable resources
financial support?
Student enrichment
Real-world connectivity
2. Why do US corporations engage as corporate citizens in relationships with a higher Workforce
education institutions? development
Community enrichment
Brand development
Research
3. What ethical concerns arise in the engaged inter-organizational relationship between Generally none
corporations and a higher education institution? General ethical
discussion topics
Five disparate ethical
dilemmas

Note: After analysis of all data, themes emerged to answer the research questions (truncated from
Clevenger, 2014, p. 401).

Third, five disparate ethical concerns were shared by higher education

interviewees. In no particular order, the specific dilemmas faced and
mitigated by university interviewees included: (1) faculty trying to bypass
fees in sponsored research; (2) dealing with a company that wanted to use a
university venue on a hot topic for a panel discussion as a political agenda
with only one side of the debate invited; (3) a company requesting the
university to submit a proposal that included a position, but an actual
corporate employee was being provided; (4) student-funded projects failing
to deliver results; and (5) corporate executives wanting free tuition or a
scholarship for their child because their company was supporting the
University. However, none of the dilemmas involved the six corporate
participants in this study.

DISCUSSION
This research provides several implications. First, Cone’s (2010) corporate
citizenship spectrum is a useful framework to understand purposes and
motives that these type of organizations use to find common interests.
Second, key findings of the research questions indicated the differing
priorities for higher education and corporations. Third, inter-organizational
relationships are most successful when win–win goals are mutually
established through negotiation, formalized commitments, and ethical
execution. Fourth, implications for higher education leaders include
thinking more like companies and acting more quickly. Important steps to
plan for successful inter-organizational relationships involve developing
key strategies for resource development, providing multiple opportunities
for collaboration, creating clear value propositions, investing in
stewardship, and always acting ethically. Finally, implications for
corporations begin with understanding resources in higher education, and
actions involve a range of considerations: assessment of potential benefits
and risks of partnering, strategic priority overlap or growth, thinking long
term, and maintaining mutually beneficial motives conducted ethically. All
of these implications will aid in the increased success of higher education
engaging with corporations and vice versa.
Further research may provide deeper or additional results on the specific
themes. Including both public and private academic institutions could
expand cross-unit comparison. Interviewing non-leadership people would
add additional perspectives. Exploring more businesses may yield industry
patterns. Finally, including negative cases could shed even greater light on
these inter-organizational relationships as dissident voices.

CONCLUSION
Corporations and higher education have relied on each other for mutual
benefit, yet varying views ensue on the purposes, merits, realities, and
consequences that exist in the inter-organizational relationships between
corporate America and higher education. This organizational analysis case
study discusses the exchange between one higher education institution and
six US corporations to focus on understanding motivations, expected return
on investment, and ethical concerns. Multiple methods and multiple data
sources were used to address the research questions and included 12,906
pages of document and audio-visual materials, 36 interviews, and a forensic
campus observation yielding 407 photographs. Through triangulation, the
researcher confirmed the data that emerged from the interviews,
observations, and document and audio-visual analyses.
While “existing research offers some guidance for practitioners, the
implications are limited by the failure to ground the research in theoretical
or conceptual frameworks” (Drezner, 2011, p. 2). This study introduced and
explored Cone’s (2010) corporate citizenship spectrum as a lens, and thus
adds to the body of knowledge as a conceptual framework. The spectrum
provides four categories identifying key corporate citizenship functions
based on motivations and return on investment expectations, including
philanthropy, cause-related branding, operational culture, and DNA
citizenship ethos. Each of the six corporations in this study was able to be
evaluated and placed on the spectrum based on their reasons for
engagement with the higher education institution.
Inter-organizational relationships inevitably occur in a pluralistic society.
Higher education continues to face resource challenges and does not exist in
a vacuum but, rather, as part of the wider community. It is the fate of
colleges and universities to be shaped by political, economic, and social
forces, yet with each institution remaining free to choose the road it wants
to travel and which partnerships to intertwine the academy with along the
way. Today higher education looks outside itself for resources; corporations
are one key area of interest for academic institutions. While corporate
funding is highly volatile because of the American economy, corporations
have a significant financial impact on higher education. The Network of
Academic Corporate Relations Officers (NACRO) is presently designing a
research instrument to capture the wider range of corporate engagement
with higher education.
Any particular organization may be enmeshed in a web with other
organizations (Aldrich, 1979). With such a vital role in society,
governments and corporations have a vested interest in the success of
American higher education. “The corporation has long played a stellar role
on the American social stage” (Jacoby, 1973, p. 249). Likewise, “many
corporations support social and academic causes without attaching
conditions or extracting concessions. Corporate America tends to respect
the university’s independence and idealism and to honor its boundaries”
(Boyd & Halfond, 1990, p. A44). Likewise, the US and state governments
have contributed greatly to societal functioning, including by support for
free market enterprise and higher education (Cohen, 2010; Jacoby, 1973;
Madden, 1977).
The inter-organizational relationships between the University and six
corporate partners in this study appear congruent with the American
pluralistic society. Components include ideals of democracy, support for the
free enterprise system of capitalism, and a co-ownership of social
responsibilities. This study highlights positive inter-organizational
relationships with mutual benefit as the outcome. The concept of corporate
interaction with society as a spectrum has emerged and evolved in the past
several decades.
This study illuminates several reasons why higher education engages
with corporations as well as some of the motives and return on investment
expectations corporations have, such as enlightened self-interest.
Consideration of ethical dilemmas is also addressed. This study confirms
that stringent reporting, accountability, and transparency uphold the Golden
Rule and utilitarian principles. Additionally, the development of inter-
organizational relationships is an ongoing process situated in organizational
culture. The process matures and strengthens over time. Positive inter-
organizational relationships are yielded by exploring potential
opportunities, navigating common interests, defining and negotiating key
expectations, and monitoring progress and outcomes.

REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Boyd, D. P., & Halfond, J. A. (1990). Corporate ties and integrity at U.S. business schools. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(38), A44.
Bruch, H., & Walter, F. (2005). The keys to rethinking corporate philanthropy. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 47(1), 48–55.
Caboni, T. C. (2010). The normative structure of college and university fundraising behaviors. The
Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 339–365.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching™. (2019). The Carnegie classification of
institutions of higher education®. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2017). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management
(10th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Carty, C. M., & Blank, H. D. (2003, January). The Fortune 500 vs. the S&P 500. Financial Advisor
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.fa-mag.com/component/content/article/624.html?
issue=28&magazineID=1&Itemid=27
Ciconte, B. L., & Jacob, J. G. (2009). Fundraising basics: A complete guide (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett.
Clevenger, M. R. (2014). An organizational analysis of the inter-organizational relationships
between a public American higher education university and six United States corporate
supporters: An instrumental, ethnographic case study using Cone’s corporate citizenship
spectrum. ProQuest published Doctoral Dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia,
Columbia, MO. Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/45866
Clevenger, M. R. (2019). Corporate citizenship and higher education: Behaviors, engagement, and
ethics. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Clevenger, M. R., & MacGregor, C. J. (2019). Business and corporation engagement with higher
education: Models, theories, and best practices. Bingley: Emerald.
Cohen, A. M. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergency and growth of the
contemporary system (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cone, C. (2010). The new era of global corporate citizenship & compliance. Paper presented at Net
Impact Conference, October 27, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of inter-
organizational relations. New York, NY: Oxford University.
Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 37(2). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Ebers, M. (1999). The dynamics of inter-organizational relationships. Sociology of Organizations, 16,
31–56.
Eddy, P. L. (2010). Partnerships and collaborations in higher education. ASHE Higher Education
Report, 36(2). San Francisco, NY: Wiley.
Fischer, M. (2000). Ethical decision making in fund raising. New York, NY: Wiley.
Giroux, H. A., & Giroux, S. S. (2004). Take back higher education: Race, youth, and the crisis of
democracy in the post-civil rights era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gould, E. (2003). The university in a corporate culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader ethical values,
transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes in corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Business Ethic, 103, 511–528.
Jacoby, N. H. (1973). Corporate power and social responsibility. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Johnson, W. C. (2006). Challenges in university-industry collaborations. In L. E. Weber & J. J.
Duderstadt (Eds.), Universities and business: Partnering for the knowledge society (pp. 211–
222). London: Economica Ltd.
Kaplan, A. E. (2007). 2006 Voluntary support of education. New York, NY: Council for Aid to
Education.
Kaplan, A. E. (2008). 2007 Voluntary support of education. New York, NY: Council for Aid to
Education.
Kaplan, A. E. (2009). 2008 Voluntary support of education. New York, NY: Council for Aid to
Education.
Kaplan, A. E. (2010). 2009 Voluntary support of education. New York, NY: Council for Aid to
Education.
Kaplan, A. E. (2011). 2010 Voluntary support of education. New York, NY: Council for Aid to
Education.
Kaplan, A. E. (2018). 2017 voluntary support of education survey. New York, NY: Council for Aid to
Education.
Madden, C. (1977). Forces which influence ethical behavior. In C. C. Walton (Ed.), The ethics of
corporate conduct (pp. 31–78). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Madzik, P., Budaj, P., & Chocholláková, A. (2018). Practical experiences with the application of
corporate social responsibility principles in a higher education environment. Sustainability,
10, 1736, 1–25.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Molnar, A. (2002). The corporate branding of our schools. Educational Leadership, 60(2), 74–78.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017). Table 21. Higher education R&D
expenditures, ranked by all R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FY 2017 (Dollars in
thousands) from Higher education research and development survey: Fiscal year 2017.
Retrieved from National Science Foundation at
https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2017/index.html
National Science Foundation. (2011). Table 14. Higher education R&D expenditures ranked by all
R&D expenditures, by source of funds: FY 2011. Retrieved from
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13325/pdf/nsf13325.pdf
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependenceperspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rhodes, F. H. T. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American University. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational
relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
Ringleb, A. H., Meiners, R. E., & Edwards, F. L. (1997). Managing in the legal environment (3rd
ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Rose, A. P. (2011). Giving by the numbers 2011. New York, NY: Committee Encouraging Corporate
Philanthropy.
Samans, R. (2005). Partnering for success: Business perspectives on multistakeholder partnerships.
Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Sanzone, C. S. (2000). Securing corporate support: The business of corporate relations. In P.
Buchanan (Ed.), Handbook of institutional advancement (3rd ed., pp. 321–324). Washington,
DC: CASE.
Saul, J. (2011). The end of fundraising: Raise more money selling your impact. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Siegel, D. (2012). Beyond the academic-corporate divide. Academe, 98(1), 29–31.
The 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Index. (2010). The 2010 corporate social responsibility
index. Retrieved from http://www.bcccc.net/pdf/CSRIReport2010.pdf
U.S. Census. (2008). Statistics of U.S. businesses: Latest SUSB data. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/
U.S. Small Business Administration. (2011). Table of small business size standards matched to North
American industry classification system codes. Retrieved from
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2002). Global corporate citizenship initiative. Retrieved from
https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GCCI/GCCI_CEO_Questionnaire.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 89–104
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023007
CHAPTER 8
FROM ENGAGEMENT TO STRATEGY:
THE JOURNEY TOWARDS A CIVIC
UNIVERSITY
Nicola Gratton

ABSTRACT
Between 2002 and 2018, at a time when UK universities were being
increasingly measured in economic and financial terms, Staffordshire
University established a dedicated public engagement unit. Staffed by
an experienced team of “pracademics” (Posner, 2009), the Creative
Communities Unit (CCU) engaged with community members and
voluntary organizations through teaching, research, and consultancy.
Underpinning CCU practice was a clear set of principles influenced
by those of community development, including participation,
inclusion, and action-driven practice. However, despite strong
community connections the work of the unit remained isolated with
little coordination for public engagement at a strategic level in the
university.
This chapter charts the work of the CCU over its lifespan and its
influence on a strategically embedded Connected Communities
Framework through which civic engagement is supported across the
institution. It explores how the alignment of grass roots activity
through the CCU, shifts in UK policy and a clear, institutional
 strategic vision for civic engagement enabled the move from public
engagement as a small team activity to an institutional commitment. It
concludes with a reflection on the enabling conditions that supported
the journey toward a civic university.
Keywords: Participation; inclusion; Get Talking; participatory action
research (PAR); relationships; community development principles;
university-community partnership; communities; civic engagement

INTRODUCTION
Universities do not operate in a vacuum. They influence, and are influenced
by, their place, their people, and their economy (Brennan, Cochrane,
Lebeau, & Williams, 2018). In the current neoliberal context of higher
education in the UK, the demand for universities to maximize their
economic return on investment has overridden their potential social value
(Brink, 2018). However, with recent calls for universities to contribute to
the public good (Brackmann, 2015; Brink, 2018) and the timely publication
of Truly Civic (UPP Foundation, 2019a), universities are prioritizing their
civic roles and their social impact on the geographies in which they are
based. The implementation of civic engagement and prioritization of social
good in the current financial and political climate, however, is not
necessarily straightforward with universities experiencing a broad range of
challenges in embedding meaningful civic engagement for the benefits of
stakeholders and regions.
This chapter presents Staffordshire University as a case study, charting
the civil commitments and public engagement activity of the university
over time, from the development of a dedicated, but isolated, Creative
Communities Unit (CCU) in 2002 to the development of a strategically
embedded Connected Communities Framework in the present day. The
founding principles and practices of the CCU approach that have continued
to influence the development of the current framework are outlined, in
addition to exploring how a new strategic civic commitment within the
university, combined with recent policy developments in UK higher
education sector, together created conditions for the Connected
Communities Framework to be embraced at strategic and operational levels.
The UPP Foundation (2019a) argue that UK universities have been
dismissive of the cities and towns in which they are based, operating as
relatively well-resourced global institutions in economically disadvantaged
areas, reinforcing perceptions of universities as impenetrable to most local
people. These widening divides, if not addressed, will have a detrimental
effect on universities and places by reducing the potential for social
mobility, public empowerment, and the relevance of universities to the
areas in which they are based (UPP Foundation, 2019a).
Since the early 2000s, UK higher education sector policy has
emphasized the social responsibilities of universities to their localities
(Jorge & Peña, 2017; National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement
(NCCPE), 2018a). The implementation of a Knowledge Exchange
Framework, announced in 2017, is expected to include metrics on research
partnerships, and public, third sector, and community engagement,
providing a means of recognizing the social contributions universities make
to their civic regions (Research England, 2019). Furthermore, the growth of
the NCCPE since its inception in 2008 also highlights an increased focus on
the social value of universities through public engagement, which is “by
definition, a two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the
goal of generating mutual benefit” (NCCPE, 2018b, para. 2). Parallel to
these developments the Research Excellence Framework has increasingly
emphasized the need for research to demonstrate “the ‘reach and
significance’ of impacts on the economy, society, culture, public policy or
services, health, the environment or quality of life that were underpinned by
excellent research” (REF 2021, 2019, p. 7). This drive toward demonstrable
impact has highlighted the potential significance of public engagement for
many universities, particularly in the realm of research. Despite these
developments, UK universities continue to be assessed predominantly on
their economic impact on graduates and the experience of students whilst
studying, with little means of reporting on their wider social impact
(Department for Education, 2019a).
The UPP Foundation (2019a) report, Truly Civic, was published in
response to political, ideological, and economic tensions faced by UK
universities. It presents a series of recommendations to support the civic
roles of universities including the development of Civic University
Agreements based on a deep understanding of place and its communities,
measuring and incentivizing civic activity, building networks for sharing
good practice, raising aspirations and attainment, and supporting adult
education. Around one-third of UK universities have signed a commitment
to observe the recommendations of the Truly Civic report (UPP Foundation,
2019b) demonstrating the largely welcoming reception of the report, the
emphasis it places on the social value of universities and the challenge it
brings to the existing economic and political landscape that diametrically
opposed such value since the late 1990s (Ally & Smith, 2004; Brink, 2018).
However, while offering strong support for the case to be made at a local
and national level, the report alone cannot create the conditions for
universities to become “truly civic.” A combination of enabling factors
needs to be in place to ensure practice and strategy are aligned and
complimentary. These additional enabling factors and the necessary
alignment of national and institutional policy are illustrated through the
introduction of the case study herein.

THE CCU AT STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY

Staffordshire University is based in Stoke-on-Trent, a city with a population
of around 250,000 in the West Midlands in the UK. Stoke-on-Trent has a
rich history of pottery and mining industries, and despite a resurging
cultural sector in the city, many of its residents are feeling the effects of
post-industrial decline. It is the 14th most deprived city in England with
high levels of child poverty (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
Government, 2019). In some areas of the city less than 20% of young
people go on to higher education (Department for Education, 2016)
compared to a UK national average of 50% (Department for Education,
2019b).
With its origins firmly based in addressing local needs for skilled miners
and pottery workers in the early twentieth century, Staffordshire University
has a long history as an educational establishment based at the heart of its
local community. It has, for many years, recognized its social and economic
responsibilities and engaged with local people for the purposes of widening
participation and to maintain relationships with people living nearest to the
university campus, including subject-specific family days, school outreach,
and community engagement with research. Equally, academic staff have
forged strong links with local employers, third-sector organizations, and
members of the public to both inform teaching and research and to provide
real-world opportunities for their students. However, until recently this
work has been largely uncoordinated at a strategic level. Therefore, in order
to illustrate the journey toward a civic university this case study focuses on
the work of one team with a specific remit to engage with local
communities and how this work evolved over time to inform the current
Connected Communities Framework.
Staffordshire University established the CCU in 2002, which operated
until 2018. The CCU was staffed by a multi-disciplinary team of
community practitioners and academics with a broad range of specialisms,
including community development, youth and community work practice,
policy development, regeneration, mentoring and coaching, and community
arts. Most core staff had extensive experience as practitioners in their
subject specialism and therefore brought with them networks, principles,
and practices, which helped to build the reputation of CCU as a grounded
unit. This close relationship between the unit and community
representatives formed a strong element of CCU’s identity throughout its
lifespan. These connections with communities are evident through the three
areas of CCU’s practice: teaching, consultancy, and research. Each of these
will be discussed.

Teaching
Initially, CCU delivered postgraduate awards reflecting the subject
specialisms of the team and demands from local public and voluntary sector
employers, including taught programs in community practice, community
arts, and youth and community work. The block teaching format made
courses attractive to mature, part-time students who were employed in the
local public and voluntary sectors. As the financial impact of the banking
crisis of 2008 and the subsequent austerity measures imposed in the UK in
2010 impacted on the sustainability of the larger postgraduate awards, CCU
reviewed the programs on offer. A series of short courses were developed,
which acted as an access point for non-traditional learners to Staffordshire
University. They were offered to community groups, organizations, and
individuals and, being developed through externally funded projects, were
often free to learners.
All short courses were “practical, fun, creative and provided skills
needed to further develop the work of organisations” (Emadi-Coffin, 2008,
p. 32); they were also designed to build the practical and academic
confidence of the participants themselves. Students enrolled on these short
courses were able to gain a university certificate of credit at either
postgraduate, undergraduate, or foundation levels. Crucially, the courses
offered a further link to community practice; all courses had a practical
element through which students were able to connect with local community
members and organizations.

Consultancy
In addition to delivering short courses, CCU engaged in a broad range of
consultancy activities. Given the reduction in postgraduate awards,
consultancy provided an alternative income for the CCU. However, the
benefits of engaging in consultancy activities went beyond financial.
Engaging in practice brings academic credibility through an appreciation of
changing contexts and improving the relevance of research for practice
(Elliott & Wall, 2008) and is vital for students’ ability to engage with their
intended audience, supporting development of practitioners through
engagement with theory (Posner, 2009). Consultancy opportunities included
delivery of an annual community festival, community organizing, peer-
mentoring programs, evaluations, social value assessments, group
facilitation, and tailored short courses.
CCU also partnered with organizations to work on strategically
significant, locally delivered projects, such as Appetite, a large-scale Arts
Council England funded program, for which CCU was the evaluating
consortium partner (Gratton, 2014). A further example was a Local
Authority partnership, for whom CCU delivered a custom-built training and
mentoring program to disseminate a new strategic vision and policy to
operational staff. CCU projects, therefore, offered not only local
engagement activities, but also actively contributed to leadership of local
civic activity and regeneration, building strong connections and long-term
relationships between CCU and partner organizations.

Research
Consultancy provided CCU with the opportunity to undertake applied
research in a variety of settings. Community consultation and evaluations
adopted participatory methods through which new local knowledge was
coproduced, often utilizing creative approaches to maximize the
opportunity for people with lower literacy levels to participate (Kara, 2015).
While most research commissions were small scale with a city or regional
focus, the subject areas of the commissioned work were broad. These
included a participatory consultation in the areas immediately surrounding
the university, which identified improvements needed to the local area as
perceived by the residents (Vincent, 2010). The findings from this
consultation informed the development of a group that went on to secure
significant heritage funding for the refurbishment of a local park. Other
research projects included a social value forecast for Stoke-on-Trent’s bid to
be City of Culture 2021 (Gratton & Jones, 2016), a coproduced
participatory action research (PAR) project identifying how mainstream
cultural sector organizations can provide better access for people with
learning disabilities (Gratton, 2019; Gratton & Corcoran, 2018), and a
Family Arts Campaign funded participatory research project to develop
content guidance for family arts events (Hetherington, 2015).
Through their programs of engaged and applied research, CCU staff
were successful in achieving positive impact outside academia with
valuable outcomes for commissioning organizations, participants, and
beneficiaries. However, the engagement did not always translate into
academic outputs. The high value placed on participation and transparency
resulted in priority being given to clearly communicated and accessible
findings, rather than academic papers or outputs. The team managed a
broad portfolio of short-term projects and needed to sustain the work of
CCU through continual income generation. This financial pressure,
combined with a lack of strategic positioning within the university, resulted
in under-realized potential for research conducted by the CCU team to
contribute to the university’s research agenda through published research
outputs.

THE PRINCIPLES OF CCU

The work of CCU reflected the practice backgrounds of the core staff team,
specifically community development, youth work, and Asset-Based
Community Development (ABCD) (Clarke, 2011; Mathie & Cunningham,
2003). Their approaches exemplified some of the key principles outlined in
the Kellogg Commission on the future of Land Grant universities in the
United States (McDowell, 2003; UPP Foundation, 2019a) such as the
requirement for universities to be responsive to community need, respect
community partners, and offer accessible opportunities. These influences
developed into a series of principles that underpinned CCU practice and
shaped engagement with communities. Each principle, and its influence on
practice, is explored.

Participation
A key principle of CCU teaching and practice was that participation has
potential for transformative change (Arnstein, 1969; Ledwith & Springett,
2010). CCU aimed to find ways of encouraging meaningful and active
participation in the design and delivery of a broad range of projects,
courses, and activities. Based on the assumption that communities and
members of the public are asset rich (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003),
coproduced knowledge was considered a useful means for redressing
inequalities between universities and communities (Cohen, Herbert, Evans,
& Samzelius, 2017), and therefore community encounters were based on an
understanding that all parties were both generators and recipients of new
knowledge.
Participation, if done well, is time- and resource-intensive and therefore
tensions with income-generation targets were increasingly apparent.
However, despite these financial pressures, participatory practice was
encouraged throughout all CCU activity. Research involved community
members as researchers. Students were encouraged to actively engage in
taught sessions and influence their own learning and assessment and
commissioned work involved both commissioners and their service users in
project design. To build capacity, students and community representatives
were encouraged to work with CCU as associate lecturers and researchers,
further embedding CCU activities into the communities they served.

Inclusion
Social justice and equality are core principles of community development,
youth work, and ABCD, all of which make the case for proactive and
purposeful challenge to societal inequality. However, it was clear that as a
university-based unit, the CCU was less accessible to some sections of
society than others. Non-traditional higher education learners were difficult
to engage with due to perceptions of university being an exclusive
environment. To overcome this CCU took a deliberative, inclusive stance to
their approach to working with communities, building relationships, and
providing flexible opportunities.

Relationships
Building positive relationships with communities is a fundamental principle
of youth work and community development (Batsleer & Davies, 2010; Jeffs
& Smith 2010). With low levels of higher education engagement among
communities within Stoke-on-Trent, and a high level of skepticism in its
relevance to the average person in cities such as Stoke-on-Trent (UPP
Foundation, 2019a), CCU actively worked with people who were unlikely
to engage with higher education. For many people, especially those with no
experience of higher education, CCU teaching, consultancy, and research
projects provided their first opportunity to engage with a university and its
staff, helping to open an otherwise perceived impenetrable university
façade. In addition to positive relationships with communities, CCU staff
also built an informal network of staff from across the university who were
interested in community engagement activities. This virtual network was
sent updates of community engagement activity and shared good practice.
Flexibility
Wherever possible CCU engagement was taken at the pace of the people
involved (Jeffs & Smith, 2010; Ledwith & Springett, 2010). Following the
principles of differentiation (Petty, 2004), CCU short courses and other
projects were designed to enable a diverse group of learners to engage. For
example, for some short-course participants, a foundation-level
qualification proved too intimidating or challenging, and therefore, students
were encouraged to engage in the course as a non-accredited learning
opportunity. This approach was particularly helpful for engaging people
with learning disabilities and people with low English literacy skills.
Students of different academic abilities therefore shared class sessions that
created learning communities through which students were able to offer
experiences, perspectives, and support to others while gaining from learning
alongside people different to themselves (Gratton & Beddows, 2018).

Action Driven
“Collective action for social change” (Ledwith & Springett, 2010, p. 14)
was a key driver for much of CCU’s practice. Teaching, consultancy,
research, and wider internal and external relationships were undertaken
with the intention of engaging with others to create societal change, in
particular in relation to inequality and inclusion. For example, CCU
supported a fire and rescue service to conduct a creative consultation
through which young people were able to inform the fire and rescue
services’ children and young people’s policy (Gratton & Beddows, 2018)
and helped more community members to engage with the Centre for Health
and Development (CHAD), a partnership between Staffordshire University
and Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire local authorities (CHAD, 2019).

GET TALKING: PRINCIPLES INTO

PRACTICE
PAR is an approach to research that places people most affected by the
subject area at the heart of the research process as trained and supported
community researchers (McIntyre, 2008). Participatory research therefore
“is primarily differentiated from conventional research in the alignment of
power within the research process” (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995, p. 1668)
and addresses power imbalances between researchers and the “researched”
(Walter, 2008). Get Talking, an approach to PAR developed and adopted by
CCU in collaboration with Kate Gant of Creative Health CIC, utilizes the
core principles underpinning CCU’s work and places emphasis on the use
of creative engagement techniques to reach people often under-represented
as community researchers and research participants (Gratton & Beddows,
2018). Community researchers are supported through the whole research
process, from planning to dissemination and implementation of actions
based on findings.
Get Talking illustrates the interconnected relationship between CCU’s
principles and teaching, research, and consultancy. Get Talking was initially
developed as taught course for a local community-based organization in
2004 (Emadi-Coffin, 2008). Although designed as a short course, the
approach was adopted as the methodology for much of the practice of CCU,
becoming synonymous with the unit. The practice of recruiting teams of
community researchers to work as partners with CCU staff and
commissioners to deliver projects was commended by local organizations
and community members alike, and flexibility was demonstrated with
pragmatic adaptations being made to the approach for each project (Gratton
& Beddows, 2018). While involving community researchers in the process
was both time- and resource-intensive, Get Talking’s “responsive, purpose-
driven, challenge-led, and team-based approach” to research, although
clearly different from traditional forms of academic research, played an
important part in the knowledge economy (Brink, 2018, p. 2018).
As Get Talking became established in CCU, the approach was used for
multiple projects, bringing closer alignment to teaching, research, and
consultancy. The program became increasingly driven by communities’
needs to take action in their geographic area or community of interest,
ensuring the impact of the Get Talking approach is maximized. As the
potential for the Get Talking approach to have research impact has been
realized, the approach has become instrumental in both the development
and implementation of the Connected Communities Framework.
THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CCU APPROACH
Insecurities resulting from the financial instability caused by the banking
crisis of 2008 had a significant impact on the CCU. In 2015, CCU moved to
a short-course model in response to the impact of austerity measures in the
UK on local authority and voluntary-sector training budgets, on which CCU
students typically relied. While on the surface, the move should have been a
positive way of engaging more non-traditional university learners, in order
to make the courses viable, large cohorts were required and therefore the
short courses were only possible when commissioned by an organization.
Equally, the reduction in postgraduate programs resulted in an increased
need to secure additional funding through consultancy. These financial
pressures had two effects on the practice of CCU that impacted on staffs’
ability to work within the defined principles. First, the need to cover the
costs of staff time and resources for projects excluded a range of
community members, groups, and organizations that had previously worked
with Staffordshire University on the grounds of mutual benefit through
civic engagement. As a result, some long-established relationships with
communities were affected, in particular with those groups less likely to
engage with higher education.
The second effect was on the mission of the CCU as a unit. Given the
diverse expertise of the team, combined by pressure felt by them to secure
income for the sustainability of the unit, practice became driven by projects
through which funding could be sourced, not by a clear strategy for
community or civic engagement. As a result, the activity of the various
team members became fractured and although they were complimentary on
some level, they did not work toward a collective vision for the unit. Groark
and McCall (2018) discuss the need for balanced leadership in higher
education engagement units, who understand the needs of communities, the
unit, and the organization. Although the team were experienced
pracademics (Posner, 2009), there was little coordinated leadership support
to embed the engagement activity of the unit at a faculty or university
strategy level.
Taken in the current higher education context, much of CCU-driven
change as described previously would be recognized as impact. However,
during the lifespan of CCU, before the impact in research agenda grew in
strength in the UK, there was less external pressure to evidence impact.
While evaluations and reports were produced as outputs on a project basis,
no wider evaluation of CCU’s impact was made, making it difficult to
articulate the difference the work had made and how it contributed to the
overall civic and social impact of the university. Therefore, while there was
ample activity taking place, there was little strategic coordination, with no
measurement of the impact it had on those involved, the city or on
Staffordshire University. A lack of strategy for community engagement and
limited understanding of the impact of community engagement activity
therefore became increasingly problematic, both within the team and for the
wider university. As stated in the Truly Civic report, there is a difference
between being civically engaged as a university and being a civic
university:
Our view is that a university can only be regarded as a civic university if purpose – and
strategy to support that purpose – includes making a positive civic impact. Universities which
do not do this, but which do undertake valuable civic activity, can only be regarded as a
civically engaged university …. Being a civic university involves a level of effort and
direction that has profound implications for how an institution operates. (UPP Foundation,
2019a, p. 34)

The next section explores how these limitations were addressed to

embed a vision for a civic university at a strategic level at Staffordshire
University and the enabling factors that contributed to this development.

TOWARD A CIVIC UNIVERSITY

While the foundations of civic engagement had been built over several
years, it took three parallel developments to embed this engagement at a
strategic level. The first emerged from increased financial pressures on
CCU, which significantly reduced the size of the team. While on the surface
this brought capacity issues, it also provided an opportunity to reframe the
work carried out by existing team members. Remaining team members
were able to develop a more specific focus for their work, draw on the civic
expertise of others in the university, and ensure greater alignment and
connectivity between their work.
 Around the same time, a newly appointed executive team embedded
“connections” at the heart of the new university strategy, asserting
Staffordshire University as the Connected University and entrusting a
senior executive with the task of implementing a Connected Communities
strategy across the institution. The remaining CCU team members were
supported to develop a model for this engagement activity that could be
rolled out across the university: The Connected Communities Framework.
Involving CCU staff in the development of the framework created a strong
connection between the overall vision of the university and existing
community engagement activities, and provided the CCU with an
understanding of the breadth and depth of community activity across the
institution. Crucially, it also provided an opportunity to build on the
fundamental principles and activities of the CCU for the benefit of the
whole institution, its staff and its wider communities.
Two national conversations and policy shifts enabled the civic
engagement work of the CCU to be positioned within a more strategic
framework. As the REF formalized the pathways to impact for research in a
higher education context (REF 2021, 2019), the potential to maximize
impact from civic engagement became apparent. As such, CCU staff were
encouraged to reposition their research to fit within the impact agenda.
Equally, the UPP Foundation published the Truly Civic report, setting a
challenge to the higher education sector and the UK government to better
fulfill the civic roles and responsibilities of universities, to produce civic
agreements with key partners in localities, and have clear strategies rooted
in analysis of local need (UPP Foundation, 2019a). Consultation and
engagement on the Connected Communities Framework had started prior to
the launch of the Truly Civic report, providing a strong foundation for the
longer-term development of Staffordshire University’s Civic Agreement.

THE CONNECTED COMMUNITIES

FRAMEWORK
Staffordshire University’s Connected Communities Framework is depicted
as a series of concentric circles to indicate stakeholders, activities,
reflection and feedback, monitoring and evaluation, and recognition and
celebration. Although designed to inform civic engagement at an
institutional level, the CCU principles of participation, inclusion, and
action-driven practice are clearly visible in both the framework and its
development.

Fig. 1. Staffordshire University’s Connected Communities Framework.

The Connected Communities Framework (Fig. 1) encourages

connections between six sets of stakeholders: students, staff, community
members, community organizations, alumni, and civic partners. It also
outlines six broad areas of activity through which improved relationships
with local communities could be established for mutual benefit, including
research, teaching and learning, volunteering, knowledge exchange, events,
and access to spaces and places. The outer circles of the framework focus
on monitoring and evaluation, with further emphasis on recognition and
celebration of civic engagement, set within the core values of the
institution.
The CCU principles informed both the design and implementation of the
Connected Communities Framework. Students, staff, and members of the
public were consulted in the design of the framework, using creative
engagement techniques, such as board games, to gather feedback. However,
the use of participatory practices in the governance and implementation of
the framework are significantly different to previous grassroots practices of
the CCU. First, responsibility for implementation of the framework is
overseen by a steering group, chaired by a past member of the CCU.
Although a previous informal network for sharing practice existed, the
Connected Communities Framework steering group is more structured, with
membership comprising of students, staff, community organization
representatives, and members of the public. The group contributes to action
planning, implementation, and evaluation. This collective approach to
governance improves ownership of the Connected Communities
Framework across the institution, ensures consistency, and allows previous
learning to be utilized at a strategic level.
Get Talking continues to support the Connected Communities
Framework by contributing to research activity. However, whereas Get
Talking has previously been used to work on small-scale projects with little
connection to university operations, through the framework the network of
community researchers developed by the CCU are also able to inform the
ongoing community engagement activity of the university. Monitoring and
evaluation of the framework, and the development of Staffordshire
University’s Civic Agreement, will include Get Talking consultations,
involving local people as community researchers. Crucially, the Connected
Communities Framework allows for closer alignment between Get Talking
and the university’s research and knowledge exchange frameworks,
highlighting the benefits of community-based research approaches for
academics, communities, and students alike.
Recognition and celebration of civic engagement is prominent in the
framework. While recognition of staff and student community engagement
are achieved through course feedback, appraisals, and staff and student
annual award ceremonies, no such opportunities existed to recognize the
contributions of community members to the university. Drawing on the
CCU principle of building strong relationships with communities and the
principle emphasizing respect for partners outlined in the Kellogg
Commission (McDowell, 2003; UPP Foundation, 2019a), being unable to
formally recognize the value of community contribution to the Connected
Communities Framework was a considerable gap. Therefore, an honorary
title of civic fellow was introduced for community members who make a
significant contribution to the university. The voluntary title, which mirrors
the status of research and visiting fellows, provides an opportunity for
people with limited or no academic experience to engage with the
university in a formal capacity. Civic fellowship activities can include
curriculum development, research, volunteering, or enhancing community
university partnerships, with the aim of providing mutual benefit for the
fellows, the university, and communities alike.

ENABLING FACTORS FOR CIVIC

UNIVERSITIES
Chang and Moore (2017) identify a series of enablers for effective public
engagement in higher education. They outline how effective public
engagement requires coordination and strategic support, flexibility of
definitions, diversity of opportunities, and a clear framework for monitoring
and evaluation. This case study outlines how the journey toward a civic
university relied on these factors, and alignment of other enablers, including
celebration of community contributions and building strategies from
principled foundation.
Coordination and support at an institutional level have been most
influential in embedding civic engagement in the strategic vision of
Staffordshire University. Commitment at the executive and governor levels,
grown out of national conversations about the civic responsibilities of
higher education and research impact, resulted in the Connected
Communities Framework becoming aligned with other university policies,
offering a refreshed vision for how Staffordshire University can deliver its
civic responsibilities.
Flexibility was a central principle for CCU and remains such for the
Connected Communities Framework. A challenge for the implementation
of the Connected Communities Framework is to ensure the whole
university, regardless of subject area, can engage with the framework.
Flexibility of definitions are therefore vital to ensure civic engagement is as
relevant to mathematicians as sociologists, requiring coordinators of the
framework to collaborate closely with faculty staff to support the dispersed
implementation of the strategy across the university (Groark & McCall,
2018). Support sessions provide staff with opportunities to discuss the
Connected Communities Framework within the context of their subject or
work area, maximizing the reach of the framework within the university
and the impact this has within a wide range of communities.
Similarly, diversity of opportunity is a further enabling factor for
effective public engagement (Chang & Moore, 2017). The Connected
Communities Framework offers a broad range of opportunities through a
loose structure for civic engagement activities, but is not prescriptive in
how these activities should be delivered. The focus is instead on the
potential social impact of the work. The need to expand the delivery of
opportunities from a small focused team to the whole university requires the
activities highlighted within the framework to be diverse enough for all
stakeholders to identify suitable methods of engagement. This diversity of
opportunities, alongside the flexibility of definitions, makes the Connected
Communities Framework inclusive to a wider audience than the CCU was
able to reach.
Chang and Moore make the case for evaluation as a means of “fostering
discourse across potential divides” (2017, p. 26). Monitoring and impact
evaluation are vital features of the framework providing Staffordshire
University with an understanding of how their civic engagement impacts on
their civic region. However, the framework goes further than Chang and
Moore suggest, including recognition and celebration as part of the same
cycle as monitoring and evaluation. A potential criticism of coproduced
knowledge and university–community collaborations is of the expectations
placed on the time and resource commitments of community partners,
particularly voluntary or charity-sector organizations or community
members who are not paid for their interactions with universities (Cohen et
al., 2017). There was also a lack of acknowledgement of the impact
community members, who are not engaged as students, can make to the
university. This lack of acknowledgement was addressed in part by the
introduction of the civic fellowship role, through which the university
makes a clear statement about the value of community partnerships to the
institution and the Connected Communities Framework.
University–community partnerships and engagement need to be
sustained beyond the life of short-term projects (Chang & Moore, 2017).
Participatory approaches, such as the use of Get Talking, develop skills for
sustainability in communities and within universities. However,
understanding the impact of the Connected Communities Framework is
essential to secure the long-term investment required to embed civic
engagement into core activity of all universities (Groark & McCall, 2018)
and therefore a clear and consistent means of evaluating civic engagement
activity is necessary for sustained engagement. Equally, understanding the
collective impact of civic activity is one of the defining features of a civic
university (UPP Foundation, 2019a). While the CCU was able to
understand the individual impact of projects, its understanding of the
collective impact of the university’s civic engagement was limited. The
Connected Communities Framework has embedded a consistent system for
monitoring and evaluation of activity, utilizing existing measures where
possible, and underpinned, in part, by participatory principles.
Chang and Moore’s (2017) enabling factors for public engagement
reflect factors that supported Staffordshire University’s journey toward a
civic university. However, the case study presents a further enabling factor
to those already identified. The development of a robust strategic approach
to civic engagement in higher education was strengthened by building on a
solid set of principles from community-based practice. Participation,
inclusion, and action-driven practice remain important features of the
framework, ensuring people are valued as equal partners in its delivery,
long-term relationships are prioritized over short-term projects, and
universities can realize their potential as agents of change by working
collectively with communities and civic partners.
 CONCLUSION
This chapter has outlined the journey of one institution from a civically
engaged university to a civic university by building a university-wide
strategy based on tried and tested principles and practices of a well-
established unit with its foundations in community development work. The
result is a strategy that will have significant implications for how
Staffordshire University operates and understands the difference it makes to
its place, a vital defining characteristic of a civic university (UPP
Foundation, 2019a). The national debate reiterating the value of civic
universities makes a strong case for universities to strengthen their strategic
commitment to civic engagement. However, the transformation within this
case study relied on the alignment of additional enabling factors including
executive commitment to maximizing the social value of the university and
well-established, participatory grass roots activity and relationships
established through the CCU.
Although participatory engagement with communities is considered a
means of addressing power imbalances between universities and
communities (Cohen et al., 2017), the benefit of the interaction often falls
largely with the higher education institution itself. Universities therefore
must consider not only the contribution community engagement can make
to the institution, but equally their own role as civic partners. This case
study illustrates how, with strategic institutional support, community
development principles can inform a strategy that takes a university from an
institution delivering localized community engagement projects toward its
vision of being an impactful and locally relevant civic university that
contributes to real change with the communities it serves.

