Enhancing Community Cohesion: Universities Collaborate for Change
School
The University of Nairobi**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
SOCIOLOGY CSO104
Subject
Management
Date
Dec 11, 2024
Pages
129
Uploaded by BailiffFang15868
Breaking down barriers: universities and communities working together Community Cohesion Thematic Evaluation Report Carolyn Kagan and Karen Duggan Research Institute for Health and social Change, Manchester Metropolitan University February 2009
Breaking Down Barriers: Universities and Communities Working Together February 2009 Manchester Metropolitan University Carolyn Kagan and Karen Duggan RIHSC: Research Institute for Health & Social Change
Published by: RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change Copyright (c) 2009 RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced by any means, or transmitted, or translated into a machine language without the written permission of the RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change, unless under the terms of the Copyright Licensing Agreement, or for use in Education, or for dissemination within an organisation in which case the work must be reproduced in its entirety with acknowledgement of the RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change. RIHSC Research Reports and Occasional Papers Published occasionally by RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change For information contact the publishers at the address below ISSN 1750-1571 ISBN 978-1-900139-29-8 Printed by the Manchester Metropolitan University RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change: RIHSC is a centre of international excellence and innovation in critical research and consultancy on social change, social inclusion, community participation, well-being, work and leisure, health and social care practices and policies, and behavioural and forensic sciences. RIHSC: Research Institute for Health and Social Change Manchester Metropolitan University Elizabeth Gaskell Campus Hathersage Road Manchester M13 0JA Tel: 0161 247 2563 / 2774 Fax: 0161 247 6842 Email: c.kagan@mmu.ac.uk
3 Executive summary Urban Regeneration: Making a Difference(URMAD) was funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Four universities (Manchester Metropolitan University - MMU, University of Central Lancashire - UCLAN, Salford University and University of Northumbria - UNN) collaborated on projects which addressed community needs in the areas of Community Cohesion, Crime, Health and Well-being, and Enterprise all in turn with a focus on urban regeneration. They worked together on 46 projects for two years, in partnership with community organisations in relation to emergent and responsive interpretations of urban regeneration. MMU led on 16 projects across the four themes. Twelve of these were from the theme of Community Cohesion (CC); two from Health and Wellbeing; one from Crime; and one from Enterprise. MMU was also responsible for delivering the Community Cohesion theme. In total, staff from MMU contributed to 35 projects. Project and partnership development CC Project ideas crystallised through discussions and dialogue, facilitated by the face to face development days HEI-community and inter-HEI partnerships raises issues of IP and mechanisms must be found for addressing this as the partnerships form. The short time scale meant that many community partnerships were built on pre-existing relationships. The inter-HEI collaborations were nearly all new, supported by the development processes. Resources need to be found for developingalliances within HEI - community partnerships for collaboration across the different HEIs to enable trusting relationships to form which break down preconceptions of expertise. Pre-set outcomes do not always sit easily with collaborative project development with community partners. Nevertheless, community partners made active contributions to project proposals. Good working relationships were built amongst the CC Theme leads from different HEIs Better ways need to be found of maintaining communication with all those involved in individual projects that combine to form a larger one of institutional, strategic importance. The reciprocal understanding of the work undertaken by academics and development or knowledge transfer managers should not be taken for granted and needs to be constantly clarified. Thinking and discussion time needs to be properly resourced for those with an overview of project potential in order to enhance institutional learning. Project delivery The buy out model for community engagement work needs to be critically reviewed and guidance issued drawing on case studies of good practice More attention needs to be paid to working at institutional level with Heads of Departments and Deans: written contracts are not sufficient to ensure good stewardship of monies allocated in terms of community engagement work. There is a need to develop guidelines about best practice in the allocation of finances to Faculties or Departments for projects like this in the future.
4 The process of requiring time sheets as evidence of activity for different kinds of projects could usefully be reviewed. Mechanisms for sharing experiences across projects, and more widely, need to be found in order to enable organisational learning. Procedures for monitoring projects need to be clear from the outset and support given to staff who are new to project management. There should be clear procedures for gaining publicity from and about engagement projects at institutional level. Serious consideration should be given to including costs for community partners in pricing projects of knowledge exchange. Some useful work has been done in developing typologies of University-community partnerships and it would be valuable to continue with this. Useful work has been done to understand inter-HEI collaborations and it would be valuable if this were to be extended. The most difficult collaborations to sustain were those at the greatest distance. Useful work has been done to understand co-opetition and co-operation in the HEI-community engagement context and it would be valuable if this were to be extended. Continual reflection and review of internal and external relationships enhances the efficacy of HEI community engagement. Resources need to be allocated to the maintenance of cross-HEI strategic partnerships. Project impact It is unclear whether or not the 4-way HEI collaboration will continue in the areas of the community cohesion projects. However it is likely that some of the alliances formed will continue. Across the CC theme and MMU a wide range of engagement activities were supported. CC projects enhanced capacity building, human, cultural and social capital, wellbeing and empowerment, of people across the life span and from different communities, leading to an overall positive impact on quality of life. The projects were effective but some kinds of work were not possible due to the short time scales. HEI-community engagement requires long term working. Across the CC theme a rich matrix of different kinds of evaluation revealed strong impact and good use of resources. The projects have enriched understanding of the important social issues. the nature of community cohesion and of cohesive communities. Academics, citizens and regeneration professionals have gained in understanding and practice from their experiences of working with the projects. The CC and MMU projects have made an active contribution to understanding the links between community cohesion, urban regeneration and a good society.The projects greatly exceeded all planned outputs particularly those engaging people in communities, but it is too early to assess the long term benefits
5 The projects created substantial added value to community groups and organisations, HEIs and public institutions. Substantial academic outputs in the form of products, presentations and papers were produced, and will continue to be produced, which will have a continuing impact and consolidate MMU's reputation in the field. Substantial additional resources have been levered for continuing, broadening or extending project activities. The projects were able to demonstrate reciprocal knowledge exchange. Co-created cultures of inquiry emerged through the two-way engagement between communities and HEIs. Further development will be needed in MMU to ensure that front line staff and line managers promote the new engagement practices. Good practice in HEI-Community engagement The projects have achieved many of the internationally known critical success factors for HEI-community engagement. There is an explicit link between University- Community Engagement and Public Engagement, the latter embracing the former. The HEI-community engagement projects have addressed seven major policy and legislative arenas, with an emphasis on those that affect quality of life and community. Major domains of quality of HEI-community engagement activities have been identified in terms of project impact, organisational processes and institutional context. HEI-community engagement praxis has been extended and there are clear links with the potential of social enterprises for contributing to the social good. Conclusion Taken as a whole, the Community Cohesion and MMU URMAD projects have had an influence on local and regional policy and practice. Professionals, citizens and academics have been brought together in new collaborations that have promoted new ways of thinking and of doing. Interagency working and cross-boundary explorations of practice within the public and third sectors have been supported, and innovations in community engagement and community development have been introduced. Leadership has been the explicit focus of some of the projects: however, leadership has been addressed more broadly through the creation of new relationship spaces wherein cross boundary listening, exploration, development growth and exchange has taken place. Together, the university with its other university and community partners have co-created new understandings of policy working, and whilst there is potential for this to grow, more time will be needed to see just how much of an impact it makes. Beyond this, the work has generated accounts of new community practices and HEI-community engagement possibilities. These have been, and continue to be disseminated widely, thus extending the reach of the project. The projects have demonstrated a shift from knowledge exchange and engaged scholarship to co-created scholarship and practice - co-created praxis.
6
7 CONTENTS Glossary .........................................................................................................9 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................11 1.1. Community Cohesion Theme ..............................................................12 1.2. How was the Theme evaluated? ........................................................12 2. How did projects develop? .....................................................................15 2.1. Partnerships across HEIs ...................................................................16 2.2. Partnerships with community organisations .......................................21 2.3. Partnership across the CC Theme .....................................................23 2.4. Partnership between academics and development managers. ..........25 2.5. Summary: the development phase. ....................................................29 3. How were ideas put into practice? .........................................................30 3.1. Project formation and the delivery model ...........................................30 3.1.1. Learning from Practice .................................................................36 3.1.2. Management, Monitoring and Evaluation .....................................39 3.2. Costs for community partners .............................................................42 3.3. Community partnerships......................................................................43 3.3.1. Strategic partnership ....................................................................43 3.3.2. Local specific partnership ............................................................44 3.3.3. Regional partnership ....................................................................45 3.3.4. Network partnership .....................................................................46 3.3.5. University directed partnership ....................................................46 3.4. HEI collaborations ...............................................................................48 3.4.1. Parallel collaborations ..................................................................49 3.4.2. Extended collaboration ................................................................49 3.4.3. Collaborations for evaluation .......................................................50 3.4.4. Integrated collaboration ...............................................................50 3.4.5. Evolving collaborations ................................................................51 3.4.6. Collaboration across HEIs for community engagement ...............51 3.5. Intra-HEI alliances ...............................................................................55 3.6. CC Theme Leaders' group ..................................................................58 3.7. Summary of the collaborative partnerships achieved through the CC theme .........................................................................................................59
8 3.8. What did projects do? .........................................................................60 3.8.1. Capacity Building .........................................................................61 3.8.2. Human, cultural and social capital ...............................................62 3.8.3. Empowerment ..............................................................................64 3.8.4. Quality of life and wellbeing .........................................................64 3.8.5. Working at the EDGE ...................................................................66 4. What difference did the projects make? .............................................68 4.1. What types of evaluations were carried out? ......................................68 4.1.1. External evaluation .......................................................................69 4.1.2. Internal evaluation........................................................................69 4.1.3. Evaluation frameworks .................................................................69 4.2. Community cohesion and urban regeneration .....................................72 4.2.1 Mechanisms through which projects addressed community cohesion .................................................................................................74 4.3. Project achievements: outputs ............................................................79 4.4. Added value .......................................................................................81 4.5. Next steps ..........................................................................................87 4.6. Knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange and co-created scholarship...................................................................................................................88 4.7. Culture change in MMU ......................................................................93 5. Good practice in HEI-Community engagement ....................................96 5.1. CC and MMU projects as examples of good practice .........................96 5.2. Community engagement as a part of public engagement ..................99 5.3. Beyond Community Cohesion and Urban Regeneration ..................100 5.4. Ingredients of good quality HEI-Community Engagement ................102 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................108 7. References.............................................................................................110 Appendix 1: Academic products ..............................................................116 Appendix 2: Definitions of Project Outputs ............................................124
9 Glossary URMAD - Urban Regeneration: Making a Difference. The name of the four University collaborative community engagement project. CC - Community Cohesion HEI - Higher Education Institution, that is a University Theme leaders- a group of one person from each University charged with co-ordinating projects funded through Community Cohesion funds, and including the Community Cohesion Co-ordinator. Theme Lead- Academic from the university leading on a particular theme, responsible for co-ordinating and linking all the projects within a theme across all universities Strand Lead - within a university the academic responsible for co-ordinating projects within the themes led by other universities. Institutional management - group of academic theme and strand leaders, plus development managers for the lead institution Overall management- development managers and academic theme leads from all universities co-ordinating the project overallCommunity Cohesion and MMU projects.:Project code Project title Community cohesion CC01 Children's workforce CC02 Widening participation of targeted group CC03 Young People's Voice CC05 Extended Schools CC06 Understanding and influencing regeneration CC07 Record from the outside CC08 Oral History of Frenchwood CC09 Economic migration CC11 Sport and physical activity: capacity building CC12 Active and Positive Fatherhood CC13 Record from the outside (bolt on) CC14 Asperger's CC15 Engaging communities through the arts CC17 Community capacity building CC18 Making universities work for local communities E06 Community land trusts H10 Understanding health and wellbeing within the context of urban regeneration Project code Project title Health H01 Information and people with ME H05 Cycling in BME communities H08 Health inequalities H11 Exploring the role of partnerships H20 Health and wellbeing - bolt on H23 Older people, regeneration, health and wellbeing H02 Healthy prisons Crime CR02 Offenders into employment CR04 School transport CR08 Gender in youth offending CR 09 Crime expert panel CR16 DV arrest CR17 Crime prevention for SMEs Enterprise E01 Sustainable mentoring for micro businesses E02 Managing community facilities through social enterprises E05 Connectivity and best practice for social enterprises E15 Embedded innovation within SMEs E16 Building support for social enterprises
10
11 1. Introduction Urban Regeneration: Making a Difference(URMAD) is a project that was funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). It required collaboration across four universities (Manchester Metropolitan University, University of Central Lancashire, Salford University and University of Northumbria) on projects which addressed community needs in the areas of Community Cohesion, Crime, Health and Well-being, and Enterprise all in turn with a focus on urban regeneration. Each of these areas is an element in Government national and regional policy agendas. The business plan for the project (URMAD, 2006:1) identified two aims: 1.To address key urban regeneration challenges in the North of England through interdisciplinary collaboration between the partner universities and practitioner organisations, particularly in the public and voluntary sectors, and to enhance their collective impact on society. 2.To build a long term strategic alliance between core university partners while developing a distinctive form of knowledge transfer (KT), which is both teaching and research-driven, in order to meet the needs of organisations and professionals in business and the community. The plan (URMAD, 2006:3) outlined the three-fold need for the project, which was submitted to, and funded by the HEFCE Structural Development Fund to the tune of 3.16 million (SDF)1. These were: 1.The need to tackle the real, complex problems facing communities in the Northern region of England, where social, economic and physical infrastructure issues are closely inter-twined. 2.The need for change in management practices and the culture of academic staff in the universities to develop their engagement with business and the community through cross-institutional and inter-institutional collaboration to enable them to address those problems in society effectively. 3.A need to provide a demonstrator initiative designed to bring about transformational change by building the evidence base to make the case for a broader involvement by Higher Education (HE) in government agendas relating to the economy and society. Urban regeneration was the focus of the project as all the universities were from city regions, each facing multiple challenges in economic, social, physical and political factors. They were unified by an economic development bringing together the different regional development associations (Moving Forward: The Northern Way (2005) Business Plan 2005-08 from Northern RDAs). MMU, UCLAN, Northumbria and Salford universities worked together for two years and developed 46 projects in collaboration with each other and community organisations in relation to emergent and responsive interpretations of urban regeneration. MMU led on 16 projects across the four themes. Twelve of these were from the theme of CC; 2 from Health and Wellbeing; 1 from Crime; and 1 from Enterprise. MMU was also responsible for delivering the CC theme, consisting of the 12 projects led by MMU; one led by UNN; two led by UCLAN and two other projects part funded by Health and by Enterprise. Bradford University contributed 1SDF supports large-scale structural and strategic change in the Higher Education sector that HEIs could not achieve without additional HEFCE funding.
12 to some projects but not in CC. We will report primarily on the Community Cohesion theme, but also include some discussion of the enterprise, health and crime projects led by MMU staff. 1.1. Community Cohesion Theme 17 Community Cohesion projects reflecting perspectives of Community Psychology, Urban Education and Sport and Physical Activity were delivered, two of which were part funded by other themes. These projects demonstrate third stream research, capacity building, service development, training, and consultancy. They have also enabled skills development, empowerment through voice, insight, the exercise of control and links and networking, all key components of urban regeneration (Kagan, 2007a). The rationale for the Community Cohesion theme was given in the delivery plan (URMAD, 2006:8). Progress on increasing life chances for all is a fundamental element of building strong cohesive communities and a dynamic society and economy. Conversely where tensions have developed between different ethnic groups, such as in some Northern towns in the summer of 2001 …(where significant disturbances took place)… ,deprivation and lack of opportunity have been significant contributory factors. Public services play a vital part in creating opportunities. Collaborative work between HE and civic and community based partners will focus on addressing the cross-government (targets) aimed at reducing race inequality and building community cohesion (Home Office, 2005). Partnership working between the HE sector and their public and voluntary sector partners will encourage a sense of identity and belonging through participation in education, work and social activities, and through mutual understanding of cultural difference. 1.2. How was the Theme evaluated? The theme and institutional evaluation sought information to: (i) assess the achievement of the theme (were objectives met?) (ii) gain understanding of how MMU has worked in partnership with other HEI and community partners on community engagement issues and implications for the future (what works and why?) (iii) refine understanding of community cohesion and urban regeneration as well as of collaboration and partnership processes (how is community cohesion, urban regeneration and collaborative working now best understood?)
13 (iv) identify models of community engagement and pathways for evaluation of different types of activity in the future (what is the impact of different ways of working on HE-community engagement? (v) assess the impact of the academic engagement on the work of the community groups (what has changed?) In terms of both the Community Cohesion theme and MMU projects, a 'theory of change' statement (see Murray and Stewart, 2006) was prepared which outlined the mechanisms by which the theme outcomes and outputs were to be achieved. The evaluation essentially tested this theory of change. Initial change statement: Through the development of an ‘ecological edge’ via collaboration, staff from the four universities will gain from working effectively together with community groups on issues of need identified by those groups, and will enable exchange of knowledge and expertise to strengthen the work of both the community groups and the universities, as well as building understanding of the role of community cohesion, health and wellbeing, crime and enterprise in urban regeneration and thus lead to further collaborative developments. A qualitative, action research approach to the evaluation enabled the perspectives of different stakeholders involved to be explored. Regular feedback was given to both CC theme leaders and MMU cross-theme institutional management meetings, as the project progressed. There were different data collection methods and 'learning from practice events' were set up to encourage a participatory and team approach. The aim of this process was to develop a shared understanding, through information gathering and reflection, about the overall achievements and processes of project implementation. As Section 3.1.1 indicates, the learning from practice events across the project were only partially successful: however the learning through Theme and Institutional meetings was extensive. The main evaluation data collection tools included: Feedback from Learning from Practice events and regular feedback from project staff Semi-structured interviews with project staff (including theme and strand leads, project leaders, other project workers, development managers and some community and policy partners) during project and dissemination events Field Diaries recording details of the development and implementation of the processes involved when working in partnership Minutes of formal and informal meetings Questionnaires and email interviews Observations, video and audio recordings and photographs of project activities and dissemination events The Project Co-ordinator and Theme academic lead were responsible for collecting and organising data. The project protocol was submitted and approved by MMU's Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care Ethics Committee.
14
15 2. How did projects develop? The development phase of the project lasted from February to December 2006. This phase focused on awareness raising about the project in the HEIs; activities that brought together academics and community partners from different HEIs and development managers from MMU; and the commissioning of projects. The emphasis was on face to face discussion and crystallisation of ideas. Facilitation is crucial. It was very open … methodology - people were allowed to have a voice…a lot of dissident voices… [I] thought that we were never going to get this to work. A forum to get issues off their chest. Voices spoke up and this was very challenging for the people running the project because of the nature of academic freedom. There weren’t huge amounts of money and we had to convince them it was worth it. I like the fact that we have run it differently [from other themes and other HEIs]. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) During this phase, academic staff got to know about the interests of others in different HEIs and community partners. Ideas were generated and shared, project proposals were discussed and refined, decisions were made about which projects should be recommended, and contracts and memoranda of understanding were issued for each approved project. In addition, working relationships and effective practices across the CC theme and across all themes within MMU were established. Duggan and Kagan (2007) discuss the role that the development phase made in developing communities of practice and maximising resources within the CC theme. The stages in the development process are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Community Cohesion development process Date Activity Purpose 28.2.06 Inaugural project meeting across HEI partnership Clarification of principles of project and identification of possible models for organisation and funding across HEIs 4.5.06 - 7.7.06 5 CC development events bringing together development managers, academics and community -partners Sharing across interest groups understanding of urban regeneration, CC and potential projects. Partnership development, project development and clarification of selection criteria. 17.7.06 MMU institutional management clarification of strand leader roles and different roles and responsibilities across the project August - December 2006 (i) CC leads from HEIs meetings (ii) MMU institutional management meetings Project selection and refinement; teambuilding Project selection and refinement. Overall management procedures developed. Team building. December 2006-January 2007 Contracts and service level agreements organised Clarity with Heads of Department about activities of staff and funding model December 2006 CC and MMU Learning from Practice schedule agreed Timetable for learning from project delivery at theme level and institutional level
16 2.1. Partnerships across HEIs The overall project required the HEIs to work together on projects that were driven by community needs or demands. There is a tension in this way of working from the outset as community needs may not be best met by more than one HEI, or complementary skills may not have been found across HEIs within the timescale. Indeed those interested in the CC theme initially identified 72 project ideas; after theme and sub-theme development days, where projects were discussed in face to face groups in relation to CC criteria and anticipated outputs, 37 projects were still under consideration, and 17 of these eventually came to fruition. Not all project ideas became proposals; those that did were discussed by the CC Theme leads and matched against project criteria and potential to achieve the range of outputs across the Theme (see Section 3.1). Academics seized the development opportunities presented to them and report advantages to working collaboratively notwithstanding the 'forced nature' of the links.2I think some of the benefits are working with different people who’ve got different ideas in different institutions and you are not working with the same old people who are limited by the institutional rigours. Just meeting new people with different ideas is fantastic but I think it was a forced marriage. (Project Co-ordinator, Interview with CC Strand Lead) There was pressure across the project to make email contact with different HEIs following circulation of brief statements of interest and expertise from a limited number of staff. The CC theme had five face to face development sessions, supplemented by email contacts and links made via the CC strand leads in the HEIs. Yes it was a forced marriage, particularly around the bidding process as well and the deadlines around the bidding process. ‘I’ve got an interesting idea and quickly let’s email somebody to see if they’ve got an idea. Now that is what happened with Salford and UCLAN but actually with MMU, because of the development days, we already had them in place so it didn’t necessarily happen to the same degree with MMU. ….at least we did a bit of courting so we knew! (CC Strand Leader, Interview) It has been a real opportunity a) to get some money in b) to do some interesting pieces of research and work with different people and it’s great, that has been a great opportunity and you don’t get that all the time but I think this kind of forced marriage had to be. I can understand why it had to be. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Part of the rapid learning in the development of HEI partnerships was how to navigate different HEI policies and practices. 2Throughout this report references to sources of information vary. At times projects or people are named. This is when we are confident that third party anonymity is not compromised; staff would not be at risk of retribution within their Departments; and the reports have been shared across relevant partnerships and alliances. However, the procedures did not require that all project reports submitted were seen and approved by all involved. In these cases we have referred to 'CC project', without being specific, and have removed personal, institutional and project identifiers.
17 Well, I think it has been difficult with the different institutional structures and having to work within them and also the internal structures and how they don’t all marry up and the commitment of some to the project and others maybe not as such. Level of investment affects the quality of the partnership. (Project Co-ordinator, Strand Leader Interview) From the vantage point of part way through the project, the development phase was seen as an exciting time in which staff from the different HEIs were open and enthusiastic. There was some sense that as time went on internal pressures closed down some of the openness. …at that time (development phase) people were very open and free with ideas and free to share them and subsequently people have become very parochial now, whether that is pressure from their own institution. So people were more trusting at the beginning. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) As the different rounds of the development phase proceeded, inter HEI relationships began to show some strain, in part because some projects needed more time to develop a convincing proposal. However, as time went on, more people became interested in participating in the project and project submissions in all rounds to the CC theme were strong. I also think that in those subsequent phases we got a breakdown in some relations by the second phase because in the first phase…it hadn’t worked…there had been some projects that got knocked back. There was a spirit of ‘come on, let’s go in together’ was declining. But I also think that within the institutions, certainly from our institution, you got a bit of competition in that people were coming in and saying, ‘I’ve won this money’ and it was ‘oh we haven’t been told about that’. (CC Strand Leader, Interview)The first CC development day included community partners as well as interested academics from the different HEIs and development managers from MMU. It was designed to explore different perspectives on urban regeneration, community cohesion and university-community collaborations. It was a fruitful meeting. [it was valuable] to look at the kind of differences between the aims of the community partners and the aims of the researchers and find some commonalties, especially in what we can do for them and what they can do for us. I found that very helpful as they had less focus on the community cohesion agenda than we did and some ideas about university collaborations that perhaps I should have known about but I hadn't thought of. (CC Strand leader evaluation of first CC development day) The other four CC development days were held in Manchester and staff from UCLAN, Salford and UNN had to travel. (The first event was in Leeds and all had to travel.) It was particularly difficult to get people from community groups from outside Manchester to participate in this process.