REFERENCES
Ally, S., & Smith, M. (2004). Timeline: Tuition fees. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/jan/27/tuitionfees.students
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. AIP Journal, 35, 216–224.
Batsleer, J., & Davies, B. (2010). What is youth work? Exeter: Learning Matters.
Brackmann, S. M. (2015). Community engagement in a neoliberal paradigm. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(4), 115–146.
Brennan, J., Cochrane, A., Lebeau, Y., & Williams, R. (2018). The university in its place: Social and
cultural perspectives on the regional role of universities. Dortrecht: Springer.
Brink, C. (2018). The soul of a university. Bristol: Bristol University.
Centre for Health and Development. (2019). Welcome to CHAD. Retrieved from
https://www.chadresearch.co.uk/
Chang, M., & Moore, G. (2017). Enabling conditions for communities and universities to work
together: A journey of university public engagement. In A. Ersoy (Ed.), The impact of
coproduction: From community engagement to social justice (pp. 9–29). Bristol: Policy Press.
Clarke, A. (2011). A guide to using the community development national occupational standards.
Retrieved from www.cdnl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CDNOS-Guide1.pdf
Cohen, S., Herbert, A., Evans, N., & Samzelius, T. (2017). From poverty to life chances: Framing co-
produced research in the productive margins programme. In A. Ersoy (Ed.), The impact of
coproduction: From community engagement to social justice (pp. 61–84). Bristol: Policy
Press.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine,
41(12), 1667–1676.
Department for Education. (2016). Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire area review: Final report.
Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/585767/Stoke_and_Staffs_15_November_2016_FINAL.pdf
Department for Education. (2019a). Graduate outcomes (LEO): Employment and earnings outcomes
of higher education graduates by subject studied and graduate characteristics in 2016/17.
Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/790223/Main_text.pdf
Department for Education. (2019b). Participation rates in higher education. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/participation-rates-in-higher-education-2006-to-
2017
Elliott, M., & Wall, N. (2008). Should nurse academics engage in clinical practice? Nurse Education
Today, 28, 558–587.
Emadi-Coffin, B. (2008). Get Talking: Community participation and neighbourhood learning.
Widening participation and Lifelong Learning, 10(3), 30–34.
Gratton, N. (2014). Get Talking with Appetite: An evaluation of year one. Retrieved from
blogs.staffs.ac.uk/ccu/current-research-and-projects/creative-and-participatory-
evaluation/appetite/appetiteevaluationyr1/
Gratton, N. (2019). People with learning disabilities and access to mainstream arts and culture: A
participatory action research approach. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12303.
Gratton, N., & Beddows, R. (2018). Get Talking: Managing to achieve more through creative
consultation. In M. Stout (Ed.), From austerity to abundance? Critical Perspectives on
International Public Sector Management, Vol. 6 (pp. 141–160). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Gratton, N., & Corcoran, P. (2018). People with learning disabilities and their access to mainstream
cultural activity. Retrieved from https://reachasist.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/people-with-
learning-disabilities-and-their-access-to-mainstream-cultural-activity.pdf
Gratton, N., & Jones, I. (2016). Social value forecast of Stoke-on-Trent winning its bid to be UK City
of Culture 2021. Retrieved from https://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/connections/files/2019/06/City-of-
culture-forecast-report-final-NF.pdf
Groark, C. J., & McCall, R. J. (2018). Lessons learned from 30 years of a University-Community
Engagement Center. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(2), 7–29.
Hetherington, J. (2015). Content guidance communication for family arts events. Retrieved from
www.familyarts.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Content-Guidance.pdf
Jeffs, T., & Smith, M. K. (2010). Introducing youth work. In T. Jeffs & M. K. Smith. (Eds.), Youth
work practice (pp. 1–14). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jorge, M. L., & Peña, F. J. A. (2017). Analysing the literature on university social responsibility: A
review of selected higher education journals. Higher Education Quarterly, 71, 302–319.
Kara, H. (2015). Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Bristol: Policy
Press.
Ledwith, M., & Springett, J. (2010). Participatory practice: Community-based action for
transformative change. Bristol: Policy Press.
Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community
development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice,
13(5), 474–486.
McDowell, G. R. (2003). Engaged universities: Lessons from the land-grant universities and
extension. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 31–50.
McIntyre, A. (2008). Participatory action research. London: Sage.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2019). The English indices of deprivation
2019. Statistical Release. Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/835115/IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf
National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement. (2018a). The current policy landscape.
Retrieved from https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about-engagement/current-policy-
landscape
National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement. (2018b). What is public engagement?
Retrieved from https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/about-engagement/what-public-
engagement
Petty, G. (2004). Teaching today: A practical guide. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Posner, P. (2009). The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics. Public
Budgeting & Finance, 29(1), 12–26.
REF 2021. (2019). Guidance on submissions. Retrieved from https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1092/ref-
2019_01-guidance-on-submissions.pdf
Research England. (2019). Knowledge exchange framework consultation. Retrieved from
https://re.ukri.org/documents/2019/kef-consultation/
UPP Foundation. (2019a). Truly civic: Strengthening the connection between universities and their
place. Retrieved from https://upp-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Civic-
University-Commission-Final-Report.pdf. Accessed on 25 April 2019.
UPP Foundation. (2019b). Civic university agreements: List of signatories. Retrieved from
https://upp-foundation.org/civic-university-agreements-list-of-signatories/
Vincent, P. (2010). Quality streets feedback. Retrieved from
http://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/ccu/files/2014/01/Quality-Streets-Short-Report.pdf
Walter, M. (2008). Participatory action research. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/3563840/Participatory_Action_Research
University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education
Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 105–120
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023008
CHAPTER 9
OUT IN THE FIELD: EXPERIENTIAL
LEARNING THROUGH UNIVERSITY–
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Sarah Haines and Chelsea McClure

ABSTRACT
This chapter describes two courses in which university students were
involved with community partners, in one case a local school system
and in the other, a local nonformal educational institution. The
authors begin with a discussion of the benefits of civic engagement
through service learning in an academic setting and describe the
integration of socio-scientific issues of local importance and a
service-learning aspect into the courses. The authors follow with a
discussion of the impacts the project has had on each of the partners
involved in the collaboration. The authors conclude with lessons
learned as a result of the project and future plans for the partnership.
Keywords: Service learning; civic engagement; environmental
education; outdoor learning; water quality; preservice teachers

INTRODUCTION
Service learning is a form of experiential education in which students
engage in activities that address human and community needs together with
structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learning
and development (Jacoby, 2014). It is an effective pedagogical approach for
encouraging civic engagement because students are able to (a) see and act
on problems that communities face, (b) understand the relevance of course
content to real-world issues and the interdisciplinary nature of problems and
solutions, (c) learn how they can choose to be part of the solutions to these
issues rather than part of the problem, and (d) learn course content better
and more deeply (Jacoby, 2014). The integration of service learning and
civic engagement with community partners into traditional university
coursework can to be beneficial to students in many different ways (Eyler,
Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001). First, these experiences have a positive
effect on interpersonal development, on the ability to work well with others,
and on leadership and communication skills (Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki,
2011, Hébert & Hauf, 2015). Students also report positive effects on their
sense of social responsibility and citizenship. Haines (2011) and Hébert and
Hauf (2015) found that service learning results in increased civic
responsibility. They report that following service learning, students are
more strongly inclined to participate in community service in the future.
Further, students expressed the beliefs that they could make a difference in
their communities and that contributing to their communities was
important. These findings support the idea that students exposed to service
learning have a propensity to continue service and practice active
citizenship following graduation (Myers, Myers, & Peters, 2019; Richard,
Keen, Hatcher, & Pease, 2016).
Civic engagement through service learning also enhances academic
learning when compared to similar courses that are not integrating this
aspect (Celio et al., 2011; Eyler et al., 2001; Haines, 2010; Levesque-
Bristol, Knapp, & Fisher, 2011; Warren, 2012). Students participating in
service-learning activities state that the experiences help them to apply what
they have learned in real-world situations (Haines 2010; Mak, Lau, &
Wong, 2017). They tend to form stronger relationships with faculty than
those who are not involved in civic engagement and are more likely to
graduate (Song, Furco, Lopez, & Maruyama, 2017; Yue & Hart, 2017).
Given the evidence for the positive educational outcomes of service-
learning pedagogical approaches, we sought to integrate a civic engagement
focus into two science courses currently offered at our university. Our
overarching topic that students explore from a civic responsibility and
community engagement perspective is watersheds and water quality. We
chose this topic for two reasons. First, it is a topic of global importance. Our
methods and strategies can be easily modified and replicated within any
watershed across the globe. The issues surrounding watershed health and
human impact on water quality are essentially the same worldwide. Second,
our university and our community partners are all located within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in
the United States and the third largest in the world. There are many
complex issues facing the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the people who
live within it. Our aim was to have our students learn about these issues
from a socio-scientific perspective (i.e., explore how the human and social
aspects of the issue interface with the science) with the help of our
community partners, while applying that knowledge during hands-on
experience at our community partner sites.

RATIONALE FOR UNIVERSITY–

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP DESIGN
Both of our community partners are involved in K-12 education. One is a
public school system; the other is a nonformal educational institution. Both
organizations serve public school sixth graders through this partnership.
The university students involved in the project are education majors
(preservice teachers) or biology/environmental studies majors who are
interested in educational careers in the nonformal sector, such as leading
educational programing at zoos, nature centers, or aquariums. Here, we
describe our rationale for choosing to collaborate with these institutions
using the university students and courses that we did.
A criticism of traditional K-16 science instruction is that it often fails to
create a connection between students and real-world environments and
phenomena (Scherz & Oren, 2006). In contrast, environmental education
(EE) is based on understanding and forging connections with the
environment in students’ own neighborhoods and communities (Bodzin,
Shiner Klein, & Weaver, 2010). Teaching outdoors offers a captivating
location for students, which can help them become more engaged with the
topic and materials and generally more excited about learning. This
increased engagement and excitement results in increased attention to
schoolwork (Chawla, 2015). Additionally, research has indicated that being
in nature can have positive impacts on children’s cognitive, physical and
social development (Coon, Boddy, Stein, Whear, & Depledge, 2011; Rook,
2013). It follows, then, that preparing future educators to integrate teaching
strategies that involve outdoor learning would be beneficial to their
students.
Our university–community partnership is located in the state of
Maryland in the United States. Our state has emerged as a leader in EE over
the past few decades, leading many other states to model their own EE
initiatives after those put in place by state of Maryland EE leaders and
organizations. These include:

The implementation of a state environmental literacy plan for K-12

students.
The requirement that all students graduating from public high schools in
Maryland demonstrate environmental literacy.
The adoption of state environmental literacy standards that K-12
students are expected to master and that teachers are expected to
integrate into their teaching.
The expectation that all K-12 students will have the opportunity to
engage in Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs) at
the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

At the same time that new teachers are struggling to meet these new
requirements with their students, there is much data suggesting that
elementary-level teachers do not feel adequately prepared to teach any
science topics. A 2018 study of elementary teachers’ perceptions of their
preparedness showed that only 31% feel very prepared to teach the subject
of science (Banilower et al., 2018). When it comes to feeling prepared to
develop students’ conceptual understanding of science ideas, 23% of
elementary teachers feel well prepared (Banilower et al., 2018).
The increased attention and focus on EE in K-12 schools and the need to
prepare teachers with the appropriate knowledge and skills to implement
these new requirements led us to focus our initial partnership efforts on a
science course for university students who are preservice teachers. Our goal
was to use a civic engagement model to increase preservice teacher science
content knowledge and equip them with the teaching skills they will need to
address the new state requirements for EE once they enter the classroom.
The second set of students involved in the partnership are enrolled in a
biology course meant for students who are interested in pursuing careers in
nonformal educational institutions such as zoos, aquaria, or nature centers.
By their nature, these types of institutions often work closely with school
systems and school-age children. It is imperative that educational staff in
nonformal educational institutions be aware of current regulations and
practices surrounding formal K-12 education, or else the programing
offered at these locations will not be valuable or attractive to the K-12
audience. For instance, in our locale, it is important that nonformal
educational institutions be familiar with the MWEE requirement as they are
instrumental in assisting the formal K-12 school systems in meeting this it,
as it calls for an outdoor field component. Many K-12 schools partner with
a nonformal educational institution for this part of the MWEE in particular,
as many schools lack safe and accessible outdoor areas that would be
suitable for field studies. The outdoor component of the MWEE is in fact
central to the partnership we have formed here.

PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND COURSE

DESIGN
This partnership was initially developed through a grant award from the
National Center for Science and Civic Engagement. Science Education for
New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities-Informal Science Education
(SENCER-ISE) is an outgrowth of the signature program of the National
Center for Science and Civic Engagement, SENCER. SENCER’s primary
focus is the improvement of undergraduate teaching and learning through
the framework of civic engagement. SENCER-ISE is a National Center for
Science and Civic Engagement initiative to support partnerships between
informal science and higher education institutions. SENCER-ISE includes
cross-sector partnerships offering a range of civic engagement activities for
K-12, undergraduate and graduate students, and the public. Our award was
one of several informal science education partnership awards granted for
the 2016–2017 academic year.
The city of Baltimore, Maryland, joins other post-industrial legacy cities
in an uphill battle to modernize aging infrastructure and rehabilitate local
waters stressed by generations of manufacturing outflow and inadequate
regulation. Even as the industry of the Inner Harbor has been replaced by a
revitalized waterfront and service economy, water quality continues to
suffer as storm run-off and sewage overflows raise bacteria, nutrients, and
debris levels well outside of healthy ranges. As part of its multi-year Model
Urban Waterfront project, the Aquarium is developing and piloting
innovative new technology to create “perched” floating wetlands that will
repopulate the waters with a diverse array of Chesapeake Bay flora and
fauna. The floating wetlands serve a dual purpose: improving water quality
in their immediate area through natural filtration processes and engaging
the public with solutions to the invisible network of infrastructure and
behaviors that make the Inner Harbor unsafe for abundant aquatic life and
recreation. In summer 2017, the National Aquarium deployed a working
floating wetland prototype with wildlife habitat systems, adjustable buoys,
and aeration airlines that mitigate anaerobic conditions frequent in the Inner
Harbor. The aquarium is currently collecting baseline water quality and
biodiversity data in advance of introducing the wetlands at full scale. The
capacity to educate students will also grow as additional floating wetlands,
water access, and interpretive displays on the waterfront campus come to
fruition.
Concurrent to initial development of the floating wetlands, Baltimore
City Schools was initiating plans to meet the MWEE curriculum
requirement mentioned previously. Baltimore City Schools’ teachers are
often unable to fulfill the field study component of MWEEs because of a
dearth of safe and accessible natural shorelines in Baltimore City. As one of
the largest EE providers in the region, the National Aquarium frequently
collaborates with Baltimore City Schools to supplement classroom
experiences. The accessibility and interpretive assets afforded by the
floating wetlands provide a perfect MWEE site for Baltimore City Schools’
students. The National Aquarium, Baltimore City Schools, and Towson
University formed a partnership to leverage existing assets provided by the
prototype floating wetlands for middle school classrooms. This partnership
allows Towson University students (i.e., preservice teachers) to serve as
National Aquarium educational instructors who will deliver environmental
activities onsite at the Aquarium to students in local urban schools. As
interns, the preservice teachers have opportunities to increase their STEM
content knowledge and develop their pedagogical skills for teaching
environmental science. The preservice teacher interns assist the National
Aquarium’s education specialists in expanding the Aquarium’s urban
education programs by working with students and teachers from Baltimore
City Public Schools.
The initial, grant-funded phase of the partnership was piloted in Fall
2017. The results of the pilot phase were very positive (see Haines &
McClure, 2019 for qualitative and quantitative results) and presentations of
the pilot project at regional and national meetings indicated that others were
interested in replicating the model. This is something that we were quite
happy to see happen, as water quality issues are a socio-scientific problem
that can and should be addressed globally in all locales. Students from this
same class returned to the aquarium for the Fall 2018 semester and will be
returning for the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 semesters as well.
Due to the success of the model, in the 2018–2019 academic year we
expanded our partnership to include students in a second course, and have
added an additional community partner from another local school system.
Students in this course have the option of either completing their service-
learning component at the National Aquarium or at an outdoor school run
by a local school system.

COURSE CONTENT
SCIE 376
Teaching Science in the Elementary School is a four-contact hour and three-
credit hour upper division course required in the Elementary Education
program. Towson University students learn science content and teaching
strategies for hands-on science lessons. Cross-discipline aspects are stressed
and thinking skills and group learning techniques are incorporated into the
course. Application of course work takes place at the National Aquarium
throughout the semester, within a supportive teaching and learning
environment.
The first month of the course is devoted to strengthening content
knowledge and learning how to use the technology involved in water
quality sampling. Topics covered include the concept of a watershed,
human impact on the Chesapeake Bay and Chesapeake Bay water quality
issues, and water sampling techniques using probeware. Probeware is a
learning tool that connects probes and sensors to a computer running
suitable software and allows students to view real-time data in a variety of
formats. Special emphasis is placed on examining the water quality issue
from a socio-scientific aspect. Students also practice delivering the
programing that they will teach to the public school students. For the
following seven weeks, students teach at the National Aquarium. The
nature of the program is described in the following. The final few weeks of
the course are devoted to planning a final MWEE project that the students
design based on their experiences at the partner site.
The course is designed to give prospective elementary- or middle-level
teachers an opportunity to work intensively with a small group of children
over time in order to see how children integrate sequential science
information, acquire process skills, and develop positive attitudes toward
science. These experiences allow Towson University students to use this
information to shape their own science teaching practices.

BIOL 304
Natural History Interpretation and Public Education is a three-contact hour
and three-credit hour upper division elective course. Most students enrolled
in the course are biology or environmental science and studies majors. The
course is designed to provide students with an overview of public education
in the biological sciences at local organizations providing educational
experiences in nonformal settings such as zoological parks, aquaria, nature
centers, or museums. Environmental issues on which most nonformal
education centers are focusing their outreach efforts receive high emphasis:
habitat loss, invasive species, overpopulation, pollution, and
overconsumption. BIOL 304 is geared toward those who are interested in
starting a career in the types of institutions mentioned above, or those
interested in environmental science and EE. Many of the informal settings
students may encounter in their work with the public and/or K-12 students
at these types of institutions are simulated during class time – these
simulations require that students take an active part in the activities being
presented. Much of the coursework requirements take place at our partner
sites, where students undergo more specific training with respect to
teaching in an outdoor environment. Eventually, they lead school-age
students through appropriate activities at the community partner sites.
For students enrolled in both courses, we hoped to generate an increase
in interest in civic engagement and foster a more positive attitude toward
the environment. We also hoped to see a gain in self-confidence while
delivering the programing to the school-age children, with a parallel
increase in content knowledge – especially the content knowledge
surrounding our central issue of water quality and watersheds, and how
humans can affect them. Our specific partnership goals are as follows:

University students will deepen their understanding of how

environmental factors affect aquatic life in the Chesapeake Bay.
University students will feel confident teaching EE topics in nonformal
settings.
University students will demonstrate increased personal interest in
environmental issues affecting their local communities.
University students (especially preservice teachers) will strengthen
pedagogical content knowledge in delivering science lessons.

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT COMPONENTS AT

PARTNER SITES
National Aquarium
The day-long program at the National Aquarium, “What Lives in the
Harbor,” focuses on water quality in the harbor surrounding the aquarium in
inner city Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Baltimore City Public Schools sixth
graders attend the program, held entirely outdoors on the pier where the
aquarium is located. The sixth graders rotate through stations in small
groups where they investigate various water quality parameters. University
students deliver the program content at each station. The sixth graders enter
the data they collect both on paper data sheets and on iPads, so that the
classroom teacher has access to the data upon their return to the classroom.
This ensures the middle school students and the classroom teacher can use
the data for required follow-up activities such as data synthesis and
analysis, and also for use in the action project phase of the MWEE. In the
action project phase, middle school students complete a school-based or
community-based project meant to alleviate at least one of the water quality
issues they observed during their field experience at the aquarium. This
phase is where the real civic engagement piece comes into play for the sixth
graders – they are taking action to improve their communities.

Public School System Outdoor School

Our public schools system outdoor school is located about 30 miles north of
Baltimore, Maryland, USA. It sits on a 65-acre tract of land containing
forest, wetlands, ponds, meadows, and a stream. The site provides an
interesting contrast because it is located within the same watershed, but in a
rural instead of an urban setting. The partner site also serves sixth-grade
students and its purpose is to provide programing aligned with the state
department of education’s MWEE requirement. The field investigations are
integrated into a three-day, two-night field trip on the outdoor school
property. During their field investigations, students perform hands-on
woodland, wetland, and meadow ecosystem studies that support classroom
learning through real-world application. University students again lead
programing as part of the wetland ecosystem study that focuses on the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, water quality, and human impact on the
ecosystem. Similar to the aquarium MWEE experience, here the goal is to
engage students as active learners as they conduct meaningful watershed
investigations and inspire action projects that directly relate to real-world
environmental issues occurring in their own communities. At both partner
sites, the emphasis is on civic engagement and action – students study the
environmental issue and take action at their school sites/communities to
alleviate it. Later, students brainstorm action projects that would feasible to
undertake on their school grounds or in the nearby community that would
help to support healthier streams and/or stream biodiversity.

IMPACT OF UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS
We turn now to a discussion of the impacts that university–community
partnerships can have on the parties involved. Reich, Nagy, and Checkoway
(2014) argue that civic engagement should receive stronger focus within
higher education. Indeed, universities have much to gain from encouraging
faculty and students to participate in service-learning activities. Some of
these benefits include improved community relationships, new experiential
learning settings, and new opportunities for teaching and research
(Peterson, 2009). Additionally, for those universities following the Boyer
model, these types of learning opportunities align with the scholarship of
engagement (Boyer, 2009). There is also a vast potential for universities to
advance social change through service learning/civic engagement because
the nature of this teaching and learning strategy requires focus on real-
world issues in local communities (Nyden, 2009).
We have already explored the various benefits for students who engage
in civic engagement opportunities through their university coursework.
Here, we will focus on our courses in particular. Haines and McClure
(2019) utilized a qualitative technique modified from Hanson (2018), in
which students (N = 40) are asked to fill in the following statement:
“Teaching environmental education is like ….” Students are then asked to
accompany their statement with a drawing that reflects what analogy they
created. These analogies were completed anonymously at the start of the
semester and again at the conclusion of the semester. Haines and McClure
(2019) report that students participating in service-learning activities
through the preservice teacher course (SCIE 376) did experience an
improvement in their attitudes toward teaching and toward the environment.
Similarly, we utilized the same analysis strategy with students enrolled in
BIOL 304 and found that students experienced an increase in positive
attitudes toward teaching EE after participating in the civic engagement
experience.
 BIOL 304 students (N = 15) were also administered an anonymous
survey at the start of the semester and again at the end of the semester that
asked them what impacts EE has on K-12 students. They were to choose
from the following six options: helps students meet standards in core
content areas; improves academic achievement; supports positive and
productive social behaviors and increases skill development; enhances
engagement and motivation; helps them prepare for their next steps into a
higher grade or into the workforce; connects them to their community; and
empowers them to participate. In the pre assessment, less than nine students
believed that EE helps students meet standards in core content areas,
improves academic achievement, or helps prepare them for their next steps
into a higher grade or into the workforce. In the post-survey a majority of
the university students (80%) indicated that they believed EE did have an
impact on those factors for K-12 students.
Additionally, the BIOL 304 students were given an anonymous EE
interest survey at the start of the semester and at the conclusion of the
semester to determine if these STEM focused students would gain a greater
interest in the EE field as a result of this experience. (Due to our small
sample size, we did not disaggregate based on race, ethnicity, or gender).
Questions that showed the largest interest growth were:

Teaching EE is boring (reverse scored).

I believe I have a talent for teaching EE.
The idea of teaching people new things pleases me.
I find it honorable to be an environmental educator.
I believe educating students in EE can make a difference on the future
health of the environment.

The largest observable change was in the students’ belief in having a

talent for teaching EE. Most of these science majors had no experience in
outdoor education prior to enrolling in this course. After the experience,
many students realized that they had an interest in – and a talent for –
delivering EE programing.
Lastly, our university distributes anonymous surveys to any student
enrolled in a designated service-learning course at the end of each semester.
Tables 1–4 include some of the survey questions and student responses.
Data from this survey indicate that students enjoyed the opportunity to
participate in service learning. Ninety percent of the surveyed students
stated that the service-learning project helped them to see how the
coursework applied to their futures. Many stated that learning hands-on
instead of from a textbook was much more effective and they will
remember more of the material due to the experiential nature of the course.

Table 1. Student Response to “Please Indicate the Importance to You

Personally of Each of the Following…”
Pre Post
n = 40 n = 40
Becoming involved in programs to clean up the environment 33% 50%

Note: Percentages include answers “Very Important” and “Essential.”

Table 2. Student Response to “How Important Were Each of These

Activities in Promoting Your Learning in this Class?”
n = 40
Community placement or service-learning project 57%
Written reflections about ideas or experiences (such as journals or reflection writing assignments) 43%
Collaborating with other students 71%
Collaborating with people in the community 43%

Note: Percentages include answers “Highly Important” and “Very Important.”

Table 3. Student Response to “To the Extent that You Are Involved in
These Activities or Would Consider Becoming Involved, Please Indicate
How Much Each of the Following Reasons Influence You to Participate in
Social or Political Action.”
n = 40 Pre Post
It makes me feel good about myself 33% 78%
I want to do my part as a community member 0% 33%
I get involved when I become upset by something I see happening 11% 33%
I was inspired by someone I admire 0% 44%

Note: Percentages include answers “Important Influence” and “very Important Influence.”
Table 4. Student Response to “Listed Below Are Some General Skills that
People Use in Various Situations. Please Rate How Well You Can Do
Each.”
n = 40 Pre Post
Articulate my ideas and beliefs to others 22% 67%
Help diverse groups work together 22% 44%
Deal with conflict when it comes up 11% 56%
Make a statement at a public meeting 11% 44%
Talk about social barriers such as race 22% 44%
Assume the leadership of a group 11% 44%

Note: Percentages include answers “Can do this well” and “Can do this very well.”

When asked about the impact the service-learning activity had on the
organization or people the students worked with, 58% of the comments
were positive. Additionally, 57% of students stated that their outlook on
service learning changed from the start of the course until the end. Of those
students, 92% had a positive change in outlook. Twenty-nine percent of
students said their outlook on service learning stayed the same. Of those
students, 83% maintained a positive outlook. Fourteen percent of students
stated that they had no particular outlook.
Below are some student reflections on the service-learning experience
and how they think these experiences enhanced their learning:
When I think of school and the many “useless” things that we do a lot of the time they don’t
translate to real world situations. As a teacher candidate it was nice to be a part of the ‘real
world’ at the aquarium, and really had ourselves to “educating” people.” “I’d encourage all
fields to have the same sort of service learning. What better way to learn then to be a part of
the real world interacting with real people. This whole course has been quite the treat and
having been in classrooms my whole life I feel that the experiences gained cannot be
compared if this course was classroom only.

The experience also reminded me why I want to be a teacher. The joy of teaching is imparting
knowledge on others and seeing that their excitement matches your own. I think everyone
should experience a service learning project no matter their program. Service learning helps
you to appreciate your community and it makes you feel good to know that you have done a
good thing.

I would recommend service learning experiences to just about anyone in my program. It

allows us to get out of the classroom and teach others in a different environment. Any major
can take something from this experience. At the very least, it helps the surrounding
community and the attitudes they feel towards the volunteers.
 Service learning experiences are definitely valuable to all students, in both my program and
almost every other program I can think. They provide the student with a meaningful,
engaging experience that enhances the learning process. They are a great way to give back to
the community. They also are a wonderful opportunity for students to apply their learnings,
and gain deeper, relational understandings of content.

I personally think service learning should be included in all of Towson classes. This did
connect to my degree program and I really loved it. Service learning gives you a sense of
achievement, excitability, and a job well done. Service learning should be a requirement at
Towson. Students need to get themselves in the community and do things for others. They
will gain so many things.

What are the impacts on our community partners? Forming partnerships

can provide community organizations opportunities to participate in aspects
of teaching and learning – a realm that might be new to them. The
partnerships can also provide an avenue for examining problems under a
“new lens,” allowing for fresh approaches to community issues. Forming
partnerships with universities can also help community organizations
broaden services or start new ones. Similarly, student volunteers can better
the visitor experience for children visiting these organizations (Hartman &
Kahn, 2019; Holmes & Edwards, 2008). For example, neither of our
community partners would be able to reach as many public school students
through their MWEE programing without the assistance of the university
students. The university students allowed both partners to serve many more
school students than could have otherwise been achieved.
The presence of the university students at both partner sites also allows
for smaller group sizes. This dynamic gave the university students the
ability to implement more individualized instruction. The public school
students also have more opportunities to engage when group sizes are
smaller. For example, there is enough water sampling equipment for each
student or each pair of students to utilize their own set for data collection.
To maximize our impact on K-12 student learning, a clear channel of
communication between formal K-12 schools and nonformal educational
institutions is essential (Bevan et al., 2010; Garcia, 2015). Institutions of
nonformal learning can be very important partners for supporting K-12
learning initiatives and objectives (Ng-He, 2015), as is the case for our
partnership. Our partnership provides opportunities for university students
who are either teacher candidates or science majors planning on careers in
nonformal education (where they will be interacting with school-age
children) to practice their pedagogical skills while also advancing their
content knowledge, both of which will also benefit the children they are
teaching.
The missions of many nonformal educational institutions include a
statement regarding enhancing, increasing, or improving upon visitors’
environmental awareness and environmental stewardship. Many of the
university students reported an increase in their own environmental
awareness, and several commented (84%) that they were more likely to
participate in civic engagement activities involving environmental issues in
the future. When asked how much they cared about the environment as a
civic engagement issue, 44% of the students answered “a lot” or “a great
deal” in the pre-test; 86% answered that way in the post-test.
At the conclusion of their coursework, 93% of the students stated that
they are able to make a difference when it comes to environmental issues.
Many said that they believe the smallest change can help make a difference.
This awareness and behavior not only fulfills the missions of these types of
partner institutions, but potentially benefits the local community as the
university students graduate and become environmental advocates in their
own locales.

LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSION

One of the hallmarks of service learning is reflection (Bursaw, Kimber,
Mercer, & Carrington, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2015). Following that premise,
we reflect here on what we learned through our university–community
partnership and provide advice for those considering forming their own
partnerships with community organizations.

1. Be willing to adjust based on student feedback. We made many

adjustments to the courses based on feedback provided to us from the
students. After the pilot semester, students commented that more class
days devoted to training before they were required to lead programing at
the partner sites would be beneficial. In response, we added more
training days to the class schedule, and students we more prepared as a
result. Some additional changes made in response to student requests or
 comments were: (a) conducting a practice run of the entire program
before delivering the program to students; (b) allowing time for a
debriefing session after each day of program delivery at partner sites;
and (c) giving students additional experience using the water quality
testing equipment in another of their required science courses that
occurred concurrently with their service-learning course. This
implementation required the cooperation of the instructor for that
course, but we were able to accommodate this request, resulting in our
students being better prepared to use the equipment at the partner sites.
2. Recognize that the nature of the course might require more time and
effort. We discovered that delivering course material off campus and in
an experiential manner meant that there would be certain trade-offs with
regard to time management. It is often difficult to arrange for observing
or supervising students at their off-campus sites while also maintaining
a full schedule of duties on campus. While at the site, it is sometimes
difficult to devote time to each student while they are working with the
community partner. Likewise, many students said that time was the
main challenge they faced. They claimed that it was difficult to find
time outside of classes to plan the service-learning project or get to the
site. Several even felt time restricted while they were at the site, stating
that they felt that they needed more time to complete their stations with
the sixth graders.
3. Partner dynamics are important. All partners must feel that they are
benefitting.
We have worked very hard to make sure that there is a good line of
communication between the community partners involved in this
project and the university. Often in these types of projects, the
university tends to reap more of the benefit and the community partners
do not seem to have as large a voice in decisions and outcomes. We
wanted to make sure that this did not occur during our partnership. We
meet often with both partners to ensure that any decisions being made
have the input of all involved. While many students noted in their post-
survey forms that they felt they got more out of the activity than the
organization or people they worked with, our partners seem satisfied
with the impact the partnership has had on them. We caution that this
aspect is something that anyone considering such a partnership should
 keep in mind, however.
In conclusion, with proper planning, clear expectations, and open
communication between all partners, creating a university-community
partnership can be a wonderful and rewarding way to introduce students
to real-world, practical applications of the content they are learning.
Integrating civic engagement into university coursework can be
enriching and rewarding for the faculty members, the students, and
perhaps most importantly, for the community partner and the
community members that the partners serve.

REFERENCES
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L.
(2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+ Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Bevan, B., Dillon, J., Hein, G. E., Macdonald, M., Michalchik, V., Miller, D., … Yoon, S. (2010).
Making science matter: Collaborations between informal science education organizations
and schools. Washington, DC: Center for the Advancement of Informal School Science
Education (CAISE). Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/documents/Making-
ScienceMatter.pdf
Bodzin, A. M., Shiner Klein, B., & Weaver, S. (Eds.). (2010). The inclusion of environmental
education in science teacher education. Berlin: Springer Dordrecht.
Boyer, E. (2009). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
Bursaw, J., Kimber, M., Mercer, L., & Carrington, S. (2015). Teaching reflection for service-learning.
In M. Ryan (Ed.), Teaching reflective learning in higher education. Switzerland: Springer.
Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on
students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181.
Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4),
433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441
Coon, J. T., Boddy, K., Stein, R., Whear, J. B., & Depledge, M. H. (2011). Does participating in
physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental
wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(5), 1761–1772. doi:10.1021/es102947t
Eyler, J., Giles, D., Stenson, C., & Gray, C. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of
service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities (3rd ed., 1993–
2000). Washington, DC: Learn and Serve America National Service Learning Clearinghouse.
Retrieved from http://servicelearning.org
Garcia, B. (2015). What we do best: Making the case for museum learning in its own right. Journal
of Museum Education, 37, 47–55. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/10598650.2012.1151073
0?src=recsys. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2012.11510730
Haines, S. A. (2010). Environmental education & service learning in the tropics: Making global
connections. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 16–23.
Haines, S. A. (2011). Pre-service “EdZoocation”: Strengthening teacher education with civic
engagement and community partnerships. Journal for Civic Commitment 17(2), 1–17.
Haines, S., & McClure, C. (2019). Preparing preservice teachers using a civic engagement model:
The effect of field experience on preservice teacher knowledge, skills, and attitude.
Unpublished.
Hanson, D. (2018). Hanover College. Using analogies to capture personal beliefs of preservice
elementary teachers. Paper presented at the 2018 Association for Science Teacher Education
International Conference, Baltimore MD.
Hartman, S., & Kahn, S. (2019). Benefits of community–university partnerships in rural settings:
Lessons learned from an inclusive science day event. Collaborations: A Journal of
Community-based Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–10.
Hébert, A., & Hauf, P. (2015). Student learning through service learning: Effects on academic
development, civic responsibility, interpersonal skills and practical skills. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 16(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415573357
Holmes, K., & Edwards, D. (2008). Volunteers as hosts and guests in museums. In K. D. Lyons & S.
Wearing (Eds.), Journeys of discovery in volunteer tourism (pp. 155–165). Wallingford:
CABI.
Jacoby, B. (2014). Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pubs.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. (2011). The effectiveness of service-learning: It’s
not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(3), 208–224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590113300302
Mak, B., Lau, C., & Wong, A. (2017). Effects of experiential learning on students: An ecotourism
service-learning course. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 17(2), 85–100.
doi:10.1080/15313220.2017.1285265
Mitchell, T., Richard, F., Battistoni, R., Rost-Banik, C., Netz, R., & Zakoske, C. (2015). Reflective
practice that persists: Connections between reflection in service-learning programs and in
current life. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(2), 49–63.
Myers, C. B., Myers, S. M., & Peters, M. (2019). The longitudinal connections between
undergraduate high impact curriculum practices and civic engagement in adulthood. Research
in Higher Education, 60, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9504-4
Ng-He, C. (2015). Common goals, common core: Museums and schools work together. Journal of
Museum Education, 40, 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1179/1059865015Z.00000000098
Nyden, P. (2009). Collaborative university–community research teams. Boston, MA: Campus
Compact. Retrieved from http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nyden-final.
Accessed on March 20, 2010.
Peterson, T. H. (2009). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the pedagogy of social
change. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(5), 541–552, doi:10.1080/13562510903186741
Reich, J., Nagy, N., & Checkoway, B. (2014). Civic engagement, civic development, and higher
education: New perspectives on transformational learning. Washington, DC: Bringing Theory
to Practice.
Richard, R., Keen, C., Hatcher, J., & Pease, H. (2016). Pathways to adult civic engagement: Benefits
of reflection and dialogue across difference in higher education service-learning programs.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 60–74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.105
Rook, G. (2013). Immunoregulation and the natural environment. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 110(46), 18360–18367. doi:10.1073/pnas.1313731110
Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science
Education, 90, 965–985. doi:10.1002/sce.20159
Song, W., Furco, A., Lopez, I., & Maruyama, G. (2017). Examining the relationship between service-
learning participation and the educational success of underrepresented students. Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning, 24(Fall), 23–37.
Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning? A meta-analysis. Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56–61.
Yue, H., & Hart, S. (2017). Service learning and graduation: Evidence from event history analysis.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 24–41.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 121–135
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023009
PART II
POLICIES AND PEDAGOGIES
CHAPTER 10
IDENTIFYING WITH BORDERS AND
BOUNDARIES: THE PLACE OF
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AS SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION
David Wallace

ABSTRACT
An approach to social responsibility in higher education will be
proposed in this chapter and informed by a canon of literature and
theorizing on critical pedagogy (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009;
Freire, 1971; Giroux, 2011). Rooted in the work of education theorist
Paulo Freire (1971, 1993) critical pedagogy embodies a set of critical
dispositions about community, politics and education. Freire (1971,
1993) posited the nature of hope through transformative action in
communities in which community empowerment arises from emerging
critical consciousness and informed action. In common with the
ideals of university–community partnerships critical pedagogy
connects both to a community development mission and to an
educational mission. However, though these principle philosophies of
critical pedagogy may be inferred in the literature on civic
universities, on higher education and public engagement and on
wider aspects of social responsibility in higher education (Goddard &
Kempton, 2016; UPP, 2019; Webster & Dyball, 2010), the chapter
 will explore how they may be more centrally located in analysis and
in practice development.
Keywords: critical pedagogy; border pedagogies; social justice;
community engagement; civic universities; empowerment; diversity;
social inclusion; oppression; democracy; public engagement; power;
social justice; public intellectuals; working class intellectuals

INTRODUCTION
Critical pedagogy and its foundational theories are applied in institutional
and community learning paradigms (Coburn & Wallace, 2011), form part of
curricula as taught subject (Crowther et al., 2017; Milana, Webb, Holford,
Waller, & Jarvis 2018), provide for an engagement in political process
(Giroux, 2015) and are utilized in community development methodologies
(Beck & Purcell, 2010; Ledwith, 2001). However, its explicit application to
considerations of social responsibility and community engagement in
higher education is novel and largely absent from the literature. This
chapter will address contemporary thinking around civic university ideals
and will explore how critical pedagogy may be drawn as a framework to
support a more effective and principled approach to community
engagement and social responsibility in higher education. In particular, it
will provide a means of elaborating on borders and boundaries in
institutional practices and will focus on the requirements of more
sustainable and mutual community engagement.
Two apparently unrelated events coalesced as the inspiration for this
chapter and in themselves encapsulate the scale of the issues that may be
encountered when critiquing social responsibility in higher education.
Firstly, in Michelle Obama’s autobiography there is a section in which she
portrays the elitism of her “home” university the result of which being that
she, and as she recounts it people like her from her home area, would not
consider it possible that that university could be for them (Obama, 2018. p.
147). Around the same time in the author’s university in Scotland, an
undergraduate student’s research project (unpublished), which had as its
subject community engagement and the university, produced similar
findings. The student’s research findings mirrored the exclusion articulated
by Obama and though based in Scotland was essentially identifying with a
similar range of community engagement failings. Providing a catalyst for
theorizing in this chapter then, the deduction is about the need for more
effective engagement between higher education and local communities and
in particular with those populations that may be defined as left behind or
which suffer structural inequality. The chapter makes a case that public
engagement should be in the DNA of universities as public institutions and
that critical pedagogy provides a principled approach to inform mutual and
empowering community engagement strategies.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT – THE CIVIC

UNIVERSITY
The literature suggests that the effects of neoliberalism and corporate
mechanisms prevail across large parts of higher education (Bergan &
Harkavy, 2018; Coffield & Williamson, 2011; Griffin, 2014). However,
despite these dominant trends, there are signs that such ideologies are
contested and that democratizing principles and community engagement
practices remain both evident and relevant (Bender, 2008; Bhagwan, 2018;
Butcher, Bezzina, & Moran, 2011). There are contemporary illustrations of
socially responsible practices in universities and in higher education policy
in which social purpose, community engagement and inclusion are
characteristics of strategic planning (Bergan & Harkavy, 2018; Butcher et
al., 2011; UPP, 2019).
For some time now, universities in the United Kingdom have had public
engagement strategies and a civic university movement is identifiable
(Bergan & Harkavy, 2018; Goddard & Kempton, 2016; Hooper, 2016).
Definitional reference points are not always consistent (Bender, 2008) but it
is clear that, where priority is afforded to it, knowledge exchange is fortified
by a rich and varied program of projects and initiatives that are innovative
in reaching out to the wider community in which the university is located.
A range of core characteristics were identified in the Truly Civic report by
UPP Civic University Commission (UPP, 2019). These characteristics are
also consistent in principle with the seven characteristics of a civic
university identified by Goddard and Kempton (2016), which offers a
useful framework for social responsibility analysis and within which to
locate an appraisal of the place of critical pedagogy principles in practice.
The seven characteristics of civic university according to them are as
follows:

(1) It is actively engaged with the wider world as well as the local
community of the place in which it is located.
(2) It takes a holistic approach to engagement, seeing it as institution-wide
activity and not confined to specific individuals or teams.
(3) It has a strong sense of place – it recognizes the extent to which
location helps to form its unique identity as an institution.
(4) It has a sense of purpose – understanding not just what it is good at, but
what it is good for.
(5) It is willing to invest in order to have impact beyond the academy.
(6) It is transparent and accountable to its stakeholders and the wider
public.
(7) It uses innovative methodologies such as social media and team
building in its engagement activities with the world at large

These seven principles afford a structure to support and sustain

community engagement and project a set of values and principles.
However, they do not explicitly convey an impetus toward social justice
and the emphasis appears to be more weighted toward institutional
development over community development. Nevertheless, there is potential
to take this structure in synthesis with critical pedagogy principles to offer a
pathway to a more critically informed community engagement strategy.
Similarly in 2008 in the UK, the Beacons for Public Engagement
Initiative was launched with a published aim of inspiring cultural change in
how universities engage with the public (Webster & Dyball, 2010). Six
Beacon partnerships were created and resulted in a range of initiatives that
included the following:

(1) A program to develop skills and confidence in university staff and

students in listening to and learning from publics across Wales.
(2) Fostering an informed climate to improve quality of life, support social
and economic regeneration and inculcate civic values in East Anglia.
(3) In Edinburgh a consortium of higher education institutions along with
public policy, research and engagement organizations aspired to engage
people in public policy issues (such as health and energy) by ensuring
research expertise in these areas.
(4) In Manchester there was an inter-university partnership that combined
with the Museum of Science and industry to engage staff, students,
local business, community groups and local people to develop, build
and sustain public engagement and partnerships.
(5) In Newcastle an inter-university partnership with the Centre for Life
provided funding for 10 innovative projects to pilot public engagement
strategies.
(6) In London a new public engagement unit worked to embed public
engagement across all university life through a continuous two-way
knowledge exchange between staff, students and people outside
academia (National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement
(NCCPE), 2018).

These illustrations highlight how public engagement can form part of

routine considerations for civic-minded universities, can afford a rich and
vibrant opportunity to engage with local communities and is of mutual
benefit to the institutions and to the communities. The problem, however, is
that community engagement in these ways, though innovative, is limited
across higher education and does not appear to form part of universal
planning (UPP, 2019). Further, there are discrete principles and values in
each of these programs and they do not have a coherent set of values and
principles to unite these practices.
Critical pedagogy (Freire,1993: Giroux, 2011) and the critical theory
(McLaren, 2009) that embodies its ideals offers not just a framework for
action but a set of guiding principles that might inform aspects of teaching,
research, citizenship and knowledge exchange. Helping to pave the way for
new and dialogical relationships with local grassroots communities this
could build a critical mass of projects, proposals and partnerships that could
be consistent across the higher education sector and mutually beneficial to
the community, to individual local people, to the staff in higher education
and to the institutions involved.

CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
Though an embodiment of social responsibility in higher education,
identifying with civil society and support for empowering community
engagement nevertheless cuts against the corporatizing grain in higher
education (Giroux, 2015; Griffin, 2014). Pursuing such a course of action,
therefore, requires intentionality, readiness to transgress boundaries in the
face of institutional obstacles, and calls for grounding in a shared
democratic and pedagogical perspective (Ackland, Roberts, Swinney, &
Wallace., 2017). Social responsibility represents an impetus for community
engagement that is participative and democratic in orientation, a locus in
social democratic traditions that may not sit well with matters of
managerialism in higher education or corporate control of such schemes.
For meaningful community engagement with higher education, however,
there is a requirement for an overarching theoretical framework around
which academic staff and their scholarship can coalesce in the interests of
dynamic engagement with the grassroots in the community (Butcher et al.,
2011).
Critical pedagogy offers such a framework and has its roots in Paulo
Freire’s conceptualization of education as the practice of freedom (Freire,
1971). Critical pedagogy in its correlation with teaching and learning may
be defined by the following principles (adapted from Macdonald, 2002, pp.
167–190):

(1) It views knowledge and instruction as problematic.

(2) It questions the ethical, social and political contexts in which
instruction occurs.
(3) It increases emphasis on developing critical and reflective capacities in
learners.
(4) It listens to learners voices shifting the traditional balance of power in
the learning environment.
(5) It aims to create social change toward more just and inclusive practices.
 The underpinning philosophies that inform critical pedagogy are located
with a body of work in critical theory that grew out of the intellectual
traditions of the Frankfurt School from the 1920s (Ledwith, 2001;
Macdonald, 2002; Milana et al., 2018). This critical social theory is
predicated on the works of prominent scholars like Horkheimer, Adorno,
Fromm and Marcuse (Darder et al., 2009, p. 7). Though connected directly
to radical and Marxist analysis, the catalyst for critical pedagogy is neither
formulaic nor homogeneous yet encapsulates both an emancipatory and
democratic function and a commitment to the liberation of oppressed
populations (Darder et al., 2009; Ledwith, 2001). The process of education
emerging from this framework is proposed as praxis that is understood as
action and reflection upon the world in order to change it (Grande, 2009, p.
206 as cited in Darder et al., 2009). Freire (1971) posited an approach to
problem-based learning in which dialogue was central and from which
critical reflection and critical consciousness emerged. This process is
enacted by problematizing taken-for-granted understandings and everyday
contexts that may be the product of oppression or asymmetric relations of
power (Freire, 1993; Giroux, 2011). In community development terms
(Ledwith, 2001), this dialogical process may assist in problematizing
potentially pathologizing discourse that may result in local people (e.g.,
benefit recipients, lone parents, immigrants, young people) being labeled
inappropriately or held accountable for issues that actually reside in
structural failures in the economy or on state withdrawal from public
services. The critical lens developed through critical pedagogy creates a
capacity to see the historical constructions of power and the dominant
culture and to interrogate this in relationship to the everyday cultural
experiences of people who are subordinate to those in power (McLaren,
2009). Critical pedagogy, therefore, relates to a wider conception of
education that connects to matters of politics and to matters of powerful
learning within and beyond the institutions.
The political and empowering principles of critical pedagogy provide
tenets for an operational code in higher education that explicitly encourages
the kind of boundary crossing in which community and institutional values
coalesce. Table 1 illustrates how the emphasis in community engagement
utilizing critical pedagogy principles may be compared with more
traditional practices.
Table 1. Comparing Traditional University Partnerships with Community
Partnerships Guided by Crucial Pedagogy.
Traditional Community Engagement Critical Pedagogy-Informed Community Engagement
Community partners are empty vessels Community partners are seen as potential agents who can re-
receptive to direction by university staff create the world from their own experiences
The university is the sole arbiter in necessary University staff and community partners work together as co-
information that is to be passed on learners, co-investigators, and co-producers
University staff provide the expertise and Operating collectively there is active facilitation of dialogue,
community partners subscribe to the analysis, agenda setting, planning, action, and evaluation
university initiative
The university staff lead the process and set The basis of community engagement is set by the interests and
the agenda to reflect university interests and concerns of the community with a focus on pressing problems
priorities or conditions
Knowledge is seen as objective, as a Knowledge is subjectively, personally and socially constructed.
collection of impersonal, technical facts that Knowledge emerges from everyday life experiences
have little to do with everyday life
The university and its staff is assumed to be The community partnership acknowledges a commitment to the
neutral, objective and distanced from social, marginalized groups and a concern for oppressive structural
economic and environmental conflict conditions
The purpose of higher education is to promote The purpose of higher education is to assist communities to
approved sociocultural knowledge and values learn from their experiences, to critically appraise the context of
directly to the community their conditions and to plan for collective action.

Critical pedagogy principles and values are expressed in a canon of

literature influenced by the philosophy and writing of Paulo Freire (1971)
and among more contemporary works by a range of theorists including
Henry Giroux (2011, 2015). Darder et al. (2009) illuminate the pre-eminent
role Freire played as founder of critical pedagogy, highlighting how the
philosophy he articulates about education transcends schooling (and forms
of institutional education) to encompass societal questions of power, culture
and oppression. Freire’s views on emancipatory education were grounded in
aspects of social agency, voice and democratic participation –characteristics
that are viewed by Darder et al. (2009) as highly relevant for modern
society and informing contemporary writings on critical pedagogy.
Developing these themes in a rich canon of work, Giroux (2011, p. 4) offers
some guidance for social responsibility in universities when he asserts his
critical pedagogy principles as being
grounded in critique as a mode of analysis that interrogates texts, institutions, social relations
and ideologies as part of the script of official power [...] critique focusses largely on how
domination manifests as both a symbolic and an institutional force and the ways in which it
impacts on all levels of society. (Giroux, 2011, p. 4)
 Core philosophical principles from critical pedagogy that underpin this
critical analysis and that may inform community engagement and social
responsibility in higher education include: (1) historicity of knowledge; (2)
cultural politics; (3) political economy; and (4) dialectical theory (Darder et
al., 2009). Each of these will now be taken in turn and appraised in the light
of their relevance in the context of an application to community
engagement in higher education.
Historicity of knowledge as an underpinning philosophy of critical
pedagogy may be closely aligned within the academy in terms of the
scholarship of epistemology (Douglas, 2012; Scotland, 2012). Critical
pedagogy provides an analysis that highlights the historical context within
which knowledge is made and remade. Higher education requires analysis
therefore not only of contemporary and powerful social practices but also of
the historical events that inform orthodoxies and doctrines. Critical
pedagogy provides an impetus for those in higher education (especially
students, teachers and researchers) for an engagement with the historicity of
knowledge. The catalyst then is to see injustice in its historical context and
come to a recognition that such conditions are historically produced by
human beings and therefore may be transformed by human beings –
defining a key role for agency and the possibility of change in communities
(Darder et al., 2009).
With reference to cultural politics (Giroux, 2001), orthodoxies and
routines of practice in higher education may be undemocratic and
monolithic, and difficult if not impossible for local people in the community
to navigate productively. For staff in higher education there is a requirement
to adapt and adopt empowering and participative strategies that develop and
enact a new and more porous culture. The objective is explicitly to open up
the system in a way that engages with and empowers culturally
marginalized and economically disenfranchised groups and communities.
Offering a critique of those process and systems that regulate or inhibit
empowering practices in higher education is an exercise in articulating
ideological toxins associated with lived experiences and shaped by history.
Of particular resonance is the requirement to build a critical analysis and an
investigation of traditional theories and practices in higher education that
may thwart the development of an emancipatory culture of participation
(Kincheloe, McLaren, Steinberg, & Monzó 2017). Asymmetrical relations
of power may be sustained yet treated as common sense, neutral or
apolitical (Freire, 1993). Critical pedagogy seeks to address cultural politics
by supporting a more inclusive and liberatory stance and, through dialogue
and problem posing affording a process in which power is explicitly
acknowledged, critiqued and diffused (Coburn & Wallace, 2011; Freire,
1971; Milana et al., 2018).
With respect to political economy, the contestation is that traditional
orthodoxy in schooling and wider structures of education serve particular
class structures (Daldal, 2014; Gramsci, 1986; McLaren, 2009). Those with
the highest incomes and social capital tend to benefit most. In this analysis,
higher education may be viewed, therefore, in the replication of the cultural
values and privileges of the dominant class. Critical pedagogy takes a role,
therefore, in contesting claims that traditional education provides equal
opportunity and equal access for all. These asymmetric relationships of
power serve rather to govern aspects of the social order in a way that
Gramsci defined as cultural hegemony (Burke, 2005). The effect of this
may be observable in the community and defined inappropriately as apathy,
parochialism or anti-intellectualism.
Dialectical theory (Brookfield, S. p. 58. cited in Milana et al., 2018)
contests traditional theories of education embodied in institutions of
schooling and higher education that tend to reinforce positivism, certainty
and technical control of knowledge and power. Critical pedagogy promotes
a dialectical and constructivist view of knowledge and, as a counter
hegemonic principle, seeks to problematize the taken-for-granted and to
highlight contradictions (Allman, P., p. 419, cited in Darder et al., 2009).
Thus new ways of constructing thought and interrogating common sense
understandings may be considered and a more fluid and relational view of
human nature may be deduced.
These core components of the dialectic in critical pedagogy – historicity
of knowledge, cultural politics, political economy and dialectical theory –
are represented here in summary to offer some content for an analytical
framework from critical pedagogy principles. When synthesized they afford
the possibility of a systematic rationale for university engagement with the
community in class-struggles, racial and gender inequalities, and in action
for social justice. Analysis of these four components could be undertaken
by staff in higher education as part of a Freireian decoding exercise (Freire,
1971). By these means, higher education staff interrogate the ideas together
as a form of discourse analysis and dialogue, a dialectic process of
clarifying and establishing principles for community engagement practice
in individual institutions (Lucio-Villegas, p.157, cited in Milana et al.,
2018). The democratic model in question is pluralist in orientation,
encouraging educators to build political participation through habits of
critical reflexivity, critique and dissent. The foundation principles here
equate with community development paradigms (Ledwith, 1997, 2001).
These are rooted in socialist and feminist traditions and recognize a
requirement for grassroots movements to build equality, social justice and
democracy from the bottom up as well as from the top down (Beck
&Purcell, 2010; Crowther, Ackland, Petrie, & Wallace, 2017). In Freireian
terms, this aspect of critical pedagogy has a core concern with oppression
and the consequent potential for transformation through cultural action
(Freire, 1993; Ledwith, 2001). Located in structural inequality,
transformation emerges in community engagement through which local
people develop critical consciousness and take action for the common good.
This suggests that for social responsibility in higher education to be
meaningful, a theory of transformative action is required (Freire, 1993, p.
107). However, Freire is prescient in reminding dominant elites that this
cannot arise in the context of “manipulation, sloganizing, depositing,
regimentation and prescription” (Freire, 1993, p. 107). The facilitation of
dialogue between the university and the community must be in the interests
of the oppressed people operating as subjects of their own transformation.
This was defined by Freire as intercommunication and as a “praxis of the
people” (Freire, 1993, p. 111).

BORDER PEDAGOGIES
Like all major institutions, higher education is shaped by a complex and
powerful set of rules, paradigms and beliefs, many of which are invisible,
but which can coalesce as cultural hegemony (Giroux, 2015; Griffin, 2014;
Humes, 2018). Dominant practices and disciplinary boundaries are
constructed and strictly demarcated in historical, intellectual, cultural and
social domains, for example, schools, faculties, cognate areas of research,
disciplines and courses (Bender, 2008; Bergan & Harkavy, 2018; Brown-
Luthango, 2013). Powerful and doctrinaire social practices that are inward
looking, therefore, emerge over time and are embedded in institutional
routines that can appear as common sense and axiomatic (Giroux, 2001;
Grande, 2009). The result for many in higher education is that the
surrounding community is at best a potential resource when seeking
research participants or students. For many in the university, the
surrounding community exists only in its absence from day-to-day
considerations. Institutional practices may be collectively represented,
therefore, as an exclusive realm, access to which is denied to the ordinary
citizen (Bergan & Harkavy, 2018; Obama, 2018). Boundaries and borders
are consequently created among people within the university; boundaries
and borders are created between the university and those external to it; and,
most evidently such boundaries and borders may be construed as barriers in
the relationships between the university as an institution and the community
within which it is hosted in terms of its neighbors, non-academic networks
and the wider public. To affect change in the university in the interests of
social responsibility such borders and how they are governed need to be
acknowledged and made permeable (Giroux, 2005).
To ameliorate restrictive demarcation, Giroux (2005, p. 69), therefore,
proposes breaking down disciplinary boundaries and creating new spheres
in which knowledge can be produced. Coining the term border pedagogy he
argues that this provides a means of obtaining new forms of knowledge.
Thus, border pedagogy requires considerations of ontology and
epistemology (Douglas, 2012; Scotland, 2012) and leads to the edges of
discrete disciplinary and practice domains in universities, potentially
opening up the prospect using this lens, of new paradigms of social
responsibility for higher education, new interdisciplinary partnerships and
new partnerships with communities. Dialogue and empowering practices
are principled components of this process as is a recognition of powerful
learning that arises in the context of mutually beneficial partnership and co-
production. Giroux (2005, p. 69) sees this as reclaiming and remaking
identities by working across boundaries in the interests of constructing
more democratic and just forms of life. A form of constructive alignment
arises when ontological, epistemological and methodological considerations
such as these are developed in ways that operationalize principles of
community engagement. Such partnerships between higher education
institutions and other organizations have been defined as having two
possible faces – transformational or transactional (Butcher et al., 2011, p.
31). The latter emanates from pragmatism and recognition of the individual
benefits to be accrued for participating parties. In keeping with Giroux’s
sentiments, the transformational partnership reflects a “moral dimension”
characterized by partners coming “together to pursue common purpose and
create the possibility of generative growth and change through mutual
interaction as they apply their resources to addressing complex problems”
(Butcher et al., 2011, p. 31). The benefits of this may be evidenced in
dynamic and engaging partnerships with the community. It is these
considerations of border and boundary crossing and the use of appropriate
tools and methods that may therefore facilitate the creation of new spheres
of knowledge production in higher education:

where social practices can be explored, critiqued and (re)constructed to

create possibilities for learning and knowledge exchange within and
outwith the university;
where the social construction of ideas can be made available for
questioning through dialogue within and outwith the university and
through which new ideas, meanings and understandings are generated;
and
where learning across borders can be a catalyst for social change as an
embodiment of social responsibility education (Adapted from Coburn,
2010, p. 33).

In the light of the neoliberal impulse impinging on much of higher

education (Giroux, 2015; Griffin, 2014) individuals engaged in scholarship
and academic work may be defined as private intellectuals serving specific
personal and faculty needs in terms of institutional standing and career
aspirations. Material benefits are recorded in terms of scholarly output,
professional recognition and reputational work for the institutions (Griffin,
2014). In short, it is apparently about commodifying knowledge and it is
about generating income. In contrast to these trends and with a more
communitarian impulse, Griffin (2014, p. 230) highlights the role staff play
as “public intellectuals.” In this respect he echoes a wider critique provided
by Giroux (2015, p. 99), in which the public intellectual must actively
engage in politics as a means to defy a populist hegemony. This is
representative of a larger political project in which public intellectuals:
have a responsibility to share a commitment to language as a site of experimentation, power,
struggle, and hope in the interests of building democratic social movements that are inspired
and informed.

It is the actions and dispositions of public intellectuals in this way that

exemplify border pedagogies and pave the way for moving beyond
institutional systems to cross over to co-production and dialogue with
community participants.
This social and democratic turn, developing from the ideals of the public
intellectual, is redolent too of the works of Gramsci (Burke, 1999, 2005)
and suggests that traditional intellectuals (university academics in this case)
if appropriately and critically engaged may provide a catalyst for the
creation of both “organic” and “working-class” intellectuals (Burke, 1999,
2005). The Gramscian reference to organic intellectuals may be equated
with an educated professional class of lecturers, teachers, community
workers, social workers and youth workers. The principle is that these
practitioners, routinely qualified to practice through higher education, enter
communities and may stimulate counter hegemony by supporting the
education and activism of the working class (thus building a cadre of
working class intellectuals). It must be recognized, however, that Gramsci’s
theorizing in his prison notebooks (1986) is partly based on a deep
suspicion of such traditional intellectuals and their vested interests,
suggesting they could not be trusted with a counter hegemonic tradition.

DISCUSSION
To build on practical and attainable examples and to offer a framework for
community engagement, the chapter proposes civic engagement as a
foundation for social responsibility in higher education. It goes further,
however, by drawing on traditions of critical pedagogy to argue that civic
engagement requires explicit purpose and direction if it is to avoid
becoming tokenistic. Though advocacy of community partnerships in this
way may be a radical departure for some in higher education, the aim will
be to avoid what Baum (2000) identifies as the fantasies and rather to
concentrate on the realities in university–community partnerships.
However, to accept the case that elitism and exclusion in university cultures
is problematic requires a critical reflection in higher education of
doctrinaire hegemony. It further requires a critical appraisal of structural
inequalities and an examination of the role that higher education plays in
ameliorating or perpetuating such inequalities. Identifying key principles
for community engagement in this way explicitly intends to inform action
by individual staff, individual faculty or indeed entire institutions. This
stance has two central foundations: (1) division in society depletes us all,
serves as a form of oppression and requires tools to articulate, understand
and address such oppression; and (2) striving for social responsibility in
higher education is in essence a democratizing process toward social justice
that requires a critical theory and transformative action. Indeed Samardzic-
Markovic in the preface to the Council for Europe document on Higher
Education for Diversity, Social Inclusion and Community asserts a
democratic imperative for higher education:
Higher education is not just well placed to further diversity, social inclusion and community.
Higher education has a moral duty to do so, and we need not look far to see why this is a
more important part of the mission of higher education than ever before. (Bergan & Harkavy,
2018, p. 5)

At the time of writing there is a period of political turmoil shaped by

post-truth politics and populism that combined, undermine and disparage
progressive scholarship ideals and democratic intellect (Giroux, 2015;
Waisbord, 2018). Assaults on critical thinking, climate change denial and
anti-vaccination tropes currently represent the apotheosis of this
phenomenon (Braun, 2019). Higher education, as Samardzic-Markovic
(Bergan & Harkavy, 2018) attests, cannot, therefore, sit on the sidelines in
what is potentially a post-truth, fake news, alt-right assault on dispassionate
and critical scholarship and on democratic values and social justice (Braun,
2019; Griffin, 2014). In response to such conditions, the imperative of
informed and principled community engagement assumes greater
significance for higher education.
 Nevertheless, the “ivory towers syndrome” remains evident in global
university trends (Brown-Luthango, 2013; Hooper, 2016; Humes, 2018;
Obama, 2018). Brown-Luthango (2013, p. 312) highlights how this
circumstance sees the diminution of scholarship forms such as the
scholarship of integration (involving interdisciplinary forms of research
collaboration and making connections across disciplines); scholarship of
application (in which there is an application of knowledge to pressing social
challenges); and a scholarship of teaching (in which collaborative and
problem-based strategies are valued over individualized and banking
approaches to learning).
The trend in universities instead is predominate toward business models
of operation and toward scientific rationality (Giroux, 2015; Griffin, 2014).
The emphasis is invariably on the scholarship of discovery over other
scholarship forms that may be more complementary to community
engagement and civic university ideals. When consolidated and legitimated
by neoliberal and corporatizing frameworks in higher education, planning
and policy for scholarship and for partnerships tends to reflect these
ideological orthodoxies. Such regimes therefore tend by default to devalue
community engagement practices and mitigate against forms of scholarship
and partnerships that may be more collegiate, democratizing and
complementary to social justice ends (Kincheloe et al., 2017).
John Dewey (1987) wrote that education is predicated on a democratic
impulse and on the engagement of community. Indeed, Dewey defined
democracy as a shifting and dynamic process that required nurturing and
renewal through various forms of community association so that it may be
made and remade over time (Dewey, 1991, as cited in Joseph Rowntree
Trust, 2006, p. 118). Emphasizing public responsibility and a sense of
national identity, the democratic intellect espoused by Davie (1961)
similarly gives emphasis to a conception of the good life and the good
society through principles of “intellectual breadth, philosophical grounding
and social commitment” (Humes, 2018, p. 81). It is these principles that
offer a possible corrective to the corporate and neoliberal hegemony that is
espoused as strategy across much of the contemporary higher education
sector (Humes, 2018, p, 79). And it is these principles that provide a solid
foundation for advancing conceptions of community engagement and social
responsibility in higher education.
 If the principles for critical community engagement articulated in this
chapter inspire curiosity or a desire for further action, then there are a range
of publications and ideas that can be accessed at the website of the NCCPE
(2018). These are not strictly critical pedagogy in orientation but afford the
kind of creative stimulus that may serve as a catalyst for further action in
higher education. There are creative approaches to work on public policy
issues, on environmental matters and on using university resources to
support and sustain ideas that essentially offer hope of community
development.
Brown-Luthango (2013) alludes to the strategic planning and resolve
required of such work and like a number of authors suggests that it calls for
a transformation of the institutional context within universities. The various
actors in this community engagement endeavor (in the community and in
higher education) will be required to acknowledge the degree of time, effort
and resource investment required of such engagements. The establishment
and maintenance of working relationships in communities speaks to a need
for dialogue and trust emerging over the medium to longer term and is
therefore not a short-term fix. Such relationship building requires
sensitivity, ethical practice and a concern above all to achieve social justice.
For the university to truly take up the challenge of community engagement
informed by critical pedagogy, strategic priorities and resources will be
required to ensure that such engagement is given status and value. This may
then complement the status and value afforded to matters of income
generation, research and teaching. The result, if carefully supported and
managed, may see the creation, maintenance and sustaining of effective
community engagement programs that are mutually beneficial to the
university and the community and that inform and stimulate ideals of civic
engagement.
The literature that informs the principles of community engagement
articulated here requires careful analysis to ensure that concepts and ideas
of civic university and community engagement are not simply fudged
(Bender, 2008) or reduced to lowest common denominator in the form of
short-term planning or marginal program development. Critical pedagogy
affords theoretical and critical ballast providing both an urgent rationale for
such engagement and a set of guiding principles for the conduct of those in
higher education associating with the grassroots in communities. That this
strategy for social responsibility requires forethought and sustainable
longer-term planning is evident in the sentiments of the ACU (2001) which
refers to strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative interaction with the non-
university world and the taking on of wider responsibilities as neighbors
and citizens. The literature, while eschewing elitist and neoliberal impulses
in higher education, points to a more egalitarian and empowering possibility
for community engagement and social responsibility (Bender, 2008; Bok,
1984; Coffield & Williamson, 2011; Douglas, 2012; Hooper, 2016). In the
final analysis, what the university does is the clearest indication of where it
stands in terms of civil society, civic engagement and social responsibility.
Critical pedagogy offers a framework within which to open and build
dialogue and to afford a dialectic response to collegiate processes required
to make community engagement a strategic priority.

CONCLUSION
A combination of expertise, empathy and resilience are required to ensure
that programs of community engagement are nurtured and developed in
partnership with others over the medium to longer term and are not simply
viewed as short-term or temporary expedients. Butcher et al. (2011) identify
with five guiding principles that inform community engagement through
transformational partnerships Vis:

(1) Work out of shared purpose.

(2) Lead collaboratively.
(3) Relate on a basis of trust.
(4) Ensure appropriate and adequate resources.
(5) Remain open to learning and change.

Honesty, reciprocity and mutual respect are the identified building

blocks for the effective realization of these principles. Though Butcher et al.
(2011) did not relate to critical pedagogy principles per se, it is clear that
dialogue was also foundational for them reflecting a Freirian principle that
all could be learners and all could be teachers (Freire, 1971, p. 39). The
joint agenda setting required of the authentic engagement they identify is
redolent of Freireian generative themes (Beck & Purcell, 2010) and runs
parallel to a problem posing methodology around which issues of concern
can be identified collaboratively and mutual objectives agreed between the
university and the community.
Critical pedagogy can therefore be attainable and affords the possibility
of intellectual and strategic critique of the social responsibility of
universities and of renewed possibilities in community engagement.
Fundamentally, this chapter seeks to develop the focus on to networking
relations in universities that often privilege particular types of partnerships
over others. For example, liaison with business and enterprise communities
is routine and evidenced in corporate structures, sponsorship and corporate
behaviors (Coffield & Williamson, 2011; Griffin, 2014). By contrast, the
literature confirms that formal networking and partnership with grassroots
communities or with community development ideals does not significantly
feature as priority in strategic considerations within and across higher
education (Hooper, 2016; UPP, 2018; Weerts, 2019).
The adage is that knowledge is power. Higher education is a knowledge
creator and currently generates and distributes knowledge in a number of
ways that support institutional mission, government programs, innovation
and science, and the advancement of humankind. The mechanisms by
which this knowledge is transmitted utilizes a type of grid that is hard wired
to connect with hubs that constitute polity, business, academia, and
partners. The thesis here is that this network does not reach sufficiently well
into neighboring communities and in to a grassroots where structural
inequality exists. If represented on a graphic it is clear that around many
higher education institutions there would be bright nodes of engagement
while neighboring communities in greatest need remain largely in darkness.
The philosophy and analysis that informs this chapter draws on principles
for critical pedagogy and is explicitly designed to stimulate the creation of
new networks so that the supply can reach new nodes in grassroots
communities.

REFERENCES
Ackland, A., Roberts, G., Swinney, A., & Wallace. D. (2017). A Scottish consortium of higher and
further education institutions: Developing collaboration through critical incidents. In B. Cozza
 & P. Blessinger (Eds.), University partnerships for pre-service and teacher development-
innovations in higher education teaching and learning (Vol. 10, pp. 17–32). Bingley: Emerald
Publishing.
Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2001). Engagement as a Core Value for the University -
a consultation document, London ACU.
Baum, H. (2000). Fantasies and realities in university-community partnerships. Journal of Planning
Educational Research, 20, 234–246.
Beck, D., & Purcell, R. (2010). Popular education practice for youth and community development
work. Series: Empowering Youth and Community Work Practice. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Bender, G. (2008, March). Exploring conceptual models for community engagement at higher
education institutions in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 6(1), 81–95.
Bergan, S., & Harkavy, I. (2018). Higher education for diversity, social inclusion and community.
Strasbourg: Council for Europe Publishing.
Bhagwan, R. (2018). University-community partnerships: Demystifying the process of engagement.
South African Review of Sociology, 49(3–4), 32–54.
Bok, D. (1984). Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social responsibilities in the modern university.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Braun, K. (2019). Unpacking post-truth. Critical Policy Studies, 13(4), 432–436.
Brown-Luthango, M. (2013). Community-university engagement: The Philippi CityLab in Cape
Town and the challenge of collaboration across boundaries. Higher Education, 65, 309–324.
Burke, B. (1999, 2005). Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education. The encyclopaedia of informal
education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm
Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for
higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 29–40.
Coburn, A. (2010). Youth work as border pedagogy. In J. Batsleer, J. & B. Davies (Eds.), What is
youth work. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Coburn, A., & Wallace, D. (2011). Youth work in communities and schools. Edinburgh: Dunedin
Coffield, F., & Williamson, B. (2011). From exam factories to communities of discovery – The
democratic route. London: Trentham.
Crowther, J., Ackland, A., Petrie, M., & Wallace, D. (2017). Adult education, community and
learning for democracy in Scotland. In N. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopaedia of
education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. (Eds.). (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.).
Oxon: Routledge.
Davie, G. E. (1961). The democratic intellect: Scotland and her universities in the 19th century.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dewey, J. (1987). Education and social change. In J. A. Boydson (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works
(Vol. 11; pp. 408–420). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.
Douglas, S. (2012). Advancing the scholarship of engagement: An institutional perspective. South
African Review of Sociology, 3(2), 27–39.
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seaboury.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Giroux, H. (2001). Theory and resistance in education, toward a pedagogy for the opposition
London: Bergen and Garvey.
Giroux, H. (2005). Border crossings. Oxford: Routledge.
Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy, New York, NY: Continuum.
Giroux, H. (2015). Education and the crisis of public values (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Laing.
Goddard, J., & Kempton, L. (2016). The civic university in the leadership and management of place.
Newcastle: Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, Newcastle University.
Retrieved from https://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/curds/files/university-
leadership.pdf
Gramsci, A. (1986). Selection from prison notebooks. London: Laurence & Wishart.
Grande, S. (2009). American Indians geographies of identity and power: At the crossroads of
Indigena and Mestizaje. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical
pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 183–208). Oxon: Routledge.
Griffin, D. (2014). Education reform: the unwinding of intelligence and creativity. New York, NY:
Springer.
Hooper, D. (2016). Supporting thriving communities – The role of universities in reducing inequality.
London: University Alliance.
Humes, W. M. (2018). Scottish higher education. In T.G.K. Bryce, W. M. Humes, D. Gillies, & A.
Kennedy, (Eds.), Scottish education (5th ed., pp. 78–97). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Joseph Rowntree Trust, (2006), Power to the people – the report of power: An independent inquiry
into Britain’s democracy. York: York Publishing Distribution.
Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., Steinberg, S. R., & Monzó, L. (2017). Critical pedagogy and
qualitative research: Advancing the bricolage. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 235–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ledwith, M. (1997). Participation in transformation – Towards a working model of community
empowerment. Birmingham: Venture Press.
Ledwith, M. (2001). Community work as critical pedagogy: Re-envisioning Freire and Gramsci.
Community Development Journal, 36(3), 171–118.
Macdonald, D. (2002). Critical pedagogy, what might it look like and why does it matter. In A. Laker
(Ed.), The sociology of sport and physical education (pp. 167–189). London: Routledge
Falmer.
McLaren, P. (2009). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, &
R. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 69–97). Oxon: Routledge.
Milana, M., Webb, S., Holford, J., Waller, R., & Jarvis, P. (2018). The Palgrave international
handbook on adult and lifelong education and learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement. (2018). What works, engaging the public
through social media. Bristol: Bristol University. Retrieved from
https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/nccpe-projects-and-services/completed-
projects/beacons-public-engagement
Obama, M. (2018). Becoming. London: Penguin Books.
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and
epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical
research paradigms. English and Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16.
UPP Foundation. (2018). Civic university commission progress report. Retrieved from https://upp-
foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/UPP-Foundation-Civic-University-Commission-
Progress-Report.pdf
UPP Foundation. (2019). Truly civic: Strengthening the connection between universities and their
places. Retrieved from https://upp-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/UPP-
Foundation-Civic-University-Commission-Progress-Report.pdf
Waisbord, S. (2018). The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populist politics.
Communication Research and Practice, 4(1), 17–34.
Webster, T., & Dyball, M. (2010). Independent review of beacons for public engagement evaluation
findings, final report for RCUK, HEFC and the Welcome Trust. London: People, Science and
Policy Ltd.
Weerts, D. (2019). Resource development and the community engagement professional: Building and
sustaining engaged institutions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
3(1), 9–33.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 139–154
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023010
CHAPTER 11
THE ROLE OF THE FINNISH AND
AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES IN
ACHIEVING A BETTER AND MORE
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR ALL
Ilkka Väänänen, Kati Peltonen and Sharon Lierse

ABSTRACT
This chapter adopts an international perspective and discusses the
policies and activities that the universities both in Finland and in
Australia have undertaken in order to strengthen and develop the
prosperity for achieving a better and more sustainable future for all.
Social responsibility is approached from the broad-based perspectives
– especially how research and development (R&D) activities of
universities can be seen as platforms for university–community
partnerships. This chapter first opens up the driving forces behind the
universities’ social responsibility. The second section portrays how
social responsibility is implemented in the Finnish and Australian
universities. The following section addresses the significance of
universities’ R&D activities in promoting social responsibility.
Finally, the chapter ends with the discussion on the action models,
which supports the social responsibility in university–community
partnership.
 Keywords: Finland; Australia; university; research and development
activity; social responsibility; university–community partnership
platform; concept of corporate social responsibility; social impact

INTRODUCTION
“We need to solve humanitarian crises together.”

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Advocate Forest Whitaker (2016)

Universities all over the world, as well as their surrounding communities,

are in a transformation and looking for new ways to cope with social and
economic challenges that force them to redesign their strategies and
operational practices. Consequently, universities have faced the need to
reflect and redefine their role in society at the local, national and
international levels. The concept of corporate social responsibility is widely
applied in the business sector and in management studies referring
generally to the organization’s commitment to operate in an economically,
socially and environmentally sustainable manner, and being aware of the
social impact of their practices. Recently, discussions on the social
responsibility of universities and their role in sustainable development have
increased, and also the corporatization of the universities has increased the
call for universities to emphasize their role as good corporate citizens (Nagy
& Robb, 2008). As a result, a concept of a university’s social responsibility
(USR) has been launched referring to universities’ overall impact on
society, may it arise from direct engagement or internal strategic practices
(Bokhari, 2017). USR relates to and comprises of many different aspects of
the universities’ core functions, such as providing education in the
community and conducting research that fosters the development of
sustainable socio-economic, ecological and environmental solutions. As
defined in the Guidelines for Universities Engaging in Social Responsibility
(The UNIBILITY consortium, 2017, p. 5), “USR basically consists in
knowing, monitoring and evaluating the impact on society and specifically
on the university stakeholders, of the different programmes, actions and
activities performed by the university.”
 Whereas the traditional role of universities has been to undertake
research and provide education, nowadays socially responsible universities
have also taken a greater role in local, national and international
development through university–community engagement and partnerships
(Bokhari, 2017; Chile & Black, 2015).
In this chapter, we have approached USR from the broad-based
perspectives. This chapter first opens up the driving forces behind the USR.
The second section portrays how social responsibility is implemented in
universities in generally in order to strengthen and develop prosperity
through collaborative networks for building “good.” Using the Finnish and
Australian universities as case examples, the next section discusses the
activities that the universities have undertaken in order to promote social
responsibility, focusing especially on how research and development
(R&D) activities of universities can be seen as platforms for university–
community partnerships. These two countries have been chosen for case
examples in this chapter for the following reasons. First, both countries
have experienced educational reform during the past two decades, which
have been influenced by business and the community. Second, as a result of
educational reforms, both Finnish and Australian universities have
incorporated the principles of USR into their mission, vision and strategies,
which allows us to explore the questions of USR in international level.
Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion on the action models,
which support the social responsibility in university–community
partnerships.

THE DRIVING FORCES BEHIND THE USR

ON A GLOBAL LEVEL
Sustainable Development Goals Guide the Actions of Universities
Social responsibility is not a new issue for universities, as educating youth
and conducting research have always been universities’ ways to contribute
to society. However, the contemporary internal and external changes, such
as the new university missions (Schulte, 2004), interdependence with the
industry and government (Etzkowitz, 2004) and universities stronger
engagement with society (Bokhari, 2017) have forced them to reconsider
their contribution to the sustainability, equality and well-being of society.
This has meant that in addition to teaching and research, universities have
acknowledged their role in enhancing global sustainable development and
quality of life in society (Bokhari, 2017).
United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (Fig. 1) are the
blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all (United
Nations, 2016). These 17 goals address the global challenges including
those related to poverty, inequality, climate, environmental degradation,
prosperity, and peace and justice. The goals interconnect and aim to, in the
next 15 years, for example, end extreme poverty, fight inequality and
injustice, and fix climate change.

Fig. 1. The Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations

Communications Materials).

The declaration of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the responsibility of universities and
institutions of higher learning, presented in the World Conference on
Higher Education (UNESCO, 1998), initiated broader discussion and
research on the social responsibility of universities. This was affirmed in
2009 with UNESCO’s declaration on the dynamics of higher education and
research for societal change and development (UNESCO, 2009; Chile &
Black, 2015). Therefore, higher education institutions worldwide have
begun to embrace sustainability issues and initiatives for developing a
social responsibility strategy and guidelines. In a similar vein, universities
around the world have started to collaborate in order to better address the
economic, social, cultural and environmental challenges. Establishing the
University Social Responsibility Network in 2015 is one example of how
universities can join forces to tackle these challenges.

Embedding Social Responsibility into Universities Core Operations

Social responsibility is embedded in many ways in the universities’
strategies and day-to-day operations. First, building strong ties and
connections with other institutions and the world of work is needed as
universities are finding new ways to develop and implement competence-
based education, which refers to an outcomes-based design for learning
(Biemans, Nieuwenhuis, Poell, Mulder, & Wesselink, 2004; Wesselink, de
Jong, & Biemans, 2010). This means in practice that industry and other
stakeholders are strongly involved in curriculum development to ensure that
the learning objectives are in line with the requirements and needs of the
world of work.
Second, universities play an essential role in society by creating new
knowledge, sharing it with students, re-training employees, and fostering
innovations. “The third mission” of universities, in addition to education
and research, centers specifically on the contribution to regional
development (Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, 2008; Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2007). Today,
university–community partnerships have become important platforms to
heighten the sense and practices of social responsibility. In order to fulfill
this role, universities must engage with other stakeholders, such as public
bodies, industry, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and citizens.
Furthermore, along with the strengthening of the ecosystem approach in
regional development, universities have started to be more active in this
role as well (Celuh, Bourdeau, Khayum, & Townsend, 2017; Markkula &
Kune, 2015). Acknowledging the various conceptualizations and views on
regional entrepreneurial ecosystem, the basic idea behind this kind of
collaboration is to achieve something that goes beyond the scope and
capabilities of any one actor alone by combining strengths, knowledge and
expertise (Isenberg, 2010). The main goals of such network of relationships
are that it enables interactions between a wide range of institutional and
individual stakeholders in environment that fosters innovation, new
business creation and corresponding sustainable employment growth within
a specific geographic region (Isenberg, 2010).
Universities can have multiple roles in these kinds of networks,
especially as facilitators and providers of knowledge intensive human
capital. Hence, becoming an active partner in that kind of collaboration is
one way for universities to increase community engagement and create
university–community partnerships.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINNISH

AND AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Similar National Level Interests in Promoting Good Life
At first it might seem that Finland, which is a small North European
country with a population of 5.5 million people, and Australia, being the
sixth largest country with a population of 25 million, have nothing in
common. However, they both have a similar and vested interest in fostering
their countries’ future sustainable well-being and are similar in their
rankings (15. and 3. respectively) in the Global Human Development Index
(United Nations Development Programme, 2018, p. 22). This index is a
summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human
development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a
decent standard of living and thus is one way to assess countries’ levels of
social and economic development. Worldwide comparisons have rated
Finland as the happiest country and Australia is also in the top 10
(Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2019, p. 25). In the Social Progress Index,
launched by the Social Progress Imperative (SPI) to complement the GDP
by measuring the extent to which countries provide for the social and
environmental needs of their citizens, Australia has been consistently strong
in the standard of living, clean water, education and freedom of expression,
whereas Finland has been ranked the country with the highest nutrition and
basic medical care, and inclusiveness, and scored the third highest in
personal freedom and choice, and foundations of well-being (Social
Progress, 2018). In addition, both Finland and Australia rank as two of the
top educated countries ranked eighth and seventh, respectively (OECD,
2019).

Universities as Advocates for Social Responsibility

Both Finland and Australia have similar number of universities (43) that
operate to a high degree under the ministry or central government control
and planning, while being relatively independent legal entities.
Furthermore, in both countries, universities are seen as vital stakeholders
and contributors in promoting good life and social responsibility in society.
For instance, in Finland, universities, along with other large public-interest
entities with more than 500 employees and the turnover exceeding EUR 40
million, have a duty to annually report their non-financial information. In
other words, based on the EU regulations (European Parliament, 2013) they
need to explicitly inform how they operate and manage social and
environmental challenges. Most of the Finnish universities have also
published a separate Annual Responsibility Report, which is based on the
principles of materiality, stakeholder involvement and sustainable
development. In Australia, sustainability reporting is voluntary (Parliament
of Australia, 2019), and there are three sustainability indices: the Corporate
Responsibility Index, Sustainable Asset Management Australia and
RepuTex, which are much smaller on an international scale due to the
voluntary nature.
The values of the universities guide decision-making and action that
creates a new culture of action. Social responsibility is based on interaction.
It is guided by policies, many documents and organizational cultures.
Responsibility belongs to all of the tasks of universities: both higher
education and research. The next section opens up the role of R&D
activities of the Finnish and Australian universities in promoting social
responsibility.
 R&D ACTIONS BUILD THE SHARED
MEANING
The volume of R&D activities in Finnish universities (EUR 1.6 billion) in
2017 was a quarter of total (EUR 6.2 billion) (Statistics Finland, 2019). In
Australia in 2016, the funding was 10,877.5 billion Australian dollars in
which 6,075.1 was from general university funds, and 1,672.8 from
Australian competitive funds (Ferguson, 2019). Australia has universities as
well as a Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions. During the
past decades, some TAFE’s have transformed to universities, offered both
and higher education courses or remained a TAFE. It has become accepted
practice for all these types of institutions to collaborate with external
organizations.
In contrast to Australia, in Finland, there are both academic and applied
science universities. The one mission of Finnish Universities of Applied
Sciences (UASs) is to carry out research, development and innovation
activities (RDI) that serve working life and regional development and help
renew regional business structures. The key beneficiaries of RDI activities
are SMEs and their workforce, as well as welfare organizations and their
customers, as well as NGOs and citizens.
The one aim of UASs’ RDI activities is to improve the resource
efficiency and to increase the attractiveness for better business and new
business and good, balanced life and increased citizen participation. The
key resource for the development is the competence and creative potential
of the staff and students. UASs are the only Finnish institutions that have
been issued a statutory task in innovation activities (Universities of Applied
Sciences Act 932/2014). RDIs represent a key method for the development
of working life and societal issues. Additionally, new knowledge and
expertise gained through RDI activities is also transferred and utilized in the
degree-based education (The Rector’s Conference of Finnish Universities of
Applied Sciences Arene, 2019).
A significant part of the RDI activities is conducted in projects that
include external funding sought by UASs from different funding
instruments. The applied research that is conducted is used to produce
knowledge for the needs of working life and society at large. Therefore, for
instance, all Finnish universities have committed to comply responsible
conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct
in Finland (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, 2012). Also,
they have committed to the responsibilities of open science (Ministry of
Education and Culture, 2014, p. 24) including introducing openness into
organizations’ strategies, creating a participatory atmosphere that considers
personnel’s practical requirements and their concerns over resources,
developing clear policies for drawing up contracts for publication,
licensing, and copyright and proprietary rights, and clearly describing
researchers’ rights and obligations with regard to openness.
In Australian universities, research projects usually have to go through a
comprehensive Ethics process that is managed through an Ethics committee
across all disciplines. This includes projects with external organizations.
There are two government agencies in Australia called the Australian
Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research
Council, which allocate research funding to academics and researchers at
universities. The funding is highly competitive, and applications go through
a rigorous process:

The ARC’s purpose is to grow knowledge and innovation for the benefit
of the Australian community through funding the highest-quality
research, assessing the quality, engagement and impact of research and
providing advice on research matters.
In seeking to achieve its purpose, the ARC supports the highest-quality
fundamental and applied research and research training through national
competition across all disciplines. Clinical and other medical research is
primarily supported by the National Health and Medical Research
Council. In addition, the ARC encourages partnerships between
researchers and industry, government, community organizations and the
international community (ARC, 2019a, 2019b).