18 …..No we couldn’t get them to come. I think because they were either down in Leeds or in Manchester. Even though we said that there was money available for travel. They weren’t sure if they had to buy the tickets and claim it back and they didn’t have that kind of resources and they weren’t as involved with the project early on as perhaps MMU’s partners were so we talked to them about there is a pot of money and we’ll becoming to see you about this and there are some events if you would like to come down but it was only after once projects were fully worked up that they became involved. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) The projects needed a bit of time built into the project milestones to allow the formation of these relationships (CC project closure report). This view was echoed by another CC project leader, who suggested that working with community organisations needs a longer process than that available on the URMAD project. There needs to be a much longer lead in time of about 12 months with a longer reflection and evaluation time at the end of the project... [in future] a long thin project instead of a short fat project [would be better]. Working with community organisations takes time and is usually a protracted process of many meetings spread over a large time (CC project closure report). The process of successive development days, rather than a single event was vindicated, as in many cases ideas changed and evolved. The [first] meeting made us see we had lost our focus and should concentrate on [particular] projects. (Urban Education academic feedback).The extent to which genuinely new ideas emerged through the development process varied.Ideas were shifting and coalescing differently throughout the day . The larger the group the more vibrancy and innovation - although there was still a tendency for people to dominate and contribute as 'this is how things are' or 'what we do is' - are they open to learning and doing things differently? (CC Academic lead field diary, May 2006) CC Project ideas crystallised through discussions and dialogue, facilitated by the face to face development days The speed with which projects had to be developed and the requirements for collaboration led some project teams across the project to work with those they already knew (see Table 2). …even after the first round, you saw the bids coming in from people that had already established relationships and they weren’t prepared to go beyond that round or they had a very negative view of that first and withdrew and it was much more open in that development phase and I think the approach that Community Cohesion took in having the development days did a great deal to support that. (Project Co-ordinator, Strand Leader Interview) Of the CC projects, most incorporated new links with people from other HEIs as a result of the development process (See table 2.1). Some new links were made with staff
19 internally. Although not everyone developed partnerships through the development days: they were, nevertheless, useful. I didn’t meet any of my partners at the development events or get any of the core project ideas from there. It was more of a greater understanding of the themes and what the project was about and to see what other people were doing and to gain an understanding about the bidding process. (CC Project Lead, Interview) Table 2: Community Cohesion Projects: Types of links made with other HEIs and Community partners.(For project titles see Glossary, p. 7)Connections Built on existing links Links developed through the project Links with other HEIs CC06; CC07; H23 CC01; CC02; CC03; CC05; CC08;CC09;CC11; CC12; CC13; CC15; CC17; E06; H10 Internal HEI links CC01; CC02; CC03; CC05; CC08; CC12; CC18 CC06; H23 Community contacts and links CC01; CC02; CC05; CC06; CC08; CC12; CC15; CC17; E06; H10; H23 CC07; CC09;CC11; CC13; As Table 2 shows, the majority of the links with community partners, and intra-university involvement, were built on existing external relationships, usually from the lead HEI. HEI links developed through the project. [the] project leader came up with the idea and she had contacts before that and had an interest and expertise in the area but we weren’t at the development days. We tried to get someone involved from [another HEI] but he was already involved in other URMAD projects so couldn’t be involved. We made a contact with Health theme lead who recommended someone to partner with us to do the evaluation…. We got a contact list from the development days, which was useful because of the people who wanted to be involved and their relevant areas of expertise. (Interview, CC project worker) There was uncertainty about working with new academic partners. It was quite difficult because we had never met and we didn’t know what each other was going to be like when working as a team. Other project staff, I wasn’t concerned about as we could tackle that through project meetings but I was concerned with the evaluators. What was their approach? How is it going to go? (Interview, CC project worker) This is not surprising, especially when the project development time was restricted and no resources were available within the project to pay for staff time. The projects needed a bit of time built into the project milestones to allow the formation of these relationships (CC project closure report).
20 One area of strain during the project development was in relation to intellectual property (IP). Academics were required to work with others from different institutions and, for some, there was a degree of nervousness about sharing ideas between those who had only just met each other. Some of the early concerns were about adopting methodologies or about the issues to be addressed. When academic partners worked together with community organisations to develop projects, the issue did not arise to the same extent. It was most acute when one set of academics worked up a project and colleagues from other institutions then joined the project. people in projects raised this [IP] very early on--partnership papers and products-who does it belong to…which university? Who had rights to its usage and in some cases I think it hasn’t been resolved, even now . It is latent and that has hung underneath the project. Now we comb through at the end…the academics will have formed a partnership but will have broken off towards the end for their own personal gain…gone off and done their own thing. Maybe there are some joint papers and products. It was a challenge for us and we kind of sidestepped it. Some academics pushed this issue but I don’t think they got real satisfaction with their answers and this is a new issue for us and we don’t really have good processes in place. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) Section 3.4 discusses different kinds of HEI collaborations that emerged, and it is clear that some sustained looser connections than others, making IP issues more acute. It is encouraging to note that many of the papers written about the project are collaborative (see Appendix 1). Even some collaborations wherein staff worked closely on the project, have gone their separate ways in follow on activity, separately exploiting the original collaborative work. It was disappointing to find that when separate project reports were written about a collaborative project, the project partners (and sometimes originators) were not even acknowledged. IP issues arose at wider project level too. For example, one of the projects to which MMU contributed substantially was a partnership wide project examining Impact of HEI Community Engagement. The issue of shared IP was raised from the outset and joint authorship of material was agreed. Once the external evaluators got involved in facilitating some of the thinking about Impact, and publishing reports of this work under their own imprint, concerns about IP emerged again. A different kind of issue arose in some of the press coverage of different parts of the project wherein things that had been written during the course of the project were taken out of context and wrongly attributed in articles. HEI-community and inter-HEI partnerships raises issues of IP and mechanisms must be found for addressing this as the partnerships form. There were no mechanisms for external organisations to know about and get involved with the project unless those interested staff from the HEIs told them about it. The CC theme relied on academics' own links with their community partners: for the CC theme, none of the HEIs had central mechanisms for inviting interest from the field. It is not surprising, therefore, that most community partnerships were built on pre-existing contacts.
21 The short time scale meant that many community partnerships were built on pre-existing relationships. The inter-HEI collaborations were nearly all new, supported by the development processes. Resources need to be found for developingalliances within HEI - community partnerships for collaboration across the different HEIs to enable trusting relationships to form which break down preconceptions of expertise. University - community engagement work is built on long term, trusting relationships between academics and the field, and within the URMAD project, this area of development was not fully resourced. Nevertheless, the fact that projects built on long term pre-existing relationships reflects good practice, particularly as many projects have identified further collaborative working with their community partners (see section 4.5). Savan (2004: 382/3), talking of the Canadian experience of community based research partnerships, highlights the necessity and challenges of long term collaborative engagement, requiring commitment from both university and community sides ( as opposed to shorter term contractual, project based or consultative engagement). She says: Both short- and medium-term community-based research projects are enhanced by ongoing university-community partnerships. These long-term collaborations foster the trust and shared values critical to successful work involving partners based in widely differing institutional settings. Partnerships enduring over many a period of many years provide a stable context for both short consultative and medium-term contractual community-based research projects. The long-term collaborative partnerships permit a secure base for the exploration of mutually important and interesting research trails…..but as the longevity, stability and beneficial outcomes of partnerships grow, so too do the institutional supports required to foster them…Generally the longer the project, the more tightly linked the partners and the more involved both (for all) partners are in all stages of the research process. 2.2. Partnerships with community organisations Whilst involvement of community groups in project development was difficult, efforts were made within the CC theme to incorporate a community perspective from the start. Staff working in the community engagement field know of some of the suspicion of universities held by groups in the field. Universities are seen as these places that people just don’t get involved with, you know, ‘not for the likes of us’ so when we have worked with them before, it has been on a research basis and when we have been involved with the local community in terms of employing them to do research with us. What we were doing then is saying that we have got this money and there are certain objectives. So with the subsequent groups we are not the university doing this we are people that work with the community and we have got some money from a
22 separate organisation. What we were doing then was saying that we have got this money. We are not the university.(CC Strand Leader, Interview)It is about breaking down those barriers. 'Come in and use this equipment and it is not the ivory tower that you are never going to have a chance to got to. It is a great opportunity for you to see what it is like in higher education' (CC Project Leader, Interview). Just as the requirement to involve different HEIs put constraints on the project development, so did the pre-set criteria and outputs. From the outset staff within MMU had been uncomfortable with the 'fit' of outputs with the types of work they wanted to do with community groups. This meant that some projects ideas mooted during the development days did not proceed and staff did not submit proposals. For example, some thought the language of some outputs did not reflect collaborative working. Some of these outputs…'organisations assisted' for example, smacks of Universities going out to help. This is the business model of knowledge transfer. Businesses have a problem for which they seek the help of the university. But with communities we are more sharing, jointly identifying problems and jointly trying to find some answers. We are not going to 'help'. (CC potential project worker, Development day feedback). Others worked with the criteria whilst recognising the tensions and benefits of working within guidelines. (Project criteria) were necessary to tick HEFCEs box and I suppose if that was the only way we could get the funding we were going to have to live with it. They did provide some kind of structure. [CC theme leads] had gone to all this effort about the development meetings to think outside the box and yet there were certain guidelines and certain criteria that naturally narrowed them a bit. I think they added structure and it needed structure and I think any guidelines do naturally constrain certain things but not in an over complicated way I don’t think. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Others took a different tack, developing project ideas and then assessing the outputs that would be met. If I am honest, (outputs) were the last part of the project. It was a case of developing an idea and seeing which outputs would be appropriate. So we could do a bit of this, we could do a bit of that and we could do a bit of the other. (CC Project worker, Interview) Pre-set outcomes do not always sit easily with collaborative project development with community partners. Nevertheless, community partners made active contributions to project proposals.
23 2.3. Partnership across the CC Theme Theme leads in CC quickly began to meet and develop ground rules for their working relationships. (Working with staff from other HEIs) It has been generally quite easy. I have enjoyed it. It has been one of the things I have enjoyed meeting other people and getting their perspectives on things and developing different ideas because of he developmental phase because as the community cohesion theme leader I have worked with [CC academic lead and project co-ordinator] quite closely. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Being part of the CC Theme leaders' group was also fun. It seemed to work well. There are different personalities but I think it seemed to worked well. I’ve enjoyed working with the thematic group. (CC Strand Leader, 1 Group Discussion)The project selection procedures that were established meant that contributions were valued and seen to be fair. Inevitably when there are restricted resources there is a danger of gaming in decision making. In the case of CC, it was thought that partiality had been minimised. I thought it went very well, I was worried that there would be a bit of protectionism but I don’t think that happened. I think we were quite critical of our own institutions. I think we were very rigorous and fair. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) I do think that we worked hard to try and give a fair representation we weren’t protective of our own institutions. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) During the project selection it was not only theme interests that prevailed. Pressures were also brought to bear from the different HEIs each of which had different internal priorities. This may have been in terms of who was invited to be a part of the project. ….we got the same people putting in bids. The Dean was quite clear that [he/she] wanted people who would deliver. [He/she] didn’t want people who had a daft idea and would moan about the workload saying, ‘oh I’ve got teaching’ …. So it was very much the people [he/she] wanted to work on it. So there was a bit of frustration within the institution after then. But I think the way we worked when we were doing the bidding was good. I think that worked quite well. (CC Strand Leader, Interview)Financial considerations also influenced the decision making process. The pressures that were brought to bear on decision making during the bidding process was trying to piggyback. We had pressures internally but we had these internal pressures. We had a target that we had to get…. I think that different
24 institutions had differentrules and regulations and that has been very difficult to manage as a strand lead. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Whilst it was possible to manage the tensions brought to bear by internal pressures, they almost certainly influenced the final portfolio of projects. The model of financing across HEIs within themes also influenced the selection of projects. The model was that each HEI had funds to allocate to CC with the theme lead HEI having considerably more than the others. Understandably then, each HEI determined who in their institution should be working on the projects and this worked differently in the different HEIs. Ultimate project selection had to balance these requirements with coherence within the CC theme. An alternative model would have been for the lead HEI per theme to have held all the funds for the theme and commission work from the other HEIs. The regular CC Theme and strand leaders' meetings were a positive feature of the management of the Theme. A nice little group. And it is interesting to see how different institutions work. We have all been quite frank. I’ve enjoyed it. (CC Strand Leader 1, Group Discussion) Having experience of another theme, it is nowhere near as dynamic [as CC]. (CC Strand Leader 2, Group Discussion) Because we have these regular meetings and I am aware of the issues and it is something that happens all the time. I am aware of what’s happening. (CC Strand Leader 1, Group Discussion) The good working relationship built up amongst the CC theme and strand leads meant that problem solving was usually effective. We try to be responsive so if there is some slippage in those monthly meetings that we have, if someone raises an issue we do try to action it there was a case in a project that we have been talking about and there was a delay there and I spoke to you about it to say that there is a issue here, what do we do? Email him and if we don’t get a response...and we got a response.(CC Strand Leader 2, Group Discussion) The effectiveness of problem solving in CC was contrasted favourably with experience of other themes, largely because of the good working relationships between the CC leads. The group is useful to help solve problems before they escalate. And that’s where building relationships over a long period has helped and that more informal. I know I can ring you up, speak to [project co-ordinator].. We can have a laugh….. I think we are fortunate to have that …contemporaries in the other themes. They either cause problems by going down a particular path or they get problems thrown at them and I don’t think we suffer from that.(CC Strand Leader, Interview) The theme leaders' group also served as a source of support.
25 Working with [CC academic lead and project co-ordinator], I suppose, not just through the development phase but throughout has been a great source of support. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Different HEIs had different mechanisms for releasing staff time to engage in theme and strand leads. In the CC theme goodwill extended not only to working internally to each HEI, but also to theme meetings which were constructive and facilitative. Good working relationships were built amongst the CC Theme leads from different HEIs The operation of the theme was affected by links with the overall management committee of which both the CC Theme lead and MMU development lead were members. From the outset, though, a difference between development or knowledge exchange managers (known to academics as the 'gang of four', that is one for each HEI, the people responsible for steering the bid successfully for funding) and academics in decision making was felt. I thought it was quite clear that the steer from the gang of four was not there. That’s where the institutional competition was. There was supposed to be buy-in from above that, from pro-vice chancellor level and I think that clearly there was nothing really there. There didn’t seem to be anything from those higher levels….. there was a lot of in-fighting and it was not very clear, well ‘our institution does this’ and ‘well you said you were going to do that’. I think that they all got on alright but there was no steer. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) I think it does negatively impact on decision-making because they send messages and each institution goes back We all get different messages. There was the timesheet issue...funding up front and funding half way through so we all get very different messages.…little in terms of decision-making. Nothing concrete comes out of them. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Within MMU efforts were made to keep channels of communication open with overall project management group members feeding back items of discussion through institutional management meetings. A regular newsletter to all project staff might, with hindsight have been useful - certainly some mechanism by which all those involved in the projects could continue to see their activities as part of a wider institutional project is needed. Better ways need to be found of maintaining communication with all those involved in individual projects that combine to form a larger one of institutional, strategic importance. 2.4. Partnership between academics and development managers. Whilst all development managers in the HEIs were responsible for their institution's activities, as MMU was the lead HEI for CC the role of the development managers from MMU was crucial. The overall project had originated with corporate development,
26 knowledge transfer or business managers from the HEIs. They had worked together on the proposal, shepherding it to success. Thus they had intimate knowledge of its design and purpose from the outset. This presented a challenge to academics [we had an] Inward gaze-at the beginning we [management team] were a cohesive team, We met regularly we went to lots of events that pulled us together with start up discussions and problem solving…as we launched and went off…we breathed a sigh of relief and we went off into our different areas and each did their own things. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) [The] bid writers have already team built with a good understanding between each other of where the project is going. Academics less so. This'll take some catching up. (CC Academic Theme Leader, reflective diary, February, 2006). During the initial stages of development, within MMU, it was clear there were different expectations of each other held by those academics initiating project developments and development managers. Some of these differences came to light after the first development event, and were discussed soon after the event. [following discussion with development manager] I acknowledged that the development managers had not been seen as equal partners [alongside academics and community partners]. If they had been, they would have had their own stakeholder group as part of the process. .. I apologised to the [development staff] for referring to them as administrators and making too many assumptions regarding their assistance in the event. I urged them to say if [I] asked them to do something beyond their remit. … there is a need to identify admin' support. The lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities needs sorting out. (CC Academic Theme Leader, field diary, May 2006) The development days, though, helped all involved gain understandings of the different agendas. [The CC development days] helped us as a team, who do the support and financial systems part of the project, understand the context- it felt risky and out there at the time. Without these days we couldn’t build our partnership. There were lots of questions and concerns and they were expressed in partnership. Everyone felt the same and we could explore and question and worry together…it was brave and did work. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) MMU was responsible for managing the projects on which its staff worked and for the overall CC theme. Initially three senior academics were identified as leading the sub-themes for CC, namely Community Psychology, Urban Education (UE) and Sport and Physical Activity (SPA). It soon became apparent that two (UE and SPA) intended not to be involved in academic leadership of the project. After the inaugural meeting in February, the task and time required to lead a theme had become clear: I'm now wondering how on earth I'm going to find the time for this. I guess it partly depends on what we end up doing and who else takes a lead. (CC Academic Theme Lead CC, field diary) As the development of the theme progressed, understanding of the complexity of the project deepened and the possibility of appointing a project co-ordinator arose. By the
27 end of August 2006 a project co-ordinator was appointed. By this time the infrastructure of the project still had not been agreed at overall project management level. Through creative decision making the project co-ordinator was appointed, technically placed within the Corporate Development Office of the University and managed on a day to day basis within the Research Institute for Health and Social Change, which contributed some funding towards the post. As the theme developed and the management and co-ordination requirements of the project became clearer, a number of issues emerged that needed to be resolved (see Table 3). Table 3: Emergent issues of management and co-ordination in the Development Phase of CC Emergent issue Resolution and consequences Lack of understanding by academics about the role of development managers and lack of understanding by development managers about how time is managed in Departments Early identification of the issues and agreement to discuss on a regular basis. Resources found from RIHSC to support development days. These discussions did not extend to people working on projects and some problems of mutual understanding remained Danger of overlapping roles within the project or of gaps in monitoring and management as everyone thinks others are responsible Roles and responsibilities discussed within MMU management group and a working paper agreed outlining working arrangements. Over the course of the project roles and responsibilities had to be revisited - some tasks remained incomplete (for example media and communications remained relatively under-developed). Buy out model for some Departments would not fit the timescales of the project due to the timing of workload management decisions This restricted the involvement in one sub-theme to those who did not carry conventional timetables. Buy out model not supported by all Heads Some staff did not get involved in the project. Some Heads did not oppose the buy out model but also did not manage the staff release well, leading to staff undertaking project work on top of other duties. Financial mechanisms were established quickly and creatively as overall project infrastructure was slow in getting established. Internal decision making about financial transfers as the project developed were thwarted by changes in decisions at overall management level. The financial support for the project co-ordinator did not get finally settled until December 2008. Payment transfers to departments were delayed, accompanied by elements of uncertainty Throughout the lifetime of the project, both academics and development managers endeavoured to resolve differences and conflicts as they arose. we have been very good on our internal decision-making. That hasn’t been a problem for us....we have had our little fracases haven’t we in the way the co-ordination side has met with the academic side in our journey. We have had difficulties which has been a translation of both what each side needed and wanted and there have been some little skirmishes that we have had but I think that they are well resolved. I think people have grown out of them, moved on … It does require a huge amount of maturity and self-confidence in these projects and I think that everyone involved has grown because of those challenges of working across cultures and absorbing some of the tensions of working with different
28 people. It has been a good learning curve. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) The crossing of boundaries and learning that derived from it was apparent in the links between academics and development managers. Warmington et al. (2004) discuss the role of conflict in inter-agency learning. conflict and contradiction are the engines of learning in practice. As such, consensus is not idealised and ‘common’ professional values are not prerequisites for effective collaboration (‘Collaboration is not about getting on with people; it’s about arguing’ Bleakley, 2004).The balance between conflict and consensus also had to be addressed with the inter-HEI collaborations and the university-community collaborations. There was little mention, however, in the data collected for the theme and institutional evaluation of the learning that followed. Academics and development managers in MMU worked closely to initiate the bidding process across the whole project, reflecting a co-ordinated approach and a culture that was not necessarily shared by other HEIs. …we jumped out of the stocks more quickly than the other universities because we had a very clear idea in our mind how we wanted it to work …there was a sense of disappointment when others from the different universities came to work with us and saw our process, they didn’t actually take it back and operate it in the same way. It would have been very much easier if they had but that will now end up being the richness of what we learn from it..we did it in this way and others did it in another way. I’m not quite sure what that is about..it is about the culture of their universities..it is about how that project was managed in their universities..it is about what part of the university was managing it so all those different things altar the way something happens. I would say this wouldn’t I but I think we had a nice link between an academic lead and a co-ordination lead within the university that made us do things in the way we did. I think we had a good dialogue and a good agreement about how things would go so we were able to jump off quickly. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) Regular institutional management meetings, involving development managers, academic theme and strand leaders from across the project were held. These were a mixture of procedural clarification, progress monitoring and creative discussion about issues emerging from the project. I’ve looked forward to them and they are an enjoyable experience and we do a lot of business, we have huge agendas and they go on for a very long time. I think it is because we have got so many projects and our work is cut out. And I reckon we have got more work than any other institution because we have more projects than any other institution so there is an awful lot to go through...we are a happy group and almost a friendship group to some extent a work friendship group (MMU Development Manager, Interview)
29 These meetings, although time-consuming and sometimes frustrating, at other times creative and uplifting, were crucial to the efficacy of MMU's delivery of its individual projects and became an important site for institutional learning. The institutional management meetings are most useful when we do not just go through each projects' progress - especially as we often don’t know how they are getting on. It is when we try out ideas, do a bit of brainstorming and visioning - about what could happen and where this work could lead. I think we have made an important contribution to thinking about this whole area of HEI-community engagement and the time out at institutional meetings has really helped with this. Its been a privilege to have the time - not that it has been well enough resourced! (CC Academic Theme Leader, Field Diary, February 2008) Despite the positive role that these management meetings played, roles and responsibilities across the CC theme and within MMU needed to be kept under constant review. The reciprocal understanding of the work undertaken by academics and development or knowledge transfer managers should not be taken for granted and needs to be constantly clarified. Thinking and discussion time needs to be properly resourced for those with an overview of project potential in order to enhance institutional learning. 2.5. Summary: the development phase. The different parts of the development phase moved from broad discussion of issues to individual project selection. The phase included: Mapping the challenges and possibilities Identifying interests Exploring ideas Refining ideas through evaluation and feedback Project bidding Project selection Figure 1 shows these stages and the activities that supported them. The development phases overlapped with the implementation phase, as project approval was both about development (as above) and implementation. Figure 1: CC The stages, focus and process of Theme Development Exploration of: Challenges of regeneration Barriers and possibilities of HEI-Community collaboration Project potentialNetwork development, inter-HEI discussion, HEI-community discussion, and further project clarity Broad concept and organisational possibilities Consideration of finances and alignment of values Process of development: from broad ideas to specific proposals Focus of development Stages of development
30 3. How were ideas put into practice? 3.1. Project formation and the delivery model After initial project ideas were developed, proposals for resources had to be made. MMU was responsible for co-ordinating the project selection process for CC. Individual project teams put proposals to Theme Leaders, who then made recommendations to the Institutional management team, who in turn made recommendations to the overall project management committee. At any of these stages, projects proposals could be referred for further work. The initial internal briefing for the Urban Regeneration project in MMU was an open process, with a wide group of invitees. At this meeting some disquiet was expressed by some academics about the emphasis within the different themes.