The Impact of the RDI Projects

The RDI projects can affect the operating environment in many different
ways indirectly and immediately. They create a common understanding and
values within the community. In Finland and Australia, RDI activities are
very versatile, practical, and meet the needs of working life partners and
other beneficiaries. These activities aim to develop services, products and,
increasingly often, new expertise in the workplace.
Out of the total available amount of the Finnish UASs’ RDI funding 97
million (58 %) was allocated to different development activities, 67 million
(40 %) to innovation activities and 3 million (2 %) to basic research (The
Rector’s Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences Arene,
2019). A major part of the RDI projects in Finnish UASs is funded by the
European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund.
In accordance with the funding criteria, RDI projects are also assessed in
terms of so-called horizontal principles such as equality, equality and
sustainable development. Preparation, decision-making, project selection,
implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation are carried out in a
non-discriminatory manner for any group of people. Responsibility involves
long-term operations, transparency, openness and economic, social and
ecological impact. Though the aim of the EU policies is to promote both
cohesion and competitiveness in and between EU regions through RDI
projects, it seems that competitiveness is more emphasized in practice. As a
result, recently a discussion on Responsible Research and Innovation,
referring to: “a transparent interactive process where societal actors and
innovators become mutually responsible to each other, viewing the ethical
acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation
process and its marketable products” (Von Schomberg, 2011, p. 9), has
emerged (Stilgoe & Guston, 2017; Thapa, Iakovleva, & Foss, 2019).
Through RDI activities, the role of the universities in the regional
innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems has changed from bridge builder
to knowledge creator and innovation broker. Brokers are needed to move
information flows across networks, creating encounters between things,
people, and phenomena, which are based on sharing and experience. Keys
factors in building a shared vision and culture include dialogue, equality,
respect, open questions, questioning, unfinished thoughts, initial ideas and
future talk. Opportunities must be created for joint discussion, different
platforms for interpretation and development opportunities. Agility,
experimentation, tolerance to errors and uncertainty are needed.
SUPPORTING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN
UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
It is fair to say that the social responsibility of the universities is largely
based on interaction and cooperation. The universities produce new
openings, development measures for their operating environments and serve
students, companies and various stakeholders in the area through their
activities. A good life is not born by itself. It has to be built in collaboration
and continuous interaction with different parties, while appreciating each
other. The task of universities in promoting a better and more sustainable
future can be viewed from the perspective of a common goal.
The last United Nations (2016) Sustainable Development Goal –
“Partnerships for the Goals” – revitalizes the global partnership for
sustainable development. The vigor and dynamism depend on the ability of
actors to adapt to changing situations by continually introducing their gore
processes. Not all universities adapt with equal success in social
responsibility. The outcome depends on the capabilities to take up new
partnerships and cooperation. Traditionally education and research have
been universities’ most important contributions to society. However, the
role of universities as public forerunners in promoting social responsibility
and showing future direction is not so clear.
The importance of the public space role of the universities and its
contribution to social responsibility is often underestimated. The
university’s role in social responsibility depends on what kind of
communication and action culture there is. The “one-size-fits-all” approach
to sustainable development pursued by many universities, with its focus on
education and research, should be replaced with a more comprehensive and
differentiated view of the universities’ role. Universities need a stronger
awareness of the pathways along which regions, countries and the world are
developing and the processes that are associated with those pathways. They
should seek to align their own contributions with what is actually happening
now and in the future.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The aim of this chapter was to examine the social responsibility of
universities and the elements of sustainable development in collaboration
between higher education and the civil society in Finland and Australia.
Even though the standpoints presented here from these two countries cannot
be generalized, the last section of this chapter gives insight into the
cooperation between universities and civil society from the social
responsibility and university–community partnerships (Fig. 2). The main
contribution of this chapter, as Fig. 2 illustrates, is that social responsibility
needs to be embedded in all three core activities of the universities –
education, R&D and regional development. This strategic approach to
sustainable development is fully compatible with the pursuit of excellence
in their traditional and broadened primary missions. Elaborating on prior
research (Stilgoe & Guston, 2017; Thapa et al., 2019) we suggest that this
kind of university–community partnership could be termed as Responsible
Education, Research, Development and Innovation.

Fig. 2. Social Responsibility in Higher Education and University–

Community Partnerships.

In recent years, the societal changes reflect to the universities, too. Their
role has changed, and the university–community partnerships need to be
looked at in a new way to make them more profitable in regional innovation
and business ecosystems. Universities cannot operate in isolation from
other operating environments. They had to have a close connection and
interaction with surrounding communities and systems where they have
very active role in social responsibility.
Instead of the solid borders between the surrounding society and the
universities, they have opened their campuses in Finland and Australia to
the business communities and public sector organizations both in Finland
and in Australia. In sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems, civil society
benefits from participating to knowledge creation and problem-solving,
which are the skills needed in working life (Hyttinen, Hohenthal, &
Gäddnäs, 2012; Nurkka, 2010).
In order to achieve the third mission of the universities, to participate in
regional development (Mora, Detmer, & Vieira, 2010) and to become a
proactive actor of the knowledge-based learning region (Florida, 1995),
universities need to develop further their cooperation with the private,
public and non-profit stakeholders. One possibility is to raise the existing
cooperation practices into the level of strategic partnership, where common
goals are set, and mutually beneficial exchange takes place between
partners. This mode of collaboration can be started by answering the
following questions of the Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005,
p. 52): “What new operations should be created and emphasized, and what
old operations should be reduced and eliminated.” True collaboration is a
long-term process that takes place both on organizational and on individual
levels.
Organizations, universities, and working life should set up shared goals.
The implementation of these goals ensues in the interaction between
people: teachers, students, employees and entrepreneurs. This demands
interactive meetings, skill to conduct dialogical communication, creation of
mutual language and understanding, joint agreements, participatory change
management and shared resource. In addition, partnerships require changes
in organizational culture, where interaction and diversity are enabled, and
where multidisciplinarity, flexibility and sensitivity occurs (e.g. Häggman-
Laitila & Rekola, 2011).
Stronger ties and connections between institutions and the world of work
are needed in order to implement competence-based education (Biemans et
al., 2004; Wesselink et al., 2010), but also extend relationships into the
partnerships. Such partnerships would gather education and training
practitioners, businesses, and civil society bodies, and national and regional
authorities with a common agenda. Nevertheless, the world of work seems
to be most familiar with educational services of universities and less
attention has been given to them as a resource to offer RDI support and
partnerships. When the world of work has to compete with economic
resources, investments and labor force, the regional cross-sectional
collaboration becomes more important (Marttila, Kautonen, Niemonen, &
von Bell, 2004). Traditional “cooperation” has been typically initiated by
the universities and therefore, follows the goals and methods set by them
(e.g., Neuvonen-Rauhala, 2009). Old structures and processes in
cooperation do not enable to response to the challenges of developing
authentic development environments and new competencies. Developing
cooperation toward partnership requires universities to develop a new
paradigm, and new tools to enhance their cooperative activities. Partnership
also embraces various forms of implementation; formal, informal,
horizontal and vertical (Häggman-Laitila & Rekola, 2011).

SUMMARY
Even though the ideas presented this chapter cannot be generalized, it gives
an insight into the cooperation between university and civil society. The
building of relational trust on a personal level, adaptation to the partner’s
processes and seeking consensus on the utilization of the jointly achieved
research results are the main processes, which help partners to lower the
barriers of the collaboration. The role of boundary actors as facilitators of
the relationship in learning process has been highlighted (Väänänen, 2013).
In addition, it has been highlighted also that university–industry
collaboration does combine not only heterogeneous knowledge but also
heterogeneous partners (Kunttu, 2019). Because of this heterogeneity,
partners do not only have to develop practices that facilitate the core
processes in their relationship, but they must also learn to collaborate with
each other. In this manner, actors need to learn how to overcome
organizational barriers caused by different orientations, cultures, attitudes
and incentives. To establish and maintain a successful learning relationship
between industry and universities, it requires long-term investment,
understanding and adaptation from both parties of the partnership. This
relationship is possible only when partners can develop mutual trust,
facilitated by personal-level professional relationships and close
interactions within the partnership. To make this mutual trust happen, the
role of boundary spanning capabilities is emphasized. Boundary actors who
have developed the capability to cross the boundary between industry and
universities are key for creating and developing personal and professional
interactions across this boundary. Inter-organizational trust, facilitated by
these interactions, is necessary to create the right atmosphere in which
partners can jointly create and utilize valuable new knowledge, overcoming
organizational barriers to collaboration (Kunttu, 2019; Väänänen, 2013).

REFERENCES
Australian Research Council. (2019a). Australian Research Council profile. Retrieved from
https://www.arc.gov.au/policies-strategies/policy/codes-and-guidelines
Australian Research Council. (2019b). Codes and guidelines. Retrieved from
https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/arc-profile
Biemans, H., Nieuwenhuis, L., Poell, R., Mulder, M., & Wesselink, R. (2004). Competence-based
VET in the Netherlands: Background and pitfalls. Journal of Vocational Education and
Training, 56, 523–538.
Bokhari, A. A. H. (2017). Universities’ social responsibility (USR) and sustainable development: A
conceptual framework. SSRG International Journal of Economics and Management Studies,
4, 1–9.
Celuh, K., Bourdeau, B., Khayum, M., & Townsend, L. (2017). The role of the university in
accelerated learning and innovation as a regional ecosystem integrator. Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10, 34–47.
Chile, L.-M., & Black, X. M. (2015). University–community engagement: Case study of university
social responsibility. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 10, 234–253.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of
Technology and Globalization, 1(1), 64–77.
European Parliament. (2013). Corporate governance: Disclosure of non-financial and diversity
information by certain large companies and groups. Amending Directive 2011/0308(COD).
Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?
lang=en&reference=2013/0110(COD)#finalAct
Ferguson, H. (2019, April 24). University research funding: A quick guide. Research Paper Series,
2018–19. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Librar
y/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/UniversityResearchFunding
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). Responsible conduct of research and
procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Retrieved from
https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf
Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27, 527–536.
Häggman-Laitila, A., & Rekola, L. (2011). Partnership between higher education and working life–
Developing an action model through action research. Refereed Academic Paper. Innovations
for Competence Management Conference May 19–21, 2011, Lahti, Finland. Retrieved from
http://pro.phkk.fi/kit/articles/Haggman-Laitila_Rekola_article.pdf
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (Eds.). (2019). World happiness report (p. 25). Retrieved
from https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2019/WHR19.pdf
Hyttinen, K., Hohenthal, T., & Gäddnäs T. (2012). Ammattikorkeakoulujen työelämäyhteydet
strategiatasolla ja johdon näkemykset [The working life contacts of the universities of applied
sciences at strategy level and the views of the management]. In T. Thoenthal (Ed.),
Työelämäkumppanuutta rakentamassa. Stepit -kolme askelmaa yhteisölliseen
työelämäkumppanuuteen [Three steps to community-based partnerships in world of work].
(pp. 6–31). Kokkola: Centria University of Applied Sciences.
Isenberg, (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution? Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–
51.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities:
Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space
and make the competition irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kunttu, L. (2019). Learning practices in long-term university–industry relationships. Acta
Wasaensia, 424, University of Vaasa.
Markkula, M., & Kune, H. (2015). Making smart regions smarter: Specialization and the role of
universities in regional innovation ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management Review,
5, 7–15.
Marttila, L., Kautonen, M., Niemonen, H., & von Bell, K. (2004). Yritysten ja
ammattikorkeakoulujen T&K -yhteistyö. [The cooperation of the companies and the R&D of
the universities of applied sciences] Ammattikorkeakoulut alueellisessa
innovaatiojärjestelmässä: koulutuksen ja työelämän verkottumisen mallit, osaprojekti III [The
universities of applied sciences in the regional innovation system: Models of education and
work networking, subproject III]. Working Papers 74/2005. Work Research Centre University
of Tampere. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Open science and research leads to surprising
discoveries and creative insights. Open science and research roadmap 2014–2017. May 31,
2019. Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for Higher Education
and Science Policy, Science Policy Division, 21, Finland. Retrieved from
http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/75210/okm21.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Mora, J.-G, Detmer, A., & Vieira, M.-J. (Eds.). (2010). Good practices in university–enterprise
partnerships GOODUEP. Valencia: Polytechnic University of Valencia.
Nagy, J., & Robb, A. (2008). Can universities be good corporate citizens? Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 19, 1414–1430.
Neuvonen-Rauhala, M-L. (2009). Defining and applying working-life orientation in the polytechnic
postgraduate experiment. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Nurkka, P. (2010). Kokemuksia osaamisen arvioinnin kehittämisestä LbD -mallissa [Experiences of
developing competence assessment in the LbD model]. In T. Toivola (Ed.) Yhdessä tekemällä.
 11 tapaa linkittää T&K ja oppiminen [Together by doing. 11 ways to link R&D and learning]
(pp. 22–33). Helsinki: Laurea University of Applied Sciences.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Higher education and
regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Better life index.
Retrieved from http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/finland/
Parliament of Australia. (2019). Sustainability reporting. Retrieved from
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Librar
y/Browse_by_Topic/ClimateChangeold/responses/economic/sustainability
Schulte, P. (2004). The entrepreneurial university: A strategy for institutional development. Higher
Education in Europe, 29(2), 187–191.
Social Progress. (2018). Social Progress Index. Retrieved from https://www.socialprogress.org/?
tab=2&code=FIN
Statistics Finland. (2019). Statistics > Science, Technology and Information Society > Research and
development > Tables. Retrieved from http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/tkke/tau_en.html
Stilgoe, S., & Guston, D. H. (2017). Responsible research and innovation. In U. Felt, R. Fouché, C.
A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed.,
pp. 853–880). Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.
Thapa, R.K., Iakovleva, T., & Foss, L. (2019). Responsible research and innovation: A systematic
review of the literature and its applications to regional studies, European Planning Studies,
27(12), 2470‑2490.
The Rector’s Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences Arene. (2019). Innovation and
expertise for working life research, development and innovation activities in Finnish
universities of applied sciences. Retrieved from http://www.arene.fi/wp-
content/uploads/Raportit/2019/Innovation%20and%20expertise%20for%20working%20life_
Arene_RDI_032019.pdf
The UNIBILITY consortium. (2017). Guidelines for universities engaging in social responsibility (p.
5). Retrieved from
https://www.postgraduatecenter.at/fileadmin/user_upload/pgc/2_LifeLong_Learning_Projekte
/0_Lifelong_Learning_Projekte/UNIBILITY/Downloads/Guidelines/IO8_Guidelines_final_v
ersion_2017-09-12_print.pdf
United Nations. (2016). The sustainable development goals report 2016. Retrieved from
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20R
eport%202016.pdf
United Nations Development Programme. (2018). Human development indices and indicators: 2018
statistical update (p. 22). Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1998). World declaration on
higher education for the twenty-first century, for vision and action. World conference on
higher education, Paris, October 9. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). The new dynamics of
higher education and research, for societal change and development. Communique world
conference on higher education, Paris, July 5–8.
Universities of Applied Sciences Act (932/2014). Section 4. Mission. Retrieved from
https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2014/en20140932.pdf
Väänänen, I. (2013). BUZZ! – Through cooperation a top actor in applied research, development,
and innovation activities and a significant part of an efficient and pratice-based innovation
 environment. In K. Mäenpää (Ed.), Innobee (Vol. 141, pp. 4–7). The Publication Series of
Lahti University of Applied Sciences. Lahti: Lahti University of Applied Sciences.
Von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and
communication technologies and security technologies fields. Luxembourg: Publication
Office of the European Union.
Wesselink, R., de Jong, C., & Biemans, H.J.A. (2010). Aspects of competence-based education as
footholds to improve the connectivity between learning in schools and in the workplace.
Vocations and Learning, 3, 19–38.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 155–167
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023011
CHAPTER 12
DIFFERENTIATING UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: AN
AFRICAN TALE IN CIVIL SOCIETY –
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON
UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS
Nelson M. Nkhoma

ABSTRACT
Faculty members at public universities in different disciplines view
civil society differently as they perform their function of creating
partnerships with society. This chapter draws evidence from faculty
members in public universities from one African country – Malawi.
Drawing from Derrida’s (1978) concept of difference and West’s
(1993) views of social theory, the chapter examines three approaches
to community engagement (CE) with civil society. It concludes that
the growing demands to attain difference in CE have resulted in
oversupply of approaches that are often pitied against each other;
hence, the hierarchies obscure the work CE is achieving.
Keywords: Difference; civil society; community engagement; Africa;
Malawi
 INTRODUCTION
This chapter questions, how do African faculty members at public
universities in different disciplines view civil society as they create
partnerships with society? The role of the university in society was
enshrined in the call for Africanization of universities (Aina, 1994; Ajay,
Goma, & Johnson, 1996; Ashby, 1964). The expectations that higher
education should sustain national aspirations of African countries (Preece,
2013) required developing an educational system, which is differentiated
but with resemblance of Western higher education and civil society (Cloete,
Bailey, Pillay, Bunting, & Maassen, 2011; Preece, 2013). The Association
of African Universities founded in 1967 was one of the pioneers of the
notion of creating African university (Cloete & Maassen, 2015; Court,
1980; Preece, Ntseane, Modise, & Osborne, 2012;UNESCO, 1962).
UNESCO (1962) extrapolated that the African university must be a factor
in social progress and seeks to free the African socially, culturally,
economically and politically and build a new kind of civil society. This
chapter argues that there is no general concept picked out by the expression
“CE with civil society” in the way actors reference it in practice: CE is
theory-laden such that it can only be understood from within the theoretical,
practical and historical contexts in which it originates. Although the idea of
CE with civil society still retains critical value, the chapter argues that the
problem is not the shortage of or lack of CE with civil society but the
oversupply and hierarchy of what is conceptualized as effective strategies
for engagement with civil society. As Fukuyama (2001) shows, this creates
a situation that positions universities as failing at leveraging social capital in
engaging with the civil society as actors vie for whose approach represents
better the needs of society.
I now turn to a theoretical literature of the concept of “difference” that I
use to make sense of the way university faculty members talk about CE
with civil society. This is followed by methods for data collection and
analysis. In building my claim that there is an oversupply and hierarchy of
conceptualization of CE with civil society, I offer three examples in the
finding’s sections. This is followed by a discussion of two important points
that contribute to the ways we can continue to refine our understanding of
CE with civil society and the role of the developmental university in Africa.
 DIFFERENCE IN CE WITH CIVIL SOCIETY:
DOMINANT THEORETICAL FRAMING
To understand and explain CE, several authors have employed various
theoretical lenses. Given the range of these lenses, I risk being superficial
and group them into three dominant approaches. These are functionalism,
constructivism and emancipatory-critical approaches. These are heuristic
categories and pyramids of CE that arise from the dominant analytical
approach that Derrida (1978) called difference. Heinrich, (2005) show
similar complexities with the concept of civil society. While these analyses
are very informative and render CE with civil society intelligible, they also
obscure and impede other possibilities.
The functionalism approach is simply about the kind of functions CE
can serve mainly in relation to the core functions of the university but also
for society in general as well as motive for involvement in CE activities
(Furco, 2001; Rice, 2016). From this perspective, CE ought to be
institutionalized in order to play supplementary role of enhancing the
functioning of the university (African Union, Higher Education Summit,
2015). This may involve strengthening research, teaching and training
students academically and civically and creating networks with external
stakeholders such as government, industries, civil society, funders and
others. Such framing is in line with CE proponents such as Boyer (1996)
through their emphasis on the centrality of discovery, integration,
application and teaching as the core of CE.
The approach often tends to lean toward academic knowledge
production and economic outcomes of CE with civil society. Overall, the
functionalism is an inward-oriented approach to CE. This potentially
explains why in recent years CE have been associated with debate about
third stream income, regional economic development, and move toward
entrepreneurial universities and civil societies. This could involve the kind
of relationship and linkages the university establishes with local, regional,
national and international communities and how that contributes to
academics’ core and economic development (Goddard & Vallance, 2013;
Molas-Gallart & Castro-Martinez, 2007). Because of its functionalist
approach ability to raise more funds, it often differentiated and ranked as
the best approach.
Then, there are those who take a more constructivism approach to CE
with civil society. Adherents to this approach argue that CE processes,
outcomes and meanings participants attached to them ought to be
understood in the context in which CE operates. In this context, people’s
experiences and reflections are central to understanding the value of CE and
what kind of civil society the university can create. The experiential
learning component of students’ involvement in society draws heavily from
this constructivism approach (Fenwick, 2001). This approach shows why
CE differs across disciplines and professional field in terms of purposes and
intended outcomes. CE actors in this approach ask questions on the
perceptions and meanings CE participants construct. The constructivism
approach to CE focuses more on the meaning’s actors attach to CE
experience in relation to various kinds of development. While Carnegie
praises the middle-line approach of treating community members as equal
partners in constructing knowledge collaboratively for mutual benefits,1 the
approach is ranked lower because it of its inability to ring in more funds.
While considering the functions, processes and meanings created in and
through CE, others take emancipatory and critical approach to CE. This
can also be called the radical approach because of its quest to break
normative power differences. At the core of this approach is the argument
that we need to look at the issues of power relations, privilege and hierarchy
in CE and civil society context (Barinaga & Parker, 2013; Burawoy, 2015;
Mitchell, 2011). Advocates of this approach believe that historical, social,
political and economic structures determine the ways people function and
behave, thus, we ought to be aware of and question practices and structures
that are oppressive. Most authors draw heavily from Paulo Freire’s
emancipatory, liberatory and critical pedagogy in framing CE and
university contribution to a liberated civil society. Others such as Barinaga
and Parker (2013), harbor strong views that such approaches lead to
decolonization of research methodologies. These approaches position CE as
social and political activity that should emancipate and transform
individuals and society (Butin, 2010; Deeley, 2015; Zuber-Skerritt, Wood &
Louw, 2015). This approach though generative in tackling existential unjust
structures, it the list appreciated and supported financially.
When one examines these perspectives on CE with civil society and the
hierarchy that ensues, one concept comes to the fore, “difference.” In the
essay “Différance” Derrida indicates that différance gestures at several
heterogeneous features that govern the production of textual meaning. The
first (relating to deferral) is the notion that words and signs can never fully
summon forth what they mean but can only be defined through appeal to
additional words, from which they differ. Thus, meaning is forever
“deferred” or postponed through an endless chain of signifiers. The second
(relating to difference, sometimes referred to as espacement or “spacing”)
concerns the force that differentiates elements from one another, and in so
doing engenders binary oppositions and hierarchies that underpin meaning
itself which in turn enact an constitute actions and reality.2
Drawing from West (1993), four forms of theoretical underpinnings
proffer how to understand, analyze and enact representational practice such
as the way scholars highlighted above view the relationships between the
university and the civil society. He suggests these are the Heideggerian
destruction of the Western metaphysical traditions, Derridean
deconstruction of the Western philosophical tradition, Rortian
demythologization of the Western intellectual tradition, and Marxist,
Foucaultian, feminist, antiracist, or anti-homophobic demystification of
Western cultural and artistic conventions.
West’s (1993) analysis is useful at many levels. The primary point he
makes about the analysis of how we ought to understand universities vis-à-
vis civil society is that our attention to deference in destruction,
deconstruction, demythologization and demystification should not merely
end at one size fits all dissembling with little attention to consequences of
these dismantling have on the operations of military, economic and social
powers in society. The aim is not to pit one intellectual object against one
another to create eternal canons that discourage or even dwarf
contemporary achievement. Rather to understanding multiple facets that
make the complex whole. The following sections articulate the methods
used to develop data that are presented as evidence to support the key claim
the chapter is making.
 GROUNDING THE CLAIM: METHODS AND
APPROACHES
The multiple theoretical frameworks reveal two things. The first is the
difference in the characterization and operationalization of CE with civil
society. The second is the need to make sense of these differences and
understand the kind of development they entail. The data and evidence to
ground the claim made in this chapter are thus drawn from a study that
investigated the factors that drive faculty members in Malawi public
universities to perform CE. The study was framed from a mixed-methods
approach that used an exploratory study design of quantitative and
qualitative surveys. The exploratory design was befitting to the project
because the aim was to begin to develop tentative but plausible theoretical
explications of the interface of CE vis-à-vis civil society.
The survey instrument was made up of an eclectic selection of concepts
from the literature that shows how personal, institutional, governmental and
external community factors shape how faculty explicates their motivation
for conducting CE. There were 45 survey questions. The questions were
structured in a Likert scale with a rank of 1 to 10, where 1 to 5 meant
participants disagreed with the constructs and 5 to 10 meant participants
agreed with the constructs. The in-depth follow-up interviews with 20
faculty members of the 115 total participants comprised the qualitative
exploratory part of the study. The study covered three public universities.
Of all the purposively selected faculty members, all except three who were
on study leave took part. Drawing from Treiman (2014) the aim of data
analysis was to explore how participants’ responses tended to cluster
around certain points of agreement or disagreements with survey items.
Follow-up interviews with faculty members were analyzed qualitatively.
Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) point out several approaches in
qualitative data analysis and this study opted for a deductive analysis
approach. This approach was suited for this study because it transforms
general theories that were used as background to analyze how faculty in
Malawi conceptualizes CE with civil society. The research approach
followed ethical practices in the social science research. The protection and
anonymity of research participants are assured. The study obtained ethical
review from University of Minnesota in the United States as well as the
National Commission for Science and Technology (NCST) in Malawi. This
chapter is mainly based on the qualitative data. I now turn to presenting
examples to show how university actors harbor multiple conceptualization
of CE with civil society and what it means to do CE under such
differentiated theoretical explorations.

DIFFERENTIATING CE WITH CIVIL

SOCIETY
This section presents three unique exemplars of faculty members’ CE
approaches. It presents three vignettes that describe the projects and what
incentives drove faculty member to involve in the projects and conduct this
form of CE. While all in-depth interviewed faculty members shared
relevant and interesting strategies, motivations, incentives or barrier and
examples of CE projects, these three cases were selected on two conditions.
The first was the Furco (2010) model of comprehensive CE. The model
conceptualizes CE as that which integrates teaching, research and service
within a project in a community. Second, the O’Meara, Terosky, and
Neumann’s (2008) framework was used for understanding how faculty
members were uniquely driven by personal, institutional, community
incentives to conduct CE. Both these frameworks are informed by the three
paradigmatic approaches highlighted earlier. In addition, the three cases
were selected because of their disciplinary focus. The exemplars are from
basic sciences, humanities and medicine. The first faculty members’ case
involved cassava plants and chemistry, the second utilizes theater as a tool
for development and the third faculty member’ s example utilizes modern
and traditional medicine to alleviate reproductive health problems in the
civil society through community-engaged scholarship.
Fig. 1. Faculty Members’ Response to Government Incentives that Drives
CE.

In the survey 95.4 percent of respondents answered “strongly disagree”

or “disagree” when asked if they were incentivized by government financial
support. Similarly, 80.5 percent of respondents answered “strongly
disagree” or “disagree” when asked if their university provided support for
their community-engaged scholarship. These cases profiled here were made
possible with financial support from both the internal university support and
the international funders. This observation makes stronger the finding that
in the absence of government financial support and limited institutional
financial incentives, faculty members were driven and incentivized by their
personal and external aspiration to solve community problems (Figs. 1 and
2).
 ENGAGING CIVIL SOCIETY THROUGH
CASSAVA
This example of a CE project focuses on faculty member’s use of cassava
plants as a means of promoting student learning and community
development. The faculty members demonstrated that his personal and
disciplinary background motivated him to conduct community-engaged
scholarship. This faculty member linked his personal and disciplinary
aspirations to the university mission to link his work with civil society. His
work enabled him to partner with local and international communities,
university professors in African universities and European university
institutions. The faculty member expressed his motivation to conduct
cassava-based community-engaged scholarship in the following way:

Fig. 2. Faculty Members’ Response to University Incentives that Drives

CE.
 Now as a chemist, I became very interested because cassava can be classified into two
groups: bitter and sweet varieties. It is interesting that the bitter varieties need to be
adequately processed for consumption. The question is why local communities or households
process it much more adequately than the sweet ones which are eaten straight away. That
becomes a scientific matter but also a social aspect of the science of the cassava plant. This
knowledge has application to the government, NGOs and communities. Industries can now
make improvements in either their program or products and revise their process and therefore,
the university and faculty members have a specific responsibility to generate evidence which
should inform policy and practice that is relevant.

Thus, a community-engaged scholarship resulted in project called

Cassava: adding Value for Africa (C:AVA). C:AVA is project funded by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, implemented by United Kingdom-
based Natural Resources Institute together with partners in five countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa, namely Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda and
Malawi. In Malawi, the project is implemented by Natural Resources
Institute and the Department of Chemistry in the Faculty of Science at one
of the public universities. The project’s purpose is to support sustainable
and equitable high-quality cassava flour (HQCF) value chains and thereby
improve the livelihoods and incomes of smallholder households and
stakeholders in micro, small- and medium-scale enterprises. The project is
committed to mainstreaming gender issues and social inclusion throughout
its activities, emphasizing the equitable distribution of benefits and the
empowerment of women and disadvantaged groups.
The value chain: There are three components of the value chain: (1)
Farmer/Farmer. Activities at this level deal with the production and primary
processing of cassava. Exact activities vary by country and by location
within country. The project ensures a competitively priced supply of fresh
cassava, supporting farmer/processor group formation and production of a
semi-processed product. In some locations, this semi-processed product
could be dried cassava grits prepared from dried, grated cassava. (2)
Intermediary Processors and Bulking Agents. The project specifically
works with and supports intermediary processors and bulking agents that
play an important role in linking small-scale processors with end-use
industries. These intermediary processors may be involved in drying,
milling and packaging. (3) End-Use Industries. There are many potential
end-use industries whose confidence in using HQCF is being built. These
end users include milling industries incorporating HQCF in wheat flour,
food-processing operations making composite flours, and the plywood and
paperboard industries.
The research component of the project involved learning from
communities that depend on cassava as their staple product how they
process, market and store the produce. The project primary targets are
communities who depend on cassava for their livelihood. The faculty
member leading this project, however, has drawn from the project as way of
advancing his scholarly career and meeting the academic needs of his
students and personally contributing to the social transformation of his
communities as was shown in the following words:
Those of us who are in sciences generate knowledge … that has application to the society in
terms of improving better industrial process for example, production of products which are to
be used by the society and people and that through that application it also uplifts the
livelihoods of the communities.

This vignette fits into the conceptual and theoretical frameworks at two
or three levels. First, this case is a good example of applied research. But
others would criticize the way the faculty member conceptualizes engaged
scholarship as it is not being differentiated from applied research. Engaged
knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994) takes on a collaborative frame
valuing the knowledge assets of those outside the academy. Applied
knowledge production assumes that knowledge assets are within the
academy and can be shared externally. Here is where Derrida’s concept of
difference helps us to see the common view. The predominant claim you
find in CE literature is that different approaches have implications for
impact on addressing social issues effectively. The two views: one that
assumes that valuing the knowledge assets of those outside the academy
and the other that extends the knowledge assets in academia externally to
the civil society can be positioned in a hierarchy where one is better than
the other. Linking this to the conceptual framework, the difference in the
conceptualization of CE then comes to the fore where, for example, we can
differentiate an empowered or disempowered CE approach with civil
society. Yet we have no conclusive evidence that supports the notion that
these differentiated approaches can truly underpin different results or
outcomes or that one is more just than the other.
 THEATER FOR CIVIL SOCIETY
DEVELOPMENT
The second vignette is an example of a faculty members’ approach to
community-engaged scholarship in the humanities. The faculty member
drew from theater as a mechanism to integrate his teaching, research and
service to solve community problems. Faculty members who use this
approach draw support from different funding sources, for example, the
government, Population Services International and the National Aids
Commission. The faculty member expressed his motivation to involve in
communities in the following way:
I come from a premise that a proper scholar in the humanities is someone that cannot escape
the engagement with the communities because that is our laboratory. I wanted to teach my
students how to creatively tell stories but also realize that we are not the first story tellers.
There are beautiful story tellers out there in the communities. So, I take my class to the
community to listen to the people’s narrations from which different issues come up. This is a
two-way process.

Theater for Development approach is unique because it links various

partners and involves faculty members, students and communities to deal
with real problems and find solution to those problems via storytelling,
theater and performance as a medium.
The approach: Theater for development started in the faculty of
humanities at one of the main public university central campus. This
approach of community-engaged scholarship integrates teaching, research
and service to communities using theater or drama and oral performances.
The approach has four interlinked stages. This approach was created by the
principal of this public college. The faculty member admitted that he draws
from the approach in his community-engaged scholarship. Below is the
synopsis of the approach.
Stage 1: Entry into the community: A faculty member identifies a
societal development problem. This problem may be reported by
community members, students or faculty members who may notice it
themselves. Then the faculty member working with students goes into the
community to learn about the problem. The faculty member and students
submit themselves as learners. They live within the community and
participate in all everyday activities of the community. For example, you
cut and carry sugar cane with the community, play games and take part in
rituals and ceremonies. You merge and become part and parcel of the
community.
Stage 2: Once you have all that data, observations, you have asked
questions to guide your thinking and so on with respect to a problem that
has taken you to that community. Then you take the information to the
drawing board, and you analyze the data and information. You don’t write
with a pen while in the community because you just want to merge and be
like them. Once you have returned, you go to the drawing board and you
construct plays or episodes and some of the episodes directly draw on some
of the things that have been happening in the community.
Stage 3: After that now you take that play back to the community. You
gather the community members around a tree or the marketplace where they
normally gather. You form a theater in the round amid them. When you act
the play based on the discovered community themes, the community sees
themselves in the play. They see this proud young man or woman of theirs
being scoffed in the play and the community can join and say yes that one is
proud! We paid schools fees for you and you should pay back our money.
And so, the actor on the stage stops being a just a participant as they see
themselves as part of the play and close reflection of their life. As you do so
you confirm certain findings and they even give you more information
which you take up for further analysis.
Stage 4: Theater becomes a way of mobilizing the community. Through
the same play you may ask then what the problem is and find out what they
suggest as a way or solutions for the problem. So, you put that in the play
and challenge the people and ask them questions and the people say what
they need to do and by the end of that performance, the communities have
done something. At this stage, theater moves the public spectacle into a
stage for community development.
The narrative fits into the conceptual and theoretical framework in two
ways. First, is that from the minimalist difference typological framing, one
could position this as a functionalist approach to CE as the faculty member
sees the community and civil society as a laboratory where knowledge can
be generated. Yet others based on participation of the community members
in the theater could position it a constructivist approach to community
engagement (CE). Equally, one could lay a claim for theater for
development to be considered an emancipatory approach to CE because of
its attempts to raise the voice of the marginalized communities.
Positioning the community as a laboratory has implications for how
knowledge production is conceived and for questions of ethics and justice.
This is where the dualism and how difference as highlighted by Derrida
(1978) sets up the meanings associated with civil society and CE. Derrida
indicates that difference gestures several heterogeneous features that govern
the production of what constitutes knowledge. The first (relating to deferral)
is the notion that concepts such as “laboratory” can never fully summon
forth what they mean but can only be defined through appeal to additional
concepts, from which they differ. The perception is that the laboratory
produces a different type of knowledge from say an open theater. The
second (relating to “spacing”) concerns the force that differentiates
elements from one another, and in so doing engenders binaries and
hierarchies, hence the difference between the community as a civil society
and the university as knower and knowledge producer. At the same time,
one begins to seriously consider the difference between what constitutes
knowledge production or the ethical and unethical way of going about CE
as differentiated from what can be considered basic interactions, or the just
and unjust knowledge production.

ENGAGING CIVIL SOCIETY THROUGH

TRADITIONAL AND MODERN MEDICINE
CE is important in the field of health. There are several historical and
contemporary issues that affect the delivery and provision of medical
services and medical education in Malawi. One reason was that early
tertiary levels of training in modern medicine were limited. The few
African medical workers who trained under missionaries within Malawi and
abroad were marginalized to manual roles since service requirements were
designated by race (Lwanda, 2002). Additionally, there was an impression
that modern medical services were primarily for African elites and the
Europeans. This led to marginalization of rural Africans from Western
medical culture. This situation also delayed epistemological dialogue
between traditional and western medicine as modern and traditional medical
practices were pitted against each other in a good and evil duality and
difference.3 Nonetheless, faculty members in the medical college are
drawing on the concept of community-engaged scholarship in producing
relevant medical knowledge. Particularly, there are faculty members who
are bridging various medical epistemologies to enhance the teaching,
research as well as the provision of medical education and health services.
For details see Nkhoma (2018). Yet further inquiry into these perspectives
reveal a different framing of CE and civil society. To further unpack and
explicate this notion of difference, I present one faculty members approach
to CE that can be classified as a representative model of a medical approach
to CE. This approach takes three primary stages.
Stage1: The first stage entails identifying a community health problem.
Upon identifying a community health problem, in this case fertility and
maternal health, the faculty member partnered with other faculty members
in preparing a concept and project proposal to access funding. This project
received funding from various agencies including the national government,
the medical school and the NCST. These partners and funders were both
local and international. Once funding was accessed, the teaching and
research involved identifying communities and locating traditional medical
doctors and traditional birth attendants in the communities. This involved
gaining trust among communities’ members who could provide different
herbal and medicinal plants and knowledge on how the medicine is used.
Community members are also sensitized of various issues around fertility
and other preventative modern medicine. Students are assisted to learn and
interact with the communities in this way by providing information and
services and research by working hand in hand with the faculty member.
Stage 2: Participants are taken as part of the laboratory testing. In the
laboratory testing, participants are diagnosed of different fertility problems
and are given help. At the laboratory level different medical plants used in
birth control or male and female contraception are also tested for properties
with the view of scientifically providing evidence that the various medical
plants have. Where successful this leads to creation of contraceptives or
medication for inducing childbirth and many more.
 Stage 3: At this stage the knowledge generated is used for treating issues
of fertility and promoting maternal health. Various findings are shared
through teaching of student, and through scholarly papers in medical
journals. These results are also shared with the community members.
Funders of the projects are also provided with reports and information about
the findings.
When examined critically from a Derridean difference point of view,
Barinaga and Parker (2013) would argue that this describes public
scholarship, not publicly engaged scholarship as the level of engagement
from participants is quite minimal. Thus, CE in medical education also fits
into the multiple ways faculty and researcher differentiates civil society.
When one considers the way the faculty member works with the funders,
the community members and the university, a claim on collaboration can be
made. Similarly, the involvement of community healers, students and others
signals a constructivist approach to CE. Yet a case could also be made for a
functionalist approach based on the level of participation of various actors
the focus is on the medical knowledge as panacea for fulfilling the
academic function in society. Like in the theater for development approach,
ethical and justice issues are also abounded and what it means to produce
medical knowledge. Who owns this knowledge and who benefits from it are
both critical issues that difference would highlights? The other important
facet that comes up is relating to the division between traditional and
modern medicine. In avoiding the reductionist differentiation that West
(1993) warns us about, elsewhere, I argue using Bhabha’s (1985) concepts
of “hybridity” and “resistance” to transcend the problem of difference.
What one sees in this analysis is the significance of the tools we use to
make sense of the intellectual project called CE with civil society and the
sociological analysis of higher education.
Framing CE approaches in the way Barinaga and Parker (2013) advocate
is reductionist because they assume that by drawing from CE approach that
operate against the traditional colonizing methodologies that have been the
hallmarks of social science research for centuries this somehow makes their
approach immune to the critical issues of ethics and justice. This just
creates an unnecessary differentiation and hierarchies of difference.
Weather an approach takes participatory approaches or not or offers critique
or analysis of the broader societal structures of power or not cannot
override the inherent in abilities of CE to deal with all societal problems.
This is what Castell (2017) highlights as the contradictory functions of the
university.

DISCUSSION
The three vignettes illustrate faculty’s views on how universities do relate
with civil society at public universities. The cases are similar because they
address the interconnected problems of family planning, public health, food
security, empowerment and development. One key outlook in the cases
presented here is that not one consensus emerges as what is meant by civil
society and what the universities position as CE.
The experiments on chemical contents of cassava are conducted leading
to the development of better cassava processing techniques. Community
members learn how to make small machines for processing cassava; others
receive training on packaging cassava for the market, while still others learn
to process a pure form of starch that is sold at high commercial price. The
second community-engaged strategy described is an approach for providing
civic educational programs for communities by using theater and the art of
storytelling. Similarly, the third strategy of CE in modern and traditional
medicine attempts to promote well-being through integrating various way
of healing.
These three cases reviewed here from Derridean (1978) difference point
of view have resemblance to organizational pathways to other university
cases out there. Assié-Lumumba (2006); Cark (1998), Atuahene (2011), and
Bawa and Munck (2012) treatise on African universities are good examples.
Universities in Malawi like elsewhere as seen in the three cases are in a
state of disequilibrium for which there is no end in sight. “Demands on the
universities has outrun their capacity to respond” (Clark, 1998, p. 129).
These cases share a common thread in that the faculty members are driven
to respond to the increasing demands of civil society on the university.
There is more demand on universities from differentiated segments of
students; more demand for specialized skills and different points of labor;
different patrons expect universities to do more and differently with less,
and most importantly, demand for knowledge production by quadruple
helix of industries, government, academic and civil society outruns
resources. As it can be seen in the faculty approaches to CE with civil
society, not one university or strategy can control the production of
knowledge and adequately meet these demands. Thus, these issues create
enormous demands on CE as a panacea. In typical fashion that the cases
reveal, national systems, university institutions and faculty members cope
with the growing demands by “differentiation,” each discipline and often
faculty members take their own approach to CE. But the challenge as the
chapter has tried to demonstrate is that democratization or diversification of
approaches does not always eliminate the age long challenges of ethics,
justice and unplanned negative implication of engagement with civil
society. Therefore, CE regardless of its theoretical conceptualization should
be known for what it makes possible rather than what it is called. The aim
of deconstruction, differentiation and uncoupling of CE strategies as
highlighted by West (1993) ought not to be creating ranks of differentiated
CE but rather to understanding how the core of multiple facets that make
the complex whole of universities respond to demands of society. Better
still how all these can be heightened to confront the root causes that impede
on universities to achieve its various mandates.
Furthermore, the three cases suggest that there is no quintessential or
prototypical kind of civil society that is made possible by CE out there.
What we should do instead, it seems to isolate the problems that various
appeals to civil society are thought to solve and consider them separately. In
other words, our approach to a theory of civil society must carefully and
explicitly describe the issue that our appeal to civil society is thought to
confront. For example, consider a problem which I call the problem of
democratic political culture: How is it possible for a national society to
generate and sustain a democratic political culture, given a political
commitment to individual liberty and the pluralist reality of life under free
institutions? Perhaps some conception of civil society, if actualized, could
contribute to solving this problem. But as shown by Fine (1997) neither the
problem of democratic political culture nor some appeal to civil society
need to be construed generally. As Varty (1997) suggests, we can approach
this problem and civil society as a possible solution without the hubris of
universal applicability. Moreover, it is probably not the case that this is just
one problem. Asked in different national or ethnic contexts, the problem
will likely manifest itself quite differently. The corresponding solutions,
even if they appeal to “civil society,” will need to be tailored to fit these
contexts. Only with this kind of particularism approach can the idea of CE
with civil society be of critical value.