31 I had the crime people saying: ‘This is ridiculous, this isn’t what we’re interested in doing. This doesn’t bear any relation to what we do in relation to crime.’ The urban education people saying: ‘This is nothing to do with urban education here [at MMU], what’s this about?’ And I’m having to field [their comments] saying: ‘Yes, this is our starting point. you weren’t involved [in the bid to HEFCE] but let’s look at it positively, we’re having to write these bids; … somebody else has written this bid [to HEFCE]; they’re giving us some projects, so let’s look at it and ask ‘Can we get something positive out of this? ( CC Theme Lead, CC leaders' meeting, March 2006). As a result, some of those at the initial meeting did not pursue projects; others did, ending up with viable and effective projects, led by MMU across all themes. The open process resulted in a large number of project bids and there was some concern that this limited opportunities for joint working and led to too many projects in the overall portfolio. We got in a huge amount of diverse proposals-we had too many projects and we perhaps should have encouraged more people to work together...fewer and bigger themes-interestingly … the internal partnership [produced] a completely different methodology and we now have lots of diverse projects. … Overall the project with hindsight [may] have benefited from not having a large number of small projects. But having a few larger projects that you could really get meat on. I think that there has been 46 projects overall. Too many. Too many small projects. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) Other HEIs were more targeted about who was involved from the outset. Right from the beginning when our institution met {the Urban Regeneration project co-ordinator] got together particular Deans and then they worked out who would be involved, who would be the people who would deliver … and then basically they just went down and said 'you're coming to a meeting'. We all went to a meeting - finish. Just those people who had been involved … from only three schools. (CC Strand Leader, CC Theme meeting, March 2007) CC and MMU drove the development process, initiating project development meetings over a month before other themes and identifying the need for project proposal guidelines and selection criteria. One of the other HEI development managers acknowledged this at an early overall management meeting: People want to get started. We've raised expectations by starting early… proposal form is useful - we must allocate all universities to all themes; proposals must be demand led; and project activity must be multi-disciplinary and involve two universities working together [though] the ideal is all four working together. (Development Manager, Overall project management meeting 15.6.06.) From the first overall project meeting in February 2006, the tension between breadth and depth of projects was identified. The CC theme academic and development leads from across the HEIs agreed to use a bottom up, inclusive approach (in line with principles of effective working with communities) and that no restrictions on number of bids would be placed. Decisions would be made based on proposals submitted. The model of the project was a 'buy out' model where existing staff were to be bought out of current duties to work on the URMAD project. A small proportion of the budget was to be used for other costs, including the buying in of staff. As the contracting period was effectively September-December 2006, this did not fit those Departments
32 whose workload planning took place in April. Staff would be unable to be released from current duties until the following year. One senior manager did not support a project proposal put forward by his staff because of the 'buy out' process. I will support the bid but not the allocation of staffing as currently proposed. We are in the process of bringing about a significant change in the way colleagues think about their time, workload, and University priorities. In particular, the practice of buying oneself out to undertake research and academic enterprise project work will not be supported. The role of academic lecturing staff is to provide the conceptual framework, rationale and management capacity for such projects, it is not to undertake them acting in effect as a research assistant or project agents. The bulk of the work should instead be undertaken by other colleagues who either have spare capacity, can increase their FTE incrementally, or can be bought in on an associate lecturer/research assistant basis. (Memo to staff developing bid from senior manager.) The specific project referred to did not go forward and the staff concerned did not participate in the overall project. One of the objectives of the overall project had been to increase the number of staff involved in community engagement work and this was made more difficult when line managers did not support the agenda or the delivery model. Although some staff found the process of bidding for funds frustrating, largely because of lack of initial guidance initially, the project was successful in enabling staff new to community engagement to work on writing proposals. I think there were also issues around drawing up the bid....I’ve not been involved in working up bids before. Even though I was told it was a simple process, it was difficult me to work out costings and finance. It has been a really good learning experience and I have since put in other bids. It has simplified that for me. Now I have that experience, I can see things missing off the original bid. I have had to do re-profiling and I think I initially over-exaggerated the outputs. It has been a slog to get some of the outputs because of that. (Interview, CC project worker) At the start of the process there were different expectations between academic and development staff in terms of how to approach individual project bid writing. The interested academics were used to writing proposals in accordance with specific specifications, but not necessarily framed in advance by specified outputs. The case for common criteria across the overall project was put by a development manager: I think it is all about co-ordination and delivery… I believe it is important to set out clear criteria at the start…so people know exactly what the game is and that is what we tried to do and yes, you have got this money but you have got to do this in this way, so when they applied academics really squealed at the start coming through that criteria…your project should be like this…it must respond to community need…it must have partners in the different universities and it is everything an academic doesn’t want to do but in pure research terms if everyone has to do it…if everyone does that we can look across the piece we would have been in chaos if we hadn’t had those constraints at the start (MMU Development Manager, Interview)
33 The bid writing process was supported by the development days. Once confusion over the style of proposals expected, and a proforma had been agreed across the whole project, project teams were able to draw up proposals. The extent of full participation in this process by all parties varied, largely because the time scales for submitting bids was short. The bidding process was bedevilled by a lack of agreed processes across the project and contradictory information given about the number of rounds of bidding. There were also differences between HEIs in terms of advice. In terms of guidelines for working up the bid...we received a lot of literature...you hear conflicting things from different people because there were so many academic institutions involved and as projects have gone on and each university has a different story to tell about what you need to do to meet outputs or getting ethics so it did get confusing earlier on because each institution was so different in the way they worked in terms of putting bids together and everything. In terms of meeting and defining outputs was also confusing and it wasn’t realistic. We needed more communication about what we had to do to meet definitions of outputs. A lot of confusion about why they wanted timesheets and academics are not used to that and people felt that they were trying to make us accountable for our work. [it was like when I] worked for the Council and they use clock cards to monitor workload and work. …. That could have been explained more clearly …. What was good about it [was] we always received a lot about what other projects were doing and what projects had been successful in each round and which individuals were working on it. I was sent a database of all contact details of people working on all projects so that was good. (Interview, CC project worker) Towards the end of the project it was clear that some teams had underestimated what would be entailed in their projects and needed to apply for an extension. {the slippage is due in part to] lack of experience at the bid writing stage. The key problem here was our lack of recognition … of the sheer amount of time we would be required to spend on networking, building trust and engaging with the community in their own spaces (and often at times that suited them, i.e. evenings, weekends). It is also the case that substantial budget for translation is essential because of the considerable informal work that needs to be done to facilitate engagement from the community and also even the most fluent migrant speakers struggle in interview contexts. … Slippage of time was a natural product of making basic errors in the assumptions we made about working with cultural difference. We have learned many lessons from this experience and in understanding how to engage with communities that are effectively 'invisible' to many research approaches. (CC Project extension application) Different project teams came up with different ways of balancing 'buying in' with 'buying out' time, with various degrees of success. Those projects proposed by staff working in income generating units at MMU (MISPA, Centre for Urban Education) found ways for the URMAD projects to contribute to the overall costs of their units and release staff to work on them. Some other projects, from the outset, planned to buy in time. CC12 proposed appointing a research student, with academic staff from each University acting in supervisory and advisory roles. This did, however, take the indirect costs beyond the percentage permitted, and so could not have been a model for all projects. CC09 budgeted for some research assistant time, again taking the proportion of indirect
34 costs beyond the norm. CC18 included some work from postgraduate students engaged on casual staff contracts: there were severe delays in paying these workers' expenses. Furthermore, due to delays in transferring money to Faculties and thereby Departments, the timing of the eventual transfers and lack of clarity from within the Department/Faculty about what the money was for (despite contracts making this clear at the outset), some staff were not in fact 'bought out' and ended up working on the project on top of other duties. One project leader summed up the problems, raised over a period of time: … our first payment was made twelve months late and our second payment was made around nine months late (both payments into our account were made at the start of July but we were only notified of this at the end of July). Because our URMAD money was not transferred into our [Faculty] account in reasonable time, the university closed our account before we could access our funds. This has effectively meant that we have not been paid for the work we have completed for URMAD… (CC project leader email to Theme Leader, December 2008)This problem was not unique and there seems to have been pockets where the work has been done and the Faculty or Department has received the money (late) but it has not been used to support community engagement activities. Some guidance about different ways in which 'buy out' projects have worked across the University, given the internal delays in financial transfers might be useful. H10 included a large proportion of costs for employing a researcher to work on the project. However, the way this was done, to fit the funding model of the overall project, left the project with a substantial shortfall of funds, drawing on additional funds from the overall project and subsidised by the Research Institute for Health and Social Change. The shortfall was further exacerbated by a large increase in this particular researcher's' costs due to HERA re-grading in the middle of the project. Despite some of these difficulties, staff from nine Departments in MMU were involved in projects across all themes. Their motivation to get involved varied. It was of particular note that for some, whilst working in partnership with community organisations was not new, the attraction was the opportunity to work across universities. I have worked in partnership with local people before and local organisations but not within the context of inter-university collaboration before. This is the first time.(CC Project Leader, Interview) I saw some publicity on urban regeneration which is my area of interest. I got involved with the project because I liked the idea of working with other universities.(CC Project Leader, Interview) The buy out model for community engagement work needs to be critically reviewed and guidance issued drawing on case studies of good practice More attention needs to be paid to working at institutional level with Heads of Department and Deans: written contracts are not sufficient to ensure good stewardship of monies allocated in terms of community engagement work. Decisions were made about project proposals submitted, initially by the CC theme and strand leaders' meeting. Each project was assessed in terms of its fit for the objectives
35 of the theme; its potential to deliver specified outputs and outcomes; value for money; innovative collaborative partnerships. We met regularly and gave careful consideration to all projects. Of course our own institutional priorities were brought into the discussions and some balancing was necessary to achieve appropriate amounts of commitments from each HEI and a range of innovative and community driven projects. We bore in mind, too, coverage across the three subthemes within community cohesion. These meetings were full of energy, good humour and meticulous scrutiny - everyone did really well to balance their own institutional and theme needs. (CC Academic Theme Leader, Interview) Advocacy for projects was needed at the point of overall project management decision making. It was quite competitive. It felt like the partnership was creaking at that point. It was a race to get them in. You really had to make your case for your projects against a critical audience. If you put a project up you really had to be able to stand up for it. There is nothing wrong with that. It did feel competitive...like how many have gone through from each university and sometimes ‘how did that get through and ours didn’t?’ There was a lot of discussion. Some were knocked back to make alterations. (MMU Project Development Manager, Interview) Whilst all proposal writing is time consuming, there was some recognition that a lot of work was being put into the proposal stage for relatively few resources. At this point, some staff withdrew. They felt ‘oh for goodness sake for this amount of money, it is not worth it!’. They felt it (the process) was very over the top for small amounts of money. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) Some of the conflicts between project staff and line managers were made more difficult as changes in the allocation of funding were made as the project progressed. Initially funds were to be transferred on the submission of time sheets. Later, a decision was made to allocate funds in 40%:40%:20% blocks, with the last instalment contingent on outputs having been achieved. These allocations were still to be dependent upon the submission of time sheets (despite an attempt at institutional level to dispense with allocations per time sheet, which was overruled by the overall project management committee). However the first allocations of funds were delayed and transfers made towards the financial year end when Faculty devolved budgets were reconciled. The final 20% allocations were transferred in December 2008. Although this allocation was meant to be contingent on submission of final reports, in the event final allocations were made even in those (4) cases where final project evaluations and project closure reports had not been received. There is a need to develop guidelines about best practice in the allocation of finances to Faculties or Departments for projects like this in the future For all activity, time sheets had to be submitted to the Development office as evidence of time spent. [the thing that worked less well was] Financial management –too many layers of finance management. Too much bureaucracy –too much staff time spent dealing with bureaucracy such as time sheets instead of being allowed to deliver. (CC project: Project closure report)
36 It was unclear to academic staff why this was necessary and seemed at odds with an output-oriented project. It also did not fit easily with the types of academic activities involved in the project. It was difficult to log thinking time interms of time sheets. Perhaps they are suitable for other kinds of academic activities, but not these (MMU Project Lead, feedback) An alternative delivery model was proposed. [in future] an end delivery model rather than a process scrutiny model would have been more appropriate for this project (CC project Closure Report). The process of requiring time sheets as evidence of activity for different kinds of projects could usefully be reviewed. It was evident that some project teams submitted timesheets to exactly match the times proposed in their bids. Other teams though, were able to demonstrate that substantially more time had been spent on their projects than proposed. Because of the confusion about the purpose and practice of time-sheeting, it was not possible to assess the real level of resource taken to deliver the projects, whether this was less or more than had been proposed. This still needs to be done. We need to fully realise the resource attached to this activity and I think [we need to] monitor it properly, regardless of whether it's been under costed at the outset or not. Because we undermine the value of this activity and how we engage in this work, both from our side of the fence and from the community as well. … monitoring allows us to see what the rich picture looks like … what the real value and time attached to [the work] is. (CC project co-ordinator, group interview) Hours claimed:137. Hours anticipated in the bid proposal: 40. (CC12 Project Closure report) In addition, institutional management and co-ordination costs escalated as the project proceeded. In addition to the costs of the project co-ordinator, the academic theme and strand leads worked beyond the allocated hours, as revealed through timesheets. Thus Departments supporting those involved contributed in kind to the overall resources of the project. 3.1.1. Learning from Practice Across the CC theme and MMU there was enthusiasm for finding ways in which all those involved in projects could learn from practice as they proceeded. At theme level a schedule of events, one to be held in each HEI was drawn up, to gather and share learning about different aspects of project implementation. At institutional level the plan was to hold two learning from practice events. Table 4 summarises the learning from practice plan. The first theme and institutional events were held and were well attended with cross institutional presence at both events. The other events did not take place due to staff finding way of getting time release, especially if travel was involved, and thus low take up.
37 Table 4: MMU and Community Cohesion Learning from practice grid: purpose, roles and responsibilities FOCUS: Community Cohesion MMU Other themes Learning about, for example: Partnership and collaborative processes Lessons for academic-community engagement from different phases of the project How do different types of collaboration work Inter, multi and transdisciplinary working in HE Community partner experiences of different types of engagement Impact of different projects on community practice and university practice Impact of different projects on community cohesion and urban regeneration What does MMU have to say about UR What models of university-engagement work in what ways (eg staff buy out) Which academics new to community engagement work have engaged with this projects and will be likely for future involvement How do the new inter-HEI partnership and new practices feed into projects for the futureAs defined by other themes Responsibility: Development managers (MMU) (with KD) Contribute to learning in practice from MMU Extend learning from practice across all themes within MMU. Embed in MMU strategy development and further funding bids Contribute to learning from practice for MMU across all themes Academic Lead Community Cohesion (CK/KD) Ensure learning from practice across all HEIs and across HEI and community groups. Academic strategy development and further funding bids.Contribute to learning from practice in MMU N/A Strand leaders - MMU N/A Contribute to learning from practice in MMU Contribute to learning from practice across HEIs within own themes –learning led by lead HEI - CC strand leaders other HEI Contribute to learning in practice from community cohesion N/A Project Co-ordinator As researcher: Organise understanding within Community cohesion and contribute to writing reports Co-ordinate information about dissemination As project co-ordinator: Organise understanding within MMU and contribute to writing reports Events: Community cohesion learning from practice events. One per HEI - organised by academics MMU learning from practice events (one per theme or 4 across all themes) –organised by development managers? Those who did attend found the events useful There has been one in Manchester. I thought it was useful. I thought it was interesting that there were only two [other] of the institutions turned up. I
38 thought it was interesting to hear about other projects and how we were all having the same problems. (CC Project Leader, Interview) At the theme learning from practice event, there was discussion about some of the challenges anticipated in the evaluation of the projects and these are summarised in Table 5. Table 5: challenges for evaluation raised at theme learning from practice event Getting to grips with the complexity of the projects, e.g. in terms of the various community and academic stakeholders. Making sure all of the appropriate people get an opportunity to have their say How is ‘community cohesion’ understood? Not to forget the positives. Evaluation as creativity. Regeneration is a long-term process. One project is unlikely to make significant difference when viewed in isolation. Achieving the milestones. Projects may not meet the objectives yet may still have a positive impact on people involved. Difficult to measure impact. Ensuring we have a good enough relationship to get access. Internal bureaucracy causing the project to stagnate. Centrality to the evaluation of the project are the voices / words / actions of the community. Are we asking the right people? Innovation is Evaluation through multi-disciplinary modelling. Capture complexity. Distinguishing the various evaluation processes within a project. Ensure all get the chance to contribute. Partner voices to be visible. Putting different and complex issues in a uniform structure. What are the criteria for success (of the project)? Different agendas for who the audience is. Surface what we don’t already know. Capture different voices from the universities e.g. of development managers, academics etc. Getting access to community to ask them what they think and getting ‘honest’ answers.How to report on the bureaucracy and still keep my job! Method used to evaluate –how appropriate! What is evaluated? For whom? How to remain true to the community voice whilst explaining projects in exclusive academic discourses. Attempting to produce an accurate and balanced picture of what has gone on –the views of some partners will be more dominant than others. Different evaluations for different reports for different agencies. The need to be honest but very tactful about any negative outcomes or ‘failures’ within the projects.Creating and putting structures / procedures in place to carry out project activities. Avoid the tyranny of participation Time for open and honest dialogue. Capture changes over time. Learning from practice, as a form of staff development, needs to be built into projects from the start and properly resourced. The benefits of cross-theme working were outlined in the CC Theme Leader's Report. Partnership meetings alongside Community Cohesion theme and strand leaders meetings are highly constructive and indicative of longer term working. Staff development opportunities have enabled staff from different projects to engage in seminars, conferences and workshops about urban regeneration and Community Cohesion
39 The 17 (15 +2) CC funded projects all present different ways of engaging with the community and across the universities, providing a rich opportunity for learning Greater knowledge of HEI infrastructures inside, outside and between institutions is important for learning to understand how future HEI regional partnerships might work together. (CC Theme Leader Report, 3)In July 2008 there was a CC strand at the annual conference held by the Research institute for Health and Social Change at MMU. The conference also included a day long session considering the three case study sites of the health projects focusing on older people, regeneration and wellbeing, led by MMU. This included a world café discussion to generate future ideas. Eleven CC projects presented their projects, with representative from all HEIs. This academic dissemination event presented a further opportunity to learn from practice. It is partly through sharing of experiences within and across projects that organisational learning takes place. There were other dissemination events linking different groups of projects. One, for example, drew lessons from projects on Urban Education; another linked projects from different themes that had used creative methods. All dissemination events included policy makers and practitioners. Some included community partners. However, there were relatively few opportunities for community partners to talk with other across projects. I think we need to recognise that we didn’t provide or facilitate our community partners opportunities to talk with each other about their experiences or to report their own feedback as the projects were progressing. Everything seemed to come through the project lead creating an overall imbalance of power (MMU Project Lead, feedback).Mechanisms for sharing experiences across projects, and more widely, need to be found in order to enable organisational learning. 3.1.2. Management, Monitoring and Evaluation There were three inter-dependent levels of management, monitoring and evaluation across the partnership (See Figure 2) at project, theme and institution, and overall project levels. Each individual project was required to complete monitoring forms, indicating whether it was progressing well; progressing satisfactorily but with some issues that need resolving; or facing serious signs that need resolving urgently periodically throughout the duration of the project. These reports were meant to be forwarded to Theme Leaders who then compiled a Theme moinitoring report which was then forwarded to the overall management committee. At the same time, institutions received reports from all the projects led from within the HEI across all themes and were supposed to compile an institutional summary report for forwarding to the overall management committee. The schedule for these was not organised well in advance and this put some additional pressures onto project leaders. There were four reporting stages and at the end of the project a project closure report was issued. This monitoring process was created after
40 projects had started and there was considerable confusion about who should receive which report by when. An overall timetable of reporting points was slow to be issued (at overall project management level) and reporting points were not well aligned with project activities or the academic calendar. In the end the process broke down and whilst four CC Theme reports were submittted the full complement of institutional and theme reports were not. The CC theme and MMU had identified the need for a project closure report in December 2007 and drafted one. The overall management committee did not issue a revised one until 25th September 2008, well after most projects had finished. Thus there was a gap between project end and completion of the closure report. There was an argument about the shape of the document. In hindsight we should have just sent something out. This delayed capturing the outputs whilst projects were running. Now [after projects have ended] they [project staff] have no incentive to do it now. (MMU Project Development Manager, Interview) Considerable encouragement at Theme level was needed to gather these reports. By mid-December 2008 13 of the 16 projects led by MMU across all themes had submitted project closure reports Figure 2: Different levels of management, monitoring and evaluation It was unclear whether project monitoring and closure reports were written in collaboration with all partners, across HEIs or between HEIs and community partners. Procedures for monitoring projects need to be clear from the outset and support given to staff who are new to project management. Sometimes strand leaders had to edit reports that appeared to contain insensitive views about project partners. Overall project management, monitoring and external evaluationTheme and HEI management, monitoring and evaluation Individual project management, monitoring and evaluation
41 I looked over them and there might have been a couple of things where I had to say, ‘you can’t say that!’ (laughter) (CC strand leader, Interview)Some project staff were slow to submit reports, although at theme level they proved useful. Although people think it is a bit of a pain…I can see it is essential. I can see it is an opportunity to chase people up and when they haven’t done anything on it. Is a useful tool to help people get their heads around things. When they are writing their projects …A policing mechanism which I think is useful and also now I think we are going to get a lot of re-profiling. So it will be useful in that regard. The output issue…I promised all these things but I can’t. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) At institutional level, there was a degree of nervousness about what was happening within projects, as the monitoring and reporting process did not give sufficient information. MMU's Development Manager reflected on this discomfort as the projects came to a close. I felt divorced from it at the centre when strand leaders were attending their meetings. It all came together at the [Showcase event, November 2007]. This big event at Manchester Central was a catch up time and everyone re-informed themselves… Now, Iknow a lot about the money and who has spent and who hasn’t but not the detail about what projects have achieved...it makes me feel a panicked nervousness...there should have been a role for looking at those outputs... We have chased the money and the performance. Those outputs are so hard to get at. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) Nevertheless, across MMU, a large number of hard outputs have been gathered (Appendix 1) and individual projects have been keeping records of the details that lie behind their reported outputs. Evaluations were carried out by projects (see Section 4); at theme level (this report); and an external evaluation was carried out for the overall project. Over the period of the project there have been regular overall management meetings. Apart from the unclear and onerous reporting mechanisms discussed above, overall management had little direct effect on individual projects. However, overall management was charged with publicising the project and creating a website. Individual project leaders became frustrated with the lack of activity until very late on in the project, as summarised in the third Theme Leader's report. In order to enhance the role of the theme in the future, better publicity and promotion at both institutional and partnership levels (e.g. website is still not functioning) and clearer guidelines disseminated on partnership plans for future collaboration and sustainability would be useful. (CC Theme Leader Report, 3)The CC theme and MMU have benefited from press coverage during the latter parts of the project, and there has been institutional and theme representation at national
42 regeneration exhibitions and events. However, the project would have benefited from a more co-ordinated and effective approach to publicity. There should be clear procedures for gaining publicity from and about engagement projects at institutional level. 3.2. Costs for community partners The design of the overall project meant that there were no funds available for the time spent by community partners. From the outset, academics raised this as a problem arguing that the real costs of involvement by community groups were as important as those of HEIs and should be recognised. Where this comes from is business models of engagement where academic time is priced as consultancy and if business wants it they buy it. Well, if we go down that road with the community sector then we only deal with a very partial part of it. … In our work we're paid fairly hefty hourly rates, yet we're expecting community people to be paid nothing. Now, it's slightly different if we're working with paid workers in the community or public sector, where they're being paid usually a lower hourly rate, but at least they're doing it in their paid time. But if you're working with the informal sector - which is the biggest sector - they're not going to be paid anything. … if anything they should be paid a consultancy fee! (CC Theme Lead, group interview) Those writing about HEI-community engagement are unified in their assertion of the need for an explicit value base to underpin the work (for example, Watson, 2007). These values are not merely abstract notions, and can be clearly articulated. In community engagement the values that dominate are deep respect for cultural and ethnic diversity; working together for the greatest good; creating resources to improve people's quality of life and their capacity to make better choices; providing access to resources and mutual support; promoting social justice, empowerment and mutually respectful - not exploitative - relationships; equity in partnerships; and fostering/modeling shared decision making. (Kelly, 2006:63) The one-sided costing of time within the overall project model made some academics question the value base of the project. It would have been good if we had been able to cost in field partners … costs for field partners are real and need to be built in - the model that operated here was that HEIs could get paid for their time but not field projects. Who is serving whom here? We should not rely on hard strapped community projects to assist HEIs in innovative work. (CC Project Closure Report) The only way that funds could be transferred to community partners in the project were to pay them as associates within the overall proportion of indirect costs. Matched funding, based on the costs of community partner involvement was estimated by some projects. CC12 for example, applied the REAP (Pearce et al., 2007b) evaluation framework, which encourages including as estimation of costs in kind contributed by community partners, estimated that the time spent by community partners in supporting the project amounted to 284 hours, which when costed at a basic
43 associate lecturer university rate would come to £11,360 of additional contributed costs (see CC12 Project evaluation) Even so, projects did manage to involve community partners in developing the bids, even if they could not afford the time to attend development days. We alerted them to the days that were coming up...the development days but I think it was that whole thing about that we are academics and they didn’t have the time to come to an event in Leeds to talk about these things ...to take a day off for it. Although they were actively involved in the working up of the bid...key partners couldn’t justify time as there were no costings attached to it….They say, ‘I wish we could have the time to go and do something like that’. It is too much to expect from them unless they are costed into projects or time bought out of their everyday job. It needs support for them from their line management. It would be good to get more local residents involved in development processes and to understand the value of where this money is going and what they can expect at the end of it. Why they need to be involved in development. How they can help shape projects (Interview, CC project worker) The first development day gave rise to a different way of valuing community contributions. There can be mutual benefit. But universities must financially value information and working within communities. One way would be to trade information and knowledge for means to support developments. (Community-group 2 summary feedback) Serious consideration should be given to including costs for community partners in pricing projects of knowledge exchange 3.3. Community partnerships Project evaluation reports made little reference to how partnerships with external organisations materialised but it is clear that different kinds of partnerships with external organisations were forged. A working paper produced early on to facilitate thinking about what kinds of partnerships might be included in the overall CC Theme (Kagan 2006) outlined five different forms of external collaborations that might be expected. These include strategic partnerships; local specific partnerships; regional partnerships; network partnerships; and university directed partnerships. Several projects combined different kinds of external partnerships: it is possible, however, to identify the dominant forms of collaboration. 3.3.1. Strategic partnership University staff work at a strategic level with an umbrella external organisation (for and acts as a prompt for the field to thindifferent parts of University in order to promote partnership working. CC17 report working with local strategic bodies:
44 Because of the synergy between the concerns of the research for this project and the already ongoing work within the Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council it seemed essential to work to develop the partnership with key members there, and so two of the Crewe and Nantwich Local Strategic partnership's managers became included as did the Crewe and Nantwich Lifelong Learning Co-ordinator… Membership [of the steering group] was also offered to a representative from the social housing corporation[named] as an additional … vital link into the Neighbourhood Groups. (CC17 Project Report p.13) CC01 also worked with local authorities, in the case of the Newcastle element of the project, two local authorities. A team from UNN conducted a presentation to representatives and managers of the Children's workforce at Newcastle City Council. All sectors agreed to ask staff to consider participating except for the health professions who had their own occupational development systems and felt overloaded. … The workforce development manager for North Tyneside was told about the event and requested the same presentation for staff in that local authority. This was done and participation from them was agreed. (CC01 Evaluation report p. 7) The other Urban education projects (CC02, CC03 and CC05) also worked closely with local authorities. 3.3.2. Local specific partnership A local project (tenants group, regeneration company, specific public service) has a specific need. Contact is made with a specific part of a University in order to work on the CC06 and CC08, CC12 CC15 and H10. Table 6 outlines the specific local partnerships made. Table 6: Local, specific partnerships underpinning CC projectsProject External local partnership CC06 Seedley and Langworthy Trust (SALT) CC08 Frenchwood area of Preston CC12 Men from local Somali and Yemeni communities in Liverpool CC15 Local family from Brookfield estate, Preston and local single mothers via Broughton Trust, Salford H10 New East Manchester The types of local organisations with which projects linked were different. SALT is an unusual organisation. It is staffed, entirely, by local people that have been trained to undertake roles within, and for, the organisation. Some of these roles are voluntary. … Eight members of staff undertake roles concerned with community liaison and consultation, listening to residents' concerns about their neighbourhood, taking up residents' concerns with local authorities, co-ordinating training programmes for residents, regeneration practices,
45 neighbourhood management, research management and administration, research practice, office management and administration and financial management and administration. … The importance of the embedded nature of SALT in its community cannot be overstated. (Independent evaluation of SALT, CC06, p.25) The Preston part of CC08 focused on the local area of Frenchwood, and collected oral histories of a rapidly changing neighbourhood. What had been a stable and prosperous white working class community in the 1960's, with work nearby for all, was devastated both by the closure of most workplaces, and by very insensitive redevelopment centring around the replacement of traditional terraced houses by tower blocks. A street of shops that had made it fairly self sufficient decayed and virtually cased to function, and local pubs closed. Migrants from Europe and the Indian subcontinent had been drawn in as the cotton industry struggled to recruit workers in its dying decades, and many made their homes in Frenchwood even after the industry had gone….the past should not be romanticised: some of the old housing had been poor quality; wages had been low; … and the deprivation of the inter-war years was far worse in strict material terms than anything seen today. (CC08 Evaluation report pp1-2) A different local focus was the basis of CC12, which worked with men from the Somali and Yemeni communities in Liverpool. [The project aimed] to work with community and public sector organisations in Liverpool 8. …The [formal[ organisational resources [for the project] included Building Bridges, Liverpool Arabic Centres and the Liverpool Children's NHS Trust…because of the targeted nature of the work, specific local community groups and people with specific expertise were recruited to the project for specific purposes (such as film making) (CC12 Evaluation report pp 15,11, 19) Partnerships with a local family and with a neighbourhood group were the foundations of the CC15 project. UCLAN set up a video link with the [local] family on the Brookfield estate of Preston. [local community artist] worked with the [HEI academic] (who has a dual role as project manager for a[another project] and participants who all belonged to a a local extended family. … Salford University established links with the Broughton Trust to facilitate the delivery of creative writing workshops on location. The participants recruited were young women who were predominantly single mothers. (CC15 Evaluation Report pp1-2). 3.3.3. Regional partnership An external group has a specific need and approaches a University to work on the issue.