CONCLUSION
The chapter explored one central question: how are faculty members in
African universities conducting CE with civil society? This question is
significant to establish and legitimize the needs of all stakeholders in
mutually beneficial partnerships. The central finding of the inquiry was that
faculty members conceptualize and conduct CE with civil society in more
than one way. This means that we cannot think about one view of
Coleman’s, (1986) idea of developmental university in civil society. And
the ways through which faculty conduct CE due to the appeal to
differentiations has ended up in theoretical framing such as functionalist,
constructivists and emancipatory strategies. Others frame these from a
disciplinary point of view such as chemistry, humanities and medical
approach. But the differentiation of these typologies of university CE with
civil society often results into hierarchies where some are positioned as
better at dealing with social problems because of the attached frameworks.
These only entails an oversupply of conceptualization of strategies and
hierarchies yet there is limited evidence that somehow shows that only one
approach is better than the other as they are all inherently imbricated in
ethical and social justice issues.
Thus, having examined the differences in faculty conceptions of CE with
civil society as a tale of the universities in Africa and the oversupply of how
actors view civil society, it is befitting to conclude with the insights and
warning from West (1993). The deadly traps of social analysis and any form
of criticism are those of reductionism, be it of the sociological,
psychological or historical sort. According to West reductionism means
either one factor analyses such as crude Marxisms, ferminisms, racialism
and many more that yield a one-dimensional functionalism or a hyper-
subtle analytical perspective that loses touch with the specificity of an
object’s form and of its context. What I have shown in the chapter is that
our ways of understanding CE with civil society should be taken in line
with the day-to-day actions of the actors running the trenches of CE. While
the object that this analysis makes possible is important, the process and
how actors define such conceptions is equally important. The opportunity,
therefore, arises for research to develop ways to further refine and theorize
the applicability of these concepts that we often take for granted such as
civil society, CE and African higher education.

NOTES
1. For Carnegie definition of CE see https://www.brown.edu/swearer/carnegie/about.
2. Derrida (1978); Schultz and Fried (1992) in their vast bibliography of Derrida’s work cite this
sentence as where “JD introduces différance” for the first time.
3. Pay attention to my use of these dualities such as traditional and modern that I intentionally and
consciously use. These are all predicated on the view of difference as somehow, we can set these
apart one away from the other.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of
Global Change Compton Fellowship, University of Minnesota, University
of Western Cape and Institute for Post School Studies with support from the
Carnegie Cooperation of New York. Special thanks should also go to Prof.
Andrew Furco and Prof. David Chapman for providing very important
feedback. The staff and faculty at the three public universities in Malawi
also deserve appreciation. The author would also like to thank the reviewers
for their feedback and comments.

REFERENCES
African Union, Higher Education Summit. (2015). Revitalising higher education for Africa’s Future,
Dakar, Senegal, March 10–12, 2015.
Ajay, L. F., Goma, K. H. L., & Johnson, A. G. (1996). The African experience of higher education.
Accra: Association of African Universities.
Aina, T. A. (1994). Quality and relevance: African universities in the 21st century. Accra:
Association of African Universities.
Ashby, E. (1964). African universities and Western tradition in tropical areas. London: George Allen
and Union.
Assié-Lumumba, N. T. (2006). Higher education in Africa: Crises, reforms and transformation.
Dakar: Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa.
Barinaga, E., & Parker, P.S. (2013). Community-engaged scholarship: Creating participative spaces
for transformative politics. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 11(4), 5–11.
Bawa, A., & Munck, R. (2012). Foreword: Globalizing civic engagement. In L. MciIlrath, A. Lyons,
& R. Munck. (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives. (pp
xi–xix) New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Bhabha, H. K. (1985). Signs taken for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and authority under a tree
outside Delhi, May 1817. Critical Inquiry, 12(1), 144–165.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, 49(7), 18–33.
Burawoy, M. (2015). Facing an unequal world. Current Sociology, 63(1), 5–34.
Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in
higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Castell, M. (2017). Universities as dynamic system systems of contradictory functions. In J. Muller,
N. Cloete, & F. van Schalkwyk (Eds.), Castells in Africa: Universities & development. (pp.
35–55) Cape Town. African Minds.
Clark, B. R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and
management, 4(1), 5–16.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Issues in higher education. New York, NY: Elsevier Science Regional Sales,
665 Avenue of the Americas.
Cloete, N., Bailey, T., Pillay, P., Bunting, I., & Maassen, P. (2011). Universities and economic
development in Africa: Pact, academic core and coordination. Wynberg: CHET.
Cloete, N., & Maassen, P. (2015). Roles of universities and the African context. In J. Muller, N.
Cloete, & F. van Schalkwyk (Eds.), Castells in Africa: Universities & development (pp. 1–
17). Cape Town. African Minds.
Coleman, J. S. (1986). The idea of the developmental university. Minerva, 24(4), 476–494.
College of Medicine. (2010). Prospectus. Malawi: University of Malawi Publication
Court, D. (1980). The development ideal in higher education: The experience of Kenya and Tanzania.
Higher Education, 9(6), 657–680.
Deeley, S. (2015). Critical perspectives on service-learning in higher education. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Derrida, J. (1978). Cogito and the history of madness. From writing and difference (p. 75). (A. Bass,
Trans.). London & New York, NY: Routledge.
Fenwick, T. J. (2001). Experiential learning: A theoretical critique from five perspectives.
Information Series No. 385, Center on Education and Training for Employment, Columbus,
OH.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
Fine, R. (1997). Civil society theory, enlightenment and critique. Democratization, 4(1), 7–28.
doi:10.1080/13510349708403499.
Fukuyama, F. (2001) Social capital, civil society and development, Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7–
20. doi:10.1080/713701144
Furco, A. (2010). The engaged campus: Toward a comprehensive approach to public engagement.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(4), 375–390.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
London: Sage Publishers.
Goddard, J., & Vallance, P. (2013). The university and the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heinrich, V. F. (2005). Studying civil society across the world: Exploring the thorny issues of
conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Civil Society, 1(3), 211–228.
doi:10.1080/17448680500484749.
Lwanda, J. (2002). Doctoring the brain drain: Medical case of Malawi. African issues, 30(1), 47–51.
Mitchell, K. (Ed.). (2011). Practising public scholarship: Experiences and possibilities beyond the
academy (Vol. 40). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of
‘Third Mission’indicators. Research Evaluation, 16 (4), 321–330.
Nkhoma, N. M. (2018, December). Producing relevant medical education through community-
engaged scholarship. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 4(3), 151–168.
O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional
growth perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3), 1–221.
Preece, J. (2013). Towards an Africanisation of community engagement and service learning.
Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 114–122.
Preece, J., Ntseane, P. G., Modise, O. M., & Osborne, M. (2012). Community engagement in African
universities. Perspectives, prospects and challenges. Leicester: NIACE.
Rice, R. E. (2016). Ernest Boyer’s “Scholarship of Engagement” in retrospect. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement, 1(29), 29–33.
Schultz, W. R., & Fried, L. B. (1992). Jacques Derrida bibliography (p. 12). London & New York,
NY: Garland.
Treiman, D. J. (2014). Quantitative data analysis: Doing social research to test ideas. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
UNESCO. (1962). Conference on the development of higher education in Africa, Paris: UNESCO.
Varty, J. (1997). Civic or commercial? Adam Ferguson’s concept of civil society, Democratization,
4(1), 29–48. doi:10.1080/13510349708403500
West, C. (1993). Prophetic reflections: Notes on race, class and power in America. Monroe, ME:
Common Courage Press.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., Wood, L., & Louw, I. (Eds.). (2015). Palar as a methodology for leading
community engagement. In A participatory paradigm for an engaged scholarship in higher
education (pp. 81–91). Rotterdam: Brill Sense.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 169–184
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023012
CHAPTER 13
THE ACCESS DILEMMA REVISITED:
EXPLORING THE (MISSING) LINKS
BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL POLICY,
UNIVERSITY STRATEGIES AND CIVIL
SOCIETY
Laila Nordstrand Berg and Rómulo Pinheiro

ABSTRACT
Access to higher education (HE) has been on the global policy
agenda for decades. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are
inherently biased toward serving the needs and expectations of the
middle classes, to the detriment of more disadvantaged groups. This
creates a significant dilemma in democratic contexts, as in the
country of this study: Indonesia. This chapter focuses on the (missing)
link between actors who have the potential to influence the
development of the sector, consisting of; government, HEIs, industry,
and local stakeholders. Evidence based on the data suggests that
there is a missing link on how influential the different actors in civil
society are regarding developing and implementing policies, and how
this is affecting widening participation in HE.
Keywords: access; civil society; decentralization; disadvantage
groups; higher education; Indonesia; institutional pillars; Quadruple
 Helix; Tri Dharma; widening participation

INTRODUCTION
Access to higher education (HE) has been on the global policy agenda for
decades (World Bank, 1998, 2008). This refers to the extent to which
prospective students have the capacity to not only enter tertiary education,
but also be active participants in completing a degree (Isopahkala-Bouret et
al., 2018). Successful HE attainment provides graduates with access to
numerous professions and the potential for social mobility, as well.
However, in the majority of HE systems worldwide, higher education
institutions (HEIs) are inherently biased toward serving the needs and
expectations of the middle classes, to the detriment of more disadvantaged
groups. This creates a significant dilemma in democratic contexts, where
education is seen as a public good that should be widely accessible to all.
This dilemma is the starting point for the case study presented here, which
focuses on Indonesia, an Asian country in a phase of economic and political
transition.
Widening participation has become one of the most common terms in
policymaking (Bibbings, 2006). The primary issue pertains to the social
dimension of access, particularly government- and institution-led policies to
increase the enrollment of students from underrepresented groups
(Bibbings, 2006; Chowdry, Crawford, Dearden, Goodman, & Vignoles,
2013). Despite the enrollment increase, this has not changed the fact that a
student’s likelihood of attending HE still depends primarily on family
background (Vignoles & Murray, 2016). Change in policies are related to:
(1) democratization process; (2) economic transition into a knowledge
society; and (3) increasing demand for skills and knowledge by both the
local labor market and citizens (youth).
For Indonesia, the focus on broadening access to HE has been at the
forefront of the policy agenda since the country began its democratic
transition in the late 1990s. The focus has been on equality of opportunity
aiming at reducing structural and cultural barriers, which hinders students
from lover socio-economic status to enter HE, and equality of outcome
focusing on supporting those students so they are able to successfully
graduate.
The gross enrollment rates doubled between 2001 and 2010, reaching six
million students in 2014 (Trading-Economics, 2018). However, the
Indonesian HE sector has been unable to meet growing demand. The central
government’s ability to expand the number of, and enrollment places at,
public HEIs is constrained by the budget and the fact that the private sector
has dominated the tertiary education market for 20 years. The elite-public
HEIs, and most of the private ones, rely on student fees; they are
unaffordable for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including ethnic
minorities and those from more rural or remote areas.
Yet, in spite of the central role of government and the HEIs, these are not
the only actors involved with further developing the sector. This chapter
focuses on the (missing) link between the state, HEIs, and the civil society.
The civil society, in its broader sense, refers to the domain between the state
and the individuals (Dunn, 1996). This could be operationalized into a
Quadruple Helix model (Miller, McAdam, & McAdam, 2016) of actors
who has the potential to influence the development of the sector, consisting
of; government, HEIs, industry, and local stakeholders. For the purpose of
this chapter, the two latter represent the civil society.
Accordingly, the overarching problem driving this research is: What
dilemmas is Indonesia facing regarding widening access and participation
in HE, and how are government and actors in the civil society dealing with
this?
The data show that there is an overlap between the different actors in the
Quadruple Helix model. The classic division in separate (quadruple) groups
is hard to apply to the Indonesian context, due to the web of actors where
university staff are involved at all spheres. This can be viewed as a
dilemma, as this entails an uncertainty on who has the ability not only to
enter the sector, but also who is able to influence mechanisms widening
access to, and participation in, HE. Evidence based on the data suggests that
there is a missing link on how influential the different actors in civil society
are regarding developing and implementing policies, and how this is
affecting widening participation in HE.
The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. The next section
describes the Indonesian HE sector. This is followed by the theoretical
framework and associated research questions. The key findings are
presented in the empirical section, followed by a discussion illuminated by
the conceptual dimensions and extant literature. The chapter ends with a
short conclusion focusing on the policy and research implications of the
main findings.

THE MACRO CONTEXT

The Indonesian Republic is the fourth-largest country in the world, with a
population of 252 million spread over about 18,000 islands. The country is
highly diverse culturally, with over 300 different native languages. In recent
decades, the country has made enormous gains in reducing poverty;
however, in 2014, around 40% were near the national poverty line, with
11% below it (World Bank, 2014). By 2017, there were more than 3,100
private and over 120 public HEIs (Ministry of Research, 2017), yet public
institutions enrolled around 37% of all students in 2018.
Following the downfall of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998,
decentralization imperatives have reformed the governance approach,
delegating authority, resources, and fiscal management of most public
sectors to local or provincial authorities (Law 22/1999 and Law 32/2004).
The current long-term national financial plan (2015–2020) prioritizes
increases in social assistant programs across the educational spectrum. The
government is attempting to invest directly in educational programs that
will impact the poorer. Indonesia’s HE system is binary: it has an academic,
research-oriented track and an applied vocational or professional track. The
country’s qualifications framework, established in 2012, facilitates mobility
between academic programs and emphasizes recognition of prior learning.
There are several different types of HEIs, including universities, institutes,
advanced schools, academies, polytechnics, and community academies.
The central government is responsible for education oversight, but
overall management and responsibility for establishing quality standards is
divided into three spheres. Local municipalities are responsible for
managing primary education, while secondary education is delegated to the
provincial government. HE is managed by the central government. Public
universities are of higher status and quality when compared to private ones,
and they steer the country toward scientific excellence and economic and
technological development. Private universities that have lower quality also
have higher student fees. These universities are fostering access to the
masses, including disadvantaged and underrepresented groups (Asian
Development Bank, 2012), for example, students from lower socio-
economic strata, remote islands, women, different religions and origins. Fig.
1 gives an overview of the distribution of HEIs across the country.

Fig. 1. Geographic Distribution of HEIs by Province, 2015. Source:

Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education.

AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON
ACCESS AND WIDENING PARTICIPATION IN
TRANSITION COUNTRIES
This study adopts an institutional perspective on widening access and
participation. This perspective argues that researchers must consider the
formal and unspoken logics that inform the in- and out-flow of students in
HE. In order to study the interplay between the different actors in the
Quadruple Helix model, we apply Scott’s (2008) seminal work on
institutional structure. Scott defines three institutional pillars that bring
order and meaning to social life: regulative, normative, and cultural-
cognitive pillars.
The regulative pillar pertains to the formal rules and regulations that
shape behavior within a specific organizational field (e.g., healthcare, HE,
finance). The dominant institutional order is that of the state that enforces
regulations on public and private HEIs. As a result, the dominant
institutional logic is that of “public good,” which in this case refers to fair
access to HE provision for all citizens that fulfill the minimal conditions of
access, regardless of gender, ethnicity, social standing, geographical
remoteness, etc. Also – and in line with a democratization process – the
regulative pillar can be manifested at meso- (e.g., HEIs) and individual
level (e.g., local stakeholders). This gives room for actors from different
parts of civil society to influence the policy.
Inspired by this pillar, we are exploring the role of government and are
posing the following research question: How have issues related to
widening participation/access to HE been addressed by the central
government since the beginning of the democratization process?
The normative pillar refers to the role played by the dominant norms,
values, and identities of professional groups. In HE, academics are the
primary sources of these concepts (Kehm & Teichler, 2013), as are the
various disciplinary groupings and their respective normative variations
(Becher & Trowler, 2001). Evidence suggests that the socialization effects
accrued to a discipline (epistemological dimensions) result in specific
behavioral patterns, regardless of local context or circumstance (Parry,
2007; Pinheiro, Normann, & Johnsen, 2017). Thus, the dominant
institutional order reflects the logic of appropriateness (March & Olsen,
2006) as dictated by the academic profession according to norms and values
that are held by professional groups. In HEIs, these include traditional
notions of autonomy regarding teaching and research (Clark, 1987), in
addition to communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized
skepticism (see Merton, 1979, on the sociology of science). Given this, we
advance a second research question: What is the degree of alignment
between the initiatives underpinning government efforts (policies) with
those of individual HEIs (strategies) when it comes to widening
access/participation in HE?
 Finally, cultural-cognitive dimensions emerge from the specific contexts
in which individuals operate, and pertain to local norms, values, and
identities that shape behavior (Scott, 2008). Several studies of HEIs have
shown the importance of path-dependencies or historical trajectories
(Krücken, 2003) as well as local contexts (e.g., departmental cultures) in the
ways individuals address certain tasks or adopt specific courses of action
(Breznitz & Feldman, 2012; Clark, 1998). The dominant institutional order
is that of the local organization or sub-unit (faculty or department, for HEIs)
and the specific socio-spatial context (Province or region) in which the
university operates. Hence, the dominant logic of orthodoxy pertains to
local embeddedness, that is, reverence toward institutionalized local norms,
values, and traditions. Following this, the final research question is: How do
the efforts by central government and HEIs to widen participation cohere
with the needs and expectations by civil society?

METHODS AND DATA

The study adopted a multiple case study research design (Yin, 2009). As
Indonesia is a highly diverse country, the aim was to get input from various
angles and locations. A most different design was therefore chosen (George
& Bennett, 2004). Data were collected from four HEIs: two (one public,
one private) were located in a vibrant, urban area characterized by
developed service industries like tourism, and two (one public, one private)
were located in a geographically remote area that relies on agriculture and
fishery.
We conducted 30 semi-structured (face–face) interviews during 2015
and 2016 with key stakeholders in the national and provincial government,
university managers at the case institutions, and stakeholders from the
community (industry and local government representatives). Many
participants in both locations served multiple roles as both university
managers, governmental or local officials, and/or industry stakeholders. In
addition to interviews, data were collected through desk-top analysis of
significant policy initiatives, official documents, and institutional data
pertaining to the case HEIs and regions. The field research cohort consisted
of two teams, composed of one Norwegian and one Indonesian researcher,
each covering one of the two cases. The interviews were conducted in
English, but the participants could also speak Indonesian; this was
translated into English, so we could ask follow-up questions. The interview
material was transcribed verbatim and the translations from Indonesian
language to English were double-checked by another Indonesian academic.
We started by reading the data in an inductive approach to get the overview
of what the interviewees were telling, the data were grouped and coded and
thereafter analyzed according to our theoretical framework. In the
presentation of the data we are selecting quotations representing the cases.

FINDINGS
The key empirical findings are organized along the three research questions
posed previously.

Addressing Widening Access by National Government

The first research question is focusing on how the government was
approaching widening access after the end of the dictatorship. As reforms
transformed Indonesia into a democracy after 32 years of authoritarian rule,
the HE system simultaneously expanded in response to societal needs.
Indonesian society was shifting away from an agricultural economy toward
a more industrialized, service-driven economy. As part of this process, the
labor market (public and private sectors alike) needed workers with higher
qualifications, knowledge, and skills (Nizam & Nurdin, 2014). Funding for
the HE sector changed gradually since 1997; moving from a system where
funds were distributed through block grants based on competition into a
new allocation mechanism centered on jointly agreed strategic plans for
developing HEIs and affirmative action goals (Nizam & Nurdin, 2014).
Law12/2012 stipulated that 20% of the places in public universities should
be filled by students from disadvantaged areas, with scholarships provided
for this purpose. However, a majority of students still originate from the
two top richest quintiles, and just 3% came from the lowest income quintile
(World Bank, 2014).
 The interviews illuminated two key issues: the distribution of public
universities and financial thresholds. Regarding the first issue, the sector
has recently expanded in both central and remote regions, but there are still
few public HEIs in remote areas. The affirmative policies (e.g., Bidik Misi)
offer special scholarships that cover full tuition fees and living costs for
poor students at private and public universities. Scholarships are also
offered by various provincial and local governments and by local
stakeholders, such as religious organizations, companies, and public
institutions; and foreign actors, like USAID. This scholarship system
provides for students from disadvantaged groups, but the number of
scholarships is limited, which poses equity-related issues. For example, a
university manager from the remote case mentioned that only 150 out of
their 4,000 enrolled students were scholarship holders.
Critical voices, particularly in the remote district, questioned whether the
scholarships benefited the poorest potential beneficiaries because there was
no system to spread information to them. A quote from a representative
from the local government in remote case illustrates the input regarding the
distributions of scholarships:
The main problem with these scholarships is the information circulation. Commonly, the
information about the scholarship circulates amongst the civil servants and universities
bureaucrats. The information is not widely spread by local newspaper, but only spread by
internet which is very limited access by the people …. There is tendency from the elites to
hide the information about scholarship to the public. Therefore, the scholarships which are
provided for the public, especially for the poor, benefit the elites in the government and
university bureaucrats (Local government, remote case).

Another issue, indirectly related to access, pertains to the challenge of

returning students from disadvantaged groups to their home regions after
graduation so that they can contribute to local development. In many such
regions, there are no jobs waiting for them. Thus, development distribution
cannot be equally shared: even if students from the districts are getting an
education, they cannot apply that knowledge to their homes. Some students
deal with this issue by becoming entrepreneurs. Others stay in the areas
where they received their educations permanently, or await job
opportunities at home. Often, salaries are higher in central areas. To remedy
this, several Ministries devised programs to motivate students to move to
remote areas for extended periods after completing their educations by
offering higher salaries, good working facilities, housing, and cars.

Alignment between Government Policy and HEI Strategy

In this section, we are here analyzing the alignment between governmental
efforts and HEI strategies regarding widening participation. The HEIs in the
case studies applied different strategies to increase the admittance of
disadvantaged students. For example, some changed the recruitment system
to allow students from remote districts (where secondary education quality
is lower) to be admitted to HE with lower grades (Nizam & Nurdin, 2014).
One central university we studied introduced a new entry test, which
resulted in increased proportion of lower-income students, better regional
distribution, and enhanced academic quality. The interviewees also outlined
the importance of support systems for students from remote districts with
lower basic knowledge. Mentoring arrangements and “bridging programs”
were offered – including extra classes in subjects like math and chemistry.
There were also cultural programs to help students from rural/jungle areas
integrate into an urban environment: how to dress properly, shower, use a
stove, and navigate cultural friction regarding alcohol habits. Drinking
alcohol was not considered compatible with being a student in a Muslim
region, but social alcohol consumption in remote areas was considered
normal. These programs were offered at both the central and remote cases.
Educational decentralization after the reforms was another issue.
Universities are supposed to recruit 20% of students from poor regions, but
universities in the central case had trouble meeting those quotas because
access to HE has increased in more decentralized areas. “It is cheaper and
more accessible for the students to stay in their home region at a local
university” one HEI manager said (central case).
Another way to focus on increased access was the priority of what they
called the “triple role” or mission of universities (“Tri Dharma”): to educate
students, to undertake research, and to devise outreach programs that serve
local communities. Participants from both the central and remote cases were
eager to talk about outreach programs, where students spent weeks in the
districts solving specific problems. The groups were opting to solve
problems reported by communities (e.g., building bridges, devise
evacuating programs related to natural disasters, teach hygiene). Such
programs were also used to recruit students from remote areas. Because all
students must participate in such programs, this is a large task for
universities to manage, here illustrated by a quote from a HEI manager in
the central case: “This is my duty … to send 7000 students every year to
250 or more villages.”
Such programs were identified as a way for the HEIs to align their
mission and activities with the demands from central government and to
participate in the socioeconomic development of the surrounding region.
Participants from the central case were particularly positive while talking
about these programs, whilst those from remote districts were more
ambivalent. For example, one interviewee emphasized that the
aforementioned programs were unsustainable, while another indicated that
the programs were really designed to meet the needs of the universities, so
students could finish their education.
Thus, overcoming the challenge of making HE available to students in
all regions often led to new problems. One problem particularly highlighted
by informants from the remote cases was provincial government negligence
regarding the mismatch between education options and the needs of the
labor market. Private institutions do not receive public funding, so their
financial strategy is to establish low cost programs. One participant, who
was both a civil servant and teacher, noted that more than 60,000 students
were graduating from universities in that region, most of them as nurses and
teachers and this would lead to unemployment in the future.

Coherence between Governmental and Institutional Efforts

This section presents interviewee perceptions regarding efforts to address
HE barriers, comparing government, and university approaches. These
challenges are grouped in three categories: access, financial, and
motivational hurdles.
The first barrier pertains to access. The government, which is
responsible for establishing public universities and issuing permits and
licenses to private and public HEIs, has continued to increase the numbers
of institutions. In 2010, there were 83 public and nearly 3,000 private HEIs
(Asian Development Bank, 2012). By 2017, these numbers had increased to
120 and 3,100, respectively (Ministry of Research, 2017). Established HEIs
responded to the changing regulatory and domestic landscape by
diversifying the entrance criteria to account for students’ backgrounds.
These initiatives have widened the participation of various disadvantaged
groups. However, HEIs in remote locations still face certain issues. One
criticism, noted above, is that too few public HEIs are reachable for
students in remote locations; thus, students from poorer regions have to pay
higher prices for lower quality educations in the private sector. In addition,
private HEIs established cheaper educational programs that target
disadvantaged groups; in the long term, this causes job market saturation
and rising graduate unemployment, which also increases the financial
burden of students and their families. The interviewees, particularly those
from the remote case, where poverty is widespread, reinforced the need for
better government regulation of the HE sector with regard to the
(over)production of graduates and local labor market demands. Finally,
HEIs devised bridging programs and support structures intended to
facilitate student transitions from upper secondary to HE (equality of
opportunity) in order to help students successfully complete their studies
(equality of outcome).
In order to address students’ financial hurdles, the government (together
with other civil actors) offers scholarships that cover some or all study costs
for students from lower socioeconomic groups. Despite this, the number of
scholarships is limited, and information asymmetries create significant
barriers to reaching the intended recipients. HEIs actively spread
information about scholarships and other financial aid, but their methods
are criticized by actors within the HEIs themselves and stakeholders in local
government. This was particularly true for our remote case HEI. This raised
questions about whether the current arrangements are benefiting middle-
and upper-middle class students who can afford to pay, or have greater
access to better, more affordable public HEIs.
The last barrier to HE access is motivational. The central and local
governments are pursuing different methods for motivating youth HE
enrollment; for example, selecting overachievers from remote regions helps
tackle some of the socioeconomic malaises of those areas. Specifically, they
aim to do things like recruit students for health education from remote
islands where public health levels are low. After these students receive their
degrees, they are offered good living conditions if they move back home.
However, few of these graduates settle in struggling regions in the long
term. After the support programs end, these professionals tend to move
back to more central regions where overall living conditions and
opportunities for professional advancement exist. Furthermore, once
students are socialized into urban lifestyles, the transition back to remote,
traditional life in areas with more conservative values can be difficult; these
students also feel detached from the larger community of professionals.
Finally, HEIs are trying to motivate local youth to attend HE through their
outreach activities, by using current students and alumni from different
professional backgrounds as role models.

DISCUSSION
The governance of the HE sector can be analyzed in the light of the
regulative pillar (Scott, 2008). The Indonesian national government has the
overall responsibility for the HE sector: it addresses overall regulation,
funding, curriculum, and structure (e.g., HEI types, public vs. private). The
decentralization approach suggests that, following the fall of the
dictatorship and gradual move toward a multi-party democracy, the
responsibility for daily operating activities and fiscal management were
delegated to individual HEIs at the local level. Even though considerable
political authority has been delegated to regional and local authorities
across the country’s 34 Provinces, these local governments have little
regulative influence over HEI affairs. These findings mirror the situation in
countries that lack a Federal system, yet attribute considerable importance
to regional dimensions underpinning HE activities, as in Norway (Pinheiro,
2012), However, these findings contrast with Federalist arrangements, in
which local authorities have some influence over the regulation, funding,
strategic purposes, and daily activities of local HEIs (Carnoy, Froumin,
Leshukov, & Marginson, 2019).
One central government initiative intends to improve institutional
management and autonomy; however, the regulatory structure is
inadequate, particularly with regard to the competitive private HE market,
which faces short-term financing and unpredictable incomes. This has
influenced the ways that HEIs address problems of access and widening
participation, per the government policy agenda. Decentralization of
provision (private sector) and authority (HEIs), while addressing the critical
issues of scale and rising demand, are core attributes of a national system in
a society/economy transitioning to a pluralistic, democratic socio-political
system and mass/open HE system (Trow & Burrage, 2010). These efforts
might not have the intended effect regarding widening participation,
because the government structures and incentives are inadequate. A
deregulated HE market encourages competition for survival among low-
prestige HEIs (Marginson, 2004). This competition, combined with
inadequate oversight by government authorities regarding quality and the
supply-side relevance of private HEIs, produces equity-related dilemmas
associated with widening access to and participation in HE that remain
largely unresolved. Earlier studies suggest that the absence of proper
governance structures to ensure adequate, efficient policy implementation
in HE are critical in determining the observed outcomes (Gornitzka, Kogan,
& Amaral, 2005), including unintended ones (Pinheiro & Kyvik, 2009).
Regarding Scott’s normative pillar, data highlight the critical role of
professional groups, within HEIs and across local government. Many of
these actors have multiple, overlapping roles. The collective eagerness of
these professional groups to develop national and local society through
education, research, and outreach programs is significant. The behavior of
local actors can be interpreted through the logic of appropriateness lens
(March & Olsen, 2006), which focuses on socialization and the role of
professional norms and values to inculcate extant patterns of behavior on
emerging circumstances. The intertwining of classic university activities,
such as teaching and research, with socially conscious outreach endeavors
(the “Tri Dharma”) was seen by actors as the appropriate approach. This
normative posture contrasts with other national contexts and mature HE
systems, where outreach or “third mission”-type activities are seen as
peripheral to HEIs; “nice to have,” rather than essential (Pinheiro, Langa, &
Pausits, 2015). In Indonesia, the study found that the strong normative
focus on Tri Dharma is deeply institutionalized in both the central and
remote cases. Once again, these findings contrast with literature that depicts
most HEIs in peripheral regions as more socially engaged with their
surroundings than older, more prestigious HEIs located in more central
urban environments (Benneworth, 2018; Pinheiro, Young, & Sima, 2018).
Professionals are important to the implementation of policies and
reforms (Eymeri-Douzans, 2011), such as widening participation, but they
can also pose a political problem when they pursue their own strategic
interests (Abbott, 1988) decoupled from the policy agenda. In our case, the
distribution of financial aid information is a case in point. This seems to be
an inherent dilemma for HEIs and local government because, as noted
above, misuse of the system by well-positioned, informed middle-class
professionals is a detriment to disadvantaged groups. The normative
perspective suggests that the expectations of academics are expected to
override local HEI or regional norms (Clark, 1987; Merton, 1979). In this
study, the dominant norms and associated logics were found to be similar
across disciplinary fields; normative variations were more relevant to
location than profession. Participants from the remote case were more
critical toward the governmental initiatives and HEI administrators when
compared to their centrally located academic peers. This corresponds with
UK studies, in which multiple local constituencies, including academics,
were more skeptical of centralized arrangements to “saving the region”
(Benneworth, 2013) or shedding light on opportunistic behaviors of certain
local actors regarding their personal strategic interests (Perry, 2012).
These critical perspectives can also be understood in the light of the
cultural cognitive pillar, which emphasizes the importance of localized
values, traditions, and identities (Scott, 2008). The most relevant finding
pertains to variant approaches to the role of universities in local society
(Gunasekara, 2006). Academics in the central cases were eager to
participate in third mission activities and they did not question extant
structures with that aim. Remote academics also exhibited eagerness toward
local development, but they were critical of the role HEIs played in
educating and influencing the development of remote areas. In addition,
they criticized the rationale, aims, and scope of current HEI outreach
programs. Regarding the government equity agenda, which centered on
access and widening participation, they questioned the logic behind HEI
distribution. They particularly argued that public HEIs should be
represented in remote and sparsely populated areas, as well as central ones.
They also questioned the current system for distributing student aid and
other assistance to disadvantaged groups. Interestingly, these criticisms
were echoed by local government stakeholders who, despite recent efforts
to delegate political authority, are frustrated by the lack of central
government oversight and cooperation among governmental branches that
are attempting to improve rural living conditions.

CONCLUSION
Having presented and analyzed the main findings from the study, the
overarching research problem must be revisited, namely: What dilemmas is
Indonesia facing regarding widening access and participation in HE, and
how are government and actors in the civil society dealing with this?
The existing data and qualitative accounts provided by key actors at the
system level demonstrate that access to Indonesian HE has increased
considerably in the last two decades. This is manifested in the exponential
growth of student enrollments and domestic providers, particularly in the
private sector. However, the data show that most students are from the
richest quintiles: only a few are recruited from lower-income families. In
addition, the geographic concentration of HEIs (supply side) is skewed
toward richer, more central provinces. These trends are relevant to
expanding access, but they cannot improve equity (World Bank, 2014). To
rephrase, equality of opportunity increased, caused by system expansion
and the transition from an elite to a mass HE system (Trow & Burrage,
2010), but equality of outcomes remain unchanged. This is particularly true
with regard to qualifications for jobs that have no openings in rural regions,
or that provide limited access to professional advancement and upward
social mobility.
This research identified and discussed dilemmas associated with
structural and cultural barriers to HE. Inadequacies with regard to regulative
pillars have a demonstrable effect on the structure and dynamics of the HE
sector as a whole. In particular, prospective and current students from
peripheral locations were disproportionally negatively impacted.
Differences in the quality of primary and secondary education were,
likewise, identified as a significant structural barrier to attempts to widen
participation. Information asymmetries surrounding financial aid were
another critical barrier. Motivational barriers pertain to broader structural
and cultural struggles to understand the advantages of HE – and its
associated debt – among disadvantaged groups. In addition, there were
cultural and economic divisions regarding central lifestyles versus the
quality of life available in remote regions. The current system was
inherently contradictory regarding the policy and HEI spheres: youth
socialization prioritizes functioning in a modern, cosmopolitan setting,
whereas the policy intention is to return professionals to their home regions,
thus promoting local socioeconomic development.
As an avenue for further theoretical development, concepts like the
Quadruple Helix model, while providing a stylistic overview of the world to
make it easier to analyze and understand society, do not take into
consideration more complex and dynamic contexts where roles and spheres
co-exist and co-evolve. In contrast to other contexts, like in Western
Europe, where clear demarcations are the norm, Indonesian academics are
represented at all levels of the quadruple helix model. Likewise, whereas
the third mission is considered as nice to have (a third leg) in most Western
universities, this is just as natural as teaching and research are in Indonesia
as a result of the institutionalization of the Tri Dharma. Such active and
direct (participatory) engagement in the development of society is reflected
in the logic of appropriateness (March & Olsen, 2006) among academics.
This gives the academics a strong role in the development of society, but
may also contribute to the dilemma of widening participation in HE, given
the less influential role played by other actors from civil society. Through
acting as key brokers or boundary spanners (Aldrich & Herker, 1977)
academics are both a prerequisite for increasing access – but also a part of
the missing link, given the absence of other actors in civil society. In other
words, in spite of their best intentions and moral commitments as regard the
well-being of their local communities, students included, academics hold a
disproportionate amount of power and influence, which, in some cases (e.g.,
opportunistic behavior combined with the absence of accountability
mechanisms) may be detrimental to the common public good.
Future studies focusing on equity-related issues in an Asian HE context
could shed light on three key areas. First, the supply–demand imbalance
that causes overproduction of graduates across particular fields which, in
turn, creates problems regarding graduate employability and the long-term
absorptive capacity of local labor markets. Second, the information
asymmetries could benefit from further study, at both the governmental and
HEI levels. We particularly encourage investigating how different varieties
of information asymmetry (e.g., aid, employability, social mobility)
reinforce each other. Third, we believe studies that take a multi-level
governance approach could be invaluable (Fumasoli, 2015), particularly if
they employ longitudinal methodologies aimed at illuminating the complex
and dynamic relationships between different spheres and levels of analysis
(policy-institutional-individuals). There is a significant opening for
examining how these relations shape intended and unintended outcomes
regarding agenda setting, design, implementation, and evaluation, and how
that impacts equity agendas in contemporary HE systems, especially those
transiting from an elite to a mass system or from a mass system to a
universal one. Finally, as a policy recommendation, and as a means of
increasing coordination in designing and implementing national and local
access-related policies, we urge the Indonesian government to establish a
steering group (national level) composed of actors from different domains
(society, economy, HE, political, etc.), in addition to local steering
committees (district and regional levels) mandated with the task of
translating or localizing wider policies into specific local interventions and
mechanisms that take into consideration unique local conditions and
actively involved a multiplicity of key societal actors.

REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization studies. Academy of
Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.
Asian Development Bank. (2012). Administration and governance of higher education in Asia.
Patterns and implications. Colombo: Asian Development Bank.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture
of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University
Press.
Benneworth, P. (2013). University engagement with socially excluded communities. Drodrecht:
Springer.
Benneworth, P. (2018). Universities and regional economic development: Engaging with the
periphery. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bibbings, L. S. (2006). Widening participation and higher education. Journal of Law and Society,
33(1), 74–91.
Breznitz, S., & Feldman, M. (2012). The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
37(2), 139–157. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6
Carnoy, M., Froumin, I., Leshukov, O., & Marginson, S. (2019). Higher education in federal
countries: A comparative study. London: SAGE Publications.
Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Goodman, A., & Vignoles, A. (2013). Widening
participation in higher education: Analysis using linked administrative data. Royal Statistical
Society, 176(2), 431–457.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Dunn, E. (1996). Money, morality and modes of civil society among American Mormons. In C. Hann
& E. Dunn (Eds.), Civil society. Challenging western models (pp. 27–49). New York, NY:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Eymeri-Douzans, J.-M. (2011). NPM reforms legacy. A common praxeologic, a variety of
acclimatizations, a renewed bureaucratization. In J.-M. Eymeri-Douzans & J. Pierre (Eds.),
Administrative reforms and democratic governance (pp. 9–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fumasoli, T. (2015). Multilevel governance in higher education research. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer,
D. D. Bill, & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of higher
education policy and governance (pp. 76–94) London: Palgrave Macmillan.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gornitzka, Å., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (2005). Reform and change in higher education: Analysing
policy implementation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gunasekara, C. (2006). The generative and developmental roles of universities in regional innovation
systems. Science and Public Policy, 33(2), 137–150. doi:10.3152/147154306781779118
Isopahkala-Bouret, U., Börhesson, M., Beach, D., Haltia, N., Jonasson, J., Jauhiainen, A., & Vab⊘,
A. (2018). Access and stratification in Nordic higher education. A review of cross-cutting
research themes and issues. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 142–154.
Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2013). The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new
challenges. Dordrecht: Springer London, Limited.
Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the role of path dependency in university
structures. Higher Education, 46(3), 315–339. doi:10.1023/a:1025344413682.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). The logic of appropriateness. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R.
Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 689–708). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Marginson, S. (2004). Competition and markets in higher education: A ‘glonacal’ analysis. Policy
Futures in Education, 2(2), 175–244.
Merton, R. K. (1979). The sociology of science: An episodic memoir. Chicago, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2016). A systematic literature review of university
technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a research agenda. R&D
Management, 48(1), 7–24.
Ministry of Research. (2017). PDDIKTI. Retrieved from
https://forlap.ristekdikti.go.id/files/infografis
Nizam, N., & Nurdin, M. (2014). Governance reforms in higher education: A study of institutional
autonomy in Indonesia. In N. Vargese & M. Martin (Eds.), Governance reforms in higher
 education: A study of institutional autonomy in Asian countries. New trends in higher
education (pp. 85–105). Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Parry, S. (2007). Disciplines and doctorates. Dordrecht: Springer.
Perry, B. (2012). Excellence, relevance and the construction of regional science policy: Science
frictions and fictions in the north west of England. In R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, & G. A.
Jones (Eds.), Universities and regional development: A critical assessment of tensions and
contradictions. (pp. 105–123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pinheiro, R. (2012). Knowledge and the ‘Europe of the Regions’: The case of the high north. In M.
Kwiek & P. Maassen (Eds.), National higher education reforms in a European context:
Comparative reflections on Poland and Norway (pp. 179–208). Frankfurt: Peter Lang
Publishing Group.
Pinheiro, R., & Kyvik, S. (2009). Norway: Separate but connected. In N. Garrod & B. Macfarlane
(Eds.), Challenging boundaries: Managing the integration of post-secondary education (pp.
47–58). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pinheiro, R., Langa, P., & Pausits, A. (2015). One and two equals three? The third mission of higher
education institutions. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 233–249.
doi:10.1080/21568235.2015.1044552.
Pinheiro, R., Normann, R., & Johnsen, H. C. G. (2017). External engagement and the academic
heartland: The case of a regionally-embedded university. Science and Public Policy, 43(6),
787–797. doi:10.1093/scipol/scw020.
Pinheiro, R., Young, M., & Sima, K. (2018). Higher education and regional development: Tales from
Northern and Central Europe. Cham: Palgrave.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Trading-Economics. (2018). Indonesia Schol enrolment, tertiary (% gross). Retrieved from
https://tradingeconomics.com/indonesia/school-enrolment-tertiary-percent-gross-wb-
data.html
Trow, M., & Burrage, M. (2010). Twentieth-century higher education: Elite to mass to universal.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Vignoles, A., & Murray, N. (2016). Widening participation in higher education. Education Sciences,
6(13), 1–4.
World Bank. (1998). World development report 1998/99: Knowledge for development. Washington,
DC: World Bank. Retrieved from: http://publications.worldbank.org/index.php?
main_page=product_info&cPath=0&products_id=21643
World Bank. (2008). Higher education and development: Annual conference on developmental
economics – Regional. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2014). Indonesia’s higher education system: How responsive is it to the labor market?
Human development East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 185–199
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023013
CHAPTER 14
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY AND THE IVORY TOWER:
A CASE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY–
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP
MODELS
Mia Ocean, Lisa Calvano and Marian McGorry

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the social responsibility of public universities
and community colleges to expand access to higher education
through collaboration. Higher education has historically been riddled
with hierarchies, including selective admissions, institutional
rankings and faulty narratives about the inferiority of community
colleges. More recently, there has been a shift in the relationship
between community colleges and universities as universities begin to
see the value of reaching out to their communities, diversifying their
student bodies and providing alternative pathways to a bachelor’s
degree. The authors begin by arguing that public universities should
collaborate with their community college counterparts to right
historical wrongs, serve the broader community and maximize the use
of public resources. The authors then present a case study of a
concurrent-use partnership model between institutions and highlight
the everyday practices that contribute to successful implementation.
 The authors conclude by describing the benefits of collaboration for
institutions and students with the goal of showing that social
responsibility and organizational effectiveness go hand in hand.
Keywords: Access; adult learners; articulation agreement; case study;
community colleges; concurrent-use campus; educational hierarchy;
faculty, funding (US public education); institutional collaboration;
leaders; partnership models; project champion; public good; public
resources; social responsibility; transfer gap; transfer pathways;
United States public higher education; university; university and
community engagement; university–community college partnership;
vertical transfer

Community colleges and universities in the United States have had distinct
missions and consequently have shied away from active collaboration.
Universities have been compared to ivory towers that enable the select few
to enter and exit with academic credentials while community colleges have
served a “mission impossible” of providing opportunity to virtually anyone
with an interest in higher education (Roueche & Roueche, 1993, p. 1).
Despite these historic differences, there are myriad benefits of community
colleges and universities working together. Cultivating a mindset of
collaboration instead of competition benefits institutions in an environment
where both public funding for higher education and enrollments of
traditional college-age students are declining (EAB, 2019). In addition,
students benefit from increased access and expanded pathways to degree
programs. Finally, when universities reach out to their local communities,
they are likely to be viewed more favorably by the public.
Partnerships between universities and community colleges can take
many forms. This chapter focuses on one particular form called the
concurrent-use campus model in which a university delivers bachelor’s
degree completion programs on a community college campus (Windham,
Perkins, & Rogers, 2001). We will begin the chapter with a brief history of
the policies and practices that led to the formation of a higher education
hierarchy in the United States. Next, we will explore the social
responsibility of public universities to work with their community college
partners and discuss various partnership models. We will conclude by
presenting a case study of an innovative concurrent-use partnership between
our two institutions and discuss the practical benefits of collaboration. Our
goal is to persuade the reader that partnerships between community colleges
and universities provide common-sense solutions to some of the complex
issues that higher education faces, as well a means to address historic
inequities among institutions and expand access to higher education for
underrepresented students. In addition, we will demonstrate that social
responsibility and organizational effectiveness go hand in hand.