46 different parts of the region or amongst different sectors and the project is broadened to include more external groups and more universities. CC09 might reflect a Regional partnership, certainly in its planning stages, although the two branches of the project diverged as the project developed. The aim [of the research in two parts of the region] was to understand better the changing patterns of Polish economic migration and the effects of this on community cohesion. The main objectives were: to examine and identify community perception of Polish economic migration in Crewe and Newcastle; to explore any differences in levels of participation between different regions and policy structures; to determine whether barriers to community cohesion exist for all groups and variances that may arise. (CC09 Evaluation report, Newcastle, p. 3). …the project was not just about research but development and capacity building, both within the universities collaborating and within the communities of Crewe and Newcastle Upon Tyne…. The areas have been identified to reflect the important issues of regeneration of the North of England aiming to build a greater understanding of the needs of communities and interventions that work. (CC09 project evaluation report, Crewe pp5,7). 3.3.4. Network partnership External groups contact different Universities about different needs. As projects proceed common issues are identified along with cross-over contributions from the universities, and the projects hold networking events. E06 represents a network collaboration as the project worked with different local groups in the North and brought them together through information sharing and a conference. The project team remains the hub of the network. 3.3.5. University directed partnership Staff working in the universities know of issues affecting communities because of their previous work. They initiate a project and seek to draw in different local people or community partners An example of this kind of partnership would be CC07 and CC13, both of which sought to give voice to members of migrant communities. This project set out to try and involve marginalised individuals, within the local ethnic communities of Crewe, in documentary media production … [it] has successfully achieved its aims and objectives by reaching out to 18 individuals in Crewe, whose horizons, confidence, knowledge and opportunities have been enhanced by their participation in the project. (CC07 Evaluation report pp 1,3).
47 In a different way CC11 drew in previous knowledge gained to undertake consultation and then devise a capacity building series of workshops for people from voluntary and community sector organisations in both the North West and the North East. The aim of the Excellence in Sport and physical Activity Management Seminar Programme project was to develop and provide a capacity building programme for small Voluntary and Community Sector organisations via a tailored seminar series… intended to build into offering a comprehensive support structure for small, local community and voluntary groups involved in sport and physical activity….the seminar programme in the North West built ona strong base of existing work that had already been conducted by the [Manchester] team…In terms of providing evidence of demand for the project [the Manchester team] could also draw on a wide range of anecdotal evidence from an ERDF capacity building project that was used to conceive of the idea for a seminar series. … [both Manchester tutors] and tutors from [Newcastle] had recent experience of working for both public and private sector organisations. (CC11 Evaluation report pp 4, 6, 25). Projects worked with a range of different people, ranging from individuals, through to local strategic partnerships; families, both informal and organised community groups, public sector workers; public and third sector organisations; and to informal community groups and local workers and residents. Many projects worked at different levels Table7). Table 7: Levels of engagement with external partners Community partners Level of engagement with external partners Children Teenagers Local residents Parents and family members Community groups Frontline local authority and health workers Public and Third Sector managers or co-ordinators Local authorities Primary Health Care Trusts Schools Local Strategic Partnerships Individuals Families Community Groups Public and Third Sector Organisations Public and civic institutions Local strategic bodies In addition, many of the projects worked across levels, at the links between organisations, for example local authorities and schools; families and public services; residents groups and council bodies and so on. Thus the projects worked with external partners at the micro level (individuals, groups and organisations); meso-level (links and connections between groups and organisations); macro-level (indirect and more distal influences on communities and neighbourhoods) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
48 Some useful work has been done in developing typologies of University-community partnerships and it would be valuable to continue with this. The most difficult collaborations to sustain were those at the greatest distance. This way of thinking about university community partnerships differs from other typologies of university-community engagement. The USA Housing and Urban Development Department which supported a large scale programme of university-community partnerships, offered a typology of partnerships - or relationships- in terms of the activities involved (OUP, 1999). The taxonomy contains seven categories: (1) service learning, (2) service provision, (3) faculty involvement, (4) student volunteerism, (5) community in the classroom, (6) applied research, and (7) major institutional change. All of the Urban regeneration projects had to incorporate 'faculty (or academic staff) involvement', as this was the project model. Missing from this list, and central to several CC projects is 'capacity building'. Several of the CC projects incorporated more than one activity, and Table 8 summarises which projects could be described as fulfilling which of the activities of university-community engagement. The activity of 'service provision' has been extended to include 'service or project development', although 'development' could arguably be a separate category of activity on its own. Table 8: Taxonomy of university-community engagement and CC projects University-community engagement activity Project 1) service learning 2) service provision (and project and service development) CC01; CC02; CC03; CC05; CC06; CC09; CC11; CC15; E06 3) faculty involvement ALL projects 4) student volunteerism CC02; CC03CC07; CC08; CC12; CC13 5) community in the classroom Not the main activity although an outcome of several projects 6) applied research CC05; CC06; CC08; CC09; CC12; CC15; H10; plus evaluation of projects 7) major institutional change Overall Urban Regeneration project - see external evaluation 8) capacity building CC03; CC05; CC06; CC07; CC09; CC11; CC12; CC15; CC17; E06 3.4. HEI collaborations The nature of collaborations at individual project level varied. All projects involved at least two of the HEIs. Different kinds of collaborations were formed.
49 3.4.1. Parallel collaborations Parallel collaborations essentially involve the same activities taking place in different locations. Some collaborations had a common focus throughout and the partnerships became closer as the project continued (convergent); others had a common focus throughout but have separated now the project is over (convergent with divergent follow on). One project started with a positive collaboration but partners diverged as the project continued (divergent) and two projects included replicated activities with threads tying them to the original ones (bolt-on collaborations). 3.4.1.1. Convergent collaboration HEIs got together to share and develop ideas. Parallel activities took place in each location held together by regular meetings. Joint dissemination and evaluation and follow on activity took place (CC01; E06). 3.4.1.2. Convergent collaboration - divergent follow on One HEI had the idea and another joined in to replicate the project in their locality. Good relationships were maintained throughout. Projects shared common processes but they adopted a flexible response to local differences. Roles were clear in terms of needs assessment, delivery and evaluation. Joint bids for further funding took place. First HEI took the ideas forward and established a continuing process alone. (CC11) 3.4.1.3. Divergent collaboration One HEI had the idea. Another joined in to replicate in their location. Good relationships were forged at the start: these diverged over time. Separate reports were written. Branches of the project were not brought together for evaluation or follow on. Issues of collaboration; trust; IP emerged and roles were separated throughout (CC09). 3.4.1.4. Bolt-on collaboration One HEI had the idea and partnered with a second HEI for evaluation. Third HEI developed their own project, replicating the original one, building in common evaluation with the 2nd HEI (yet to materialise). Issue of IP, about the focus of the work, and the means of engaging people arose (CC13). One HEI undertook a project and involved another HEI for evaluation and a third for additional expertise in an advisory capacity. A sister project was developed to replicate in different area involving the same HEIs, overlapping methodology but different roles (H10, H20). 3.4.2. Extended collaboration Extended collaborations are those in which collaborations between the HEIs added complexity to the implementation of projects. One HEI had the idea and needed another HEI partner. A link was formed with a second HEI who contributed something different,
50 but with common threads. HEIs were connected through a meta evaluation and involvement of other two HEIs as 'critical friends' but with minimal involvement. (CC15). One HEI had the idea and through discussion with other HEI(s) designed an overall project with common threads but different foci in different locations, involving different kinds of external partner. Projects were brought together for evaluation and dissemination (CC03; CC08). 3.4.3. Collaborations for evaluation Collaborations for evaluation are those wherein links were formed for evaluation purposes. They varied with depth of the relationship between those implementing the project and the evaluator(s), contributing to tight and loose collaborations. 3.4.3.1. Loose collaboration One HEI had the idea and invited other HEI(s) to evaluate the work. There was minimum discussion about the nature of the evaluations and the evaluator either completed a summative evaluation or made contact with some aspects of the project and included formative elements (CC07). 3.4.1.2. Tight collaboration One HEI had the idea and invited other HEI(s) to evaluate the work. There was close contact between the evaluator and the project with frequent formative feedback. Dissemination and further writing about the project was undertaken jointly (CC17). 3.4.4. Integrated collaboration Integrated collaborations are those involving clear roles for different partners from the outset, beyond that of delivery or evaluation, or in which the project is developed jointly in terms of methodology. Project dissemination and follow on activities are shared. One HEI had the idea and invited others to play specific roles. Processes were designed to enable roles to be enacted and all held together through meetings and communication. Joint writing, dissemination and follow on activities took place (CC12). Through discussion two HEIs developed the project methodology and carried it out. Regular meetings were held. There was one integrated activity, with joint writing, dissemination, evaluation and follow on activities (CC05). Through discussion two HEIs developed the project methodology and carried it out. Regular meetings were held. There were two integrated activities. The progression of the different studies was in turn partly directed by feedback from the other universities, given at the regular Project team meetings. Joint writing, dissemination and follow on activities took place (CC02).
51 3.4.5. Evolving collaborations Evolving collaborations are those where collaborations between HEIs change over time - either through difficulties within the collaboration and/or because of changing community or institutional needs. One HEI had the idea and linked with another HEI for delivery. The relationship floundered, (even if trust remained), but over time staff were replaced with a specific role for evaluation. Additional partners were included as the needs of the community group changed (CC06). Useful work has been done to understand inter-HEI collaborations and it would be valuable if this were to be extended. 3.4.6. Collaboration across HEIs for community engagement It is too early to say whether any of these collaborations and forms of working across HEIs will lead to lasting partnerships and collaborations, although there are some signs that some might, particularly as joint efforts to secure further funding have been made (see Section 4.5). There is some feeling that once project resources were secured, collaborations may have dissipated and veered away from the central project. when they [projects] go off into delivery, anything that they subscribe to on that piece of paper goes out of the window. In some cases that happened in the different universities in different ways and some people really believed in the partnership and that it worked…and those were those people who were closest to the management of the project because they understood what it was about but those who were more on the periphery of the project just went back in to their comfort zone. Produced some nice results but they were off somewhere to the left but it doesn’t negate the work that they did at all it is just something that happened in the project. (MMU Development Manager) The links between institutions and the overall management group needed nurturing and became strained at times. Sometimes when we were having the management group meeting overall we [in the institution] would have a good talk beforehand in preparation to share the issues that we were sure that we wanted to discuss…I think that they were quite political and each individual institution came with a bit of an agenda. We were very sure where we were going to raise our voice … It was not aggressive but was sometimes assertively put when we felt very strongly about certain issues. I think some partners were sometimes surprised about that and I think it was usually because we had thought long and hard about the importance of something and the others hadn’t thought about it yet and we were often saying ’the consequence of this is going to be that so we have got to do this’ … we had already hit something that others hadn’t thought about because we were quickly out of the stocks. [the meetings were ] all about forming and storming and
52 building trust and I think we went through all of that. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) At a cross-institutional strategic level, the collaboration between development and knowledge transfer managers has been strengthened. -we were strong partners with [one of the HEIs] before and that has been maintained and we are developing new projects corporately and a better relationship has formed as a result of this project. There is more sharing and trust between us. [another HEI] partnership was completely new and we have since been involved with two projects which we never would have done, and strategically it is now an open door. We have built trust and relationships at both the academic and at a strategic level. There is a free exchange of info now about events, articles reports...there is a nice informal network now with information sharing which is really good. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) It is a credit to the staff involved that they have sustained mostly positive collaborations, working across these particular institutions for no other reason, initially, than they had to in order to secure support for projects. Some collaborations were relatively superficial and others more complex and deeper. Corbett and Noyes (2008:6) draw from experience of forming collaborations for the delivery of integrated public services to suggest that different arrangements can be understood in terms of different degrees of 'relationship intensity'. They offer a continuum of 'relationship intensity', which "… orders the extent to which participating programs and agencies forfeit some of their identity and defining attributes in an effort to develop a truly blended system. In doing this, the continuum focuses on the character and quality of the relationships among participating programs and agencies; specifically, how closely participating systems are to be blended together." The continuum is shown in Table.9. Table 9: Continuum of relationship intensity and type of inter-HEI collaboration (after Corbett and Noyes, 2008). Level of relationship intensity Characteristics Inter HEI collaboration CommunicationClear, consistent and non-judgmental discussions; giving or exchanging information in order to maintain meaningful relationships. Individual programs or causes are totally separate. Parallel collaboration Extended collaboration CooperationAssisting each other with respective activities, giving general support, information, and/or endorsement for each other’s programs, services, or objectives. Collaboration for evaluation Extended collaboration CoordinationJoint activities and communications are more intensive and far-reaching. Extended collaboration Integrated collaboration
53 Agencies or individuals engage in joint planning and synchronization of schedules, activities, goals, objectives, and events CollaborationAgencies, individuals, or groups willingly relinquish some of their autonomy in the interest of mutual gains or outcomes. True collaboration involves actual changes in agency, group, or individual behavior to support collective goals or ideals. ConvergenceRelationships evolve from collaboration to actual restructuring of services, programs, memberships, budgets, missions, objectives, and staff. ConsolidationAgency, group, or individual behavior, operations, policies, budgets, staff, and power are united and harmonized. Individual autonomy or gains have been fully relinquished, common outcomes and identity adopted. Looking at the HEI collaborations in this way suggests that none of them have yet become unequivocal collaborations, as understood by Corbett and Noyes. If the inter-university project teams are to be long lasting and become integrated in terms of community engagement, relationship intensity will need to increase. This may happen as teams continue to work together but this will need to be for reasons other than that they 'have' to. However, an appropriate level of relationship intensity, given the duration of the projects and the limited opportunity for staff teams to work together to develop work driven by the needs of the community, was reached. As Corbett and Noyes warn If you seek an unnecessary ambitious level of relationship intensity (or try to blend programmes with conflicting cultures) .. you are asking for difficulties.(Corbett and Noyes, 2008:15)A positive feature of the parallel, extended and integrated collaborations was that they were able to retain responsiveness to local needs. For example, the Sport and Physical Activity Seminar series (CC 11) set out to undertake a capacity building programme in the same way in the North West and North East. The evaluation report notes: One of the main issues that came out of the consultation phase in the North East was that there was a wealth of free capacity building training programmes… and that the proposed seminar series would need to be distinctive. … A crucial difference with the seminar series in the North East was that participants were encouraged but not required to attend all the seminars. In the North East a more flexible approach was pursued … (CC11 Evaluation report pp13,14)The Community Perceptions of Economic Migration (CC09) project set out to investigate, through action research, the experiences of Polish migrants and draw out
54 differences across the regions. The projects employed different methodologies relevant to their local contexts and two separate reports were written, situating their findings again in their local contexts. This project we have described as a 'divergent collaboration'. After the initial idea was mooted by one HEI, the project was shaped by meetings and discussions at the start. However these petered out and contact later on in the project lessened, to some disappointment, resulting in some antagonism and loss of trust and confidence that the collaboration would continue in the future. Staff changes caused difficulties in sustaining some of the original partnerships. The [original named contributor] pulled out of the project and moved to [another] University. A meeting was held with the newly appointed Director of [the University centre for knowledge transfer] who was very enthusiastic about [this] project because it fitted perfectly with [their] aims and objectives … and would help [a particular HEI] to make a start on meeting these aims. The outline of a working partnership was agreed. However, the Director subsequently pulled out of the partnership stating that the project did not, after all, meet the aims and objectives of [the centre]. …. Further attempts were made to secure an input … but, despite extensive attempts, co-operation was not forthcoming. (CC project: Project Closure Report) On a personal level the two research teams work well together and have managed to maintain good lines of communication throughout the project. .. There has been an issue with turnover of personnel on the project team in the [one HEI] due to restructuring of staffing at [relevant centre]. This has meant that staffing has changed on the project team more often than would have been ideal. However, this was to some extent unavoidable. (Excellence in Sport and Physical Activity Management Seminar Programme, Evaluation Report p32) Some aspects [of the project] proved much harder to realise than anticipated. … we experienced unprecedented and extremely difficult conditions within the [academic department] .. during the period of the project. Resignations, serious illness and internal transfer and several long study leaves reduced the number of experienced [ ] staff active in the university to levels so low that most remaining staff had to prioritise basic teaching and administration … For most of the its existence, the project therefore had to be run at a much lower intensity than intended, and we had to effectively suspend operations for a time. (CC Project: evaluation report) …the project team worked together well, exchanging information, providing support and guidance within the advisory group. However two [particular HEI] colleagues named on the bid did not contribute to the project at all (either by email or meeting face to face). We tried to effect communications with them throughout the life of the project but were unsuccessful. This was extremely frustrating and deprived the project of some external expertise from which it could have benefited. (MMU Project Closure Report).
55 A different way of responding to local needs and priorities was evident in the Young People's Voice on Urban Education project (CC03) set out from the start to explore three separate case studies linked to different locations. However, close contact and discussion remained throughout. Researchers from all HEIs involved met regularly at researchers' meetings. The progression of the different studies was in turn partly directed by feedback from the other universities given at the regular project team meetings. The HEIs worked together in the design and delivery of two workshops at the dissemination event..[and] are still collaborating on joint journal articles [and] conference presentations. (CC03 Evaluation report p 11) Ensuring that within any collaboration, local foci remain is, according to Garlick and Palmer (2008), an important ethical feature of university-community engagement. We should not forget that whilst the staff involved were keen to co-operate and collaborate, they were also working in an environment in which they compete for resources. They also have competing demands on their time from other academic activities. Sometimes being able to demonstrate they have reached a point of collaboration will enable greater access to resources, other times it will not. They are in effect working in 'co-opetition' (Blickstead, Lester and Shapcott, 2008; Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996) - co-operation in the context of competition. It is not surprising, therefore, that some collaborations, having worked successfully, then go their separate ways if they are better able to draw down additional resources alone. Useful work has been done to understand co-opetition and co-operation in the HEI-community engagement context and it would be valuable if this were to be extended. 3.5. Intra-HEI alliances Several of the CC projects included alliances between colleagues from the same institution. Sometimes these went smoothly, sometimes they did not. For the CC theme, several projects involved staff from different parts of the same HEI. ..we have lost one full time member of staff from the team .. the work stress on the two left has increased. Other local factors have affected our performance on the project [such as increases in other duties]. … We have also experienced ill health on the team and this has knocked out some months on input. (CC Project: Project Extension request) Internal team worked less well [than inter-HEI alliance] - lack of time for project and other demands. Financial and monitoring aspects required additional administrative support. (CC project: Project closure report) We had difficulties involving staff from [this HEI]. Lack of response to requests suggests barriers to involvement. (CC project: Project Report)
56 [internal relationships] did not work as well as had been hoped, for despite the will and enthusiasm for the projects, colleagues [from another Department] had teaching and other professional commitments which debarred then from spending time allocated for research on this project. This was ultimately through a staffing shortage in their area and outside the control of either the individuals or myself as Project manager. Because this was identified as a possible risk factor throughout the reporting stage it has allowed the project to be re-worked and for the elements that would have been provided under the guise of continuing professional development to be supplanted by additional external funding being gained. .. this means the learner opportunities have been maintained and the outcomes for the project achieved. (Project report, CC17, pp13-14.) In addition to academic staff working together on project teams, the alliances between academics and what are variously known as development, third stream or academic enterprise managers in different HEIs were central to the success of the project. These alliances, too , had to be nurtured and problems that emerged managed. Difficulties arose at different stages of the project, mainly due to misunderstanding of roles and mis-communication. An exchange between CC theme leaders from different HEIs captured the different relationships between development managers and academics in the different HEIs. The [development/knowledge transfer staff] did not see themselves as supporting that [theme development] event, they saw themselves as equal participants in that event, so you had the academics, community partners and the development workers –equal participants. (HEI1 CC Theme leader, Theme awayday, March 2007) … you can ask [our development/knowledge transfer staff] to do anything, anything at all and [he/she'll] go and do it or find somebody to do it and then um even you know even for telephone numbers or desk things and then um we have [another development/knowledge transfer manager] who is more or less project managing it and that’s it. Then [head of development/knowledge transfer] comes in occasionally … and if we want somebody to do publicity, [she/he’ll be there at the next meeting but it’s all based on a support basis, it’s not anything to do with development workers getting their fingers in the pie or anything like that. (HEI2 CC Theme leader, Theme away day, March 2007) ….I think –it’s interesting the division between the development and the academic side; it’s them and us … but at the same time some of the people that are evaluating …… are very professional evaluators and are actually very professional so they see the weaknesses –you know the reason the outputs might not be achieved …(HEI3 CC Theme leader, Theme awayday, March 2007)The potential for misunderstandings and lack of clarity about who was to do what emerged soon after the start of the project. The Theme leaders discussed this at one of their meetings and drafted a diagram to clarify the different roles within the project.
57 This was refined through the MMU Institutional management group and led to a working paper within which different roles and responsibilities as well as mechanisms for learning from practice, were outlined. (see Table 4). Figure 3 summarises the organisational roles and responsibilities within the overall project and Theme management at MMU Figure 3: Roles and responsibilities: Community cohesion theme and MMU institutional management Despite these attempts to address potential role confusion from the start, there were vicissitudes in working relationships internally and some staff changes in relation to the project. However, within MMU, regular institutional management meetings were held and problems were dealt with as they arose, resulting in a constructive alliance between academics and development managers. Effective internal working is, according to Walker (2000) linked to the ability to form effective external collaborations. An organisation best able to work in collaboration with other organisations is characterised by effective internal communication, effective internal teamwork, Bids: Developed Approved Delivered Overall Management Group Strand and Theme Leaders (Academic) Business Development Managers (KTPs) KTP Professional leaders Professorial leaders ‘Corporate’Academic Responsibilities ‘Corporate’Management & Development Developmental Promotional Responsibilities Institutional project managers ‘COMMUNITY’ PARTNERS & COLLABORATORSProject Coordinator
58 understanding of and capacity to provide quality services and an organsiational culture that values learning. (Walker, 2000:19) Continual reflection and review of internal and external relationships enhances the efficacy of HEI community engagement. 3.6. CC Theme Leaders' group the different HEIs were identified from the start of the project, although staff promotions in one of the HEIS led to an early change. The different HEIs had different arrangements for releasing staff to undertake co-ordination of the Theme. Nevertheless, CC theme leaders worked closely in the development stage and more loosely during the project delivery stage. Some of the issues addressed through these meetings included: Value base of community engagement Challenges in relation to intellectual property Roles and responsibilities across the Theme Evaluations and the assessment of impact Learning from practice Presentation of theme at overall project showcase Sustainability of partnerships, collaborations and alliances externally and internally Troubleshooting fractures in partnerships, collaborations and alliances Different HEI practices in monitoring, time sheeting etc. Joint writing projects Theme dissemination and celebration event Proposal for jointly edited book This group was not without strain at times and whilst the modus operandi of the group was constantly under discussion, attempts were made to maintain good communications and resolve any concerns as, or soon after, they arose. In addition to individual and groups of projects' dissemination event, there was an overall theme academic dissemination event in July 2008 (to which some community partners came) followed by a reception attended by both academic and community partners as an acknowledgement and thanks to all involved. Certificates of involvement were also issued to all academic and community partners who participated in the theme. The operation of the theme leaders' group, and reflection on the operation and impact of the theme have been the subject of three conference presentations (Duggan and Kagan, 2007b; Kagan, 2008a; Kagan, Duggan, Dayson, Hacking, Moore, 2008) and proposal for a book to be jointly edited. Furthermore, there has been press coverage about the CC theme in Regeneration and Renewaland New Startmagazines, and an article is in preparation for the Journal of Neighbourhood Regeneration and Renewal. Resources need to be allocated to the maintenance of cross-HEI strategic partnerships.
59 3.7. Summary of the collaborative partnerships achieved through the CC theme The partnerships with different parts of the community, the collaborations across HEIs and alliances within HEIs made up the interdisciplinary, collaborative partnerships across the CC theme and across MMU. They were varied but on the whole fit for purpose. Martin et al. (2005) argue that innovation is the key to effective university-community partnerships, and the following section will examine what it is that the projects did, and what outputs and outcomes they achieved.
60 3.8. What did projects do? The activities of the CC projects were varied. Project proposal, project reports and evaluation reports all give information about the kinds of activities undertaken. Few engaged in only one activity and most included multiple activities. This is important to recognise in community-engaged knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange, lest funding be targeted on singular activities. An example of how activities were mixed was reported by CC06 in the project closure report, extracted below. Three distinct activities took place. Main activities for CC06: Firstly a piece of evaluation research was undertaken to explore the influence of the community organisation on local regeneration to date. This research highlighted the positive contributions made to regeneration and the need for this to be sustained and was endorsed by the local MP and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears. Secondly, some development away days enabled the production of a strategy for financial sustainability through the creation of a social enterprise. Thirdly, all those involved in the project organised and contributed to a conference 'Cultivating communities', which featured the project and its findings and involved local politicians and nationally known authorities on popular democracy and local participation. (Kagan et al., 2008) CC17 undertook four different activities as presented in Table10. Table 10: CC17 Activity Stages (CC17 Evaluation report p. 3) Stage Description Community mapping Map of key contacts activities over the partnership and information collected about the spaces this activity took place to provide an open access resource for the whole community. Community linking Linking of existing community organisations Culture of sharing Encourage a culture of sharing the knowledge and experiences of good practice for community groups and to translate the needs of the community into training resources for individuals already associated with projects or who would work towards involvement. Community learning Training programme developed and delivered. It is unclear whether or not the 4-way HEI collaboration will continue in the areas of the community cohesion projects. However it is likely that some of the alliances formed will continue. Across the CC theme and MMU a wide range of engagement activities were supported.
61 3.8.1. Capacity Building Other projects, too, combined different kinds of activity. Some projects focused on training (CC11, CC17) - the development of knowledge and skills. However this was not just offering pre-existing training, developed for a different purpose. Instead, both projects undertook exploratory research through consultation with community and public bodies. The strategies for engagement included networking and building on existing relationships and roles in the community, as well as targeted publicity through various umbrella organisations. Other projects involved local people in the making of films, an anthology and other artistic products (CC07, CC08, CC12, CC13, CC15). As part of the creative processes, The arts were the form of engagement, whether through creative writing, life history telling or film making, but the contents could be understood as research. CC 12 made this explicit and the activity itself was described as a participatory action research project. The training and the creative activities contributed to general capacity building, confidence and self esteem of those taking part. Specific, targeted capacity building emerged in CC06. Following a piece of applied evaluation research, HEI staff worked with a community development trust in the specifics of developing as a social enterprise: [the aim is ]to establish a social enterprise' for the purposes of supporting local people in collaboration with academics, to design and deliver programmes of learning to professionals involved in urban regeneration. ('Local Voices' Proposal, CC06) feedback from SALT [the community organisation] … suggests thatSALT place very high value on the help and assistance they have received … this relationship] has been crucial because financial sustainability is the key issue that SALT faces as well as the need to enhance its effectiveness as a social enterprise. (CC06 Project Closure report) A social enterprise also emerged from the students involved in CC13. Other projects were set up from the outset as applied research, and research strategies included questionnaire survey research, ethnographic research (for example CC09), and participatory action research (for example CC12, H10). These projects also included policy analysis and networking across organisational boundaries. Those projects that were about development development of consultative processes with young people university-community group social enterprise (CC06) or of Community Land Trusts (E06) were also action research projects. Information was collected that threw light on the development processes and evaluation helped to see how these might be replicated elsewhere.
62 Whatever the main activity, a large number and wide range of community groups and local people have been involved in the projects through meetings, workshops, consultations, and dissemination events. Information technology was used in a minority of projects, although a number of new websites now exist hosted both by HEIs and community groups. 3.8.2. Human, cultural and social capital It is clear that the CC theme has enabled the growth of different kinds of capital - in particular, human capital (for example, CC03; CC07; CC08; CC15; CC17; H10), social and cultural capital (for example, CC01; CC05; CC06; CC08; CC11; CC15; but also economic and knowledge capital (for example, CC06; CC11; E06; CC07; CC13). The growth in cultural capital was evident from the meta-evaluation of CC15. Cultural capital (knowledge, awareness and understanding) was developed, enabling women to look at their community in a different way … some of the young women spoke of the project as a space that enabled them to be creative, to step outside of the routine in an existence that largely deprived them of this freedom. (CC15 Meta Evaluation report pp 4,5) Bonding social capital increased (see for example, Putnam, 2000; 2007), wherein relationships and networks of trust and reciprocity are facilitated, and interpersonal relationships, and interaction grew out of increased self confidence increased (for example, CC07; CC12; CC15; CC09). The people involved in making the documentaries became more confident as the sessions progressed because we adopted a flexible, informal learning approach…. Confidence built up over time… at first people [second generation migrants] came in on their own and expressed fears about making films. They gained in confidence about their capability and through meeting people in the same boat soon became keen to talk about their experiences and their feelings about what it was like to be part of an international community whilst living locally in Crewe. People need confidence to become empowered. (CC07 Interview with Project Leader) Similarly, confidence grew over time in CC15. [it is clear that] Because they valued the opinion of the resident as the expert, her confidence grew the more [they] engaged in active dialogue when commenting as an art critic. (CC Co-ordinator, Field Diary, Arts Dissemination event) In CC12, Following a workshop where fathers and sons listened to each other's life stories, stronger mutual understanding emerged. [Son's perspective:]I felt sad … it is hard for fathers…[Father's perspective:]The cultural and psychological effects struck me - I felt sympathetic and frustrated listening to the sons' story and how difficult life was.
63 It is painful to hear, I felt touched, not realising how much the children suffer. (CC12 Evaluation Report p. 9) Some underpinned growth of bridging capital through sharing and the facilitation of joint activity and the growth of understanding (for example, CC02; CC03; CC05; CC09; CC12; CC17; E06). This was not just between partners in the project but different communities of interest locally. CC17 showed how bridging across groups resulted from the project. The research project has strengthened relationships and partnerships at a local level with regard to urban regeneration issues. It has also given local community members a vehicle for development to have their voices heard in these debates. (CC17 Project Closure report) Within a branch of CC01 two different local authorities were brought together. This working together by two Authorities, is regarded as a real achievement by the workforce managers themselves as well as by the project team. It is anticipated that the project will constitute merely the beginning of ongoing collaboration. (CC01 Evaluation Report p. 8) Projects also led to changes in relationships between residents and professionals. There has been a change in the regeneration professionals valuing of community resident ideas and input to projects. In addition residents at the dissemination event have been invited onto the resident liaison team helping to prioritise future regeneration plans. Residents and the research team have been asked to help organise a refugee and asylum seeker event in the area. (MMU Project Closure Report) All projects included the linking capital of HEI knowledge and skills contributing to communities and community knowledge and skills contributing to HEIs. Some projects facilitated linking across agencies in the community too (for example CC03; CC05; CC06; CC09; CC12; E06). H10, for example, brought regeneration professionals, community and voluntary sector staff, local authority staff, service providers, academics and local residents together. CC12 brought Somali and Yemeni families together with academics, social services and community psychologists, as well as arts production companies. CC03 brought together teachers and pupils from 16 schools across the city, together with local authority professionals and politicians, and youth offending teams. The views of young people, gained through their own research were voiced and informed and shaped policy on urban schools. A different kind of linking capital grew as one project (CC17) brought another project (CC11) in to deliver leadership training in order to build community capacity.
64 3.8.3. Empowerment CC03 supported young people in collecting the views of other young people and communicating these to education policy makers. Their expertise was to be used in the future. The project engaged young people in a dialogue and debate about urban education and regeneration in a way which has had an influence on future policy. The project was innovative in that it established the principle that young people should lead their own discussions on improving educational opportunities for urban learners. Establishing effective mechanisms for including young people’s voice on developing future educational policy is essential for developing effectual education for urban learners. Additionally, young people see themselves as active citizens if they have been involved in the policy formation process. … The methodology developed through the project has resulted in the Learner Action Team Approach being used for evaluative work in the City GATES programme, the national 14-19 Gifted and Talented strand of the City Challenge programme and working with RSA to evaluate the Manchester curriculum. (CC03 Project Closure Report) The ways in which the projects empowered participants was clear from some of the evaluation reports (for example, CC03; CC07; CC08; CC11; CC12; CC13; CC15; CC17; H10). In CC17, for example, the evaluation report drew attention to the ways in which inclusion and equity is important to empowerment and thus participation. Including and valuing the views of all stakeholders at the mapping stage, irrespective of their status and their funding allowed marginalised groups to feel they were impacting on a larger forum and therefore to own part of it and to see their group as part of the wider community agenda and also as part of the community resources. The University involvement had a particular impact in breaking down barriers between organisations, particularly those of hierarchy, in according status to volunteers. At the training stage some participants had a dual role in promoting and helping facilitate the workshops that accorded to them a status they wouldn't normally have achieved if the project had been developed by the council alone. They were acknowledged as partners, and co-developers of the course. (CC17 Evaluation Report p.5) 3.8.4. Quality of life and wellbeing The projects enhanced quality of life and wellbeing, both hedonic (enjoyment and satisfaction) and eudaemonic (challenge and development). In CC01, professionals working with children engaged in inter-professional learning (IPW). As part of this they identified goals for extending their understanding or relationships with colleagues. The evaluation report (p. 7) captured eudaemonic wellbeing.
65 Follow up feedback form the participants has demonstrated that they have been carrying out their commitments to IPW that they made in the last training session. Shortly after the session I had a clash of opinion with a fellow colleague of a different profession. I decided to sit down with the other person and talk about this objectively taking feedback in a less defensive way. … I have also actively been increasing my awareness with regards to others' roles and difficulties they face that may impact intentionally on me. (Participant 1). Yes, I'm glad to say that I did meet all those goals [from IRW commitment statement] and I would say I met them within the time frame set out. I fell that the training was very good and I would say I have benefited from attending. (Participant 2). Those people who had learnt about film making, and made some films, in CC07, reported satisfaction with their experiences, particularly in terms of their learning and the making of new friends. All participants who gave feedback] were exceedingly positive about their experience and all pointed out that they would highly recommend the workshop to friends. They felt that not only had they learned something valuable about media production, but that they had learned something about their community and, something mentioned by all participants, they made new friends and acquaintances. (CC07 Project evaluation report, p.2) The challenge, learning and satisfaction and enjoyment from involvement in the projects extended to those indirectly involved in some of the work. As one Yemeni mother exclaimed when she saw her son acting in the DVD scene: "that's my boy' - her eyes shone with pride. As she walked form the room towards the end of the event, she turned round and ran quickly back to the room where the DVD was still on in the background. " I want to see my son again " she said to me, giggling. (CC12, Researcher field notes, project composite report p. 55). From the internal evaluation reports … and from the feedback given at the Dissemination event, .. it is clear that the project has had a positive impct on the quality of life, not only of those participating directly in the project, but also in the families and the wider community. During the project both older and younger men have reported raised self esteem and sense of pride. They have exerted agency and control over aspects of their lives, sometimes for the first time. Other family members, direct and more distant, have also been positively affected by the project. (CC12 Evaluation Report, p. 9)
66 CC projects enhanced capacity building, human, cultural and social capital, wellbeing and empowerment, of people across the life span and from different communities, leading to an overall positive impact on quality of life. 3.8.5. Working at the EDGE One way to think about the activities undertaken is to think about them as those involving EDGE activities: Exploration (for example, consultation, research, action research, evaluation); Development (formation of new organisations, enhancement of dimensions of existing organisations, creation of new courses); Growth (for example, training, capacity building, skills development); Exchange (for example, formation of networks, multiple stakeholder consultations, community participation in course delivery, knowledge and skills sharing). Figure 4 illustrates EDGE activity contributing via engaged scholarship and practice to co-created cultures of inquiry (Burton, 2009) which all CC projects achieved. Figure 4: EDGE activity, engaged scholarship and practice leading to shared cultures of inquiry Cultures of inquiry Engaged practiceDevelopment and change Engaged scholarshipTeaching & learning, research, third stream Critical reflection and awareness Critical knowledge and understanding
67 All of the projects could be said to have created EDGE groups (Kagan, 2007b), highlighting in different proportions the various activities. Working at the edge has other connotations, particularly those involving boundary crossing and the pooling of resources, in this case across HEIS and across HEI and community sectors. The is a fruitful location for change. The CC projects were all demonstrations of edge effects (Kagan, 2007b) through the execution of EDGE groups and activities. Working to create an ecological edge is an efficient way to generate and use resources. The mutual engagement between HEIs and community organisations led to benefits for both HEIs and the community (Section 3).The timescale of the project made some forms of working, particularly appropriate when working with communities around issues of community cohesion, challenging. Success depended on being able to start straight away and having pre-existing relationships. Even so, ways would be needed to continue to support more long term processes of change. We had already developed a lot of that so were able to get straight into the project. Our timescales have worked well because of this. What concerned me is that our project was a PAR [participatory action research] approach and we were fitting into timescales as part of the project...eighteen months to do it. The more I looked into the AR [action research] process, we realised we needed more time. It is a continuous process where the local engaged people are continually engaged after the project. This is a worry and how do we sustain that relationship further, beyond the eighteen months? A lot of these elements are starting now community-led research and that is one of the worries. We are going to have to ensure buy-in from the residents beyond the life of the project. (Interview, CC Project worker) The projects were effective but some kinds of work were not possible due to the short time scales. HEI-community engagement requires long term working.
68 4. What difference did the projects make? It is through project evaluation that we can learn what difference different projects made. 4.1. What types of evaluations were carried out? Evaluation was carried out at project level and Theme level, in addition to the external evaluation of the overall project. The Community Cohesion theme leaders did not impose a type of evaluation, instead each project was asked to identify its own approach to evaluation and method of completing it. Some guidance was given in the form of a paper outlining potential approaches to evaluation, which not everyone found useful. The links between monitoring and evaluation were not always clear. [Evaluation] Guidelines provided were good in terms of what to expect from the evaluation. It was confusing all the levels...project, theme, institutional. I think I have been involved in 3 types of evaluation. I had one meeting with the [development] office for keeping records and I don’t know what that was all about as we only had one meeting: but there was supposed to be more but I haven’t had one since. I don’t understand the purpose of that as they said it was an evaluation and monitoring exercise. We were involved in the overarching focus group from across the partnership and I understood the purpose of that because it was explained to me. … So I understood what that was contributing to (Interview, CC project worker) One CC strand leader thought the paper would be helpful but another did not. I don't think you'll get a lot of buy in [from my HEI] in the event [an evaluation Learning from Practice event]… It's because … you're coming from a framework that is unfamiliar to some of our projects and it's like the whole document is kind of scary. … People wont read it (CC Strand Leader, 3, Group Discussion) We've used it but tweaked it … it's quite simple, quite straightforward (CC Strand Leader, 2 Group Discussion) The Learning from Practice Event included discussion about the challenges facing evaluation. Challenges anticipated for evaluation included: Different evaluations for different reports for different agencies are going to be required. Attempting to produce an accurate and balanced picture of what has gone on - the views of some partners will be more dominant than others. The theme co-ordinator reminded project leaders about the need for evaluation during the implementation phase, and offered assistance if required. By the end of December 2008, evaluation reports had been received from 12 of the 17 projects; one submitted an account of the project in a different form (as an article); two are pending and two
69 have submitted neither report nor information about evaluation. CC09 submitted two comprehensive evaluation reports, one for each regional branch of the project. 4.1.1. External evaluation Several projects built evaluation into the alliance across HEIs, with one HEI partner having the role of external evaluator. Sometimes this was the sole involvement of another HEI (for example, Record From the Outside projects; Community Capacity Building). None of these evaluations took place only as the projects were coming to an end and evaluators were able to collect information from different people involved in the project as the project proceeded. For example: As the external evaluator I was pleased to be included in many discussions about the project and was able to contribute advice and guidance, as well as further contribute by conducting a workshop for the participants. … I designed the questionnaire given to participants and had an opportunity to talk with them during their workshops. I have also had a chance to talk with a sample number of participants following the workshop. (CC07 Evaluation Report pp. 1,2). 4.1.2. Internal evaluation Some projects included evaluation as part of the alliance (for example CC01; CC02; CC03; CC11; CC05; CC15) and essentially undertook internal evaluation, usually through the collection of information over and above the project itself (e.g. CC12), or organising and analysing information generated by the project (CC09). Internal reflective evaluations at the end of the project were undertaken by CC08. Several evaluations included both processes and impact (for example, CC05, CC12, CC07), and most included the views of different stakeholders in the work. Not surprisingly most projects focused in their evaluations on the intended objectives, activities and proposed outputs of their individual activities and few looked at a meta-level at the university-community engagement aspects. However, projects did report on these aspects of their work, particularly in terms of the different alliances formed, in their Project Closure Reports, submitted from all but two of the CC projects. In addition, this Theme evaluation and the external evaluation of the overall project address this dimension of the work. H10 and H20 were sister projects each working to evaluate the other and to a share expertise across projects as they progressed and shared learning experiences. Evaluation was built into project meetings. The close working continued into the dissemination as the two projects presented together at a conference on Health, Wellbeing and Happiness in Teeside. 4.1.3. Evaluation frameworks Some projects referred, formally, to evaluation frameworks. CC01 based the evaluation on one used in the education field, namely the Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation (Tamkin, Yarnall and Kerrin, 2002).
70 This evaluative approach … incorporated the participants’ learning outcomes, the individual’s behaviour change, organisational change and organisational improvement. (CC01 Evaluation Report, p. 4). CC17 made explicit the approach to evaluation. The approach to evaluation for this project has been formative and summative, interventionist and informed by theoretical perspectives from policy implementation (phenomenological rather than managerialist), and recent perspectives on inter-agency working (after Warmington, Daniels, et l., 2005). … The project approach necessarily required development of instruments to facilitate consultation with local community agencies and representatives. Such a dispersed and consultative approach was reflected in an essentially iterative evaluation strategy, involving detailed discussion with the Project Leader on goals and methods, and the evaluation phased regular meetings to consider reflexively choices and decisions. (CC17 Evaluation Report, p.1) CC15 included in its implementation a meta-evaluation, linking the two quite different parts of the project, and experimenting successfully with innovative use of video data (collected as from within the projects and in addition to them). These video records stand as a further project output with long lasting potential. The video-based evaluations have created highly visible and compelling outputs which have recorded the experience and with the agreement of participants can be used as learning and demonstration resources in the planning of future projects. It may also be an effective tool to demonstrate the value of such evaluation methods to local councils. (Engaging Communities Through The Arts: A meta evaluation Report, p.9) The use of a meta-evaluation also enabled evaluation methodology to be developed through examining the distinctive advantages of the (project) methodologies. The three distinct methods [used in projects]: fixed camera, hand held camera and interactive live webcam link present and interesting set of methodological issues from the point of view of research ethics, data selection and collection and analytical/interpretive procedures. These will be the subject of a forthcoming methodology paper which will address this emerging but as yet underdeveloped field of research methods. (Engaging Communities Through The Arts: A meta evaluation Report, p.6) Another meta-evaluation was undertaken as part of the work of CC12. This project delivery was, itself, a participative action research evaluation (Connell and Kubisch, 1998) of different activities designed by participants to facilitate intergenerational understanding. The meta-evaluation used two contrasting evaluation frameworks, examining the project as one of University-Community engagement. Two approaches to evaluation of the project, which was itself an evaluation of the parenting and intergenerational projects, were adopted. The first examined a context-resources-mechanisms-outputs-outcomes approach [after Pawson and
71 Tilley, 1997] and the second a quality of life-organisational support process [after Kagan, 2008b] (CC12 Project Evaluation report p.4) The report highlights the way in which different approaches to evaluation reveal different strengths of the project, both in terms of processes, meaning and outcomes. The evaluation of H10 was also an evaluation of a participatory action research project, in this case predominately formative. This evaluation drew on the work of Owen and Evaluating regeneration projects, programmes or initiatives is a useful way to determine the success, importance and significance of the work carried out. An evaluation collects systematic information in order to infer conclusions about: weaknesses/strengths; emerging themes/practice issues; and achievements in relation to forging successful/effective partnerships.(H10 Evaluation Report p. 11) Both H10 and H20 wrote evaluation framework documents which they then shared early on in their evaluations. Case Studies as an evaluation tool were presented in one project, CC03 and this proved an effective way of presenting results from a project focusing on different groups of young people in the different contexts of Manchester, Salford and Newcastle, but with common aims and objectives. Taken as whole, the evaluation of projects within the CC theme have been comprehensive. They have included stakeholder, organisational and goal based perspectives as well as both formative and summative elements. They have adopted a range of evaluation methods ranging from formally collected questionnaire data, interviews, and observations to more interpretive techniques of participant observation, participation and the use of visual, video-based data. The non-prescriptive approach to evaluation has been vindicated as different methods have been used, fit for purpose for different projects. The disadvantage of this could be seen to be that it is impossible to directly compare projects in terms of any particular criterion. However, monitoring and reporting of projects against specific outputs does permit this in a limited way. The collection of CC projects made for a complex whole and flexible, multi-method evaluation gives the roundest picture of change (Boyd et al., 2007). Across the CC theme a rich matrix of different kinds of evaluation revealed strong impact and good use of resources. The first learning from practice event explored some of the anticipated challenges for project evaluation (see section 3.1.1). This was to have been followed up by another in which evaluation experience was to have been shared, but this event did not take place due to low take up. Thus an opportunity for learning across projects was missed. was designed to share evaluation frameworks.