FROM JUNIOR COLLEGE TO STATE

COLLEGE
Higher education has historically been riddled with hierarchies, including
selective admissions, institutional rankings and faulty perceptions about the
value of various types of academic programs. The move to segment higher
education began in the late 1800s when Presidents William Rainey Harper
of the University of Chicago, Henry Tappan of the University of Michigan
and William Folwell of the University of Minnesota advocated to remove
the first two years of general education from universities and delegate those
offerings to junior colleges. The push to create junior colleges served to
elevate the status of selective universities by enabling them to focus on
upper division, major specific course work and research (Brint & Karabel,
1989; Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1970; Cohen & Brawer,
2008). The emerging stratification in higher education was reflected in the
name “junior college.”
University presidents were not seeking to expand access to higher
education to the masses; rather their goal was to decrease demand for
access to their institutions in order to increase their admissions selectivity.
They hoped that only the best and brightest students would seek admission
to their institutions, with the vast majority of students viewing junior
college as a final destination rather than stepping stone (Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education, 1970). In 1901 Harper created the
associate’s degree specifically to encourage this terminal destination
explaining, “[...] many students continue work in the Junior and Senior
years of college life whose best interests would have been served by
withdrawal from college” (as cited in Diener, 1986, p. 50). That same year,
Joliet Junior College opened its doors as the first junior college in the
United States (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1970; Floyd &
Skolnik, 2005).
As more junior colleges were added into the educational system, a
hierarchy among higher education institutions emerged. Junior colleges
were not considered in the lower rungs of rankings but in a new tier of
generally-recognized lesser value (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Cohen & Brawer,
2008). Initially, junior colleges focused solely on academics and transfer to
senior institutions, but then changed their focus to more occupationally-
oriented programs around the time of the Great Depression. Thus, junior
colleges were able to address the problem of high unemployment by
offering technical training for displaced workers (Brint & Karabel, 1989;
Clark, 1960). While this did not increase their value within the post-
secondary hierarchy, it did build stronger connections with their local
communities.
Over the course of 20 years in the mid-twentieth century, national
legislation supported a formal shift from junior colleges to the development
of comprehensive community colleges. These colleges were not merely to
act as feeder institutions to universities but also to meet the needs of the
communities in which they were located (Cain, 1999). Simultaneously,
comprehensive community colleges began to implement an open-door
admissions policy where everyone was offered the opportunity to further
their education (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1970; Diener,
1986; Mellow & Heelan, 2008).
Because community colleges adapt to the needs of their local
communities, they have been described as attempting to be “all things to all
people” (Lee, 2001, p. 43), but receptivity to adaptation has also enabled
community colleges to grow beyond granting associate’s degrees. In 1997,
Utah Valley Community College became the first community college to
receive approval from their state legislature to confer baccalaureate degrees
(Walker, 2005). Eighteen additional states have followed suit and currently
allow community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees (Community College
Baccalaureate Association, n.d.). As a result, the power dynamic between
community colleges and universities has begun to shift. This change is
significant because it removes the junior status of community colleges.
They are no longer dependent, at least not in the same way, on the
university to provide the only pathway to upper division coursework for
their students.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC US

INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Despite historical hierarchies, universities in the twenty-first century can
learn from community colleges. They can learn about the democratization
of higher education and shifting to meet the needs of local constituents.
Community colleges commonly have strong ties to their communities and
their student bodies reflect their geographic populations. This means that
community colleges often serve exceptionally diverse students including
individuals who are low-income, who have less academic preparation, who
work full-time and study part-time, who are older, and who are parents
(American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), 2019). The value
of having diverse students in classrooms and on campuses, as well as the
value of community partnerships, is increasingly documented in the
research literature (Antonio et al., 2004; Hurtado & Guillermo-Wann, 2013;
Tinkler, Tinkler, Hausman, & Strouse, 2014). Universities appear to be
taking notice as they work to diversify their student bodies and reach out to
their surrounding communities (Grawe, 2018; Hanover Research, 2018;
Marcus, 2016). With these shifts, universities are beginning to resemble a
community college more than an ivory tower.
Public universities in particular have a social responsibility to serve their
local communities. In the past, “community engagement” typically focused
on community-based research or service learning. We argue that community
engagement can take a new form – one that expands access to higher
education via partnerships between universities and community college.
The Kellogg Commission (1999) articulated this expanded view of
university and community engagement:
Engagement goes well beyond extension, conventional outreach, and even most conceptions
of public service. Inherited concepts emphasize a one-way process in which the university
transfers its expertise to key constituents. Embedded in the engagement ideal is a commitment
 to sharing and reciprocity. By engagement the Commission envisioned partnerships, two-way
streets defined by mutual respect among the partners for what each brings to the table. (p. 9)

While the Kellogg Commission was not speaking specifically to

community colleges as partners, their perspective aligns with the emerging
relationship between community colleges and universities as equal partners
in public education. Community colleges, with their open-door admissions,
can serve as a bridge between the community and university. As active
collaborators with historical ties to the local community, community
colleges can offer unique and important perspectives on how to develop
sustainable and successful partnerships to serve historically overlooked and
undervalued students.
Similarly, community colleges have a responsibility to develop alliances
with universities in order to advance shared goals and leverage resources to
improve student success and completion (AACC, 2014). The relatively low
cost of community college compared to the price of universities provides a
cost-effective option for individuals who want to earn a bachelor’s degree
(Handel, 2013). Thus, creating additional pathways into universities can be
viewed as a public good that benefits society-at-large. Currently, political
narratives about higher education in the United States omit this concept,
instead focusing on individual and institutional outputs like graduation and
employment rates. However, many Americans still view public education as
a public good (Drezner, Pizmony-Levy, & Pallas, 2018). Research supports
this perception while also demonstrating that an educated society leads to
higher levels of private and public responsibility, engagement and unity
(van der Sijde, Popma, & Tushune, 2012).
Partnerships between universities and community colleges can also build
consensus for public funding of higher education at a time when some
narratives question the value of college. Public post-secondary institutions
in the United States are funded at lower rates than their private counterparts.
After adjusting for inflation, state funding for public post-secondary
institutions has decreased by more than $7 billion from 2008 to 2018
(Mitchell, Leachman, Masterson, & Waxman, 2018). Despite this
momentous decrease in funding, 61% of Americans believe funding for
higher education has stayed the same or increased (American Public Media
Research Lab, 2019). This perception, in conjunction with rising tuitions,
likely hinders support for additional funding for public institutions of higher
education.
Reduction in funding for public higher education has increased
competition and pitted institutions against one another for resources
(Musselin, 2018). This includes competition across institutional types (e.g.,
public versus private or university versus community college) and among
similar institutions, such as public universities in states that have instituted
performance-based funding. Partnerships among and across public
institutions can assist in joint advocacy for all at the state and federal levels.
Additionally, the political climate requires public universities to justify how
they spend state dollars, eliminate waste and duplication of services and
maximize existing resources for the benefit of the communities that assist in
funding them. University and community college partnerships are a socially
responsible and mutually advantageous approach to advance these goals.

UNIVERSITY–COMMUNITY COLLEGE
PARTNERSHIP MODELS
With an open-door admissions policy and low tuition, community colleges
enroll approximately 40% of undergraduates in the United States, many of
whom attend part-time and are first-generation, low-income students of
color (AACC, 2019). While almost 80% of community college students
want to earn a bachelor’s degree (Bailey, 2018), many balance college,
work and family commitments making completion and transfer to the
university more difficult (Baldwin, 2017). In addition, students who attend
community colleges come from different backgrounds with diverse life
experiences and goals and a large proportion represent disenfranchised
populations. Thus, community college students may need more guidance
and support to navigate the academic environment and especially when
making decisions about pursuing a bachelor’s degree (Wyner, Deane,
Jenkins, & Fink, 2016).
The development of Achieving the Dream (ATD) in 2004 began a
reform movement in community colleges with a focus on student success
by looking at student learning outcomes and credential attainment
(McClenney, 2013). Today the movement to improve student success and
completion at community and technical colleges has grown to over 220
institutions in 43 states with special attention to low income students and
students of color (ATD, 2019). However, ATD programs at community
colleges can only do so much on their own. Ultimately, universities need to
actively engage community college students and their institutions to assist
in student success through the bachelor’s degree.
Students want to complete a bachelor’s degree to improve their socio-
economic status with the intention of increasing their earnings (Oreopoulos
& Petronijevic, 2013). Attaining this goal is valued especially among lower
income, underserved populations who traditionally select community
colleges to begin their academic journey because of lower costs (Handel,
2013). Students then use a variety of pathways to transfer between schools,
including vertical transfer from a community college to a university (Taylor
& Jain, 2017). Although vertical transfer is the most common pathway, the
majority of community college students never make it to a university even
though they express a desire to do so, a phenomenon known as the transfer
gap (Xu, Xiaotao Ran, Fink, Jenkins, & Dundar, 2018). Certain populations
experience the transfer gap more acutely than others, including students of
color (Crisp & Nuñez, 2014), nontraditional students (Rendón, 2002), part-
time students and students with dependents (Wood, Nevarez & Hilton,
2011). Given that many underserved students rely on vertical transfer to
earn baccalaureate degrees, community colleges and universities must work
together to increase equity in admissions and timely completion (Xu et al.,
2018).
As students take courses at the community college as part of their goal to
earn a bachelor’s degree, “it is critical to ensure transfer pathways are
streamlined and clear transfer and articulation policies are in place”
(Baldwin, 2017, p. 38). According to a 2018 report from the Center for
Community College Student Engagement (2018), half of the students who
are interested in transfer do not seek out transfer advisors. Additionally,
community college students who delay selecting a major, change their
major or postpone selecting their destination institution will sometimes
accumulate too many credits that do not transfer (Hodara, Martinez-Wenzl,
Stevens, & Mazzeo, 2017). Hence, an effective best practice for community
colleges is to introduce new students to transfer options early and partner
with the transfer institutions to develop program maps outlining how
courses transfer to universities (Fink & Jenkins, 2017).
Successful community colleges and university partners have developed
specific pathways that map course sequences and prerequisites and ensure
that courses taught at the community college meet the rigor expected from
the university. In addition, they strengthen relationships with regularly
scheduled meetings and data sharing to determine the progress of the
students in their programs (Wyner et al., 2016). While community colleges
and universities must develop clear pathways for students, they also need to
remember students do not always “follow a linear path” (Baldwin, 2017, p.
44). Effective student support requires going beyond providing information
about the academic pathway options and must include counseling, tutoring,
writing assistance, scholarships and financial aid. In addition, research
recommends a mandatory orientation to inform students about the many
services available to them. However, some community colleges struggle
with offering a required orientation session because many of the students
attend part time and have unpredictable schedules.
To streamline the transfer process, community colleges and universities
often enter into formal partnership agreements. The most common form of
transfer partnership is an articulation agreement that details specific policies
such as the number of credits and types of courses that will transfer for
specific university programs (Bailey, Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015). For
example, Pennsylvania passed a law in 2006 establishing the Statewide
Transfer and Articulation Center to facilitate seamless transfer between the
state’s public institutions. In 2012, a statewide program-to-program
articulation agreement was added mandating that the 14 community
colleges and 14 universities in Pennsylvania align associate’s degree
curricula with similar bachelor’s degree programs to ensure that community
college graduates can transfer to state universities as juniors (Pennsylvania
Transfer and Articulation Center, 2019). This format is similar to states that
create common core agreements allowing students to transfer foundational
courses laterally without losing credits (Baldwin, 2017).
Although articulation agreements are:
[...] widely touted as an essential first step in providing broad access to the baccalaureate [...]
many scholars have argued that to increase transfer and baccalaureate attainment
 significantly, educators must move beyond [them] and actively collaborate with
complementary institutions. (Kisker, 2007, p. 284)

Fink and Jenkins (2017) found the leaders of community colleges and
universities with effective transfer practices identified successful student
transfer as a key aspect of the mission of their institutions. Leaders at
community colleges and universities know they can influence institutional
priorities, and these leaders understand the importance of partnering to
reinforce the shared message of accountability and improved outcomes
(Wyner et al., 2016).
One model of active collaboration that may be particularly effective at
addressing the transfer gap is the concurrent-use campus where a
community college shares its facilities with a university. This model takes a
variety of forms ranging from a university offering classes or programs on a
community college campus to building a separate shared-use facility. The
goal of concurrent-use campuses is to “bring upper division coursework and
baccalaureate degree programs to time- and place-bound students as an
overall effort to increase access” (Windham et al., 2001, p. 41).

CONCURRENT-USE PARTNERSHIP CASE

STUDY
In 2018, our two institutions – Delaware County Community College
(DCCC) and West Chester University (WCU) – entered into a concurrent-
use campus partnership to offer students who complete an Associate in
Science degree in Business Administration or an associate’s degree with the
required business prerequisite courses at DCCC the opportunity to earn a
Bachelor of Science in Business Management from WCU without leaving
the DCCC campus. While this model was new for WCU, DCCC already
had concurrent-use partnerships in place with other universities. In 2019, a
second pathway was created that allows students to enroll simultaneously in
the Associate in Applied Science Nursing program at DCCC and the
Bachelor of Science in Nursing program at WCU (WCU, n.d.). This case
study focuses only on the Business Management program (“WCU at
DCCC,” n.d.).
 The transfer literature indicates that certain factors are critical to
successful implementation of an active transfer partnership, including a
previous relationship between institutions, presidential support, adequate
and sustained funding and the university’s presence on the community
college campus (Kisker, 2007), as well as the existence of a project
champion (Amey, Eddy, & Campbell, 2010). All of these factors are present
in the partnership between DCCC and WCU. In addition, DCCC and WCU
have implemented a number of programmatic innovations that encourage
greater integration and collaboration. Although the partnership is ever-
evolving, the commitment and involvement of senior leadership, faculty,
administrators and staff foster a shared sense of purpose that transcends
institutional boundaries and telegraphs to students a shared commitment to
promoting access and student success.
DCCC and WCU have had longstanding articulation agreements in place
and WCU admits more students from DCCC than any other institution. In
addition, 41% of DCCC graduates transfer to WCU (DCCC, 2019). The
concurrent-use partnership is an extension of this relationship and grew out
of direct conversations between the Presidents of both institutions. While
leadership set the path, faculty and staff buy-in was critical for a successful
launch. Faculty and staff from both institutions have been involved in all
aspects of planning and implementation, and WCU personnel have a regular
presence on DCCC’s campus, which facilitates real-time sharing of ideas,
best practices and student feedback. For example, administrators from both
institutions communicate regularly and solve problems collaboratively.
WCU’s Program Coordinator serves as the project champion on WCU’s
main campus and spends time on the DCCC campus supporting WCU
faculty and students when students are in class and liaising with DCCC
administrators at other times. In addition, staff from WCU’s Office of New
Student Programs organize an on-site student orientation before the start of
each semester and staff from WCU’s Office of Admissions attend
recruitment events on the DCCC campus.
Two areas in which DCCC and WCU have innovated to enhance the
student experience are in facilities and curriculum development. Although
DCCC has other on-site degree completion programs for which it provides
nonpermanent classroom space, the college has given WCU consistent and
permanent classroom and office space on the fourth floor of its newest
building. In addition, DCCC has permitted WCU to post-prominent signage
that showcases the partnership. This includes a welcome sign when
students, faculty and staff step off the elevator and enter the WCU area that
reads, “Welcome to WCU at DCCC” in WCU’s signature purple and gold
colors. In addition, images of WCU’s mascot are prominently posted
throughout the hallway and along the stairwell to encourage students to feel
as if they have stepped into a WCU campus within the community college
campus. With regard to curriculum, WCU offers a combination of in-person
and online classes to give adult learners flexible scheduling options (“WCU
at DCCC,” n.d.). The in-person classes foster a sense of community among
students and facilitate peer learning (Panacci, 2015). The online classes
give the WCU at DCCC students an opportunity to interact with students
from WCU’s West Chester and Philadelphia campuses. In addition, students
are able to access support services at both the DCCC and WCU campuses,
including the tutoring and testing centers at DCCC and WCU’s extensive
virtual library resources (“WCU at DCCC,” n.d.). WCU also implemented a
student ambassador program to help new students make a successful
transition from DCCC to WCU. The student ambassadors attend new
student orientation and serve as a resource throughout the semester.

BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS AND

INSTITUTIONS
Transferring between schools is inherently stressful and may cause students
to struggle academically, feel alienated socially and perhaps drop out
without earning a degree. The literature suggests that a number of factors
contribute to transfer stress and that it may begin prior to matriculation due
to a lack of information and understanding about transfer pathways (Baker,
2016). After students successfully navigate the transfer process and enroll at
a new school, they must adapt to new campuses, commutes, cultures,
expectations, financial demands, policies, procedures, relationships and
workloads, and they may not know where to turn for assistance and support
(Cameron, 2005). For nontraditional students, the transition may also
impact family and work relationships and contribute to increased stress at
home and on the job.
 Concurrent-use partnerships, like the one between DCCC and WCU,
offer numerous benefits to students, especially those who are most
vulnerable to transfer stress, and thus serve as a key strategy to increase
access to and successful completion of baccalaureate degrees. Research
indicates that structured transfer pathways remove some of the stress-
inducing barriers for students, including information disadvantages and lack
of knowledge about on-campus support (Baker, 2016). In addition, offering
degree completion programs at community colleges allows students to
focus primarily on making a successful academic transition because the
commute is the same, the surroundings are familiar, and students are likely
to know others in the program.
Transferring to a university campus makes sense for community college
students who want an immersive college experience. Some students, such
as adult learners and students with full-time jobs or dependents, may find
travel to a university campus neither feasible nor desirable. Research
indicates that adult learners experience unique academic, social and
psychological challenges when they transition from a community college to
a university (Laanan, 2001). For example, “adult learners typically consider
themselves to be more mature than their ‘traditional’ undergraduate peers,
who they perceive to be immature and not fully dedicated to their degree”
(Allen & Zhang, 2016, p. 73). Thus, a smoother and less stressful transfer
experience can positively impact students who are most vulnerable to the
transfer gap such as students of color, low-income students, first-generation
students and adult learners. “Strengthening the community college transfer
pathways to bachelor’s degrees is, therefore, a potentially important
strategy for helping address inequities in baccalaureate attainment
nationally” (Xu et al., 2018, p. 232).
The concurrent-use model also offers numerous benefits to the partner
institutions. When resources are scarce, partnerships between community
colleges and universities facilitate efficient sharing of resources to
accomplish shared goals. For example, at a time of decreasing enrollments
among the traditional-age college population, concurrent-use partnerships
are a way to serve students collaboratively rather than jeopardizing each
other’s enrollment. Because partnerships enable greater educational access
and opportunity for students and increase the effective use of public
resources, they may also enhance good will at a time of growing scrutiny
for higher education (Amey et al., 2010). In addition, partnerships can
promote a transfer receptive culture at both institutions by harmonizing
transfer policies and practices (Hodara et al., 2017).

CONCLUSION
WCU was not required by any external entity to engage in a concurrent-use
partnership with DCCC. Institutional data suggests that the majority of
DCCC students will transfer to WCU anyway because of its proximity.
However, this collaboration expands access to WCU for a population of
students who may not have transferred if they had to travel to the main
campus. Similarly, DCCC is not compelled to engage in this type of
collaboration with WCU. They have partnerships with other institutions,
and many students enroll in career and technical degree or certificate
programs who are solely interested in acquiring the skills to obtain
employment or to upgrade their job status. However, both WCU and DCCC
are invested in creating opportunity, minimizing barriers and actively
supporting students.
Therefore, this collaboration is about increasing access and fostering
student success. This concurrent-use partnership increases access to the
university by removing many of the barriers that hinder some community
college students from transferring. It brings the university to the
community, making the university accessible in an innovative way. Yet,
beyond merely sharing physical space and providing geographic access to
the university, this is a genuine collaboration between partners who share
the same goal. In the past, student success was defined narrowly to mean
retention, timely degree completion and closing the achievement. Student
success today means meeting students where they are, supporting their
individual needs and designing flexible and customizable pathways to
educational achievement. In addition, success for the student populations
that community colleges typically serve is a life-changing increase in
income for graduates and their families. DCCC and WCU partner to engage
with students where they are, develop innovative ways to address student
needs and enhance opportunities for their long-term success.
 Additionally, this partnership and partnerships between universities and
community colleges generally maximize public resources through
institutional collaboration. The partnerships serve constituents and the
public good. Public institutions of higher education in the United States do
not need to wait for governmental intervention, guidance or regulations.
They have the power to dismantle the narrative of competition among
higher education institutions and to build a stronger sense of community
within and between campuses. The concurrent-use model is one way to
partner, but as institutions continue to share space, ideas and power, the
opportunities for collaborative innovation are limitless. Partnership is the
path of social responsibility in higher education.

REFERENCES
Achieving the Dream. (2019). Our network. Retrieved from https://www.achievingthedream.org/our-
network
Allen, T. O. & Zhang, Y., (2016). Dedicated to their degrees: Adult transfer students in engineering
baccalaureate programs. Community College Review, 44(1), 70–86.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552115617018
American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). Empowering community colleges to build
the nation’s future: An implementation guide. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc21stcenturycenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/EmpoweringCommunityColleges_final.pdf
American Association of Community Colleges. (2019). Fast facts 2019. Retrieved from
https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/AACC2019FactSheet_rev.pdf
American Public Media Research Lab. (2019). What Americans think about college: Government
funding and assistance. Retrieved from https://www.americanpublicmedia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/1_apm-survey-report-college-funding-and-assistance-2-25-19F.pdf
Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Campbell, T. G. (2010). Crossing boundaries creating community college
partnerships to promote educational transitions. Community College Review, 37(4), 333–347.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552110365725
Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of
racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15(8), 507–
510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x
Bailey, T. (2018). Responding to divergent trends: Vocational and transfer education at community
colleges. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3–4), 113–116.
doi:10.1080/00091383.2018.1509634
Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges a
clearer path to student success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baker, R. (2016). The effects of structured transfer pathways in community colleges. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 626–646.
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0162373716651491.
Baldwin, C. A. (2017). The evolving transfer mission and student mobility. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2017(180), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20279.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cain, M. S. (1999). The community college in the twenty-first century. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
Cameron, C. (2005). Experiences of transfer students on a collaborative baccalaureate nursing
program. Community College Review, 33(2), 22–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009155210503300202
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1970). The open-door colleges. Hightstown, NJ:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2018). Show me the way: The power of
advising in community colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsse.org/nr2018/show_me_the_way.pdf
Clark, B. (1960). The open-door college: A case study. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Community College Baccalaureate Association. (n.d.). Baccalaureate conferring locations. Retrieved
from: https://www.accbd.org/resources/baccalaureate-conferring-locations/
Crisp, G., & Nuñez, A. (2014). Understanding the racial transfer gap: Modeling underrepresented
minority and nonminority students’ pathways from two-to four-year institutions. The Review
of Higher Education, 37(3), 291–320. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2014.0017
Delaware County Community College. (2019). AY 1718 graduates transfer to 4-year institution.
Internal DCCC report, unpublished.
Diener, T. (1986). Growth of an American invention: A documentary history of the junior and
community college movement. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Drezner, N. D., Pizmony-Levy, O., & Pallas, A. (2018). Americans views of higher education as a
public and private good. Retrieved from
https://www.tc.columbia.edu/thepublicmatters/reports/Research-Brief-2-v10102018.pdf
EAB. (2019). What the looming demographic storm means for your state. Retrieved from
https://eab.com/insights/expert-insight/enrollment/what-the-looming-demographic-storm-
means-for-your-state/
Fink, J., & Jenkins, D. (2017). Takes two to tango: Essential practices of highly effective transfer
partnerships. Community College Review, 45(4), 294–310.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552117724512
Floyd, D. L., & Skolnik, M. (2005). Perspectives on the baccalaureate. In D. L. Floyd, M. Skolnik, &
K. P. Walker (Eds.), Community college baccalaureate: Emerging trends and policy issues
(pp. 1–8). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Grawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins University Press.
Handel, S. J. (2013). The transfer moment: The pivotal partnership between community colleges and
four-year institutions in securing the nation’s college completion agenda. New Directions for
Higher Education, 2013(162), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20052
Hanover Research. (2018). Strategies for attracting and supporting nontraditional students. Retrieved
from
https://www.cmich.edu/office_provost/Documents/CCSS/Strategies%20for%20Attracting%2
0and%20Supporting%20Non-Traditional%20Students.pdf
Hodara, M., Martinez-Wenzl, M., Stevens, D., & Mazzeo, C. (2017). Exploring credit mobility and
major-specific pathways: A policy analysis and student perspective on community college to
university transfer. Community College Review, 45(4), 331–349.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552117724197
Hurtado, S., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2013). Diverse learning environments: Assessing and creating
conditions for student success – final report to the Ford Foundation. Retrieved from
https://www.heri.ucla.edu/ford/DiverseLearningEnvironments.pdf
Kellogg Commission. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. Retrieved from
http://www.aplu.org/library/returning-to-our-roots-the-engaged-institution/file
Kisker, C. B. (2007). Creating and sustaining community college–university transfer partnerships.
Community College Review, 34(4), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552107300333
Laanan, F. S. (2001). Transfer student adjustment. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2001(114), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.16
Lee, W. Y. (2001). Toward a more perfect union: Reflecting on trends and issues for enhancing the
academic performance of minority transfer students. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2001(114), 39-44. doi:10.1002/cc.19
Marcus, J. (2016, December 22). More universities and colleges reach out to boost their home
communities. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from https://hechingerreport.org/more-
universities-and-colleges-reach-out-to-boost-their-home-communities/
McClenney, B. N. (2013). Leadership matters: Addressing the student success and completion
agenda. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2013(164), 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20076
Mellow, G. O., & Heelan, C. (2008). Minding the dream: The process and practice of the American
community college. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Mitchell, M., Leachman, M., Masterson, K., & Waxman, S., (2018). Unkept promises: State cuts to
higher education threaten access and equity. Retrieved from
https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-4-18sfp.pdf
Musselin, C. (2018). New forms of competition in higher education. Socio-Economic Review, 16(3),
657–683. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy033
Oreopoulos, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2013). Making college worth it: A review of the returns to higher
education. Future of Children, 23, 41–65. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23409488
Panacci, A. (2015). Adult students in higher education: Classroom experiences and needs. College
Quarterly, 18(3). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2015-vol18-num03-
summer/panacci.html
Pennsylvania Transfer and Articulation Center. (2019). About Pennsylvania transfer and articulation
center. Retrieved from
https://www.pacollegetransfer.com/AboutPATRAC/tabid/302/Default.aspx
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education. Educational
Policy, 16(4), 642–667. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904802016004010
Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in the
open-door college. Washington, DC: Community Colleges Press.
Taylor, J. L., & Jain, D. (2017). The multiple dimensions of transfer: Examining the transfer function
in American higher education. Community College Review, 45(4), 273–293.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552117725177
Tinkler, A., Tinkler, B., Hausman, E., & Strouse, G. T. (2014). Key elements of effective service-
learning partnerships from the perspective of community partners. Partnerships: A Journal of
Service-Learning & Civic Engagement, 5(2), 137–152.
van der Sijde, P., Popma, M., & Tushune, K. (2012). The community-engaged university: The case of
universities in Ethiopia. International Journal of Business Anthropology, 3(2), 36–53.
Walker, K. P. (2005). History, rationale, and community college baccalaureate association. In D. L.
Floyd, M. Skolnik, & K. P. Walker (Eds.), Community college baccalaureate: Emerging
trends and policy issues (pp. 9–24). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
WCU. (n.d.). Undergraduate programs. Retrieved from
https://www.wcupa.edu/healthSciences/nursing/undergraduate.aspx
WCU at Delaware County Community College. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
https://www.wcupa.edu/_admin/dccc/
Windham, P., Perkins, G. R., & Rogers, J. (2001). Concurrent-use campuses: Part of the new
definition of access. Community College Review, 29(3), 39–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009155210102900303
Wood, J., Nevarez, C., & Hilton, A. (2011). Creating a culture of transfer. Making Connections,
13(1), 54–61.
Wyner, J., Deane, K., Jenkins, D., & Fink, J. (2016). The transfer playbook: essential practices for
two- and four-year colleges. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/transfer-
playbook-essential-practices.html
Xu, D., Xiaotao Ran., F., Fink, J., Jenkins, D., & Dundar, A. (2018). Collaboratively clearing the path
to a baccalaureate degree: Identifying effective 2- to 4-year college transfer partnerships.
Community College Review, 46(3), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0091552118772649

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 201–213
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023014
CHAPTER 15
SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF
PHILANTHROPY
Taylor Cobb and Shane Nelson

ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a review of the language, key examples, and an
analysis of social justice practices in higher education philanthropy.
By describing how American higher education is supported by
philanthropy, the authors articulate the need to have collective
approaches that create an equitable distribution of resources. The
authors utilize research centered on equity, inclusion, and diversity to
encourage leaders to consider applying additional perspectives when
analyzing philanthropy in higher education. This combination of
multidisciplinary scholarship offers a synthesis of research to show
readers how social justice advances and improves philanthropy
within higher education. Social justice in the age of philanthropy
concludes with key recommendations for advancement offices across
campuses and organizations.
Keywords: Social justice; equity; inclusion; power; equality; higher
education; philanthropy; foundations

SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF

PHILANTHROPY
Social Justice in the Age of Philanthropy focuses on how higher education
must utilize its philanthropy to serve the needs of marginalized populations.
Through philanthropy, colleges and universities can better utilize their
multimillion-dollar endowments to enhance their communities. Colleges
and universities can leverage their human, financial, and social capital to
not only achieve their missions, but also impact their neighborhoods. By
creating more social responsibility in philanthropy through shared
governance models, administrators, and community members can offer
social impact-driven solutions that disrupt oppressive structures. This
chapter helps readers form an understanding of the language of social
justice and recognize that philanthropy creates equity.
Giving USA’s Annual Report on Philanthropy states that overall giving
to education estimated 6.2 percent for a total of $58.72 billion or 14 percent
of all philanthropy in the United States (Giving USA, 2019). Giving to
higher education accounted for $46.73 billion (Kaplan, 2017). By
leveraging their institutional knowledge and resources, colleges and
universities could operate as vehicles for economic and social equity. In the
section focused on combinations of social justice and philanthropy,
foundations note that there have been pushes for a more comprehensive
form of strategic philanthropy that provides a view on the ripple-effects
caused by giving (Ostrander, 2007; TIAA, 2017). Social justice
philanthropy offers additional lenses to see students and communities on the
margins. A report developed by TIAA (2017) analyzed social justice
philanthropy and the reason why its progression has not been sustainable.
Social justice philanthropy holds the potential to help dismantle systemic
inequities. By applying the principles of social justice in the age of
philanthropic influence, perspectives are provided on how equity-minded
leaders can advance this exact structure.

LANGUAGE LANDSCAPE
In the spirit of building a collaborative community, this section builds an
understanding of the terms and language used in social justice to fully
explain its connections to philanthropy. Given multiple insights on the
definition of social justice, this chapter offers critical knowledge and basic
understandings of the following terms: social justice, justice, inclusion,
equity, equality, stratification, and power. Social justice is the development
of society about the principles of equality, equity, inclusion, and power
(Adams & Bell, 2016). “Social Justice is a goal and a process” (Bell, 2007,
p. 26). The goal of social justice is when all social identities have equitable
participation in a mutually beneficial society. In obtaining the goal of social
justice, the process of it is democratic and participatory (Adams & Bell,
2016). Ideally, a free and fair system that allows marginalized members of
society a space to share their viewpoint grows. In the process of social
justice, it must be representative of human diversity and inclusive of these
differences (Adams & Bell, 2016). In examining social justice, the word
“justice” must be further analyzed. The simplified definition of justice that
framed this perspective is fair and equitable distribution of resources and
social processes based on specific actions (Rawls, 1999, 2004, as cited in
Bell, 2007; Tronto, 2013). This inclusion should affirm human agency and
capacity to work in collaboration to create change (Bell, 2007).
Inclusion is when people outside of the majority have access to
resources and opportunities outside of their original networks. This new
network then supports an environment that fosters a sense of belonging and
community (Williams, 2013). Equality, in this context, involves people
receiving the same opportunities and resources, which leads to gaining the
same outcomes (Tronto, 2013). According to Merriam-Webster (n.d.),
“equity is achieving justice according to natural law or right ... freedom
from bias or favoritism.” Equity happens when all are included in the
decision-making process and dictates who is in power and how the power is
distributed. Power “is control, influence, and authority over others”
(Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Power can create stratification in different groups
within a society. Stratification refers to how different groups in society have
access to varying levels of power (Massey, 2007).
Power distance, within conversations on social justice, also has a
significant impact on this conversation. Society and social groups are
organized into a hierarchy. This hierarchy is based on “advantages, statues
resources, access and privilege”(Bell, Adams, & Griffin 2007 , p. 33).
Many social groups are ranked into these hierarchies and belong to a system
that increases or decreases their advantages (Bell, Adams, & Griffin).
Placement in a dominant social group creates a distance from their
marginalized group members. Within this distance, levels of power can
vary. It is also important to name and understand what this power distance
is and how it is measured. Hofstede (1980, as cited in Karibayeva &
Kunanbayeva, 2018) is the inventor of the power distance index. The index
refers to the level of power distributed in a hierarchical system (Karibayeva
& Kunanbayeva, 2018). Understanding power paradigms then give further
insight into social justice.
In American education, the power paradigm Mehta (2013) notes are that
success in education dictates how the nation, state, and each citizen
succeed. Depending on where a person is on the hierarchy impacts their
levels of social stratification. Stratification dictates how individuals in
higher stratified levels exercise power over lower stratified members
(Köthemann, 2017). Combined with the work from Partzsch and Fuchs
(2012), this then focuses on the concepts of “power with” and “power
over.” “Power with” involves the combination of efforts that manifest in a
collective, where all people are attributed with the same influence. Whereas
“power over” looks at how one group holds influence over another, where
the only time collaboration occurs is through disenfranchising an outside
group (Partzsch & Fuchs, 2012). “Power with” can manifest in the form of
a diverse board of leaders that all share in the creation of solutions. “Power
over is” when the chair and chief executive officer authorizes an executive
order without a collective vote from the community impacted.
When power is applied in shaping philanthropy, its application can
determine the allocation of resources and opportunities. The equitable
distribution of resources is imperative and necessary for those who are
disenfranchised and disadvantaged. The distribution of resources is
contingent upon the understanding of how resources should be distributed
and who is doing the distribution. The distribution of resources includes the
social, political, symbolic, and economic distribution of resources. This
distribution is contingent upon the fair inclusion and participation of all
individuals and groups, specifically equity-minded people. Equity-minded
people within higher education have an understanding of the inequalities
that exist within higher education and act to change it (Association of
American Colleges & Universities, 2015). Equity-minded leaders pursue an
understanding of how race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status have impacted
the current outcomes that higher education experiences today. The active
engagement in equity to achieve equality comes when there is a belief in
fairness and recognition that systems are social stratifies within higher
education (Association of American Colleges & Universities, 2015, p. 4). A
deeper conversation can begin on the nuances of how higher education can
use their philanthropic investments to have community impact through
social justice practices.
Under the umbrella of social justice, there are a series of terms that help
crystallize the ongoing debate on its impact in philanthropy. By realizing
the differences between equity and equality, stakeholders in giving spaces
have a new lens to analyze their upcoming initiatives. Moreover, these same
decision-makers can reflect on how the application of their power can
further stratify rather than decreasing power distances. These definitions
offer pathways to understand social justice.

RELATIONSHIP OF HIGHER EDUCATION

AND PHILANTHROPY
The history of philanthropy in higher education started at Harvard
University in 1636 with its “New England’s First Fruits” charter, which
created a template for philanthropic efforts in higher education (Thelin &
Trollinger, 2014, p. 10). The early gifts from philanthropy included books,
land, professorships, art collections, libraries, and scholarships for students.
Artifacts such as the 1890 “Memorandum on Rules of Procedure” by
Frederick T. Gates served as a code of conduct for fundraisers (Thelin &
Trollinger, 2014, p. 19). Havard’s philanthropic model served as an example
for later forms of fundraising. Thelin and Trollinger (2014) noted that
“private philanthropy” in higher education became the determining factor
that expanded access to marginalized populations. African Americans,
women, and other ethnic groups gained access to higher education because
of philanthropic investments (p. 20). Historically Black institutions were
formed from private and religious support from the surrounding
communities. W. E. B. DuBois (as cited in Thelin, 2011) noted that the
schools developed for Black students had to advance past the trades and
provide a pathway to leadership and power. Individual donors and private
foundations such as the Slater Fund, the United Negro College Fund, and
General Education Board created pathways to equity in education (Thelin &
Trollinger, 2014, p. 19). Yet, there was not equitable investment into these
institutions, thus shaping a hierarchy that stratified prestige to a few “elite”
campuses.
At the start of the nineteenth century, more adolescents wanted social
mobility. A college degree served as that social status symbol that dictated
future mobility (Thelin, 2011). Older schools became more desirable, while
younger institutions were less reputable. The Ivy League institutions were
more desirable because of major gifts given to them by wealthy families
such as Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Carnegie, Clark, Tulane,
Mellon, Tufts, and Stanford. This wealth was accumulated during the start
“The Gilded Age” (Taylor, 1981). These major gifts prompted a wave of a
campus expansion that took place during the 1890s and 1910s. When
adjusting for inflation in 2014 dollars, the gifts of that period ranged from
$84 million to $860 million (Thelin & Trollinger, 2014, p. 19). Physical
development continued well through the Great Depression. Thelin found a
Time Magazine article that explained that philanthropists at that time
wanted to create buildings instead of endowing chairs (Thelin, 2011). These
same trends in philanthropy reemerged in the twenty-first century.
Fast-forwarding into the twenty-first century, there are key correlations
to the past during major American shifts. Thelin and Trollinger (2014)
explored how the naming of buildings, economic downturn, and debt levels
impacted higher education philanthropy between 2000 and 2011. During
this time, several historical shifts in American society influenced giving.
Shifts included The Great Recession, 9/11, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan
War, global devastation, health crises, and the decrease in state funding for
higher education (Seemiller & Grace, 2016, pp. 34–35). The Great
Recession caused many campuses to resort to large tuition increases and 31
states spent less on higher education compared to 2009 (Craig 2015;
Delbanco, 2014). Rankings by US World News and Report were then used
as a centralized index that dictated prestige, creating competition, and
pushed campuses to stratify themselves. Institutions were then motivated to
create more amenities on campus to attract more students. Thelin and
Trollinger (2014) found a Moody’s report which noted that between 2001
and 2011 the debt of 500 institutions reached $122 billion. By itself, The
Ohio State University reported $2 billion in construction debt (Thelin &
Trollinger, 2014, p. 178). Tuition increases at public and private institutions
tripled with inflation over two decades (Zumeta, Breneman, Callan, &
Finney, 2012, p. 84). While there are additional variables, there is a
correlation between these findings and philanthropic investments.
State divestment from higher education can be traced to California’s
Proposition Thirteen from 1978, which caused many other states to remove
funds from colleges (Delbanco, 2014). State divestment was excacerbated
by the global recession, Lousianna decreased its funding to highered from
$1.7 billion in 2009 to $1.1 billion in 2014 (Craig, 2015). This decreased
funding created a higher need to increase giving to higher education.
During The Great Recession of 2008–2010, philanthropic giving by
individual donors significantly decreased by 3.2 percent (Giving USA,
2019). In 2010, private philanthropy gave more than $1 billion to higher
education; the largest donors being the Walton Family Foundation, Gates
Foundation, and Duke Endowment (Katz, 2012). Around this time, the
Gates Foundation gained motivation to find new ways to engage in
philanthropy. As time passed, private foundations such as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Lumina Foundation,
Kresge Foundation, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation committed to
equity within higher education through philanthropy. These organizations
aimed to create “social justice philanthropy” with programmatic efforts
targeted to the access and success for first-generation and low-income
students; price and affordability; investments into two-year and four-year
institutions, and technology (TIAA, 2017, pp. 8–11). Priorities of the
private foundations focused on colleges and universities that end systemic
inequalities and social stratification (TIAA, 2017, p. 32). When looking at
how institutions responded to this need to fill gaps in state funding, the
focus shifts to the leadership of the institution and what if any social
justices are being applied.

EXAMPLES OF EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE

PHILANTHROPY
Private philanthropy aimed to influence higher education through social
justice philanthropy; however, there were gaps in the shared governance
structures to support this movement. The relationship between foundations
and higher education institutions did not always align (TIAA, 2017, p. 32).
Yet, the calling for these board members to take more of an active role in
shaping American society comes from Governance in a New Era (Schmidt,
2014). Although many private boards have been composed of their donors,
this leadership has the social responsibility of creating socially just
practices (Schmidt, 2014, p. 16). When looking at the distribution of power
from the top-down, arguments on the importance of having an inclusive
structure within shared governance arise. “The American Dilemma” in
higher education is the relationship between higher education decision-
makers and philanthropists (Thelin & Trollinger, 2014). There are direct
relationships to philanthropic investments, leadership, and shared
governance. More specifically, it is the dynamic between how board
members lead the campus while balancing donor influences. Considering
how decisions are made within higher education, looking at how
philanthropy influences power dictates that shared governance is critical.
Historically, and in modern-day structures, trustees are “top donors, alumni,
faculty, staff, students, and area business leaders” (Schwartz, 2010; Thelin,
2011). The earliest example of how philanthropy affected shared
governance within academic structures is when a Harvard president raised
money for department chairs and professorships, thus, creating academic
priorities (Thelin & Trollinger, 2014, p. 16). By funding these priorities,
institutional administration placed higher value on specific academic
disciplines while decreasing the value of others. Endowed chairs became
permanent fixtures of institutions and were later named chief academic
leaders within their disciplines (Thelin, 2011, p 28). Boards of trustees
formalized fundraising strategies by creating foundations for the institutions
to supplement salaries (p. 28). Another example, the Lucille P. Markey
Charitable Trust in 1983 left a bequest to the University of Kentucky and
specifically dictated that the trust be managed by five trustees and
distributed within a 15-year timeframe (Thelin, 2011, p. 84).
Research from the TIAA Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation
uncovered conflicts between foundations and campuses. The study noted
that equitable giving in private philanthropy and higher education metrics
conflicted due to differentiating priorities. This disconnect may look like
higher education leaders working to increase rankings in US News and
World Reports, rather than listening to their funders on what to change.
Private philanthropy focuses on a shared interest in providing funding for
access and success for underserved populations (TIAA, 2017, p. 8). Higher
education philanthropy driven by leaders of the institution could perpetuate
inequalities by not leveraging social justice practices or funding geared
toward equity. One of the core responsibilities of trustees is fundraising and
building new donor pathways (Booth-Bell, 2018). Diversity of thought in
trusteeship was often craved and is what could bring an institution forward
(Schwartz, 2010). Creating inclusive philanthropic pipelines through shared
governance can reinvigorate social justice principles from those in power.
By cultivating these pipelines, higher education institutions would be able
to see significant changes in how their collective power hierarchies
influence their marginalized populations. The remainder of this section
reviews social justice philanthropy initiatives within higher education. The
principles of equitable giving are crucial to practice social justice
philanthropy within a given campus.
Social justice philanthropy may have symbolic gestures attached to its
practice. An organization may use monuments, speeches, or iconography to
show its commitment to social justice. For example, a university can have a
substantial understanding of its history and how it was built off of
oppression. The statement serves as a starting point to help donors think
about the campus’s positionality in larger systems of oppression and ways
to change its future and create equity. Applying philanthropy to symbolic
gestures could manifest into campaigns to raise new structures on campus
that help visitors understand who the campus has disenfranchised in its
pursuit to stay. Reshaping campuses/organizational symbols help create an
environment that engages with the full history. This acknowledgment of its
full history will help push its philanthropy forward and create environments
where donors are engaged with social justice practices. These practices
impact students in marginalized populations by opening the campus to
discuss issues (Johnson et al., 2007). In practice, the symbolic giving
principle can reshape the campus like the removal of the Cecil Rhodes
statue at the University of Cape Town (BBC, 2015), which was part of the
larger Rhodes Must Fall movement. The campus can organize in larger
symbolic initiatives like GU272 at Georgetown University, a resolution that
has each student giving $27 to their reparations fund (Hassan, 2019).
 Intentionally channeling financial resources to socially just causes can
lead to more impactful campaigns that foster equality and equity on
campus. As an example from the Community College of Philadelphia,
fundraising efforts were directed at creating child-care solutions to support
students that are also parents.The University of Pennsylvania recently
raised money for the first-generation students in its larger $3.3 Billion
campaign (still ongoing at the time of this writing, Shao, 2019). Another
example is at temple university, where a new fund was created to support
students that were the first in their family to attend college (Palentino,
2019). Looking at shared governance and philanthropy, future analysis of
these institutions in correlation with their decision is warranted.

COMBINED SOCIAL JUSTICE AND

PHILANTHROPY INITIATIVES
In working with John Jay College, music artists Jay-Z and Meek Mill have
used their brands and community influence to create the Reform Alliance
with help from owners of the Patriots football team and 76ers basketball
team (Leight, 2019). Here, the combination of community leaders,
benefactors of immense fortunes, and higher education institutions are
partnering to tackle large social issues. Collaborations between foundations
and higher education institutions are not foreign. Between the 1990s and
2000s, there collaborative partnerships that solve social problems were
piloted in several major institutions. These partnerships included the Pew,
Carnegie, and Kellogg Foundations (Ostrander, 2007, p. 239). Each of the
goals aimed at creating civically engaged students that impact society.
Foundations increased resources for higher education institutions to create
more initiatives that inspire civic engagement.
Some of the first initiatives included Carnegie’s Corporation of New
York, which aimed to create more civic education for K-12 and college-
aged students (Ostrander, 2007, p. 241). This project connected scholars
and practitioners who all analyzed issues that impact the surrounding
community including voting and active youth citizenship. Carnegie
decreased funding for higher education institutions and increased funding
for K-12 education. The specific reason being that K-12 schools were
poorly resources and needed more money to execute the solution. An
analysis of a Pew Partnership with two higher education institutions yielded
higher results than anticipated.
In 2002, Pew funded George Washington University’s New Voters
Project. This partnership aimed to create more civically engaged students
who vote. This project was successful in raising voting in several elections
and youth education on civic engagement. Although results were produced,
the funding slowly ceased due to changing foundation priorities and
leadership. This shift was clear in a collaboration between Kellogg and
higher education (Ostrander, 2007, p. 244). The shift in funding emphasized
the stabilization of the grantees. In these three cases, the foundations found
that it was their social responsibility to fund the organization directly, rather
than through the higher education institution. In this research, the central
theme was foundations increasing the accountability, innovation, and
independence internal to themselves. This change in framework shifted
these priorities to be more internal to obtain higher levels of accountability,
innovation, and independence.

IMPLICATIONS
Before higher education leaders can redirect their philanthropic gains,
people must generate their multicultural competencies to resist the notion
that all people have a homogenous experience. Social justice in the age of
philanthropy should further analyze the correlation between social justice
practices and their impact on giving. Foundations, community, and higher
education leaders can combine their efforts to provide a collaborative
ecosystem of social impact. In this space, social justice practices emphasize
“power with” rather than “power over” in the decision-making process
(Partzsch & Fuchs, 2012). This process can ensure that all stakeholders
create a mutually beneficial solution.
Applying philanthropy to symbolic gestures could manifest into
campaigns to raise new structures on campus that help visitors understand
who the campus has disenfranchised in its pursuit to stay. Reshaping
campuses/organizational symbols help create an environment that engages
with the full history. This acknowledgment of its full history will help push
its philanthropy forward and create environments where donors are engaged
with social justice practices. These practices impact students in
marginalized populations (Johnson et al., 2007). Examples from colleges
across the United States and abroad exemplify the principle of equity in the
following ways: the removal of the Cecil Rhodes statue at the University of
Cape Town (BBC, 2015) (part of the larger Rhodes Must Fall movement)
and GU272 at Georgetown University, a resolution that has students giving
$27 toward a reparations fund (Hassan, 2019).
An example of these concepts includes the common practices of board
governance. In board goverance, a mutually beneficial solution could look
like community members, key stakeholders, and donors working
collaboratively to make decisions. These decisions exercise “power with”
tactics rather than “power over.” Rather than waiting for change to trickle
down, everyone creates impact together. It can look like institutions
allocating funds toward community development that are chaired by
community members and key donors.
There is also space to learn more about how to build new multicultural
competencies at any level of an institution. Multicultural competence
develops when leaders are willingly working across their cultural
differences to achieve a collective outcome that pushes social justice
forward (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2019). Extensive knowledge of the
diverse socio-economic populations and their giving patterns are vital to
further discussion on philanthropy in higher education (Flowers, 2004, p.3,
as cited in Pope et al., 2019). Using systems like “Learning to Give”, other
rudimentary lessons on philanthropy and multi-ethnic groups can help.
There is no “diversity in a box” solution that has a set answer for issues
within philanthropy and higher education (Miller & Katz, 2002, as cited in
Pope et al., 2019).
If colleges and universities moved past the political correctness by
creating avenues for equity-minded leaders, a space for dialogue can
diversify impact pipelines while activating teaching spaces for social
justice. A few examples exist with Temple University’s PACSAP program,
the William Penn Foundation opening their funding to early childhood
education organizations, and Drexel University working with the business
corridors of West Philadelphia to ensure their Schuylkill Yards project does
not take away from existing business in the area (Pan-African Studies
Community Education Program, n. d.; Temple University; Tanenbaum,
2019; William Penn Foundation, 2016). These initiatives and earlier
implications are all potential ways that campuses can practice social justice
in an age of philanthropy. Many critical factors go into this decision-making
process including campus prioritization, facilities maintenance, and other
capital initiatives. Yet, in an age where equity is at the center of every social
movement, it is beneficial for higher education and philanthropy stewards
to diversify their language and practices to be the leaders in the movement
to achieve equity. Equity-minded leaders advocate for a fair division and
support of less-glamorous efforts.
Inclusive philanthropy ensures that all people have equal distribution of
power in the pursuit of their needs. An active role in the dissemination of
the resources given to the community allows for the adequate development
of a community. The way social justice philanthropy builds inclusion on
campuses is through making sure as many marginalized voices have
pipelines to equitable philanthropy. Along with this, this principle of
inclusion is vital to making sure that giving and growth on campus do more
than appreciate the diversity of its campus environment, but better
principles of power distribution and justice. Inclusion prepares campuses to
move forward toward equity, justice, and a complete change in what is
usually done on campus. Using the principle of inclusion challenges the
pipelines of leadership existing on a given campus. An inclusive
philanthropy landscape brings new endowed faculty chairs or leadership
position to campus. How the inclusion leads to change requires the next
principle of the unseen impacts of philanthropy.
In being equitable, philanthropy can redistribute power to
disenfranchised communities. Social justice in the age of philanthropy also
has to name power dynamics that organizations exert in their surrounding
communities. Partzsch and Fuchs (2012) highlighted how power over is a
key aspect that may get overlooked in the large gifts being donated.
Wilkinson-Maposa and Dolley (2017) highlighted how more foundations
help the communities they serve through rethinking just giving. The authors
contended building connections, increasing support capacities, and ensuring
trust are crucial in shaping the inherent power dynamics (Herro & Obeng-
Odoom, 2019).
 CONCLUSION
The current landscape of social justice philanthropy has many opportunities
to grow. What this chapter aimed at creating was a space to bring everyone
to similar definitions so that new connections and collaborations form. With
a common understanding of the terms, historical adaptations, and
contemporary trends in higher education, leaders can position their
institutions toward more impactful fundraising campaigns. We believe that
by practicing social justice in the age of philanthropy, resources generated
by foundations and advancement offices can reinvigorate surrounding
communities rather than diminish them.
A previous example we listed was Georgetown’s reparations plan. Here,
a campus policy resisted the existing norm. The capital campaigns,
fundraising days, and other funding events are all great ways to ensure
donors at any level can give. The policies on campuses dictate what stays in
place. Changing the systems through a policy that is rooted in equity helps
challenge what exists on campuses. Equity is an essential principle in social
justice philanthropy due to the way it takes into account the larger systems
of oppression. By constructing symbolic, financial, and policy-based
systems of equity through giving, campuses can practice new dimesions of
philanthropic change.
Social Justice in the age of philanthropy uses equity, power, and justice
while looking at the current dynamics of higher education. History
challenges future leaders to look at how higher education tackles systemic
inequalities using philanthropy. Higher education faces many financial
burdens; however, with the collective input of community leaders, major
donors, foundations, and institutional leaders, social justice can be infused
in the fabric of a given college or university. By practicing and looking at
power distributions and looking at how philanthropy influences those
distributions, analysis can assume that philanthropy can do the same thing
to change these structures. Rather than pushing communities out, campuses
stand to gain new leadership and improved change by practicing “power
with” rather than “power over” strategies. This research is just the start of a
long-term discussion with infrastructures and advancement offices to
influence change.
 REFERENCES
Adams, M., & Bell, L. A. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015). Step up & lead for equity: What higher
education can do to reverse our deepening divides. Washington, DC: AACU
BBC. (2015, April 9). South African Rhodes statue removed. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32236922
Bell, L. A., Adams, M., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Booth-Bell, D. (2018). Social capital as a new board diversity rationale for enhanced corporate
governance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 18(3),
425–439.
Craig, R. (2015). College disrupted: The great unbundling of higher education. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press.
Delbanco, A. (2014). College: What it was, is, and should be-updated edition (Vol. 82). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Giving USA. (2019, June 18). Giving USA 2019 : Americans gave $427.71 billion to charity in 2018
amid complex year for charitable giving: Giving USA. Retrieved from
https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2019-americans-gave-427-71-billion-to-charity-in-2018-
amid-complex-year-for-charitable-giving/
Hassan, A. (2019, April 12). Georgetown students agree to create reparations fund. New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/georgetown-reparations.html
Herro, A., & Obeng-Odoom, F. (2019). Foundations of radical philanthropy. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30, 881–890.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., &
Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates
from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542.
Kaplan, A. (2017). Colleges and universities raised $43.60 billion in 2017. Council for Aid to
Education. Retrieved from https://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE-2017-Press-Release.pdf
Karibayeva, B., & Kunanbayeva, S. (2018). Kazakh power distance dimension in the business
discourse. Social Semiotics, 28(2), 286–296. doi:10.1080/10350330.2017.1392133
Katz, S. N. (2012). Beware big donors. Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Big-Philanthropys-Role-in/131275.
Köthemann, D. (2017). Societal development, social stratification and power- and achievement-
values Inglehart’s scarcity hypothesis and the theory of the social production functions in the
comparative study of values. European Societies, 19(4), 346–369.
doi:10.1080/14616696.2017.1330488
Leight, E. (2019, January 23). Jay-Z, Meek Mill Launch ‘The Avengers’ of criminal justice reform
organizations. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/jay-z-
meek-mill-reform-alliance-criminal-justice-783228/
Massey, D. S., & Russell Sage Foundation. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American
stratification system. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=1069756&site=ehost-live
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy,
1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s most-trusted online dictionary.
Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com
Ostrander, S. A. (2007). Innovation, accountability, and independence at three private foundations
funding higher education civic engagement, 1995 to 2005. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 18(2), 237–253.
Palentino, B. (2019, February 4). Student government crowdfunds scholarship aimed at student
housing and food insecurity. Retrieved from https://news.temple.edu/news/2019-02-04/tsg-
basic-needs-scholarship-owlcrowd
Pan-African Studies Community Education Program. (2020). Retrieved from
https://noncredit.temple.edu/pascep
Partzsch, L., & Fuchs, D. (2012). Philanthropy: power with in international relations. Journal of
political power, 5(3), 359–376.
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2019). Multicultural competence in student affairs.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, B. C. (2014). Governance for a new era: A blueprint for higher education trustees.
Washington, DC: American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
Schwartz, M. P. (2010). How diverse are governing boards? How diverse should they be.
Trusteeship, 18(6), 36–37. Retrieved from https://agb.org/trusteeship-article/how-diverse-are-
governing-boards-how-diverse-should-they-be/
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Shao, K. (2019, April 22). ‘Power of Penn’ campaign has raised $3.3 billion one year since its public
launch. Retrieved from https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/04/power-of-penn-fundraising-
campaign-gutmann-one-year-3-billion
Tanenbaum, M. (2019, June 17). Drexel Square officially opens at Schuylkill Yards in West Philly.
Retrieved from https://www.phillyvoice.com/drexel-square-opens-schuylkill-yards-west-
philly-brandywine-realty-trust/
Taylor, R. (1981). Religion and higher education in gilded age America: The case of Wheaton
college. American Studies, 22(1), 57–70. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40641609
The Community College of Philadelphia. (2018, November 21). A $1.5M grant to pay for child care
will keep more CCP student-parents in school, on track. Retrieved from
https://www.ccp.edu/about-us/news/featured-news-article/15m-grant-pay-child-care-will-
keep-more-ccp-student-parents-school-track.
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
Thelin, J. R., & Trollinger, R. W. (2014). Philanthropy and American higher education (1st ed.). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
TIAA. (2017, June). Achieving success in postsecondary education: Trends in philanthropy. TIAA
Institute & Rockerfeller Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.rockpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/ROCKPA-HigherEd-Report2-Web-Final.pdf
Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Wilkinson-Maposa, S., & Dolley, B. (2017). # ShiftThePower: Community giving as a critical
consciousness-raising tool. The Foundation Review, 9(3), 77–87.
Williams, D. A. (2013). Strategic diversity leadership: Activating change and transformation in
higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
William Penn Foundation. (2016). Early childhood education teachers 2.0: Strategies to transform the
profession. Retrieved from https://www.williampennfoundation.org/what-we-are-
learning/early-childhood-education-teachers-20-strategies-transform-profession
Zumeta, W., Breneman, D. W., Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (2012). Financing American higher
education in the era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

University-Community Partnerships for Promoting Social Responsibility in Higher Education

Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Volume 23, 215–226
Copyright © 2020 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2055-3641/doi:10.1108/S2055-364120200000023015
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Laila Nordstrand Berg is an Associate Professor in Department of Social

Sciences at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL). She is
a part of the leadership of the research group on organizational studies at
HVL and is a Member of the Research Group on Public Governance and
Leadership at the University of Agder. Her research interests include
comparative studies on public policy and administration, management,
organization theory subjects, and higher education studies. Her work has
been published in scientific journals like Scandinavian Journal of Public
Administration, Tertiary Education and Management, International Journal
of Public Sector Management, and Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier. She has
also participated in a number of book chapters to Palgrave, Routledge, and
Emerald. She has been working in several comparative projects, has been a
Fulbright researcher in the United States, and is currently working on
projects focusing on higher education and welfare development of society.

Patrick Blessinger, Ed.D., is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Education

at St. John’s University, a Math and Science Teacher with the New York
State Education Department, and Chief Research Scientist of the
International Higher Education Teaching and Learning Association (in
consultative status with the United Nations). He is the editor and author of
many books and articles and is an Educational Policy Analyst and
contributing writer with UNESCO’s Inclusive Policy Lab, University World
News, The Hechinger Report, The Guardian, and Higher Education
Tomorrow, among others. He teaches courses in education, leadership, and
research methods, and serves on doctoral dissertation committees. He
founded and leads a global network of educators focused on teaching and
learning and is an expert in inclusion, equity, leadership, policy, democracy,
human rights, and sustainable development. He provides professional
development workshops to teachers and professors and regularly gives
presentations and keynote addresses at academic conferences around the
world. He has received several educational awards, including: Fulbright
Senior Scholar to Denmark (Department of State, USA), Governor’s
Teaching Fellow (Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia,
USA), and Certified Educator (National Geographic Society, USA).

Clare Budden is the Group Chief Executive of Housing Association

ClwydAlyn. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Housing, she has 30
years’ experience within the housing sector with both social housing
providers and councils. She is passionate about eradicating poverty and
inequality and is the Chair of 2025, a movement established to address
avoidable health inequality across North Wales. She is also a Board
Member of WISH North Wales, a network which encourages women to
achieve their life and career ambitions.

Lisa Calvano is an Associate Professor of Management and an Interim

Associate Dean of the College of Business and Public Management at West
Chester University of Pennsylvania (WCU). She is an advocate for transfer
students and adult learners and has led the effort to create management
degree completion programs at WCU’s Philadelphia campus and at
Delaware County Community College. Her research interests include
business ethics education, critical management studies, and social issues in
management and sustainability.

Morgan R. Clevenger is a Professor of Management and a Post-doctoral

Fellow with Monarch Business School, Switzerland, in Corporate Social
Responsibility and Global Business Ethics and is a Visiting Professor in the
Department of Management, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship in the Grove
College of Business at Shippensburg University, PA, USA. He is erstwhile
tenured Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at Wilkes University,
USA. Clevenger is an award-winning professor and researcher. He obtained
a Bachelor of Science degree in News Editorial Journalism from the Reed
College of Media and an MBA from the John Chambers College of
Business and Economics, both at West Virginia University. He obtained and
held the Certified Fundraising Executive status to recognize his tenure,
success, and professionalism in the fields of fundraising, marketing, and
public relations from 1997 to 2018, and won a 2002 Outstanding
Fundraising Professional Award through the West Virginia Chapter of the
Association of Fundraising Professionals. He completed a doctorate in
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri-
Columbia. His dissertation won a 2016 CASE Award in Integrated
Institutional Advancement, which launched a post-doc study to replicate the
dissertation into 12 colleges and universities. He researches, writes, and
presents widely on issues of corporate citizenship, higher education,
nonprofit management, ethics, entrepreneurship, corporate social
responsibility, family business, entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurial
communities, and culture of entrepreneurship.

Taylor Cobb, M.Ed., recently completed her Masters in Higher Education

with a concentration in College Access and Success from Temple
University. She holds a degree in Strategic Communications also from
Temple University. Currently, she works at Girard College in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, as the Assistant Director of Development. In this role, her
primary responsibilities are to build and manage new donor pipelines,
advance the mission of the office, and serve as a catalyst for impactful
giving. Her current projects include developing software that inspires
millennials to engage with philanthropy but also is stewarded and cultivated
by nonprofits and institutions. She has presented at numerous conferences
on diversity with study abroad programs, alumni relations, and Greek life.
In 2017, she was awarded the Young Professional of the Year Award by the
African American Chamber of Commerce of PA, NJ, and DE for her time
given to the organization. She is also a Member of Chi Upsilon Sigma
National Latin Sorority.

Gene Corbin is a Ph.D. student in the Higher Education Program at the

University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a Graduate Fellow in Community
Engaged Scholarship at the Swearer Center of Brown University. Prior to
pursuing his Ph.D., he served as Dean for Public Service at Harvard College
in the Phillips Brooks House Center for Public Service and Engaged
Scholarship. He possesses much experience in social service and social
action and his previous roles include middle school teacher, director of a
community-based nonprofit organization, and community organizer.
Nicola Gratton is the Lead for Civic Engagement and Evaluation at
Staffordshire University. She is a qualified youth worker and has extensive
experience in public and community sectors as a youth worker, community
development worker, and training development manager. She joined
Staffordshire University in 2011 and was a core member of the Creative
Communities Unit with a primary focus on post-graduate youth work and
community practice teaching and management of a range of collaborative
projects with civic and community partners. She was instrumental in the
development and implementation of Staffordshire University’s Connected
Communities Framework, galvanizing staff, students, and community
partners to embed community and public engagement into the strategic
mission and culture of the university. She supports staff, students, and
community partners to connect, share resources, and generate knowledge
through a range of activities and opportunities. She specializes in
participatory action research and creative research techniques and her
research interests lie with the use of these to address social inequality.
Through engagement with local people as community researchers she
supports and facilitates them to influence community, organizational, and
political decision-making, and uses community-based research
methodologies to deliver core university objectives. She is also a Founding
Member of the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire’s Equality Alliance and a
School Governor.

Sarah Haines is a Professor of Biology and Science Education at Towson

University, Towson, Maryland. Her research interests lie in the areas of
science education, and in particular, environmental education. Her focus is
in improving preservice and inservice teacher knowledge and training in the
area of environmental education, and promoting environmental education
and awareness among students in grades K-12. Her courses all include
outdoor components, and many include service learning and civic
engagement activities. She has built community partnerships with many
local nonformal educational institutions, and she often teaches her classes
off-campus at these local organizations. Often, her students lead
programing at these institutions as well. She has published work resulting
from these university–community partnerships in journals such as Science
& Children, the Journal of College Science Teaching, the Journal for Civic
Commitment, and the Journal of Applied Environmental Education. Her
involvement in science education initiatives and environmental education
initiatives has led her to hold several positions of leadership at the national
level, most notably with the Environmental Protection Agency’s National
Environmental Education Advisory Council, to which she was recently
appointed for a three-year term. She obtained a bachelor’s degree in
Biology from Bucknell University, an MS and PhD in Zoology from the
University of Georgia, and an M.A. in Education from Salisbury University.

Mathew Johnson is Executive Director of the Howard R. Swearer Center

and Associate Dean of Engaged Scholarship at Brown University. He is
also a Professor of Practice in Sociology at Brown and leads the College
and University Engagement Initiative within the Swearer Center, an
international community engagement in higher education field-building
initiative. He is the Co-founder and Co-director of the National Assessment
of Service and Community Engagement with the Siena College Research
Institute. He also directs the Carnegie Foundation Community Engagement
Classification, which is housed at the Swearer Center, and leads the multi-
year international Carnegie Classification project, which includes 26
institutions of higher education across the world. He sits on the editorial
board for Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and
Engagement, is an Ashoka Change Leader, and directs the ongoing
development of the Cordes award-winning social innovation programing at
the Swearer Center. He has been a Faculty Member for more than 20 years
and has published several books on community engagement including
Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification (Co-Editor,
Stylus, 2018), Editor and Author of Deepening Community Engagement in
Higher Education: Forging New Pathways (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013),
and Crossing Boundaries: Tensions and Transformation in International
Service-Learning (Stylus, 2014).

Dolf Jordaan is the Deputy Director of E-learning at the University of

Pretoria (UP), South Africa. He has more than 30 years’ experience in
education including 19 years’ experience in the integration of educational
technology in teaching and learning and the strategic management of
educational technology in Higher Education. He provides leadership with
regard to the e-learning environment and policies and the implementation of
these policies and strategies within a hybrid-learning environment. He is
responsible for the strategic management of the educational technology eco-
system at the University. During the last few years, he has been involved in
various national and international collaboration projects and facilitated
numerous national and international workshops. He presented papers at
national and international conferences, some based on invitation. He is also
co-author of published chapters in textbooks and articles in accredited
journals. His involvement in national and international communities of
practice provided valuable experience and insight into the integration of
educational technology within Higher Education. He is coordinating for
more than a decade a national community of practice of Instructional
Designers and has done consultation work for various national and
international e-learning projects. He recently provided consultation in the
developing of an ethical framework for the integration of Learning
Analytics for Higher Education in South Africa.

Martina Jordaan is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Pretoria, South

Africa, responsible for the compulsory module, Community-based Project
Module (code: JCP), for all undergraduate students of the Faculty of
Engineering, the Built Environment and Information Technology. More
than 1,600 students register annually for the module. Students have to do a
project, for at least 40 hours, at one of the 350 possible community partners.
Her experiences as an educator and field worker in the informal settlements
next to Pretoria ensured that she was able to develop this module and adapt
it to the challenging circumstances in South Africa. She has a Doctorate in
History and a Masters in Development Studies. She was previously the
Head of the Education Museum in Pretoria and after that responsible for the
development of pre-schools in the informal settlements next to Pretoria as
well as skills development of staff of various schools in Pretoria. She is a
co-author of published chapters and has published articles in accredited
journals and has presented various papers at national and international
conferences. She received the University of Pretoria’s Community
Engagement Award for 2014/2015. The module received recognition via the
Education Innovation Awards (2006), as a finalist for the MacJannet Prize
(2010) and won the Marketing Advancement & Communication in
Education Excellence Award in 2014. In 2016, she was one of the awardees
for the University Education for Transformative Leadership in Africa
Faculty Support of the Talloires Network and in 2017 the module was a
shortlisted for the Global Engineers Deans Council Airbus Diversity Award.

Agata A. Lambrechts is a doctoral researcher in the Department of

Education, University of York, specializing in higher education research.
She is particularly interested in access and equity issues, student success
and the differential higher education experiences of international students,
and students with refugee background. Her research is primarily qualitative
and draws on the theories from sociology of education and beyond, building
on her background in law, international politics, and human rights. Agata
joined the University of York in 2015, after a previous career in higher
education administration and student support.
Sharon Lierse is an Academic with a specialty in Education. She has
worked as a University Lecturer, Management Consultant, and a
Curriculum Designer for UNESCO. Her lecturing positions have been in
Australia and Malaysia in the areas of education, curriculum design, and the
performing arts. She has published widely and has given conference
presentations around the world including keynote presentations in Europe
and Asia. Her primary research interest is in excellence in education. She
has investigated characteristics of outstanding university lecturers and
systems of excellence between countries. Other research areas are arts
pedagogies, the performing arts, lecturing in the online environment,
curriculum, and assessment.

Craig Mahoney is Principal and Vice-chancellor at the University of the

West of Scotland and a Teaching and Research Academic in Psychology.
Throughout his academic career, he has been committed to the student
learning experience and is an advocate of differentiated student-centered
learning, teaching excellence, internationalization, and research-informed
teaching. He is an ardent supporter of the use of e-learning, technology to
support teaching, open educational resources, and the use of flexible
learning spaces that challenge typical pedagogical styles. A chartered
psychologist in the UK, he is an internationally recognized performance
psychologist, working with businesses, world-class athletes, professional
dancers, and journalists over the past 30 years. He is a Board Member and
Trustee on four national bodies supporting higher education in the UK and
is the Chair of the British Universities and Colleges Sport.

Georgina Manok is the Assistant Director for Research and Assessment at

the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University. As part of her
role, she leads the Center’s assessment efforts and manages the College and
University Engagement Initiative (CUEI). CUEI includes several
institutional assessment tools and the research and administration of the
Carnegie Community Engagement Classification both in the United States
and in countries that are part of the international pilot. She is a public policy
and higher education professional with experience leading socioeconomic
policy and community engagement research, programming, advocacy, and
evaluation programs and initiatives with civil society organizations,
international organizations, and higher education institutions in West Asia
and North America. She is a contributing author in the edited volume The
Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification: Constructing a
Successful Application for First-Time and Re-Classification Applicants
(Stylus, 2018). She is also a Member of the editorial team for Gateways:
International Journal of Community Research and Engagement.
Chelsea McClure joined Towson University’s (TU) Department of
Biological Sciences in 2017. She teaches laboratory classes in the Biology
department and science education courses in the Department of Physics,
Astronomy, & Geosciences. Her research interests meld the education and
science fields through improving preservice education, specifically in the
field of environmental education. Her area of research at TU is promoting
teaching self-efficacy and teacher attitude toward environmental education.
She has presented her research at several national and international science
education conferences including Mid-Atlantic Association for Science
Teacher Education Annual Conference, National Science Teachers
Association, North American Association for Environmental Education,
Maryland Association for Environmental and Outdoor Education, and
Association for Science Teacher Education. Prior to coming to TU, she was
a Life Science Educator for middle school students in the Prince William
County Schools (PWCS) system in Virginia for four years. While employed
with PWCS, she wrote county science curriculum and contributed to many
STEM programs initiated by the public school system. She obtained a
bachelor’s degree in Biology from Christopher Newport University (CNU),
a Master of Arts in Teaching with a focus in science education from CNU,
and an M.S. in Biology from TU.
Marian McGorry, Ph.D., is Vice President of Academic Affairs at
Delaware County Community College where she served for four years as
the Dean for the Business, Computing, and Social Science Division. Before
joining Delaware County Community College, she was Assistant Dean for
the Business and Technology Division at Community College of
Philadelphia and an Associate Professor of Computer Technologies. She
volunteers as a peer reviewer for the Middles States Middle States
Commission on Higher Education.

Shane Nelson received a Bachelor in Psychology from Drexel University

and a Master of Science in Higher Education from Syracuse University. He
is a Member of the DiverseForce On Boards Training program offered by
DiverseForce LLC and the University of Pennsylvania. He has built a
pipeline to advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion across the country
through the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and
strategic partnerships with emerging leaders in higher education. In
Philadelphia, he works with his brothers in Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.,
to develop middle and high school students in a leadership development
academy he helped design. He works at the Community College of
Philadelphia in the Center for Male Engagement. In his role, he is a Support
Coach working with male-identified students who encounter challenges in
and out of the classroom.
Nelson M. Nkhoma has lived and worked in several countries including
Malawi, Tanzania, South Africa, Kenya, and United States. He holds a
Ph.D. in Comparative International Development Education, which he
obtained in 2015 at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. From 2016 to
2017, he worked as a research fellow with SAChair in Higher Education
and Human Development at the University of the Free State. He is currently
a Research Fellow in the Institute for Post School Studies (IPSS) at the
University of Western Cape with financial support from the Carnegie
Cooperation of New York. His current research interests include and
advances the sociological analysis of higher educational planning,
university industry linkages, universities and innovation, and universities
and community engagement in Africa. At IPSS, he conducts research on the
role of public universities in national development and faculty community-
engaged scholarship in the global knowledge economy. He also co-
supervises doctoral students in the IPSS program. Prior to coming to South
Africa, he was a research fellow for five years under the University of
Minnesota partnership with the MasterCard Learn, Earn, and Save
Initiative. As a lead fellow, he led the evaluations and research teams. The
learning partnership included government, nongovernmental organizations,
community stakeholders, and students in secondary and post-secondary
institutions in Tanzania and Kenya. He is currently working on projects to
develop a theory of Black academic activism in South Africa. This project
is supported by Council for Social Science Research in Africa Meaning
Making Research Initiative.
Mia Ocean is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate Social Work
Department at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. She obtained her
Doctorate in Sociology and Social Work from Boston University. She
conducts anti-oppressive research, commonly focusing on community
colleges within the hierarchy of post-secondary education. She has worked
and consulted at community colleges from coast to coast in the United
States for over a decade, and she is also a proud alumna of the community
college system.

Kati Peltonen, Ph.D. (Econ. & Bus. Adm.), M.Sc. (Educ.), currently works
as a Research, Development & Innovation Director for Well-being Service
Innovations focus area at LAB University of Applied Sciences. She has
over 20 years’ experience in international business and in developing
learning and teaching practices in Higher Education in Finland. Her main
areas of research are entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education,
teachers’ competence development, and team learning. Her current areas of
interest are university–business/community partnership, entrepreneurial
university, collaboration in regional innovation ecosystems, and student
engagement. She has published both in national and in international peer-
reviewed journals and publications.
Ken Perry is the Founder and Director of Do-Well (UK) Ltd., an Advocate
and Founder of the 2025 movement in North Wales and an Industrial
Fellow at Wrexham Glyndŵr University. He has over 14 years’ experience
as Chief Executive and over 32 years’ experience in total in the business of
housing, regeneration, commercial enterprise, neighborhood investment,
charities, and social enterprise. He is a passionate advocate of people-led
change and whole system working. He has an MBA from the Open
University Business School, is a Fellow of the RSA, a Member of the
Institute of Directors, and a Member of the Chartered Institute of Housing.

Rómulo Pinheiro is Professor of Public Policy and Administration at the

University of Agder (UiA), Norway, where he co-heads the research group
on Public Governance and Leadership (GOLEP). He is also a member of
the Centers for Digital Transformation and for Advanced Studies in
Regional Innovation Strategies based at UiA. His research interests include
the intersection of public policy and administration, organizational theory,
economic geography, innovation, and higher education studies. His work
has been published in scientific journals like Public Administration Review,
Science and Public Policy, Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education,
European Journal of Higher Education, Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration,
Tertiary Education and Management, City, Culture and Society,
International Journal of Cultural Policy, etc. He has co-edited numerous
books by Springer, Routledge, Palgrave, Sense, Emerald. He is currently
involved with a number of comparative projects, including an
interdisciplinary study on resilient- organizations and organizing
(forthcoming volume by Palgrave).

Nina Ruddle is Head of Public Policy Engagement at Wrexham Glyndŵr

University. She leads delivery of the Civic Engagement Strategy for the
university with a focus on key projects such as Social Prescribing, leading
the co-creation of the Public Service Leadership Program, and Developing
Volunteering. She works proactively and collaboratively to drive change,
develop and maximize opportunities, and transform services, support
growth, and build resilience in our communities. She holds an
undergraduate degree and postgraduate qualifications from the University
of Liverpool. She has worked regionally and nationally across Wales and
England and her experience includes leading the National Brownfield
Strategy for English Partnerships, and successfully establishing the award
winning £250 million North Wales collaboration 21st Century Schools
Procurement Framework. She also led the Community Benefits policy, Joint
Bidding Guide and Project Bank account pilot for Welsh Government and
developed the initial Supply Chain Program Plan for the North Wales
Economic Ambition Board. She is a Member and leads for Leadership and
Learning for the 2025 movement across North Wales which is committed to
tackling avoidable health inequalities through true partnership working
across public, private, and third-sector boundaries. She is on the Advisory
Panel and Audit and Risk Committee for the Children’s Commissioner for
Wales, a Trustee of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, and a Board Member of
Care and Repair North East Wales.
John Saltmarsh is Professor of Higher Education in the Department of
Leadership in Education in the College of Education and Human
Development at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. He has published
widely on community-engaged teaching, learning, and research, and
organizational change in higher education, including, the co-edited book
with Mathew Johnson, The Elective Carnegie Community Engagement
Classification: Constructing a Successful Application for First-Time and
Re-Classification Applicants (2018). He is a Distinguished Engaged Scholar
at the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University, where he
leads the project in which the Swearer Center serves as the administrative
and research partner with the Carnegie Foundation for elective Community
Engagement Classification. He is also a Visiting Scholar with College
Unbound in Providence, Rhode Island. From 2005 to 2016, he served as the
Director of the New England Resource Center for Higher Education. From
1998 to 2005, he was the Director of the National Program on Integrating
Service with Academic Study at Campus Compact.
Ashiya Abdool Satar is a Lecturer for undergraduate and post-graduate
students in the Department of Communication Science at the University of
South Africa (Unisa) since 2013. She was previously a Secondary School
Educator in the Languages and the Social Sciences at a South African
public school. Her interests in equity and democracy led her to supervise
and facilitate learners in a simulated session of the United Nations
Assembly at the legislature in the North West province of South Africa,
focusing on the global refugee crisis. She has diverse research interests that
mirror her educational pursuits in the areas of organizational
communication, media studies, inclusive education, and Open Distance and
e-Learning in the Higher Education sector. She has presented papers at
several international conferences and is currently involved in projects
focusing on active youth citizenship, social justice, media identity and
representation, public sector communication, as well as inclusive education.
She is also Co-editor of an upcoming book related to social media theory
and research.

Enakshi Sengupta, Ph.D., serves as an Associate Director of Higher

Education Teaching and Learning (HETL) and is responsible for the
advancement of HETL in Asia, Middle East, and Africa. She works closely
with the executive director to fulfill the mission of HETL. She is also the
Director of the Center for Advanced Research in Education and the
Associate Series Editor of the book series, Innovations in Higher Education
Teaching and Learning, Emerald Group Publishing. She is the Managing
Editor of the Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Emerald
Publishing, and serves as the Vice Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board of
the Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning book series,
Emerald Publishing. She is the Senior Manager of the Research,
Methodology, and Statistics in the Social Sciences forums on LinkedIn and
Facebook responsible for managing all aspects of those forums. She is a
Ph.D. holder from the University of Nottingham in research in higher
education, prior to which she completed her MBA with merit from the
University of Nottingham and Master’s degree in English Literature from
the Calcutta University, India. She has previously held leadership positions
in higher education institutions.

Claire Taylor is the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and a Professor of Education

at Wrexham Glyndŵr University where she leads all aspects of academic
provision, focusing especially on the quality of teaching, student learning
opportunities, strategy development and supporting the student journey
into, through, and beyond university. She has oversight of the university’s
Civic Mission, connecting the university for the benefit of communities
locally and regionally and believes in the provision of educational
opportunity for all as a key tool for social, economic, and cultural
transformation. Previously, she was Pro Vice-chancellor (Academic) at St
Mary’s University, London, and also held senior roles at Bishop Grosseteste
University, Lincoln. Prior to working in higher education, she held teaching
and leadership positions within the schools’ sector. She studied her
undergraduate degree and gained qualified teacher status at the University
of Cambridge and completed doctoral studies at the University of
Nottingham. She is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, a
Fellow of the Staff and Educational Development Association, and a
Professional Affiliate Member of the Chartered College of Teaching. She is
a Member of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales’ Student
Opportunity and Achievement Committee, has been an Office for Students
(England) Teaching Excellence Framework Panel Member and Assessor,
and has worked across a range of UK higher education institutions as an
eternal examiner and advisor. Her commitment to place-based
transformation includes board level and steering group positions with a
regional housing association, community arts venue and with her local
Church in Wales Diocese.
Ilkka Väänänen (PhD., Lic. Sport Sc.) has over 20 years extensive
experience with Finnish higher education institutions. Currently, he is
working in LAB University of Applied Sciences in Lahti, Finland, as a
Senior Researcher at the Work-integrated Pedagogy in Higher Education
project which brings the working-life perspective more strongly into higher
education. His areas of interests are research and development towards
sustainability, and university partnership with interest groups. He has
membership in European Association for Practitioner Research on
Improving Learning – association, and European Network for the
Promotion of Health-enhancing Physical Activity. He has involved in many
research and development projects funded by the European Social Fund
(e.g., The Operating Model on Working Capacity and Productivity –
Training, Neighbour – community living model), where his specific interest
is in health promotion, inclusion, skills and employment, and integrating
social responsibility into university–community partnerships.