72 4.2. Community cohesion and urban regeneration From the start of the project, within the CC theme, CC was taken to be somewhat broader than that encapsulated in the project delivery plan, (URMAD, 2005). A cohesive community is one: that is in a state of wellbeing, harmony and stability.(IdeA 2006, www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk) The Local Government Association (LGA, 2004:7) considered, in its guidance to Local Authorities for how to support the development of cohesive communities, the following characteristics of a cohesive community: A cohesive community is one where: • there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities; • the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances is appreciated and positively valued; • those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and • strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds and circumstances in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods They go on to describe what is involved in creating community cohesion: Promoting community cohesion involves addressing fractures, removing barriers and encouraging positive interaction between groups. Community cohesion is closely linked to integration as it aims to build communities where people feel confident that they belong and are comfortable mixing and interacting with others, particularly people from different racial backgrounds or people of a different faith. It is possible to draw on project evaluation reports to map the CC projects onto the different aspects of cohesive communities outlined by the Local Government Association, in order to assess the extent to which the projects addressed important and relevant issues (Table 11) As Table 11 illustrates, across the theme there was good coverage of key aspects of community cohesion. The projects were relevant and addressed important issues, moving on from the original emphasis. [at the start the project was concerned with] ethnic minorities so we tried to express in the bid [to HEFCE]. That we meant something larger and that comes across in the projects. Our wider understanding of that is useful-diversity was included but not the focus…wish we had called it sustainable communities-this term was growing into usage at the start. (MMU Development Manager, Interview)
73 Table 11: Dimensions of community cohesion (1-11) addressed by the different CC projects .( ●= fully addressed; ○= partially addressed) CC dimension: Project: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CC01 ●●●●●CC02 ●●●●●CC03 ●●●●●●●●CC05 ●●●●●●CC06 ●●○●●CC07 ●●●●●●CC08 ●●●●●●●●●CC09 ●●○●●●●●●CC11 ●○●○●●●●CC12 ●●●●●●●●●●CC13* CC14* CC15 ●●○●●●●CC17 ●○●●●●●CC18* E06 ●○○●●●●H10 ●○●●○●●●* No evaluation report received from which to draw information Key: Dimensions of community cohesion: 1. Sense of community 2. Equalising life experiences 3. Respecting diversity 4. Political trust 5. Sense of belonging 6. Shared understanding of different cultural backgrounds 7. Strong sense of people’s rights and responsibilities8. Different backgrounds and life opportunities 9. Trust in local institutions 10. Strong recognition of newly arrived and established communities in terms of what they have in common 11. Strong positive relationships between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, schools, other institutions and neighbourhoods Diversity is at the heart of community cohesion, and schisms can occur in and between any areas of diversity, fracturing cohesion. The Audit Commission identified 10 areas of diversity in communities, of relevance to community cohesion (Audit Commission, 2006). Table 12 summarises the extent to which CC projects addressed the different dimensions of diversity in CC. Table 12: Dimensions of diversity addressed by CC projects Dimension of diversity Whether or not addressed by CC projects Age equality: older people Age equality: young people Community engagement Customer focus Disability Gender Human rights Race Religion Sexual orientation Yes Yes Yes Indirect Yes Yes Indirect Yes Yes Indirect
74 Thus the CC Theme projects addressed either directly or indirectly all of the dimensions of diversity, and potential societal fractures, relevant to CC. All those working on the Community Cohesion projects are committed to work that benefits local people, particularly those from relatively disadvantaged life positions whether these are through birth, social displacement, geographical location, educational attainment or life stage. This approach takes better account of the social and cultural dimensions of community projects than the current discourse associating ethnic minorities with social problems (Fremeaux, 2005). The projects have enriched understanding of the important social issues, the nature of community cohesion and of cohesive communities. The challenges presented by actual and potential fractures in society are serious. If they are not addressed, conflicts and social breakdown may increase and the gap between the haves and have-nots may widen. Sometimes unhealed fractures are a matter of life and death. Examples of those fractures addressed by the projects include those affecting different cultural groups; migrants (CC07; CC09; CC12); workless people living in relative poverty (CC15; CC17; H10) different generations within minority community families (CC12); people living in areas of multiple deprivation (CC06; CC08; CC12; CC15; H10); children living in areas with low educational aspirations and attainment (CC01; CC02; CC03; CC05). 4.2.1 Mechanisms through which projects addressed community cohesion In different ways the projects have enabled people, groups and public services to gain insights into themselves and significant others. They have identified barriers to cohesion and supported means of overcoming these by: empowering people through facilitating them to have their voices heard (CC03; CC07; CC08; CC09; CC12; CC13; CC15; CC17; H10); enabling them to exercise more control over their lives and decisions that affect them, through participation and training (CC03; CC07; CC11; CC15; CC17; E06); and promoted change through the creation of networks and links between groups and organisations (CC01; CC05; CC06; CC11; CC12; CC15; CC17;; E06). Projects have worked with communities of people who are at risk of being disadvantaged through weak community cohesion, and are subject to ruptures in society. These have included: young offenders and children in schools, creating opportunities for policy makers to listen to what they have to say, and to raise aspirations (CC03);
75 workless women, enabling them to find forms of expression, confidence and meaning through art (CC07; CC15); community groups building leadership and management skills (CC11; CC17); different generations of men from families of migrants, healing intergenerational rifts; Eastern European, African- Caribbean, Somali, Yemeni and Pakistani migrants presenting their perceptions of life in the UK (CC09; CC12; CC08); lmultiple disadvantage and low economic activity (CC06; CC07; CC15; CC17; H10). The methods used within the projects have been diverse and have included a range of ways of engaging with and working alongside those community partners at the centre of the projects. These include: the creation of a web portal for community groups to influence the content of University courses (CC18); creative writing (CC12;CC15) film making (CC07; CC12; CC13; CC15); storytelling (CC08; CC12); oral history (CC08); small group training workshops (CC11; CC17); participatory knowledge cafes (H10); meal-based workshops (CC12); mentoring, research and evaluation (CC03; CC05; CC06; CC09; CC11; CC15; CC17). It is not just the direct work undertaken with communities that has affected change, but also what has been done with the information generated from the projects. For example, in CC15 a film was made, evaluating various public art projects linked to regeneration. The film captured a middle-aged woman discussing her views, and those of her family and neighbours, with an artist. The discussion included things about her life on a low income estate, and she gained skills in art appreciation and criticism. Her feedback influenced further arts projects. The film itself was a piece of art, and was shown in the local shopping precinct and many people stopped to watch and listen, thus broadening the number of people who were prompted to think differently, and consider the implications of art and regeneration. Other examples of different ways of using project information include:
76 were supported in presenting their ideas to a group of senior policy makers (CC03); course modules developed and additions to existing modules made (CC01; CC12; H10) community leadership and management workshops were brought together and a training package produced which has been used more widely and may become an accredited course within the University (CC11; CC17); one community group undertook a resident-led exploration of local views which enabled them to bid for further funding from the Big Lottery (CC06; following storytelling workshops with Yemeni and Somali fathers and sons, a magazine and a film have both been produced by the younger men, capturing important aspects of their lives (CC12); more films were made by people from hidden migrant communities and these were shown to large local audiences, facilitating wider understanding of the issues people faced (CC07; CC13); a conference was held for professionals and policy makers to consider the lessons from all the projects concerned with schools, young people and future demands for professional practice for those working with young people (CC01; CC02; CC03; CC05; CC14); another conference was held for artists, national policy makers, and arts commissioners about the role of creative methods in evaluation and their relevance to regeneration (CC15); An action learning event was held with professionals, policy makers, residents and academics to discuss and progress action towards key issues deriving from the research (H10); some training materials, in the form of games that can be played to raise awareness, consider potential solutions to problems and enhance both inter-professional and community-professional relationships have been piloted with people from 15 different countries (Kagan and Duggan, 2008). In all, the projects have demonstrated different ways in which universities can work with communities, around a theme of community cohesion, learning lessons about how opportunities and relationships between people can be understood and communicated more widely. Indeed, there was evidence of academic staff developing their understanding of CC through their project work. [from the beginning] I didn’t associate the term with racial equality, mixed cultures, which is what the Community Cohesion agenda mainly focuses on
77 because I had previously worked with communities and the area I work in is predominantly white, so I was thinking about it in the context of urban regeneration, the barriers and the issues. I was thinking about it more in terms of the relationship between communities and service providers. If there is a good relationship between those two then the service providers do the job in terms of getting the community together, bringing them out and getting them to integrate. Basically, resolving the issues and problems in communities. As I have read up more on Community Cohesion, I now realise that in this project those issues are starting to emerge more. (Interview, CC project lead) There was recognition that achieving cohesive communities would take a long time. I think it [community cohesion] is a term that is very broad. Getting cohesive communities is very difficult. It is going to take sustained work over a long period of time. Whilst we are just dipping our feet in the water here, it has been very helpful and useful but my goodness, it is going to take some doing! (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Understanding of urban regeneration as a result of project activity, also changed. [urban regeneration] is much broader than my former perception of it. When I was in Urban Regeneration before...there is lots of different kinds of projects that I never thought would be considered as Urban Regeneration but I can see now that they are. (CC Project worker, Interview) [this project] raised the profile of intergenerational conflict as a schism for community cohesion agendas and the role of minority groups, and different generations, in urban regeneration. It raised the visibility of non-building based regeneration processes, as well as the role of minority and other groups that agencies find difficult to involve. [it also] demonstrated an asset based,, rather than a deficit based approach to community involvement. (CC Project Closure Report) Local regeneration practice has also been enhanced. The Renewal Officer expressed great satisfaction with what has been done, and local people showed great interest and appreciation in a very active way. (CC08 Project Closure report) Academics, citizens and regeneration professionals have gained in understanding and practice from their experiences of working with the projects. The kinds of communities that were involved in the projects ranged from localities, broad based communities of interest and communities linked through cultural and religious belief. Nevertheless there was a common view within the CC theme that community engagement was not about business, often included in the category of 'community' in terms of being not university, when considering HEI-Community engagement. Some of these issues were captured during a group interview including academics, project and development managers.
78 [community is] anything outside its walls. When we talk about it, it depends where we’re situated in the University, so people might talk about their natural constituencies, so Art & Design might mean artists, art organisations. The Centre for Social Enterprise in the Business School might mean SMEs, Education would normally be people who are involved in education in some way…their schools that they partner with…. So it means all sorts of different things. We’ve been using it interchangeably to mean, I think probably we’ve had in mind people living in areas of multiple disadvantage in whatever way, so some of it will be individual people, groups of people organised informally, some of it will be projects or formal residents associations or trusts or charities that are working in those areas, some of it will be public sector, some of it might be enterprises but mostly the Business School deals with that. I had somebody this morning who said we’re thinking about becoming a Community Interest Trust, which is a new form of community company, from having been just an advocacy project, so then we [would] get involved in the business type stuff, but certainly my end, it’s that social side of community……I think community’s very much about anybody that comes together collectively around a shared vision, there’s geographical communities, there’s hidden communities, there’s all sorts of communities out there…… But on this [Urban Regeneration and CC] agenda it’s the non-business side, because business and the private sector is dealt with, social enterprise kind of bridges the middle, but it’s all the rest that isn’t about money and profit……There’s a big issue around access and who’s looking at which community, because what I found really interesting is that Urban Ed are really interested in bringing practice and policy and young people’s voices together with policymakers, so the community they’re trying to access there is the City Council into the young people’s issues. So the young people they don’t see as the community, because they see that as the centre and the driver of the work, so it depends who’s looking and where they’re situated.It is not always easy to see the links between community cohesion and urban regeneration. These projects have worked in one way or another to build networks and alliances and increase empowerment. They have done this through complex working to strengthen insight and identities through building capacity; human, cultural and social capital; and wellbeing. They have only been able to do this through the operation of coherent and well managed collaborative partnerships - the HEI community engagement activities. Figure 5 summarises the complex processes by which these lead to strengthening community cohesion, cohesive communities and aid urban regeneration, and contribute, ultimately to the 'good society' (Rutherford and Shah, 2006).
79 Figure 5: HEI-community engagement supporting processes of community cohesion, strengthening cohesive communities and urban regeneration The CC and MMU projects have made an active contribution to understanding the links between community cohesion, urban regeneration and a good society. 4.3. Project achievements: outputs The overall project proposal approved by the funding body contained anticipated outputs for the CC Theme. Each individual project had to specify how many of which outputs their project would address. Appendix 2 provides definitions of outputs. On a regular basis projects had to complete a monitoring form, indicating progress towards outputs. These reports were particularly useful as they summarised achievements on each project. In addition, for CC, 11 evaluation reports and 4 project reports were received (Table 13). HEI community engagement Insight and identity empowerment and control networks, links and alliances ..community cohesion.. ..community cohesion.. Capacity building Human capital wellbeing Social capital Cultural capital Cohesive communities urban regeneration A good society
80 Table 13: summary of CC Theme outputs Theme output to be achieved across all CC projects Actual outputs achieved 40 Organisations assisted* 208 262 Days of organisational support 254 3 New Advisory posts in external agencies * 4 18 Academics working on strategic forums 19 150 Learner days of CPD 709.5 25 Individuals gaining post-graduate qualifications 8 10 multi-agency teams including an HE representative * 9 2 Evaluation studies 10 3 New accredited learning programmes 6 Network events with practitioners 49 Dissemination workshops 52 Academic papers and publications in journals 27** *there was considerable overlap in operationalising organisations assisted and organisational support **number of academic presentations - it is too early to quantify the number published in academic journals The outputs were not easy to anticipate when project bids were developed and there was some confusion about how to count different outputs, despite the definitions provided. The focus of outputs was very much in terms of assistance given to and partnerships with formal organisations, which did not fit easily with some kinds of work. We came at it from..we knew what we wanted the project to look like. We knew what our aims and objectives were to achieve the outcomes so we did it the other way around. We didn’t think about outputs from the outset. It was blurry about what is an organisation. We got a sheet defining what an organisation assisted was or CPD days or journal papers. That might seem straight forward but there are different ways of meeting them and there was a lot of overlap. ... they were a burden to the project more than a driver. … Our project focussed on working with the community and local residents and I didn’t feel that enough outputs reflected community working. Although you have things like organisations assisted ..it is more about partnership and there wasn’t enough outputs around working with the community…. If they are not part of an organisation, how do you put that in the defined boxes? Residents as community researchers are difficult to map on to the definitions. Days of organisational support was useful as it has enabled me to do most of that developing and relationship building by working in the community organisation. It added a lot to the expertise and subsequently got me involved in a lot of consultations and this linked into issues emerging from the project. (Interview, CC project worker)
81 The projects greatly exceeded all planned outputs particularly those engaging people in communities, but it is too early to assess the long term benefits. 4.4. Added value There were a number of achievements across the projects that had benefits beyond the original aims of the project and these are worth summarising as examples of good practice, benefiting participants, HEIs and community services and institutions. Table 14 gives examples of different value-added features of the CC Theme. These examples are chosen to suggest the range of different kinds of value-added features. Table 14: Value added features of the CC theme projects Project Value added feature Beneficiary CC01 Certificates from the university issued to those attending inter-professional training; New course modules developed Two local authorities working together for workforce development Participants Professionals HEI Local Authorities CC03 Pupils were trained as researchers. Bonds developed with a new organisation with potential for future work. Production of learning materials to be used on social work training course. Pupils and schools. Public services. HEI CC05 Engagement of BME groups for whom knowledge of extended schools was limited. Guidance manual produced BME groups Schools and local authorities (beyond North) CC06 Social Enterprise developed jointly between a local development Trust and HEI HEI Residents and local community Third Sector organisation CC07 Films produced Student jobs as production assistants Participants gained film skills and attracted to university HEI Participants Widening Participation CC08 Exemplar for ‘Employability in the humanities’Students involved in collecting data for the project and using for dissertation; Contribution to new degree programme: BA(Hons) Local and Family History Local exhibitions held HEI Residents Civic pride
82 CC09 Local and national press coverage Participant enrolled on university course New questionnaire developed Comprehensive literature review on community cohesion and migration carried out HEI reputation Migrant participants HEI Academic community - methodology CC11 Became case study for AHRC/EPSRC Participative Research for Social Action project; Further seminar programme lunched Web based material for sharing Community organisation developed own website Progression onto other courses HEI reputation Third sector organisations HEIs CC12 Film making and magazine production skills gained Films and magazine produced with spin off project for Black British fathers Bridges built between community and social services Curriculum content Yr 2 course changed Phd thesis in preparation Press coverage Participants and communities Community pride BME groups Public sector and professionals HEI reputation CC13 Positive press coverage Films produced. Students involved and established media social enterprise HEI reputation Participants HEI Employability CC15 Public installations and exhibitions Anthology in development Confidence building and participant moving into employment Participants moving onto credit bearing courses Civic pride Residents and the public HEI reputation HEI CC17 Local people contributed to and then fully owned training course Local multi agency funding group facilitated Citizen empowerment Local Authority E06 PhD Studentship, Community Land Trusts Project Leader Chair, Conservative Party working group on Community Land Trusts HEI & HEI reputation Politicians H10 PhD on urban regeneration and third places Use of project material/learning for teaching purposes Research finding used to inform City Council transformational change agenda Residents have been involved in production of, and presented conference papers Local Authority Local community residents HEI One project summarised aspects of added value for the HEI in a request for extension of time:
83 We continue to develop a project that is truly value added. This has included involving students as much as possible and being able to provide exciting opportunities for them as part of our work; and unplanned but very important part of this project. The recruitment of co-researchers and students has strengthened our ability to reach out into the [local] communities and, again, has legacy value. We would like to continue with this inclusive style of work as we finish off data analysis and provide further user-friendly feedback. One model we are working on from feedback is for students to work with staff to present key findings to our lay community groups. … we have also acted as ambassadors for the regeneration projects … undertaking time consuming media work that is often so 'bitty' it is hard to translate into timesheet format (CC Project extension request) The potential for some of the project activity to contribute to the 'employability' agenda for students was apparent, as one of the projects spawned a new social enterprise involving the student participants. Three of the student helpers have gone on to set up their own community film production company and are working with one of the project participants on a commission for Channel 4. In addition the company is also producing a film about the whole Urban Regeneration project. (CC13 Project Closure Report.) CC08 has developed some follow on work with the Centre for Employability in Humanities. In addition, projects have had a wider reach to the general public via exhibitions, displays and public engagement events, as illustrated by CC13 and CC15. There was a public screening of films - introduced by the filmmakers- at Tyneside Cinema. .. and a further public screening at the Star and Shadow Cinema, Newcastle as part of a Black History session. The films were also screened on the Northumbria University website, the Newcastle evening Chronicle website, the BBC Local website, and the ITV local website. In addition the project participants set up their own webiste which also made the films available to a wider audience. Finally the films were featured in an item for the regional news programme, North East Tonight. (CC13 Project Closure Report.) Positive feedback was obtained from members of the public who were observed watching the film when on display in a local shopping centre.(CC15 Meta-evaluation report p 3) Film making was a way of engaging people who would not otherwise have contact with the University. Through working on CC07, some migrants have been introduced to the University. Some of the people involved had degrees in their own countries and through working with them on their films I was able to have discussions with them about future courses eg. PGCE-they didn’t know what it was. I was also able to offer advice to the people who were interviewed as part of the documentary-making process and I was able to give them information about evening courses. It
84 promoted the university and through using our facilities it showed people where we are physically, it ensured a sense of familiarity with our campus as well as highlighting to them what we have on offer. (CC 07 Project Leader, Interview) Come curricular developments have taken place due to community involvement. Through networking with the local equality officer, I met young people from the local Muslim community at a workshop that he co-ordinated. We explored together how we can develop more relevant programmes at MMU and it raised the profile of us being a potential good partner to work with. I fed this information back into relevant colleagues at MMU.( CC07 Project Leader, Interview) CC12 involved filmmakers, community media and drama companies in working with young and older men from the Somali and Yemeni communities. There is evidence that they, too, benefited from their involvement. Those involved in a supportive role .. talked of their pleasure and pride in the work that had been undertaken and the strengths and resilience of those older and young men who, whilst often telling of harrowing events, were able to carry on with good humour and commitment. Community leaders talked of the gains they had seen in the communities and their plans to take the project forward. (CC12 Project evaluation report p 9) The involvement of more community organisations as the project progressed also characterised H10, bringing benefits to both HEI and community partners. ...that has been the biggest thing. Our last project developed loads of contacts with people...this project has enabled those contacts to be developed more into relationships. Organisations have attended project meetings and have had a hands on approach and have given up a lot of hours...helped to shape the methodology and they haven’t been costed into the bid and have given 50 hours, off the top of my head, already and that is added value that we will put into the evaluation. That was building on existing relationships so that was easier for us than probably other project relationships. New community organisations have become involved through the observations and the video diaries, for example, [an organisation for] refugees and asylum seekers. We’ve developed relationships with different community centres and we put on things with them for local residents and that is aside of the relationships we have developed with local people. It has helped me to get my face known in the local community. The video diaries recruitment was quite easy because of the contacts we developed at the start of the project. Sitting in an organisation, one a day a week, in the community has really helped me to become embedded in the community. That has been a real benefit. [the local] Housing Community Liaison Team has developed into a good relationship. They have involved us in resident involvement and resident liaison. They have been a good source to access the community for recruitment to the project. (Interview, CC project worker)
85 Community partners have been introduced to research both as participants and researchers. It has been an opportunity because some of these people didn't have research expertise. I think that is something that HEFCE should be pleased with because at least they have learnt. I think that is something we should be proud of. (CC Strand Leader, Interview) Intensive involvement in projects by community partners has broadened their understanding of research. In our case, better understanding of the value of different sorts of research. Beginning from a position of only valuing objectivity within research, our partners now value the insights to be gained from qualitative perspectives. (MMU Project Lead, feedback) A different kind of public benefit stemmed from the impact that E06 had in amending some forthcoming legislation. Largely due to the lobbying [of project workers] a legal definition is now in place (Housing and Regeneration Act, 2008), and a national fund has been set up … with money from Esmée Fairburn and Charity Bank. This Fund and the definition will be very significant in allowing the growth of the community land trust sector in the future. (E06 Project Closure report) Additional value to members of the community who participated in project work was evident. Workshops gave the women a space to be themselves, and to 'do culture in a context where they had freedom from responsibility and a reflective space. … development of critical thinking and practical writing skills was facilitated (CC15 Meta- evaluation report p 3) It was not just the value to individuals, but also to public institutions that was clear, as illustrated by CC03. Young people’s voice developed a sustainable model of forums for young people to meet and discuss urban education and regeneration. This strengthened relationships between Higher Education and the communities which they serve. It encouraged young people to use innovative approaches to lead on research into regeneration and has added value to the work of Local Authorities engaged in developing young people’s voices. (CC03 Project Leader, Interview)The projects created substantial added value to community groups and organisations, HEIs and public institutions. Beyond CC, MMU also supported projects within other themes, although fewer resources were available for these projects. Some of these enjoyed various degrees of success. The Enterprise projects made substantial contributions to the objectives of that theme
86 and the partnership between MMU and one of the other HEIs was thought to be particularly strong, and likely to be sustainable. The project that has come out at the end on enterprise is any area where with [one of the HEIs] and the Business School have a lot to contribute with each other. When we could step back more and we could look at the gaps and had a bit more time, strengths of two uni's have come together and we have considerable expertise. They are quite competitive with each other but they have found a way of working together. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) There was some effective, sustainable joint working within the health theme. However, from the development perspective, there were opportunities missed and strain in partnership working. [There was] potential in Health with [MMU and one of the HEIs] but personalities didn’t gel there. We lost a lot of our good opportunities for rich overlap. The obvious ones didn’t take off. I cannot think of the less obvious as I don’t know enough detail. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) Detailed information about the achievements from within the Crime theme at MMU has not been received and there is some suggestion that opportunities have been missed. The potential for rich overlap was in crime and we never really got it. {another HEI] have a knowledge exchange centre … funded by HEFCE and we were partnering them and we have a small set up here from crime and it was such an opportunity and we never got the buy-in from those academics. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) The reach of the crime theme was limited within MMU, but it was never clear why this might have been. There are lots of bits within MMU that do work relevant to the Crime Theme - some have certainly thought this project misses their central interests. Why wont the others get involved? But then there was a lot of disquiet expressed at the emphasis put on the project at the Theme development day, so may be this is a theme, rather than an institutional issue? (CC Academic Theme Lead, Field Diary, September 2006).
87 In addition to these value added features, products and papers, mostly at this stage conference presentations, and press articles have emerged from projects across the CC theme at the time of writing, there have been: 48 conference presentations; 7 written papers; 12 evaluation reports;9+ films; 12 exhibitions and installations websitesAt theme level, some training games for examining tensions in communities and their resolution have been tested and are under further development. Appendix 1 lists these academic and creative outputs from the Theme. Substantial academic outputs in the form of products, presentations and papers were produced, and will continue to be produced, which will have a continuing impact and consolidate MMU's reputation in the field. Two projects (H10 and CC12) undertook additional evaluations of the university-community engagement aspects of the projects, applying the Points of Distinction(MSU, 1996) and REAP(Pearce et al., 2007) frameworks from Michigan State University and Bradford University respectively. The main advantage of these were to identify the concrete resources brought to the projects from the community organisations. H10 mapped a contribution of 256 hours of local authority time from staff from a large regeneration company, and 344 hours of local residents' time in addition to those hours costed into the project. If other projects had undertaken such an exercise, a fuller picture of additionality would have been gained. 4.5. Next steps Several projects have been successful in attracting funding for additional, follow on activities. It was recognised that without further resources, sustainability of some of the achievements of projects would be limited. …informal local wellbeingproviders were identified and these people now occupy positions on the resident liaison team committee. Despite this engagement, the risk of the benefits of the project not being sustained in the long term remains, as the difficulties in sustaining these relationships in the long-term are dictated by further funding. (MMU project Closure report) Nevertheless, there have been a number of successes in securing additional resources (Table 15). Substantial additional resources have been levered for continuing, broadening or extending project activities.
88 Table 15: Examples of Resources gained for follow-on activities Project Follow on activity CC01 Contract from Manchester City Council to deliver training on inter-professional working (£11,625) CC02 £90,000 AimHigher £130,000 DAF CC03 Project with Salford Young Offenders Team funded by National Children’s Home. £20,000 Manchester Knowledge Capital £10,000 CC06 Local Voices-Big Lottery fund bid submitted in September 2008 to roll out nationally (pending) CC08 22,000 word publication through the Centre Employability and Humanities CC09 Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance (£15,000) to work with migrants from A8 countries CC11 Salford PCT commissioned seminar series £50,000 Further funding from Capacity Builders £397,000 Two bids of £2500 made to ESRC; and two for £100,000 (decisions pending) CC12 Successful application for further funding from Parenting Fund made by community organisation (£50,408). Evaluation of Intergen (intergenerational activity in schools) £8,686 Bid made to ESRC Follow on Fund with H10 £97,000 (decision pending) Bid to NE Higher Skills Network (NEHSN) for accredited capacity building course CC17 KTP in development with Wulvern Housing Association CC15 Further funding for Arts Unit at Salford for additional book workshops Funding from Arts Council and Northern Rock Foundation To examine the effect of public engagement in the arts in terms of change for individuals and communities H10 Proposal to ESRC on wellbeing and place. Proposal to JRF on Poverty and Place. Bid to ESRC follow on (with CC12) £97,000. 4.6. Knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange and co-created scholarship From the first development day, both community partners and university staff working on the CC theme were keen to establish mutual, not one way benefits. Community partners summarised it thus: (Universities) must learn from the community. It is essential they go beyond obvious activists and community representatives and do not take credit for the work. This should be shared. ..(also) engage with people’s aspirations and values, not just their basic needs, and to address social as well as physical programmes. (Development Day 1, Community-group 2 summary feedback) The HEI perspective was just as clear: [The anticipated benefits of the work include:] Shared learning, the possibility of improving things, the possibility of bringing in real life accounts to teaching and research, street credibility for students, and the feeling that it is the right thing for academics to be doing. The work provides opportunities for universities to be a good
89 neighbour and throw some clarity about what the purpose is of Universities. (Development day 1, HEI group 1 summary feedback). From the implementation of the projects it was clear that there was, indeed mutual and reciprocal gain between HEIs and community partners. From the framing of the issue through to dissemination of important issues, University staff have made important contributions. Sometimes the work would have proceeded anyway, but university involvement catalysed the process (e.g. CC12) or extended its scope (e.g. CC06). In other cases the projects almost certainly would not have proceeded without the university involvement (e.g. CC03; CC15). In other cases the work may have proceeded but with different agencies involved and with fewer knowledge and skills resources available to it (e.g. CC11). University staff were able to make links to other projects, practices and organisations and to new ways of thinking about the processes of implementation and the outcomes of projects. Where required, research skills were employed, enhancing information gathering within projects as well as making sense of material that was generated by them. In one case (CC17), involvement of the university was crucial to bringing neighbourhood groups together, with a common goal to promote and develop shared learning. External communities often view universities as privileged and closed repositories of knowledge and resources, serving only an elitist few with agendas that are impenetrable at a local level. The involvement of University staff in a project to benefit and resource the community, taking account of the existing needs and capacity, was perceived by community group leaders as an important branding to the project that knitted the local authority and the community groups together in a shared enterprise and added status to it. The relation of universities to community projects is sometimes ambiguous because University projects often start at a community level, but then move on to a wider agenda and nothing is ever heard of them again. CC08, an oral history project, was designed for sustainability - resources were donated to the community and local residents have taken on the responsibility for development and maintenance of the archive. The project has had newspaper exposure and local radio coverage, and has produced a number of leaflets, based on records from community members, that help to locate and frame the identity of the area. Similarly the training programme developed in CC17 has been taken over by community groups and is no longer dependent on the University to run successfully. In addition to the contribution they made, university staff also gained from their involvement, redressing the lack of evidence of good practice in community cohesion research, identified by Hetherington et al (2007). One of the CC Strand Leaders summed up the knowledge exchange: [exchange of learning…]Yes to the local communities that we have been involved with so far, yes. Between institutions, yes. I have learnt an awful lot. And between myself and some of the leads in my own institution I've learnt and hopefully they have learnt a lot too. (CC Strand Leader, Interview)
90 Academic participants in CC17 have been asked to join planning and development groups that enable new insights into local authority policy and generally, people feel easier about approaching the University with ideas for new projects. Dissemination and discussion of projects within the community has led to new and better relationships between the University and community groups and thus new opportunities to include such groups in other work. University staff from CC15 have found that interaction with community members helped them understand more about how people access and treat arts in the community. For example, through interaction with a community member, it became possible to understand where best to place local arts information and marketing that would usually be inaccessible to some people. This knowledge has already been integrated into arts and community courses and conversations between artists and community members from backgrounds not usually associated with art appreciation, about the levels of access to artworks are being used to inform training for artists. The outcomes from this project have expanded from local to national: the insights achieved and the topic of inclusive evaluation of community projects was the subject of a symposium which attracted academics and policy makers from all over England. The oral history project (CC08) included interviewing long-time residents of a small area undergoing regeneration, helping to conserve real life records and promoting understanding between diverse populations. Several students have become involved in the project, using these experience records to evidence their dissertations and the local authority has offered a community space to exhibit student projects. A website is now planned to bring community and university closer together. In addition to specialist academic and policy knowledge, academics have brought experience of and skills of negotiation and facilitation, ensuring that projects are focused on the needs of communities, and that partnerships between universities are used to best effect. They have variously contributed experience and skills in processes of engaging those who are not conventionally involved in University level work. They have designed workshops, managed projects and supervised staff. The reciprocal gain reflects knowledge exchange that has taken place. Knowledge exchange arose from information sharing - the artists were supplied with information about the local community, and the participants received information about artists and arts projects. … knowledge was shown being passed on to the artists and researchers about the local area … which is currently going though a high level of urban regeneration. Issues that arose included levels of deprivation in the local area, local experience of motherhood, safety and danger. Reciprocally, the participants received tutoring on poetry and prose and an encouraging, supportive environment to develop their skills. (CC15 Meta evaluation report pp 3,5) CC12 the benefits to all partners was explicit. [Community partner perspective] Without it [HEI involvement] the project would have been less visionary and was more expansive. University involvement made
91 all those involved feel more valued and important. Encouragement to participate in the Global Community Psychology conference was validating and encouraging, enabling stronger links within a community psychology community. With University involvement there has been support for using community psychology thinking and practices, enabling them to be taken to a different level. [University perspective:]… from the University side the project has added a new dimension of interest and understanding, not only about the lives of the Somali and Yemeni communities in Liverpool, but about engagement work with the community as the intervention. (CC12 Project evaluation report p9-10) EO6, a project supporting the development of community land trusts, offers a case study of the complexity of knowledge exchange between HEIs and communities, in this case where one starting point was a problematic relationship between a local community and the HEI sector. HEI staff worked with a development trust in Headingley, Leeds that was seeking to address studentification. Here the team engaged in a dual process to foster greater trust and thus enable an exchange of knowledge. Time was spent in Leeds by the researchers focusing on understanding the local context from the development trust’s perspective. This was an iterative process, with the assumption that the development trust was the depository of knowledge and the researchers as supplicants. Secondly, the researchers utilised this new knowledge to present the development trust’s arguments and desires to other key stakeholders. The objective being to facilitate a greater understanding and, hopefully, cooperation between the development trust and other local partners. In Leeds this involved convincing strategic agencies that the development trust had a ‘legitimate’ concern and were representative of elements within the community. Only once this activity was complete were the researchers in a ‘trusted’ position and able to ‘transfer’ their generic knowledge, adapted for the local context. This was essential as the effectiveness of community land trusts and the associated ‘generic’ knowledge were dependent on developing a more refined and sophisticated knowledge to enable its application in urban areas. But ensuring the community group was in a position to receive the knowledge from the researchers would only partially achieve an openness to learning and knowledge transfer. Achieving this required exposing the community group to other communities in a similar position, as the community groups often operated in isolation and learning was invariably experiential. Thus researchers were able to create a learning environment where community groups could meet, exchange information, reflect on their experience and develop their own narratives within a broader and more abstract environment. The point was not to reinforce the image of the researcher as the ‘font of knowledge’ but help the community groups conceptualise their situation in a quasi-academic format. Such a change should enable faster learning as they respond to future concerns. Researchers were not seeking to prioritise academic learning skills over others, but rather pursue a merger of these with the lived experiences and local knowledge held by
92 communities and the community groups. By hosting networking events, seminars and operating interactive websites the researchers were creating the infrastructure necessary for higher mutual partnership learning between different communities and academics. (EO6 Project report) The lesson from the Community Land Trust project is that trust and understanding must precede the transfer and exchange of knowledge. This places the community at the centre of a knowledge nexus and gives primacy to the value of their knowledge, a key component of 'deliberative engagement' (NCC, 2008). A by-product of this is likely to be greater confidence within the community group as they have something considered latter occurs because the researchers are able to re-conceptualise and depersonalise the commusynthesis produces an exchange of mutually beneficial knowledge accumulation for both the community group and the researchers. The inter-disciplinary nature of the HEI partnerships contributed to inter-HEI knowledge exchange. There have beenbenefits seen as the project has gone on. Working across universities was a benefit. We didn’t have an understanding of what they had been involved in before but having spoken to them, we were coming from [one discipline] background and they were coming at it from a [another] perspective…. we were thinking about social and environmental and they were health focussed which was useful knowledge exchange as we moved through the project. … [the thirdHEI's brought a different perspective] and it seems to bring all 3 of the universities perspectives together. It covered what we were doing in the project and I hadn’t heard of it before or come across it. The concept bridged our project quite well. It has allowed us to keep on track (Interview, combined CC and Health project worker) The projects were able to demonstrate reciprocal knowledge exchange. In many instances what happens is more than knowledge accumulation. New ways of working and new understanding has been co-produced (Gannon and Lawson, 2008). Through working together, engaged community practice and engaged scholarship produce co-created cultures of inquiry (Figure 6). This is new way of thinking about HEI-Community engagement and warrants more theoretical work, underpinned by reflective experience of new practices. To date we know little about the fluidity of relationships and how, in the long term, both academic and community practices will transform themselves. Co-created cultures of inquiry emerged through the two-way engagement between communities and HEIs, Figure 6: Knowledge exchange through engaged community practice and scholarship leading to co-created cultures of inquiry Co-created cultures of inquiry HEIs engaged scholarshipCommunities engaged practice T&L, Research, Third Stream
93 Co-created inquiry is only possible if there is mutual understanding. [project staff have learnt ] about the issues and barriers that arise between the working relationships between service providers and professionals. These are problems that are important to us. It has enabled us to understand ‘A day inthe life of local residents’...they have given us that benefit of understanding them and their relationships between regeneration professionals and service providers with academics as part of the equation. Problems have emerged about that working relationship based on their experiences...what they have learnt what they expect both from academics as well as regeneration professionals based on their experiences. What have they learnt from us?-they think and expect academics to be sitting in their offices, working up journals. Expectation of most people is that academics don’t get into the community so it has helped to eradicate the myths about what academics do and what universities are for. (Interview, CC project worker). As a result of project work, some community members have gone on to undertake courses or prepare to enter university. Others have gained more general understanding of what it is that universities do. 4.7. Culture change in MMU The URMAD projects have fed back into MMU and contributed to change, both in terms of reputation, new projects, and internal policies and practices. Since the URMAD project began, MMU has been successful, along with Manchester University and one of its URMAD projects, in becoming one of 6 Regional Beacons for Public Engagement. The Beacons project grew out of the URMAD project.] In my role, I have used the activity we have undertaken in urban regeneration in a generic way-we used it as a baseline argument for why we should become the
94 Manchester Beacon for Public Engagement. …we were able to point to genuine activity that proved the case for why we should be a beacon.… this has been the most wonderful starting point for Public Engagement. It was a sudden fetters falling from the eyes and realising what we have been doing is public engagement as HEFCE now describe it. Not the public engagement where you stand up in a pulpit and tell people what they need to know, but we have been doing what HEFCE demand that people are doing now is going out and listening to the public and responding to their needs. Everyone of our projects had to respond to a recognised need so it was great. We have been doing it and are right on key so there is a great excitement in thinking that all the people who have been engaging with it we will now just seamlessly move over to our public engagement champions. (MMU Development Manager, Interview) In 2008, MMU adopted a Public Engagement Strategy, 'Bridging the gap between MMU and the Public', building substantially from the experience of the URMAD and similar projects. Whereas at the start of URMAD there was no policy commitment to community engagement, there now is. These two changes have led to other innovations, including: Changes to the Research, Enterprise and Development website to install a gateway link for external community organisations; The introduction of public engagement fellows, seconded part time to work on public engagement projects; an interactive facility wherein external agencies and members of the public can contribute to decision making about engagement projects; The public engagement strategy explicitly addresses a culture shift as it states the intention to: [offer] both staff and students reward and recognition for engagement in activities which define what it means to be a university in the 21st century, making public interactions and social considerations a core part of the role of any member of staff or student in any discipline (MMU Public Engagement Strategy, 2008) Across the partnership, commitment has been gained for further collaboration and joint working. we have met with the VCs across the partnership and the management group and they have agreed collectively that they want the partnership to continue and they think that there is enough work in what we have done to start to promote ourselves as Regennorth now. That actually there is a collective agreement to promote ourselves as that and to continue to build this focus on sustainable communities. (MMU Develop Manager, Interview)
95 The URMAD projects have expanded links with community organisations; gone some way to open the University to people who would otherwise not have had contact; influenced curricular developments and modifications; broadened the base of academics involved in community engagement; and produced a number of academic outputs in the field of engaged academic practice. A culture shift within MMU is beginning and a promising start has been made to integrating community and public engagement with the core business of the University and academic practice. A cultural change within MMU has begun with an explicit engagement strategy now in place, accompanied by the introduction of reward and recognition via engagement fellowships, and a gateway into the university for community groups. Further development will be needed in MMU to ensure that front line staff and line managers promote the new engagement practices.
96 5. Good practice in HEI-Community engagement The CC and MMU led projects have all been examples of HEI-community engagement practice. University-community engagement is not new and has grown into an international policy and practice. Service learning and community service are cornerstones of the South African transformation of Higher Education sector (NCHE, 1996); it has been promoted in the USA under the banner of civic responsibility for over 20 years (Ehrich and Hollander, 1999), is reflected in the Science Shop movement (Leydesdorff and Ward, 2005; Fischer, Leydesdorff, and Schophaus, 2004), prefigured by the Research Exchange developed in Manchester in 1983 (Kagan, 1985). University-community engagement work is now exhibited in academic journals in Australasia (Australasian Journal of University Community Engagement, which began in 2005), USA (for example Journal of Public Service and Outreach; the Wingspread Journal; Journal Higher Education Outreach and Engagement), and in Europe (through Living Knowledge: International Journal of Community Based Research). The forms of engagement include service-based learning (SBL), community service (CS) and community based research (CBR) with most attention paid to SBL and CBR (Calleson, Kauper-Brown, and Seifer, 2005; Kelly and Sullivan, 2001). Both of these, learning and research, are arts of the core business of Universities, with CS more strongly reflecting contributions universities might make, through their students and staff, to communities, beyond their core business. 5.1. CC and MMU projects as examples of good practice The US Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has supported university-community partnerships for many years, has identified the characteristics of good partnerships (HUD, 2004),and the implementation of the URMAD projects can be assessed in relation to these criteria. Table 16 presents aspects of good HEI-community engagement practice and includes an assessment of the extent to which the CC Urban regeneration projects fulfilled these criteria. Table 16: Aspects of Good Practice in HEI- Community Practice Aspects of good practice in university-community partnerships Extent to which CC Urban regeneration projects achieved good practice 1. Partners must jointly explore their separate and common goals and interests. The rules that govern campus-community partnerships must be explicit and should lead to the development of a formal, mutually rewarding agenda that identifies where separate interests can be satisfied through shared action. The development process applied in the CC theme attempted to ensure this happened. Projects were able to demonstrate that interests of community partners had been at the forefront of developments. The 'forced' requirement to make links across HEIs created some difficulties in ensuring common goals were pursued but on the whole was effective. 2.Each partner must understand the capacity, resources, and expected contribution of every other partner. Part of being a good partner is being clear about your own limitations and respecting the assets and limitations expressed The different contributions brought to the various partnerships were explicit. Some of the inter HEI and intra-HEI collaborations broke down resulting in loss of potential contributions. One sided costing model did
97 by others. After all, partners work together because each brings unique skills to an endeavour. not permit resources to be transferred to community partners. 3.Effective partnerships must identify opportunities for early success. Successdefined and measured in both institutional and community termscomes through careful planning of project activities and components and the development of realistic objectives. Early successes are occasions to celebrate collective effort and to build trust. The short timescales of the projects meant that most were designed for early success. External partnerships were largely, though not entirely, founded on pre-existing relationships, building on prior success - this was partly due to the short duration of the project. Whilst these successes were important, it is possible that some activities were excluded as they would have needed longer timescales than those available. 4.The focus of partnership interaction should be on the relationship itself and not only on a set of tasks. Like social relationships, the best partnerships begin with partners listening to and learning about each other, and discovering how their differences and similarities can help them appreciate each other. This hard work of listening and learning in relationships never ends. Without it, we cannot advance to a sustained reciprocal relationship that builds community capacity over time. The project was activity and output dominated by design. Within this, though, CC theme endeavoured to build in relationship building as an important stage. This part of the process was not resourced. Project evaluation and other reports were dominated by a focus on measurable outputs. However, it was clear that most projects addressed the relationship side of their work as it proceeded. 5. The partnership design must ensure shared control of partnership directions. Intentional and formal construction of the project team and/or an advisory group can ensure that all voices are involved in planning and decision making, and that communication channels remain open. To create such a culture of shared power is extremely challenging and time consuming, and requires major changes in the attitudes and practices of academic institutions that must learn to listen, share, and respect other sources of knowledge. The best partnerships use formal structures and processes to document and preserve fair exchange. Within the CC theme there was a commitment to develop the work in equal partnership with community and other HEI partners. However, the funding model did not facilitate this and economic power over the project was not equally distributed. Formal processes of monitoring were cumbersome and no projects reported that this was undertaken in conjunction with community partners (and it was unclear the extent to which it was undertaken with HEI partners). 6.The partners must make a commitment to continuous assessment of the partnership relationship itself. Too often, assessment is something done at the end of a program and, thus, does nothing to build a future agenda or the beginning, assessment that involves all partners creates trust, generates new lines of work and funding, and keeps shared goals and expectations visible to all. In this way, we build sustained relationships that respect the needs and interests of all partners, and we use assessment as a constant tool for reflecting on our contributions and benefits. This builds deeper and more authentic reciprocity. The activity and output driven nature of the project design led to a lower emphasis on the relationship side of partnerships. However, most project and evaluation reports did indicate that partnerships were kept under review. There was a need for some 'trouble shooting' within the overall theme and institutional management. There have been considerable efforts made to secure follow up and continuation funding for further work within and by the partnerships which demonstrated a commitment to deeper and more authentic reciprocity. Overall though, the assumption underpinning the project model was one of knowledge transfer (from HEIs to communities) rather than exchange between equal but different partners.
98 Thus whilst the Urban regeneration projects have included a number of aspects of best practice, there were some imbalances in the partnerships and possibly some restriction on the activities undertaken, due largely to the time span of the project. Another way of examining the overall efficacy of the CC and MMU projects is to consider the extent to which they reflect those critical success factors identified in the literature on HEI-Community engagement (Martin, Smith and Phillips, 2005) - see table 17. The URMAD project contained and reflected the majority of the critical success factors outlined by Martin et al (2005) and as such can be considered exemplars of HEI-community engagement practice. The projects have achieved many of the internationally known critical success factors for HEI-community engagement. Table 17: Extent to which CC and MMU projects met the critical success factors leading to innovative University-community partnerships (after Martin et al., 2005) Critical success factor Definition Extent to which this was addressed by CC Theme and MMU projects funding. Source and nature of funding and involvement of funders HEFCE funding enabled the activity and led to particular processes of monitoring against outputs. Matched funding came from a number of sources. No costs for community partners were included communicationImportance of initial and ongoing meetings between universities and community partners Meetings between universities and community partners took place regularly in development and implementation phases of the project synergyA two way approach to knowledge development and transference is required All projects were explicit about an approach to knowledge exchange between all stakeholders and not just knowledge transfer from universities measurable outcomesSpecific measurable results are needed against measurable objectives, with an emphasis that addresses impact and amalgamates both theoretical and practical perspectives From its inception the overall project and each theme and subsidiary project made explicit objectives and measurable outputs. The majority of projects were also evaluated beyond the anticipated outputs visibility and dissemination of findingsIt is important that knowledge arising from partnerships is disseminated to a wider audience Dissemination events, activities and products took different forms for different projects but most went beyond the involvement of direct project beneficiaries to reach wider audiences
99 organizational compatibilityOrganisations that function in a similar manner in which stakeholders share the status of 'expert' are likely to be most effective. A governance model to sharing power and decision making is proposed. The complex development and 'opt-in' process ensured that project teams and all those involved at HEI level shared common values and a pragmatic approach. More could have been made of the involvement of community partners in governance at HEI level simplicity Successful partnerships tend to be founded on simple modes of operation - stakeholders often come together with the hope of enacting social change and there is a danger this enthusiasm leads to projects that are ambiguous and unobtainable All projects met their objectives through clearly defined activity processes. Nevertheless, there was widespread underestimating of time needed to deliver the projects. Nevertheless, projects were realistic in scale and ambition. 5.2. Community engagement as a part of public engagement Public involvement and engagement in public services is of considerable contemporary interest to the UK Government (for example, ODPM, 2005; CLG, 2008a,b;), reflected in the new statutory duty to 'inform, consult and involve' coming into force in April 2009 (CLG, 2008b). This interest has contributed to the growth of a University-Public Engagement agenda, of which HEI-community engagement practice is one part. A joint statement by the sponsors of University Public Engagement (the Beacons of Public Engagement project) defines it thus: 'Public engagement' involves specialists in higher education listening to, developing their understanding of, and interacting with non-specialists. The 'public' includes individuals and groups who do not currently have a formal relationship with an HEI through teaching, research and knowledge. (HEFCE, 2007) Community Engagement activities, that involve close working relationships with community partners, do not fit centrally within this definition of public engagement. Largely this is because of the long term, ongoing nature of the relationships between HEIs and community partners need to do good quality, engaged work, as illustrated by the URMAD projects. HEI-community engagement is built on long term and existing relationships, and not just those 'who do not currently have a formal relationship with an HEI'. It is important to recognise the difference between community engagement and public engagement by and with universities, so as not to lose sight of the particular nature of community engaged work within the wider public engagement brief. Both contribute to an 'engaged university' (Huber and Harkavy, 2008; Ramaley, 2007; Watson, 2007; Talloires Network 2005; Winter, Wiseman and Muirhead, 2006). In a review of methods of auditing, benchmarking and evaluating university public engagement, Hart, Northmore and Gerhardt (2008: 21) suggest a seven-dimension framework of public engagement activities. This framework includes: public access to facilities; public access to knowledge; student engagement; staff engagement; widening
100 participation; encouraging economic regeneration; and institutional relationships and partnership building. Clearly the URMAD project was not seeking to address each of these dimensions equally, as they refer to the whole, engaged university (Watson, 2007). Nevertheless, each was touched upon, as illustrated in Table 18. Table 18: CC and MMU projects as part of university- public engagement activities ( ●= fully addressed; ○= partially addressed) Dimension of public engagement public access to facilities public access to knowledge student engagement; faculty (staff) engagement widening participation (equalities and diversity) encouraging economic regeneration and enterprise in social engagement institutional relationships and partnership building* CC01 ○●●●●CC02 ●●●●●CC03 ●●●●CC05 ●●●●CC06 ●●●CC07 ●●●●●CC08 ●●●●CC09 ●●●CC11 ●●●●CC12 ●●●●CC13 ●●●●●CC14 ●●●CC15 ●●●●CC17 ●●●●CC18 ●●●●●E06 ●●●H10 ●●●in the case of the URMAD projects there were partnerships between HEIs as well as with community partners There is an explicit link between University- Community Engagement and Public Engagement, the latter embracing the former. 5.3. Beyond Community Cohesion and Urban Regeneration All of the projects in the CC theme addressed social schisms and social inequalities. The theme deliberately went beyond a definition of community cohesion in terms of race, instead focusing on a wider range of social divisions and the differences and conflicts that emerge within and between them. All of the projects, and the operation of the theme, involved close interaction between different kinds of people, using a variety
101 of different methods, and these have been assessed, above. The prevention, exploration or resolution of conflict was central to processes of development and transformation. The Department of Communities and Local Government, make the link between conflict resolution and community cohesion. An important area of community cohesion work is that body of knowledge and skills used to help people, groups or communities to find consensual strategies or common grounds on which they can work together. Thus, while these skills are more commonly known in the conflict resolution field they are also applicable across much of the work of community development, community health and education, youth work, anti-racism, equal opportunity and equality work (CLG undated) One of the strengths of those community engagement practitioners, working on this project in the HEIs, is in using knowledge and engagement processes to bridge groups and communities to find just this consensual ground. This has required an orientation, set of values and commitments, beyond those of more traditional academic practice. They have worked with the 'messiness of direct engagement in societal problems' (Wergin, 2006: 25) in the midst of power struggles and partisan conflicts (not just within their community practice, but also between HEIs). They have made their knowledge and skills available and re-affirmed the importance of engaged community practice. Wergin (2006: 26) notes that sometimes collaboration is not beneficial and can be so cumbersome that it is "better for one partner to trust the other and simply get out of the way". In the URMAD projects, some HEI partners did seem to 'get out of the way', but this was not a deliberate strategy in recognition that the project could be delivered more effectively without them. The social agendas that dominated in 2005-6 when the initial bid was developed, have moved on. Ascendant policy agendas now include community participation and (in formal governance as well as more informally in civic life); sustainable communities; public engagement across the whole of the public and much of the private sector; transformation of public sector services and support for the growth of social enterprises; change in the Third Sector and co-production of the social good. The URMAD projects supported by the CC theme and MMU have begun to address these agendas as well as those of urban regeneration and community cohesion, from whence they began. Rutherford and Shah (2006;24) suggest a vision of a good society, in pursuit of which social policy is moving: To achieve greater equality requires policies and institutional reforms over the long term, and spread across a wide range of social and economic relations. We need to redress inequalities relating to gender, race, childhood, ageing and disability. We need to tackle inequalities of resources such as time, work, health and care, all of which impact on the life chances of large sections of the population. In particular more effort is required to deal with the unequal distribution of social networks and social capital, which is another key determinant of life chances. Equality requires democracy, the process through
102 which we meet as equals and negotiate our collective dilemmas….To this end we need to develop a culture and politics of respect and recognition throughout civil society. Such a culture is guided by mutuality and reciprocity. … A society that makes large numbers of its citizens feel they are looked down on will inevitably incur the costs of people’s antisocial reactions to the structures that demean them. The CC projects, the CC Theme and MMU practices, working at individual project , theme, institutional or overall project levels, have shown just such mutuality, reciprocity, respect and recognition. They have also tapped into the priorities of different national and international policies that contribute to this social good. Wedgwood (2006 and see Watson, 2007) demonstrated the value of Third Stream activities in Universities to different government departments and policy domains (Figure 7). It is possible to see the impressive way in which the CC and MMU projects have contributed to these different spheres (Figure 9). The HEI-community engagement projects have addressed seven major policy and legislative arenas, with an emphasis on those that affect quality of life and community. 5.4. Ingredients of good quality HEI-Community Engagement Through the constant discussion and reflection on experiences during and after the implementation of the URMAD projects led by MMU, including the overall management of the CC theme, a number of lessons have been learned about the ingredients of good quality community engagement projects. MMU staff have contributed to a project-wide group pulling together current knowledge about impact of engaged scholarship, and guidelines and metrics relating to this will follow. The CC and MMU project have shown the potential for developing HEI-community engagement praxis and parallels can be seen with successful social enterprises. Indeed, there may be future for HEI-community engagement to take the form of social enterprises. HEI-community engagement praxis has been extended and there are clear links with the potential of social enterprises for contributing to the social good. Through discussion within MMU, though, the key features of high quality HEI-community engagement have been articulated. (Public engagement will be broader than this.) It is through individual projects that a difference will be made to people's lives and advance the social good. However, for these to have maximum impact, they must be supported by efficient and effective management of resources and appropriate utilisation of knowledge and skills, bridged by trusting and reciprocal partnerships within and outside the university. All of this, in turn, takes place within a wider university context which should be supportive and enabling. Figure 9 summarises the ingredients of good quality HEI-community engagement, and these are expanded in Table 19.