David Wallace has been a Lecturer in Community Education at the

University of the West of Scotland since 2014. For the better part of 40
years he has been a passionate advocate for social justice through informal,
collaborative, and community-based education. As a young man, he
operated as a volunteer, youth worker, and activist. From 1982, following a
period of study at Jordanhill College in Glasgow, he became a qualified
community educator and thereafter took up a range of practitioner posts in
the West of Scotland developing community-based projects and managing
educational programs. In 2000, he became a Lecturer and then Senior
Lecturer in Community Education at the University of Strathclyde in
Glasgow. His research interests have mirrored an engagement with
distinctively Scottish practices in community education and with an
overarching concern for social justice.
NAME INDEX

Note: Page numbers followed by “n” indicate notes.

2018 Voluntary Support of Education, 93

2025 Movement, 8, 47–58
Abbott, A., 195
Achieving the Dream, 206
Ackland, A., 142, 146
Adams, M., 216
Adom, D., 36
Agbiboa, D. E., 32, 39
Agrifoglio, R., 42
Ahrari, S., 35
Aina, T. A., 11
Ajay, L. F., 11, 170
Aldrich, H., 196
Aldrich, H. E., 91, 102
Alkezweeny, J., 78
All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees, 28n12
Allen, T. O., 210
Ally, S., 107
Alter, T. R., 40
Alvarez, P., 221, 222
Amankwaa, L., 37
Amaral, A., 194
American Association of Community Colleges, 204
American Public Media Research Lab, 205
Amey, M. J., 208, 210
Amorim, J. P., 28n5
Anderson, J., 77
Ankrah, A. K., 36
Antonio, A. L., 204
Arenas, B., 28n5
Arnstein, S., 110
Ashby, E., 11, 170
Ashwin, P., 76
Asian Development Bank, 188, 192
Assié-Lumumba, N. T., 180
Astin, A. W., 77, 78
Atkinson, J., 51, 56, 57
Attwood, G., 77
Atuahene, F., 180
Australian Research Council, 161

Babcock, E., 65
Bada, S. O., 36
Bahramnezhad, F., 37
Baicu, C., 5, 6, 64
Bailey, T. R., 207
Bailey, T., 205
Bailis, L., 77
Baker, R., 209
Baldwin, C. A., 2025, 206, 207
Baldwin, J. A., 35
Baltodano, M., 10, 139, 143, 144, 145
Banilower, E. R., 124
Barinaga, E., 171, 179, 180
Barna, C., 5, 6, 64
Batsleer, J., 111
Battistoni, R., 132
Baum, H., 149
Bawa, A., 180
Beach, D., 186
Becher, T., 189
Beck, D., 140, 142, 156
Beddows, R., 109, 111, 112
Belino, M. C., 79
Bell, L. A., 216, 217
Ben-Arieh, A., 39
Bender, G., 77, 147, 151
Bengtsson, M., 36
Bennett, A., 189
Benneworth, P., 62, 64, 68, 69, 195
Benson, P. L., 35, 39, 40, 41
Berents, H., 32, 34
Bergan, S., 140, 141, 147, 149
Bevan, B., 132
Bezzina, M., 140, 141, 143, 147, 148, 151
Bhagwan, R., 35, 36, 140
Bibbings, L. S., 186
Bielefeldt, A. R., 78
Biemans, H., 164
Biemans, H. J. A., 158, 164
Billig, S. H., 80
Black, X. M., 156, 158
Blank, H. D., 97
Blessinger, P., 3, 4
Boddy, K., 123
Bodzin, A. M., 123
Bok, D., 151
Bokhari, A. A. H., 156, 157
Booth-Bell, D., 220
Borcos, A. F., 28
Börhesson, M., 186
Borunda, J., 77
Bourdeau, B., 158
Bowen, F., 82
Bowen, G. A., 36
Bowers, A. M., 82
Bowman, N., 82, 83
Boyd, D. P., 102
Boyd, Y. L., 34, 35
Boyer, E. L., 64, 171
Boyer, E., 128
Brackmann, S. M., 106
Brandenberger, J., 82, 83
Braun, K., 149
Braun, V., 37
Brawer, F., 203
Braxton, J., 77
Breneman, D. W., 219
Brennan, J., 106
Brennan, M. A., 40
Breznitz, S., 189
Bridger, J. C., 40
Bringle, R. G., 62, 64, 77, 80
Brink, C., 106, 107, 112
Brint, S., 203
Brown-Luthango, M., 149
Brownlee, J. L., 34, 35
Bruch, H., 92
Buchholtz, A. K., 90, 91, 92, 93
Budaj, P., 91
Buglione, S. M., 64
Buisic, S., 40
Burgos, D., 28
Burke, B., 146, 148
Burrage, M., 194
Bursaw J., 132
Burton, D. L., 35
Butcher, J., 140, 141, 143, 147, 148, 151

Caboni, T. C., 92
Cain, M. S., 203
Callan, P. M., 219
Cameron, C., 209
Cameron, S., 19
Campbell, T. G., 208
Canney, N., 78
Canton, A., 77
Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, 66, 94
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 203
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching™, 62, 64, 94
Carnoy, M., 194
Carrasco, A., 28n5
Carrington S., 132
Carroll, A. B., 90, 91, 92, 93
Carty, C. M., 97
Case, J. M., 76
Castell, M., 180
Catalano, A., 42
Cavaye, J., 34, 35
Celio, C. I., 122
Celuh, K., 158
Center for Community College Student Engagement, 206
CHAD, 112
Chan, C. C., 77
Chan, K., 77
Chang, M., 117, 118, 116
Chang, M. J., 204
Chaskin, R. J., 41
Chawla, L., 123
Checkoway, B., 128
Cheraghi, M. A., 37
Cherrington, A. M., 35
Cheung–Ming, A. L.,
Chile, L-M., 156, 158
Chisholm, L. A.,
Chocholláková, A., 91
Chowdry, H., 186
Christens, B., 35
Ciconte, B. L., 90, 91, 92
Clark, B., 203
Clark, B. R., 195, 189, 181
Clarke, A., 110
Clarke, V., 37
Clayton, P. H., 62
Clevenger, M. R., 93, 97, 100, 90, 92
Cloete, N., 11, 170
Closson, R. B., 33, 34, 41
Coburn, A., 140, 145, 148
Cochrane, A., 106
Coffield, F., 140, 151
Cohen, A., 203
Cohen, A. M., 93, 102
Cohen, S., 110, 117, 118
Collett, E., 16
Commonwealth Secretariat, 39
Community College Baccalaureate Association, 204
Cone, C., 9, 89, 90, 92, 93, 100, 101
Connell-Smith, A., 27n3
Coon, J. T., 123
Corcoran, P., 109
Cornish, F., 37
Cornwall, A., 112
Cornwall, G., 42
Cottrell, S., 20
Council on Higher Education (CHE), 80
Court, D., 11, 170
Craig, R., 219
Crawford, C., 186
Creswell, J. W., 93
Crisp, G., 206
Cropper, S., 90
Crowther, J., 146
Culp, J., 33, 34
Ćulum, B., 62, 64, 68, 69, 195
Cunningham, G., 110
Czerniewicz, L., 76

D’Silva, J. L., 35
Daasi, G., 42
Darder, A., 10, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146
Davie, G. E., 150
Davies, B., 111
Davis, D. F., 77
de Carvalho, L. X., 28n5
De Coninck, J., 33, 35
de Jong, C., 158
De Lange, N., 35
Deane, K., 206
Dearden, L., 186
Delbanco, A., 219
Delport, C. S., 34, 40, 41
Denson, N., 77
Department for Education, 107, 108
Department of Education (DoE), 76
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), 76
Depledge, M. H., 123
Detmer, A., 164
Dewey, J., 150
Diener, T., 203
Dillon, J., 132
Dirsuweit, T., 8, 34, 31
Dolley, B., 224
Dordic, V., 40
Douglas, S., 145, 147, 151
Drezner, N. D., 91, 101, 205
Driscoll, A., 66, 67
Du Plessis, A., 35
Duffy, J., 78
Dundar, A., 206
Dunn, E., 186
Durlak, J., 122
Dyball, M., 11, 139, 141
Dymnicki, A., 122

Earls, F., 35
Ebers, M., 90–91
Eddy, P. L., 91–92, 208
Edwards, D., 131
Edwards, F. L., 97
Ehrlich, T., 62, 66
Elliott, M., 109
Elo, S., 36
Emadi-Coffin, B., 108, 112
Emah, D. S., 42
Empowervate, 8, 32, 36, 38, 40
Enders, J., 158
Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), 76
Epure, M., 5, 64
Erasmus, M., 76
Erickson, M. S., 7
Escrigas, C., 5
Esin, C., 36
Etzkowitz, H., 157
European Commission, 18
European Parliament, 159
Evans, N., 110
Eyler, J., 77
Eymeri-Douzans, J. -M., 195

Farnell, T., 62, 64, 68, 69, 195

Fathi, M., 36
Feldman, M., 189
Fenzel, L. M., 76, 77
Fereday, J., 36, 173
Ferguson, H., 160
Ferman, B., 7
Fink, J., 206, 207
Finney, J. E., 219
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity, 160
Finnish higher education system, 160
Fischer, M., 91
Fisher, B. J., 122
Flintshire Public Service Board, 52
Florida, R., 164
Floyd, D. L., 203
Fomani, F. K., 37
Foss, L., 162
Freire, P., 10, 64, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 152, 171
Frewer, L. J., 6
Froumin, I., 194
Frumento, P. Z. C., 40
Fuchs, D., 217, 222, 224
Fumasoli, T., 197
Furco, A., 122, 173, 182
Future Generations Commissioner, 54, 58
Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, 50–52

Gäddnäs T., 164

Ganz, M., 52
Garcia, B., 132
Gelmon, S., 65
George, A. L., 189
Gerhardt, C., 6
Geringer, S. D., 77
Giles, D., 122
Giles, D. E. J., 63, 64
Giles. D. E. Jr., 77
Gillespie, A., 37
Giroux, H., 10, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150
Giroux, H. A., 91
Giroux, S. S., 91
Giving USA, 216, 219
Goddard, J., 11, 18, 59, 139, 141, 171,
Goma, K. H. L., 11, 170
Goodman, A., 186
Gordon, E. M., 124
Gornitzka, Å., 194
Gould, E., 90, 91
Grace, M., 219
Gramsci, A., 145, 146, 148
Grande, S., 143, 147
Grashow, A., 56
Gratton, N., 10, 105, 109, 111, 112
Grau, F. X., 5
Grawe, N. D., 204
Gray, C., 122
Griffin, D., 140, 142, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152
Grint, K., 51
Groark, C. J., 113, 117
Grobbelaar, H., 77
Groves, K. S., 90
Guillermo-Wann, C., 204
Gunasekara, C., 195
Guston, D. H., 162, 163

Haberman, M., 81, 82, 83

Häggman-Laitila, A., 164
Haines, S. A., 10, 121, 122, 125, 128, 129
Hakuta, K., 204
Halfond, J. A., 102
Hall, B., 65
Hall, K. S., 78
Haltia, N., 186
Hamilton, S. F., 35
Hancock, M. E., 37
Handel, S. J., 205, 206
Hanover Research, 204
Hanson, D., 128
Harkavy, I., 140, 141, 147, 149
Hart, A., 6
Hart, R. A., 42
Hart, S., 122
Hartley, M., 63
Hartman, S., 131
Hassan, A., 221, 222
Hassan, S., 35
Hastings, L. J., 41
Hatcher, J. A., 64, 77, 80
Hatcher, J., 122
Hauf, P., 122
Hausman, E., 204
Hayes, M. L., 124
Hazelkorn, E., 59
Hébert, A., 122
Heelan, C., 203
HEFCE, 19
Heifetz, R., 56
Heimans, J., 56
Hein, G. E., 132
Herbert, A., 110
Herker, D., 196
Herremans, I., 82
Herro, A., 224
Hetherington, J., 110
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), 50
Hill, P., 82
Hill, T. L., 7
Hilton, A., 206
Hlagala, R. B., 34, 40, 41
Hodara, M., 206, 210
Hohenthal, T., 164
Holford, J., 140
Holland, B., 65, 72
Hollander, E., 65, 66
Hollister, R., 64, 65
Hollister, R. M., 65
Holmes, K., 131
Hooper, D., 141, 149, 151, 152
Hoosain, M. S., 78
Houwer, R., 40
Howard, J., 34
Hoy, A., 64
Hoyt, L., 64, 65, 70
Hsieh, H-F., 36
Hubble, S., 27n3
Huberman, A. M., 93
Human Rights Watch, 17
Humes, W. M., 147, 149, 150
Hurtado, S., 204
Huxham, C., 90
Hyttinen, K., 164

Iakovleva, T., 162

Ikeda, E. K., 77
Ilustre, V., 77
Inkelas, K. K., 221–222
Isopahkala-Bouret, U., 186
Ivancheva, M., 76

Jacob, J. G., 90–92

Jacobius, T., 78
Jacoby, B., 77, 122
Jacoby, N. H., 102
Jaggars, S. S., 207
Jain, D., 206
Jarvis, J., 51
Jarvis, P., 140
Jauhiainen, A., 186
Jayakumar, U., 77
Jeffs, T., 111
Jenkins, D., 206–207
Jewkes, R., 112
Johansson, E., 34
Johnsen, H. C. G., 189
Johnson, A. G., 11, 170
Johnson, D. I., 78
Johnson, D. R., 221–222
Johnson, M., 8, 61, 69
Johnson, W. C., 91
Jonasson, J., 186
Jones, I., 109
Jongbloed, B., 158
Jordaan, A. J. J., 78, 80
Jordaan, M., 9, 75, 78–79
Jorge M. L., 106
Joseph Rowntree Trust, 150

Kahn, S., 131

Kaiser, F., 62, 64, 68–69, 195
Kaplan, A., 216
Kaplan, A. E., 91, 93–94
Kara, H., 109
Karabel, J., 203
Karibayeva, B., 217
Katz, S. N., 219, 223
Kautonen, M., 164
Keating, D. P., 35
Kecskes, K., 78
Keen, C., 122
Keen, C. H., 78
Kehm, B. M., 189
Kellogg Commission, 116, 204
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities,
110
Kempton, L., 11, 59, 141
Kenny, D. A., 204
Kezar, A., 6
Khau, M., 35
Khayum, M., 158
Kim, W. C., 164
Kimber M., 132
Kincheloe, J. L., 145, 150
Kirpitchenko, L., 34–35
Kisker, C. B., 207–208
Knapp, T. D., 122
Kogan, M., 194
Köthemann, D., 217
Krücken, G., 189
Kunanbayeva, S., 217
Kune, H., 158
Kunttu, L., 165
Kyngäs, H., 36
Kyvik, S., 194

Laanan, F. S., 210

Langa, P., 194
Lapsley, D., 82
LaRocca, M. A., 90
Lau, C., 122
Le Coz, C., 16
Leachman, M., 205
Lebeau, Y., 106
Ledwith, M., 110–112
Lee, W. Y., 203
Leight, E., 221
Leitão, J., 7
Leonard, J. B., 221–222
Lerner, J. V., 34
Lerner, R. M., 34
Leshukov, O., 194
Levesque-Bristol, C., 122
Levin, B. L., 35
Levin, S., 204
Linos, P., 78
Linsky, M., 56
Lister, R., 34
Loftus, E., 51
Longerbeam, S. D., 221–222
Lopez, I., 122
Lord, S., 78
Lucio-Villegas, E., 146

Maassen, P., 11, 170

Macdonald, D., 143
Macdonald, M., 132
MacGregor, C. J., 90
Madden, C., 102
Made at Uni, 55
Madzik, P., 91
Maistry, S., 77
Mak, B., 122
Malfait, R., 20
Malzahn, K. A., 124
Mansouri, F., 34–35
March, J. G., 189, 194, 196
Marcus, J., 204
Marginson, S., 194
Markkula, M., 158
Marmot, M., 50
Martinez-Wenzl, M., 206
Marttila, L., 164
Maruyama, G., 122
Massey, D. S., 217
Massey, O. T., 35
Masterson, K., 205
Mathie, A., 110
Matthews, S., 77
Mauborgne, R., 164
Mazzeo, C., 206
McAdam, M., 186
McAdam, R., 186
McCall, R. J., 113, 117
McClenney, B. N., 206
McClure, C., 10, 121, 125, 128–129
McCormick, A. C., 66–67
McDowell, G. R., 110, 116
McElravy, L. J., 41
McEvoy-Levy, S., 32, 34
McFarland, M., 77
McIlrath, L., 64
McIntyre, A., 112
McKernan, B., 17
McLaren, P., 142–143, 145
Mehta, J., 217
Meiners, R. E., 97
Mellow, G. O., 203
Mendez, M., 6
Mennega, N., 78
Mercer, S., 77
Mercer L., 132
Merriam, S. B., 93
Merton, R. K., 189, 195
Michalchik, V., 132
Migration Yorkshire, 20–21
Milana, M., 140, 143, 145–146
Milem, J. F., 204
Miles, M. B., 93
Miller, D., 132
Miller, K., 186
Ministry of Education and Culture, 160
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 107
Ministry of Research, T. a. H. o. I., 187–188, 192
Miron, D., 77
Mitchell, M., 205
Mitchell, T., 132
Mitchell, T. D., 64
Modise, O. M., 11, 170
Moely, B. E., 77
Mohamed, S., 8, 34
Molnar, A., 91
Monzó, L., 145
Moore, G., 116–117
Moosa-Mitha, M., 34
Mora, J. -G., 164
Moran, W., 140
Morgan, G., 93
Morris, N. P., 76
Mueller, D., 37
Mueller, J. A., 223
Muir-Cochrane, E., 36, 173
Mulder, M., 158
Munck, R., 181
Murray, N., 186
Musau, Z., 32
Musselin, C., 205
Myers, C. B., 122
Myers, S. M., 122

Nagy, J., 156

Nagy, N., 128
Napier, C., 77
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 91
National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), 106, 142
National Science Foundation (NSF), 91
NCCPE, 106–107, 142, 150
Nejati, M., 5
Netz, R., 132
Nevarez, C., 206
Newenham-Kahindi, A., 82
Ng, E., 64, 77
Ng-He, C., 132
NHS Wales, Public Health Wales, 49–50, 53
Niemonen, H., 164
Nieuwenhuis, L., 158
Nizam, N., 190–191
Noble, H., 37
Normann, R., 189
Northmore, S., 6
Ntseane, P. G., 11, 170
Nuñez, A., 206
Nurdin, M., 190–191
Nurkka, P., 164
Nyden, P., 128

O’Meara, K. A., 173

Oakes, W., 78
Obama, M., 140, 147, 149
Obeng-Odoom, F., 224
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR), 8, 35
Olsen, J. P., 189, 194, 196
Olsen, M., 36
Onyx, J., 6
Oren, M., 123
Oreopoulos, P., 206
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 158
Osborn, D., 78
Osborne, M., 11
Osman, R., 76–77
Ostrander, S. A., 216, 221–222
Othman, J., 35

Palentino, B., 221

Pallas, A., 205
Paredes, C. R., 79
Parker, P. S., 171, 179–180
Parliament of Australia, 159
Parry, S., 189
Partzsch, L., 217, 222, 224
Pausits, A., 18, 195
Pearce, J., 19
Pearson, M., 19
Pease, H., 122
Peña F. J. A., 106
Pennsylvania Transfer and Articulation Center, 207
Perkins, G. R., 202
Perry, B., 8, 47, 195
Peters, M., 122
Petersen, N., 76
Peterson, T. H., 128
Petrie, M., 146
Petronijevic, U., 206
Petty, G., 111
Peyrot, M., 76–77
Pfeffer, J., 91
Pinheiro, R., 11, 185, 189, 194–195
Pizmony-Levy, O., 205
Plumley, C. L., 124
Poell, R., 158
Pope, R. L., 223
Popma, M., 205
Posner, P., 10, 109, 113
Preece, J., 11, 170
Purcell, R., 140, 146, 152

Quaranto, J., 82

RCE Cymru, 49
REF 2021, 107, 114
Refugee Council, 20, 21
Reich, J., 128
Rekola, L., 164
Rendón, L. I., 206
Research England, 107, 120
Resier, J., 6
Reynolds, A. L., 223
Rhodes, F. H. T., 91
Rice, W., 77
Richard, F., 132
Richard, R., 122
Riegler, A., 37
Rinaldo, S. B., 77
Ring, P. S., 90
Ringleb, A. H., 97
Robb, A., 156
Roberts, G., 142, 146
Rockefeller Foundation., 220
Rodrigues, F., 28n5
Roehlkepartain, E. C., 77
Rogers, J., 202, 207
Rook, G., 123
Rose, A. P., 91, 93
Rost-Banik, C., 132
Roueche, J. E., 202
Roueche, S. D., 202
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., 221, 222
Rowe, G., 6
RSA, 50
Ruck, M. D., 35, 39

Saewyc, E. M., 35, 39

Salamzadeh, Y., 5
Salancik, G. R., 91
Saldaña, J., 93
Salerno, C., 158
Saltmarsh, J., 65, 66
Samah, B. A., 35
Samans, R., 91
Samzelius, T, 110, 117, 118
Sandmann, L. R., 63, 64
Sanjari, M., 37
Sanzone, C. S., 91, 92
Saul, J., 91, 93, 94
Sax, L. J., 77, 78
Sayed, Y., 32, 33
Scales, P. C., 35, 39, 40, 41
Scheckle, E., 35
Scherz, Z., 123
Scholes, L., 34, 35
Schulte, P., 157
Schultz, W. W., 78
Scotland, J., 45, 47
Scott, P., 176
Scott, W. R., 193, 195, 199
Scott-Flynn, N., 20
Šćukanec, N., 62, 64, 68, 69, 195
Seeber, M., 62, 64, 68, 69, 195
Seemiller, C., 219
Sengupta, E., 3
Sesma, A., 35, 39, 40, 41
Shafaei, A., 5
Shannon, S. E., 35
Shao, K., 221
Shiller, J. T., 37
Shiner Klein, B., 123
Shoghi, M., 37
Siegel, D., 92
Silva, M. J., 7
Sima, K., 195
Sinha, S., 78
Sira, D., 42
Skolnik, M., 203
Smith, A., 78
Smith, J., 37
Smith, M., 107
Smith, M. K., 111
Smith, P. S., 124
Social Progress Index, 159
Sodha, S., 18
Soldner, M., 221, 222
Song, W., 122
Springett, J., 110, 111, 112
Squire, C., 36
Stasiulis, D., 34
Statistics Finland, 160
Statistics South Africa, 76
Stein, R., 123
Steinberg, S. R., 145, 150
Steiner, A., 35
Stenson, C., 122
Stevens, D., 206, 210
Stevens, M. C., 206, 210
Stilgoe, S., 162, 163
Stratemeyer, A. W., 77
Stroud, S. E., 65
Strouse, G. T., 204
Swartz, R., 76
Swinney, A., 142, 146
Tanenbaum, M., 223
Taylor, J. L., 206
Taylor, R., 218
Taylor, V., 33, 34
Teichler, U., 189
Thapa, R. K., 162, 163
The 2010 Corporate Social Responsibility Index, 97
The Community College of Philadelphia, 221
The Leadership Centre, 50
The Rector´s Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences
Arene, 160–161
The Talloires Network, 67–69
The UNIBILITY consortium, 156
Thelin, J. R., 220, 218, 219
TIAA Institute, 220
Timms, H., 56
Tinkler, A., 204
Tinkler, B., 204
Tornabene, L., 78
Torres, R., 10, 139, 143–146
Townsend, L., 158
Trading-Economics., 186
Tremblay, C., 6
Trilling, D., 16
Tronto, J. C., 216, 217
Trow, M., 194
Trowler, P., 189
Turk-Bicakci, L., 6
Tushune, K., 205
Tyler, J. B., 81–83

U.S. Census, 97
U.S. Small Business Administration, 97
Udensi, L., 42
UNESCO, 11, 18, 157, 158, 170
UNHCR, 16, 27n1
United Nations, 4, 8, 16, 31, 35, 157, 159, 162
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 35
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), 11, 18, 157–158, 170
UPP Foundation, 11, 18, 19, 25, 106, 107, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118
UPP Foundation Civic University Commission, 18, 19

Väänänen I., 165

Vab⊘, A., 186
Vallance, P., 59, 171
Van de Ven, A. H., 91
van der Sijde, P., 205
Van Schalkwyk, F., 76
Varty, J., 181
Vasilescu, R., 5, 6, 64
Veldhuis, R., 35
Versnik Nowak, A. L., 78
Vickery, A., 34
Vieira, M. -J., 164
Vignoles, A., 186
Vincent, P., 109
Vogelgesang, L. J., 64
von Bell, K., 164
Von Schomberg, R., 162

Waisbord, S., 149

Walker, K. P., 203
Walker, S., 34, 35
Wall, N., 109
Wallace, D., 140, 142, 145, 146
Waller. R., 140, 143, 145, 146
Walter, F., 92
Walter, M., 112
Wang, V. C. X., 42
Ward, E., 64
Warren, J. L., 122
Watson, D., 65
Waxman, S., 205
Weaver, S., 123
Webb, S., 104, 143, 145, 146
Webster, T., 11, 139, 141
Weerts, D., 152
Wenger, E., 42
Wesselink, R., 158, 164
Westerheijden, D., 62, 64, 68, 69, 195
Whear, J. B., 123
Wheeler, J., 34
Wilkinson-Maposa, S., 224
Williams, D. A., 217
Williams, R., 106
Williamson, B., 140, 151, 152
Williamson, H. J., 35
Windham, P., 202, 207
Wong, A., 122
Wood, J., 206
World Bank, 186, 187, 190, 196
World Economic Forum, 92
Worrall, L., 79
Wrexham Glyndŵr University, 48, 51, 53, 56
Wyner, J., 206, 207

Xiaotao Ran, F., 206, 210

Xu, D., 206, 210

Yamamura, E. Y., 77
Yamin, T. S., 3, 4
Yeboah, A., 36
Yee, J. A., 77
Yin, R. K., 92, 189
Yoon, S., 132
Young, B. R., 35
Young, M., 195
YSJ, 19
Yue, H., 122

Zaff, J. M., 34, 35

Zakoske, C., 132
Zhang, Y., 210
Zhao, C. M., 66, 67
Zittoun, T., 37
Zukbee, S., 42
Zumeta, W., 219
SUBJECT INDEX

Note: Page numbers followed by “n” indicate notes.

Academic, 18, 95, 176, 187, 202, 204, 207, 210

achievement, 129
change, 37
credibility, 109
credits, 77
debate, 5
departments, 35
institutions, 101
learning, 122
members of staff, 22
problems, 41
research, 112
staff, 108, 143
work, 148
year, 80, 84–85, 126
Academics, 5–6, 108, 116, 161, 171, 189, 195–197, 203
Access, 11–12, 17–18, 20, 22–23, 26–27, 55, 63, 71, 79, 95–96, 109, 115,
147, 195, 220
to HE, 186, 192
hurdles, 192
institutional perspective on, 188–189
Accountability, 6, 10, 18, 57, 67, 100, 102, 207, 222
institutional, 62
tool, 65, 72
Action, 50, 112, 142–143, 150, 160, 189–190
action-driven practice, 115, 118
collective, 51
 critical reflection and, 33
cultural, 146
culture, 162
models, 11, 157
project phase, 127
transformative, 149
Active citizenship, 5, 8, 32–37, 40, 49, 122
Active engagement, 34, 218
Actors, 12, 180, 182, 186–188, 193–195
ability, 162
CE, 171
social, 35
Adaptation, 9, 63, 203
Adaptive leadership, 56
Adult learners, 209–210
Africa, 32–33, 39, 170, 182
Africanization, 11, 170
Agents of change, 34, 39, 118
Articulation agreement, 207
Assessment, 101, 110
self-assessment, 66–68
student, 9
Asylum seekers, 16–17, 20–25
Attitude, 26, 126–127, 129, 131
Australia, 11, 69, 71, 159–161

Border pedagogies, 147–149

Boundary crossing, 144, 148

Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, 8, 68

Case study, 12, 51–56, 108, 186
inter-organizational, 90–101
South African, 76–84
university–community college partnership models, 202–210
Cause-related branding, 92–93
Change, 32, 34, 48, 52–53, 67, 129, 145, 147–148, 186, 204, 206, 224
agents, 39, 43
CCU-driven, 113
climate, 149, 157
community, 27
institutional, 66
organizational, 8–9, 63, 68
social, 4, 36
theory of, 69
transformational, 8, 50
transformative, 110
Chemistry, 173, 191
Chesapeake Bay, 122–123, 125–128
Citation patterns, 64
Civic engagement, 10, 18, 34, 48–49, 56, 64, 66–68, 85, 106, 113–118, 122,
124, 127–129, 151, 222
Civic mission, 48–50, 54–55, 57–58
Civic responsibility, 32, 36, 43, 63, 66, 122
Civic universities, 11, 18
enabling factors for, 116–118
Civic university, 10, 18–19, 25, 48, 106–118, 140–142, 150–151
Civil society, 4–12, 62, 72, 142, 151, 164, 170–180, 186–188
Classifications
elective, 66
industry, 67
Collaboration, 7, 10, 12, 17, 23, 26–27, 32, 37, 51, 56, 63, 65, 82, 101, 112,
150, 158–159, 162, 180, 202, 208, 217, 222
Collective challenge, 50, 56
Colleges and universities, 5, 66–67, 72, 93, 101, 215–216, 219, 223
community, 12, 202, 204, 206–207, 210
master’s, 94
Colonial histories, 64
Communities, 7–8, 12, 32–42, 48–50, 55, 58–59, 62–65, 68, 77–81, 98,
107, 111, 113–114, 116, 122, 128, 145, 147, 150, 156, 164, 176–
180, 204, 216, 223
disadvantaged, 79, 81
 global, 18, 76
local, 17, 36, 72, 202
marginalized, 178
Community, 4, 12, 149, 179, 202–210
Community colleges, 12, 202–207, 209–211
Community development, 8, 10, 32–34, 36, 38, 42, 54, 108, 110–111, 140–
141, 143, 146, 150, 152, 174
Community development principles, 118
Community engagement (CE), 6, 8, 18, 36, 40, 63–64, 66–68, 72, 76–77,
81, 107–108, 111, 114–116, 122, 140–147, 150–151, 156, 159,
204
Community impact, 218
Community learning, 140
Community of practice (CoP), 54
Community outreach, 8, 35, 77–78, 82
Community partners, 9–10, 18, 21, 25, 64, 76–84, 110, 117, 122–123, 131,
133, 144
Community partnerships, 6, 77, 84, 204
Concept of corporate social responsibility, 156
Conceptual framework, 9, 79, 81–85, 101, 176
Concurrent-use campus, 202, 207
Connected communities framework, 10, 106, 108, 113–117
Constructivists, 146, 178, 180
Consultancy, 10, 108–109, 111–113
Coordination, 9–10, 22, 116
Cornel West, 218
Corporate citizenship, 9, 90, 92, 99
Corporate citizenship spectrum, 9, 90, 92–94
Corporate engagement, 93, 102
Corporate philanthropy, 92
Creative communities unit (CCU), 10, 106
Creative consultation techniques, 112
Critical pedagogy, 10, 140–151, 171
Curriculum, 5, 19, 24, 48, 52, 63, 76–78, 116, 125, 158, 193, 208–209
Decentralization, 187, 193–194
Deconstruction, 172, 181
Democracy, 33, 65, 76, 102, 146, 150, 190
Dialogue, 6, 34, 143, 145–148, 150–151, 162, 179, 223
Difference, 39–42, 170–172, 176, 178–180, 182
Differentiation, 66, 68, 111, 181
Disadvantage groups, 186, 188, 190–191, 193, 195
Diversity, 12, 20, 66, 69, 71, 80, 82, 116–117, 149, 164, 216, 220, 223
DNA citizenship ethos, 92–93

Educational hierarchy, 202

Educational programs, 187, 193
Emancipatory, 143–145, 170–171, 178
Empowerment, 4, 38, 175
Empowervate trust, 8, 32, 36–37
Enabling factors, 107, 114, 118
Engaged scholarship, 35, 176, 179
Engaged university, 65, 114
Engineering, 78, 95, 98
Environmental education (EE), 123, 128–129
Environmental literacy, 123
Epistemic injustice, 64
Equality, 20, 33, 111, 146, 157, 161–162, 186, 216–218, 221
Equity, 12, 33, 57, 196, 206, 216–224
Ernest Boyer, 64, 128, 171
Ethics, 10, 98–100, 161, 178, 180–181
Evaluation, 6, 19, 109, 113, 115–117, 161, 197

Faculty, 4, 6–7, 36, 66, 72, 94–95, 100, 113, 122, 128, 148, 173, 179, 208–
209, 220, 224
Faculty members, 4, 6–7, 11, 170–175, 177, 179, 181
Finance, 90–91
Finland, 11, 159–161
Flexibility, 53, 68–69, 111–112, 116–117, 164
Forced migration, 19–20, 26
Foundations, 33, 52, 62, 91, 94, 96–99, 114, 149, 159, 216, 218–222
Framework, 4–5, 8, 19, 42, 63, 70, 94, 202
application, 9, 71
CE Classification, 68–70
of civic engagement, 124
co-created education, 54
conceptual, 9, 79, 82–85
Connected Communities, 106, 113–118
country’s qualifications, 187
documentation, 67
Knowledge Exchange, 107
Research Excellence, 107
US, 70
Functionalist, 171, 178, 180
Funding (U.S. public education), 205
Funding, 6, 16, 20–21, 23, 53, 57, 77, 91, 113, 160–161, 193–194, 222–224
corporate, 102
from corporations, 91
HE sector, 190
from HEFCW, 57
heritage, 109
public, 202, 205
reduction in, 205
Fundraising, 94, 96, 218, 220

Get talking, 112–113, 115–117

Giving, 216, 219
Government, 4, 6–8, 12, 58, 92, 97, 102, 171, 175, 177, 181, 186–187, 189,
190, 192
agencies, 161
European and national, 17
local, 17, 21, 193
policies, 18
programs, 152
UK, 20, 114–115
 Welsh, 49

Health, 8, 49–50, 54–55, 98, 107, 178

Higher education, 4–12, 71, 90, 142, 145, 147, 149–150, 222, 224
civic responsibilities, 116
and corporate leader interview participants, 99
engagement, 111
implications for higher education leaders, 100–101
interviewees, 100
knowledge production in, 148
rising costs, 91
social dimension, 18
social responsibility and community engagement in, 140
South African, 76
Higher education and community partnerships, 223
Higher education institutions (HEIs), 4, 66, 76–77, 90–92, 94, 142, 147,
158, 186, 203, 220–222
Humanities, 95, 173, 177

Impact, 83, 161–162

Inclusion, 10, 12, 33, 38, 71, 111, 115, 118, 141, 216–217, 223–224
Indonesia, 12, 186–187, 189–190, 194
Inequalities, 5, 8, 33, 50–51, 110, 146, 149, 217, 219, 224
Institutional citizenship, 36
Institutional collaboration, 211
Institutional pillars, 188
Institutionalization, 62, 65, 67, 196
Inter-organizational behavior, 90
Inter-organizational relationship, 90–92, 99–101
Internationalization, 9, 18, 63, 69–71
Internationalizing, 62–71

Jacque Derrida, 170, 172, 176, 178

JCP, 9, 78, 80–84
Joint community-based project, 9, 78, 80–84
Justice, 157, 178, 180, 216–217, 223–224

Leaders, 7, 12–13, 39, 49–51, 53, 57, 90, 93, 99, 123, 207, 220, 222, 224
Leadership, 8, 20, 38, 49, 51, 56, 80, 96, 98, 109, 208, 224
Levels of involvement, 82–84
Local
government, 17, 21, 26, 191, 193–195
municipalities, 187
volunteers, 20

Macro classes, 80
Malawi, 172–173, 175, 178, 181
Meaningful watershed educational experience (MWEEs), 123
Medical knowledge, 179–180
Missing link, 12, 186–195
Most different design, 189

NACRO (Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers), 102

National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), 106, 142
Nonformal education, 10, 123–124, 126, 132

Operational culture, 92–93, 101

Oppression, 143–144, 146, 149, 221, 224
Organizational analysis, 9, 90
Organizational behavior, 91, 100
Outdoor learning, 123

Participation, 4, 10, 38–42, 90, 110–111, 115, 118, 144–146, 195

Participatory action research (PAR), 109
Partnership, 21–25, 164–165
concurrent-use partnership, 208–209
core of, 63–65
creation and course design, 124–126
in York, 19–21
Partnership models, 12, 205–207
Partnership(s), 144
with public institutions, 205
between universities and community colleges, 202, 205
university–community, 3–12, 15–25, 35–36
Philanthropy, 12, 92–93, 101, 215–224
Place-based
partnership, 50
transformational change, 47–58
Policy, 49, 186–187, 224
alignment between government policy and HEI strategy, 191–192
policy-institutional-individuals, 197
responses, 17
for scholarship, 150
shifts, 114
UK higher education sector, 106–107
USR as, 6
Power, 56, 58, 67, 146, 148, 152, 197, 204, 217, 223–224
Power distance, 217
Preservice teachers, 123–125, 127, 129
Private philanthropy, 218–219, 220
Private universities, 188
Project champion, 208
Public Engagement, 10–11, 106–107, 116, 140–142
Public good, 19, 67, 106, 186, 188, 205, 211
Public Intellectuals, 148
Public resources, 12, 210–211
Public sector, 56, 164, 187
Public service leadership, 49, 51–53
Public universities, 11–12, 170, 172–173, 175, 177, 180, 187–188, 190,
204–205

Quadruple Helix, 181, 186–188, 196

Recognition and celebration, 115–116

Refugees, 7
 in England, 15–25
in York, 20–21
Relationship
between community colleges and universities, 204
with community partner, 77
of higher education and philanthropy, 218–219
university–community, 6–7
Research, 109–110, 209–210, 220
design, 92–99
with impact, 18
questions, 90, 99–100
Research and development activity (R&D activity), 11, 156
Research impact, 113, 116
Resources, 5–7, 16, 18, 24–25, 36, 41, 63, 91, 96, 99, 102, 164, 187, 205,
210, 216–217, 222

Scholarships, 35
of application, 150
community-engaged, 174, 177
distributions, 191
epistemology, 145
multidisciplinary, 12
public, 63
sanctuary, 17
of teaching, 150
Self-study, 66, 70–72
Service
community, 9, 77
industries, 189
public service leadership program, 51–53
users, 23
Service learning, 63, 122, 132
civic engagement benefits through, 10
community engagement and, 77
community partners role, 79
 course, 129
experiences, 131
Shared Definitions, 63
Social actors 35
Social ambassadors, 34
Social impact
collaborative ecosystem of, 222
developing students’ skills, 16
on geographies, 106
public/community engagement in YSJ, 19
social impact-driven solutions, 216
Social Inclusion, 149, 175
Social innovation, 18, 28n6
Social justice, 7–8, 12, 33–35, 62, 78, 141, 146, 149–150
in Africa, 32–33
in Age of Philanthropy, 12, 215–224
Social prescribing, 8, 49, 53–55
Social responsibility, 34
in higher education, 4–12
physical education in, 40
students, 76–84
university, 64
Socially responsible citizens, 35, 77
Socio-scientific issues
civic engagement and, 10
water quality issues from, 125
Soft skills, 9, 85
South Africa
community engagement in, 76–77
international CE classification, 67–71
nonprofit organization, 7–8
socioeconomic context, 78
youth in tackling social issues, 32–42
Staffordshire University, 10, 106, 107–110 112–118
Strategic giving, 216
Structural inequality, 140, 146, 152
Students, 7, 13
in CCU principles, 115
in civic engagement, 122, 128
flexibility, 111
and institutions, 209–210
social responsibility development, 75–84
Successful
community colleges and university partners, 206–207
HE, 186
inter-organizational relationships, 100–101
projects, 79
supportive and committed community partnerships, 84
sustainable partnerships, 80–81
university–community partnership, 17
Sustainability, 5–6, 18, 93, 95, 98–99
developing skills for, 117
indices, 159–160
of partnership, 27
reporting, 159
and social responsibility strategy, 158
universities engagement and, 157
USR and, 6
Sustainable
community development, 42
development, 4, 5, 34–35, 49, 58, 156, 161–162
future, 155–163
human development, 6
leadership, 52
livelihood, 4
partnerships, 80
Systems, 36, 53
communities and, 164
HE, 186, 194
institutional, 148
leadership, 8, 49–52, 56
policy-based systems, 224
 political, 33

Teaching, 6, 10, 16–18, 23, 26, 41, 48, 79, 108–112, 115, 123–125, 131
as CE, 62, 171
community engagement, 76
critical pedagogy in, 143
EE, 129
in HEIs, 189
improvement, 62–67
institutional culture promoting, 95
pedagogical skills for, 125, 132
scholarship of, 150
Theory of change, 69
Third sector, 4, 7, 17, 20, 26, 49, 52–57, 62, 107–108
Transfer gap, 206–207, 210
Transfer pathways, 206, 209–210
Transformation
in community engagement, 146
institutional, 150
partnership, 147
social, 176
universities, 156
Tri Dharma, 192, 194, 196
Truly Civic report (UPP Foundation), 107, 114–115, 141
2025 Movement, 8, 50–55
drivers and concepts, 56
performance and effectiveness, 57

Unisa, 8, 32, 35–37

United States public higher education, 205
University, 95–96, 221
civic, 114–115, 116–118
community–university partnerships, 4, 6, 13, 26, 128–132
engaged, 65
functionalism approach, 170
 practice for, 25
public role of, 17
role in place-based transformational change, 47–58
role of, 8
social responsibility in, 162–163
in society, 11, 170
SR in, 11
USR, 5–6, 64
University and community engagement, 151, 204
University of Pretoria, 9, 68, 78, 85
University of Sanctuary, 19
University of South Africa, 8, 32
University social responsibility, 5–6, 18, 64
University-community college partnership, 201–210
University-community partnership platform, 162–163
University-community partnerships, 3–12, 15–27, 35–36, 117, 128–132,
149, 156–159, 162–163, 169–181

Vertical transfer, 206

Wales, 8, 50, 52–55, 58, 141

Water quality, 122, 125–128, 133
Watershed education, 123, 126, 128
Wellbeing, 55
Wellbeing of Future Generations Act, 51–52, 58
Welsh Government, 49–50
Widening participation, 12, 18, 108, 186–187, 191, 194–195
Working class intellectuals, 148

Y-CAP, 8, 32, 37–42

Youth
CCU and, 110
club, 21
in community development, 36
development, 38, 40
 educating, 157
programs in, 108
promoting social justice, 39–42
role, 32, 35
for social justice, 34
socialization, 196
in tackling social issues, 32–42
unemployment problem in South Africa, 39
Y-CAP, 8, 37–42
Youth Citizen’s Action Campaign, 8, 32
Youth Citizen’s Action Program, 8, 32, 37–42
Youth citizenship, 34–35, 222
Youth engagement, 32–42