103 Figure 7: The Potential Reach of HEI-Community Engagement (Adapted from Wedgwood - See Watson, 2007)Figure 8: The Actual Reach of CC Theme and MMU projects within URMAD projectEnterprise Cultural Enrichment Business CompetitivenessSocial Inclusion Healthy SocietyNew Companies Infrastructure EnvironmentSports Creative IndustriesIncubation Spinouts Startups Social Enterprises Intellectual Prop. Public and Third Sector changeEnterprise in Schools Enterprise in the Community Enterprise & HE Educational aspiration & Achievement Community cohesion & development Refugees and asylum Social participation Crime,Drugs Visual Arts & Music Performing Arts Sport New Media Arts and healthFitness / exercise Life Styles Living Conditions Regeneration Identity and Development Wellbeing Health and social careRegeneration Sustainability STRONG ECONOMY STRONG SOCIETY Wealth Creation Quality of Life & Community REGENERATION GROWTH TREASURY NUMBER 10 CABINET OFFICE BERROST HOME OFFICE DCMS DH DCLG DIUS DCSF DEFRA DT Food Technology Digital Media and ICT Clothing Environmental Tech Sports Retail and Tourism Finance & Prof Services Creative IndustriesIncubation Spinouts Startups Social Enterprises Intellectual Prop. Commercial-isation Public and Third Sector changeEnterprise in Schools Business Enterprise Enterprise in the Community Enterprise & HE Equal Opps, Diversity, work life Educational aspiration & Achievement Community cohesion & development Disability, mental health, Refugees and asylum Social participation Crime,Drugs Visual Arts & Music Performing Arts Literature, Philosophy & History Sport New Media Fashion Arts and healthFitness / exercise Life Styles Food / Diet Living Conditions Regeneration Identity and Development Wellbeing Health and social careEnterprise Cultural Enrichment Business CompetitivenessSocial Inclusion Healthy SocietyNew Companies Architecture Rail, Aviation, ICT Landscape design Regeneration Sustainability New Energy Environment and Pollution ControlInfrastructure EnvironmentTREASURY NUMBER 10 CABINET OFFICE BERROST HOME OFFICE DCMS DH DCLG DIUS DCSF DEFRA DT STRONG ECONOMY STRONG SOCIETY Wealth Creation Quality of Life & Community REGENERATION GROWTH
104 Figure 9: Quality Assurance in HEI-community engagement: project impact; organisational processes and institutional context Organisational processes (6 O’s)Project impact (4 I’s)Quality of Life and contribution to social good Benefit to HEI and engaged academic practice Appropriateness and efficacy of activities Sustainability of change, activities and relationships Evaluation Project Management Relevance and Accessibility Resources Knowledge and skills Monitoring and review Organisational learning and celebration Support for Transdisciplinary and cross sectoral working Recognition, reward and staff development Gateway, active networking and publicity Mission, values, types of engagement Involvement and governance Public engagement strategy Institutional context 10 C’sNature of partnerships Effective organisational systemsSupport for Resource expansion
105 Table 19: Quality Assurance Domains: University-Community Engagement Project level Institutional context Project Impact Quality of Life This domain is project-specific. It addresses the impact that each project makes on quality of life and the social good. Includes: Progress towards aims and objectives; assessed indicators of change; Policy impact Dissemination Impacts clear, including unintended impacts Stakeholder perspectives and reflections on relationships Conflict resolution Mission and values embrace community engagement. Gateway to the University, publicity and marketing Benefit to HEI and engaged academic practiceThis domain is project specific and makes explicit what has changed within HEI as a result of project: curriculum developments; teaching and learning; research; Third Stream activities; public involvementPublic engagement strategy aligned with other operational strategies Clear typology of different kinds of engagement activity congruent with mission and values Recognition and reward Appropriateness and efficacy of activities What worked, how and why? What might have been done differently? Gaps in expertise and understanding Individual and organisational learning Mechanisms for organisational learning Sustainability of change, activities and relationships Added value Leverage of resources Continuation of relationships Broadening of access to University for community groups or to community groups for University Broadening the academic base Involvement and governance (Involvement of community partners in governance at all levels in University and in relation to all activities) Nature of partnership Number of groups involved and diversity across the sectors History of partnership New opportunities arising for this partnership Nature of the innovation –research; teaching and learning; specific project Reciprocity, trust and shared values Monitoring and review mechanisms in place Organisational processes Project Management Planning and project design Resource procurement Governance arrangements (reciprocal involvement of university and Effective monitoring systems in place ensuring accountability Appropriate reporting Good practice guidelines in place Mechanisms for organisational learning in place
106 Financial monitoring Mechanisms for organisational learning (University and Community) Personnel support and development Dissemination Effective organisational systems e.g. financial and academic accountability Knowledge and skills Adequacy and relevance of interdisciplinary knowledge and skill base Skills for project management (planning and evaluation –general) and delivery (project specific) Generation and utilisation of appropriate skills Skills development Support and commitment to trans-disciplinary and cross sectoral activity Staff development and training Active networking across HEIs Resources Adequacy of financial and human resources Mechanisms for resource enhancement Physical resources Reciprocal use of resources between University and community Support for resource procurement Mechanisms for recognition and reward Relevance and Accessibility Appropriate partnerships formed Values –visibility and clarity, restricted or open access to project Access broadened to both University and Community University information available to community clear Points of contact to both university and community groups clear Shared dissemination Publicity Gateway or portal for community projects to contact University properly resourced: effective sign posting and intelligence held about expertise within University and in relation to community interests Evaluation Clarity of internal and external drivers linked to project Formative and summative evaluation planned from the outset Approach to evaluation clear and properly executed Relevant participation and dissemination of evaluation findings Celebration of achievements Each of these domains - project impact, organisational processes and institutional context can be defined for evaluation and quality assessment purposes. Information about the institutional level would not need to be replicated each time an engagement project took place, but insofar as these domains set the institutional context, they could usefully be revisited on a regular basis. Specific projects or engagement activities will be hindered if the institutional context is not enabling. The project impact and organisational processes apply to individual projects or groups of projects and could usefully be built into evaluation of university-engagement work. Major domains of quality of HEI-community engagement activities have been identified in terms of project impact, organisational processes and institutional context. Figure 10 illustrates the extent to which the URMAD CC projects met quality standards.
107 Figure 10: Quality of MMU and CC projects: project impact; organisational processes and institutional contextOrganisational processes (6 O’s)Project impact (4 I’s)Quality of life enhanced at individual, group, organisational and institutional levels Clear benefits to MMU and to academic practice Range of activities were fit for purpose Evidence of sustainable change and relationships Extensive evaluations although more capacity building for evaluation neededSupport for project management given though more needs to be done with Departments Projects addressed key aspects urban regeneration Projects were mostly under-costed. Substantial contributions in kind Relevant knowledge and skills drawn form different partnersMonitoring and review processes developed as project proceeded. Links with Departments need strengthening CC Theme held celebration. Dissemination conference across whole project. Organisational learning largely informal but substantial Project supported transdisciplinary and cross sectoral working across HEIs - more difficult internally Apart from time release, no formal recognition or reward. However, public engagement fellowships now available. Gateway, developed as project progressed. Publicity gained late on in project. Website delayed Typologies of engagement developed through the project Community Involvement in project development and delivery, not governance MMU Public Engagement Strategy agreed 2008 Institutional context 10 C’sA range of different kinds of partnerships were formed
108 6. Conclusion From its inception, the URMAD project specified some outcomes. These were: More effective delivery of public policy through collaboration between professionals A new coherence at a strategic level, across the private, public and voluntary and community sectors Integration, at an operational level, in the delivery of public policies Fostering of understanding across and between professionals and organisations involved in community development Creation of a culture of leadership in which public service workers are creators of policy and practice not merely interpreters Providing the local, regional and national evidence base for better policy mediation within the context of the North This evaluation has thrown some light on the extent to which these outcomes have been met, although for several of them, more time will be needed for impact to be fully realised. Taken as a whole, the Community Cohesion and MMU URMAD projects have had an influence on local and regional policy and practice. Professionals and academics have been brought together in new collaborations that have promoted new ways of thinking and of doing. Interagency working and cross-boundary explorations of practice within the public and third sectors have been supported, and innovations in community engagement and community development have been introduced. Leadership has been the explicit focus of some of the projects: however, leadership has been addressed more broadly through the creation of new relationship spaces wherein cross boundary listening, exploration, development growth and exchange has taken place. Together, the university with its other university and community partners have co-created new understandings of policy working, and whilst there is potential for this to grow, more time will be needed to see just how much of an impact it makes. Beyond this, the work has generated accounts of new community practices and HEI-community engagement possibilities. These have been, and continue to be disseminated widely, thus extending the reach of the project. The projects have demonstrated a shift from engaged scholarship and knowledge exchange to co-created scholarship and practice - co-created praxis. Through continual reflection MMU staff will continue to work to build better ways of assessing the impact of the work and of celebrating engaged academic practice. All of this work contributes to an evolving identity for academics and community partners that can only emerge through continued and strengthened relationships. The search for identity, then, is like chasing shadows, and much greater emphasis should be placed on how we actually relate to each other, allowing relationships to grow. (Cantle 2009)
109
110 7. References Audit Commission (2006). Knowing your communities: improving user focus and diversity for councils. London, Audit Commission. Bleakley, A. (2004)Better Dead than Red? What Soviet psychology taught us about learning that saved our skins - a case study of multi-professional teamwork in operating theatres. Paper presented to Discourse, Power, ResistanceConference, University of Plymouth, April 2004. (cited in Warmington et al., 2004) Blickstead, J.R., Lester, E. and Shapcott, M. (2008). Collaboration in the Third Sector: From co-opetition to impact driven cooperation. Toronto, Wellesley Institute. http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/files/collaborationinthethirdsector.pdfretrieved 2.1.09 Boyd, A., Geerling, T., Gregory, W.J., Kagan, C., Midgley, G., Murray, P. and Walsh, M.P. (2007) Systemic Evaluation: A Participatory, Multi-Method Approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58 (10) pp 1306-1320. Brandenburger, A., Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-Opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation. New York, Currency Doubleday. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press Cultures of Inquiry’: mechanisms of university-community engagement from the outside. Personal Communication. Calleson D, Kauper-Brown J, Seifer SD. (2005) Community-Engaged Scholarship Toolkit. Seattle: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, http://www.communityengagedscholarship.info. retrieved 2.1.07 Cantle, T. (2009). Parallel Lives.Eurozine. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-11-03-cantle-en.htmlretrieved 2.2.09 Cantle, T (2005) Community cohesion: a new framework for race and diversity. Basingstoke: Palgrave CLG (2008a) Communities in Control: Real People, real power. Cmnd 7427. London, CLG. CLG (2008b). Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities: Statutory Guidance. London, CLG. www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/strongsafeprosperousretrieved 8.10.08 CLG (undated). Community Cohesion and Conflict resolution. London, UK Government Department of Communities and Local Government. http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/page.asp?id=519retrieved 3.1.09 Connell, J.P and Kubisch, A.P. (1998) `Applying a Theory of Change Approach in K. Fulbright Anderson, A.C Kubisch and J.P. Connell (Eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives Volume 2: Theory, Measurement, and Analysis. Washington DC., The Aspen Institute.
111 Corbett, T. and Noyes, J.L. (2008). Human Services Systems Integration: A Conceptual Framework.University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty . Discussion Paper no. 1333-08.Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC, November 2008. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp133308.pdfretrieved 3.1.09. We don’t believe you want a genuine partnership” University Work with Communities.Manchester, RIHSC We don’t believe you want a genuine partnership”: University work with communities. Paper presented to Community Work and Family Conference, Lisbon, 2007 Ehrlich, T. and Hollander, E. (1999) Presidents' declaration on the Civic Responsibility of Higher Education. Providence: Campus Compact, Brown University (reprinted 2005) www.compact.orgretrieved 2.1.07. Fischer, C., Leydesdorff, L., & Schophaus, M. (2004). Science Shops in Europe: The Public as Stakeholder. Science & Public Policy, 31(3), 199-211. Fremeaux, I. (2005). critique, Community Development Journal, 4, (3) 265-274. Gannon, Z. and Lawson, N., (2008) Co-production. The modernisation of public services by staff and users. London, COMPASS. http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publicationsretrieved 17.12.08. Garlick, S. and Palmer, V. (2008).Toward an Ideal Relational Ethic: Re-thinking University-Community Engagement. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, v.1, Fall 2008, 73-89. Hart, A., Northmore, S. and Gerhardt, C. (2008) Auditing, benchmarking and evaluating university public engagement. Briefing paper commissioned by The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. http://api.ning.com/files/E0NMvXZhVmrt56q8xOpAbwu*3IVkWh9vgmByCeU04LERBA0x6Oxs8QvVtxn8v5KtBz-pgPLwuELF3hTatHtsYfijg6FUnpzj/ResearchBriefingv1022JulywithAppendixWord2007.docretrieved 5.2.09HEFCE (2007). Bridging the gap between higher education and the public. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2007/beacons.aspretrieved 3.4.08 Hetherington, M., Benefield, P., Lines, A., Paterson, C., Ries, J. and Shuayb, M. (2007). Community Cohesion for Children, Young People and their Families: a rapid review of policy, practice and research in local authorities. Slough: NFER. Home Office (2005). Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society: The Government’s Strategy to increase Race Equality, London: Home Office Huber, J. and Harkavy, I. (2008). Higher Education and Democratic Culture: Citizenship, Human Rights and Civic Responsibility (Council of Europe higher education series No.8). Strasbourg, Council of Europe
112 HUD (2004). The Power of Partnership. US Office of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC. Kagan, C. (2008a). What have universities got to do with community cohesion? Keynote presentation, RIHSC conference, Manchester. Kagan, C. (2008b). Pillars of support for HEI engagement. Manchester, RIHSC Workshop, January 2008. Kagan, C. (2007a) Interpersonal skill and reflection as the core of transformational change in regeneration? Public Money and Management, 27, (3)169-174 . Kagan, C. (2007b) Working at the edge: making use of psychological resources through collaboration. The Psychologist, 20(4), 224-227 Kagan, C. (2006). Models of inter-institutional collaborative partnerships. Urban Regeneration. Working Paper 1. Manchester, RIHSC Kagan, C. (1985) Research Exchange: The First Year Manchester Council for Voluntary Services, Research and Development Committee pp 15 Kagan, C. and Duggan, K. (2008). Games for participation and conscientisation. In J. Ornelas (ed). Making Connections: Community Psychology in a globalising world. Lisbon, EACP. Kagan, C., Duggan, K., Dayson, K., Hacking, S. and Moore, C. (2008). Is Community Cohesion the same as Cohesive Communities? Challenges posed by a case study of a university-community engagement project. Paper presented to Northern Urban Regeneration Conference, Liverpool Kelly, S. (2006). When the work on the Margins Becomes the Main Game. InS.L. Percy, N.L.Zimpher, and M.J. Brukardt (eds) Creating a New Kind of University. Bolton, MA: Anker publishing. Kelly, J. and Sullivan, M. (Eds.). (2001). Collaborative Research: University and Community Partnership.Washington DC.: American Public Health Association. LGA (2004). Community Cohesion: An Action guide for Local Authorities.London, Local Government Association Leydesdorff, L. and Ward, J. (2005). Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science , 14, 353-372. Martin, L.L., Smith, H. and Phillips, W. (2005). Bridging 'Town and Gown' though innovative University-community partnerships. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol. 10(2), article 20 http://www.innovation.cc/volumes-issues/martin-u-partner4final.pdfretrieved 13.01.07 Murray, H. and Stewart, M. (2006). Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation, 12(2), 179-199 MSU (1996). Points of Distinction: A Guidebook for Planning and evaluating Quality Outreach. East Lansing, Michigan Sate University, Committee on Evaluating Quality. http://outreach.msu.edu/podmatrix.pdf. Retrieved 3.1.08.
113 NCC (2008). Deliberative Public Engagement: Nine Principles. London, NCC/Involve NCHE (National Commission on Higher Education) 1996. Discussion Document: A framework for transformation. Pretoria. ODPM (2005). Citizen Engagement and public services: Why neighbourhoods matter. London, Office Deputy Prime Minister, UK Government. OUP (1999). University-Community Partnerships: Current Practices Volume III. Rockville, Maryland: US Department of Housing & Urban Development. Office of University Partnerships Retrieved from http://www.ouop.org/pubs/currentp_3/toc.htmlon 18/4/06. OUP (2003). Community-University Partnerships: Translating Evidence into Action. Proceedings of a National Symposium Jointly Sponsored by Community-Campus Partnerships for Health & HUD’s Office of University Partnerships. San Diego, April 23. ODPR (2004). The Power of Partnership. Celebrating 10 years 1004-2004 Community Outreach Partnership Centres.Washington, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Development, Policy and research/Office of University Partnerships.. http://www.oup.org/files/pubs/copc10.pdfretrieved 24.6.06 Owen, J.M. and Rogers, P.J. (1099). Programme Evaluation: Forms and approaches. Sydney, Allen Unwin. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation.London, Sage. Pearce, J., Pearson, M. and Cameron, S. (2007a). The Ivory Tower and Beyond: The University of Bradford at the Heart of its Communities. www.Bradford.ac.uk/cce. Measuring Community EngagementConference, September 2007. Pearce, J., Pearson, M. & Cameron, S. (2007b) The Ivory Tower and Beyond: The University of Bradford at the Heart of its Communities –The University of Bradford’s REAP approach to measuring its Community Engagement. Bradford, University of Bradford Putnam, R. D. (2007) E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture', Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2), 137 174. Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster. Ramaley,J.A. (2007). Reflections on the purposes of Higher Education. Beyond the Ivory Tower: Wingspread Journal, 2007, 5-10 Rutherford, J. and Shah, H. (Eds) (2006). The Good Society. Compass Programme for Renewal. London, Lawrence and Wishart. Savan, B. (2004) Community-university partnerships: Linking research and action for sustainable community development. Community Development Journal, 39(40), 372-384.
114 Talloires Network (2005). The Talloires Declaration On the Civic Roles and Social Responsibilities of Higher Education. http://www.tufts.edu/talloiresnetwork/?pid=17&c=7Tamkin, P., Yarnall, J. and Kerrin, M. (2002). Kirkpatrick and Beyond: A review of models of training evaluation. Report 392.Brighton, Institute for Employment Studies. URMAD (2006). Urban Regeneration: Making a Difference. Proposal to HEFCE and Delivery Plan. Universities of Northumbria, Manchester Metropolitan, Central Lancashire and Salford. Walker, R. (2000). Collaboration and Alliances: A review for VicHealth. Melbourne, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. http//www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/ProgramsandProjects/MentalHealthandWellBeing/Publications/Attachments/Collaboration%20%20alliances%20report.ashx. retrieved 28.1.07 Watson, D. (2007). Managing Civic and Community Engagement.Maidenhead, Open University Press. Warmington, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Brown., Leadbetter, J., Martin, D. and Middleton, D. (2004). Interagency collaboration: a review of the literature.ESRC: TLRP III http://www.educaiton.bham.ac.uk/research/proj/liw/publications/publications/Interagency%20collaboration%20a%20review%20of%20the%20literature.docretrieved 5.5.06 Wedgewood, M. (2006). Mainstreaming the Third Stream. In I. McNay (ed) Beyond Mass Higher Education: Building on Expansion.Maidenhead, Open University Press. Wergin, J.F. (2006). Elements of Effective Community Engagement. In S.L. Percy, N.L.Zimpher, and M.J. Brukardt (eds) Creating a New Kind of University. Bolton, MA: Anker publishing. Winter, A., Wiseman, J. and Muirhead, B. (2006). University-community engagement in Australia: practice, policy and public good. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, Vol. 1, No. 3, 211-230
115
116 Appendix 1: Academic products Conference presentations Arrowsmith, J. (2008). The Higher Futures4U Project. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Arrowsmith, J. (2007). Higher Futures4U: An innovative widening participation scheme. Paper presented to Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, London. September 2007. (to be made available on Education Online). Bagnall, G. & Morgan-Shami, H. (2008) Writing Lives: Social Capital, Belonging and the chance tURBIS, Manchester. Caunce, S. (2008). Focus on Frenchwood: Oral History and Urban Regeneration. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Urban Education. Presented to Learning in Urban Communities. March, Manchester Davies, C., Griffiths, C., Philburn, R. and Phillips, S. (2008Salford. March, Manchester presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Dayson, K. and Aird, J. (2008). Community Land Trusts and Urban Regeneration: facing up to local Power Asymmetries. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Diack, G. (2008). Manchester Learning Disability Partnership: A Case Study. Poster presented to Policy, Populations and Service Systems strand, International Association of Intellectual Disability Research, Cape Town, South Africa. Duckett, P. and Lawthom, R. (2008) Building links between community psychology in the academy and the community. Paper presented to 2ndWorld Congress Community Psychology, Lisbon, June 2008. Duckett, P. and Lawthom, R. (2007). Student migration, community psychology and higher education. 11 European Community Psychology Association International Seminar, Seville, Spain. nted at the International II Community, Work and Family Conference: Making Connections In A Global Context. Lisbon, Portugal. -MAD Showcase Event MCC/ RIHSC conference, Manchester/VCs Dinner Manchester
117 presented at UR-MAD Showcase Event MCC /RIHSC conference, Manchester/VCs Dinner Manchester poster presented at UR-MAD Showcase Event MCC /RIHSC conference, Manchester/VCs Dinner Manchester Communities? A case study of a university-NUREC, Liverpool Echo Arena. July. Innovation session delivered to 2ndWorld Congress Community Psychology. Lisbon, June. Ellingworth, D., Nicholson, P. and Nicholson, I. (2008). The changing context of police discretion in relation to domestic violence. British Society of Criminology Conference, Huddersfield, July. Ellingworth, D. (2008). Chair: Symposium: Engaging Communi8ties and Making a Difference. British Society of Criminology Conference, Huddersfield, July. Fairhurst (2008). Symposium: Older People, Regeneration and Health and Wellbeing. Day Symposium, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July.Fairhurst, E., Baines, S. and FitzpatriHealth and Well-Health, Wellbeing and HappinessConference, Teesside University, June. , Participation and Collaborative Governance in Post-given to theFirst International Sociological Association World Forum, Barcelona, September 2008. -Being of Older Individuals: a Case study of a Positive Image of Ageing Campaign and the Production of 6thInternational Symposium on Cultural Gerontology, University of Lleida. Crossing Cultures: Women, Ageing and the Media Conference, University of Gloucester, December. Froggett, L., Farrier, A. and Poursanidou, D. (2008). Visual Research Methodologies: Video. Engaging Communities Through the Arts. Dissemination event, URBIS, Manchester. Griffiths, C., Eccles, M., Davies, C., and Thomas, R. (2008). Child Matters. Presented to Learning in Urban Communities. March, 2008. Chancellors, Manchester.
118 Hacking, S. and West-Burnham, J. (2008). Community Capacity Building. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Kagan, C ( 2009) Intergenerational understanding: A Participative Action research Project. Presentation to Huddersfield University Psychology Seminar. Kagan, C. and Duggan, K. (2009 forthcoming). The power of film for community cohesion and social change. Community, Work and Family Conference, Utrecht. April Kagan, C., Duggan, K. and O'Donnell, S. (forthcoming 2009). Community Engagement as Core to the work of Universities. Community ,Work and family Conference, Utrecht. Kagan, C. (2008). What have Universities got to do with Community Cohesion? RIHSC Conference . Keynote. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Kagan, C. (2008). Panel Discussant: Engaging Communities Through the Arts. . Dissemination event, URBIS, Manchester. Kagan, C., Micaleff, A-M, Fatimilehin, I., Hassan, A., Zack Williams, T. and Bunn, G. (2008). June 2008 Exploring narratives in communities: participative action research. Paper delivered to 2ndWorld Congress Community Psychology. Lisbon. Kagan, C., Micaleff, A-M., Sidiquee, A., Fatimilehin, I., Hassan, A., Ali, R., deSantis. C., Zack Williams, T., Bunn, G., (2008). Intergenerational Understanding and community cohesion. Paper delivered to 2ndWorld Congress Community Psychology. Lawthom, R. and Duckett, P. (2008). Building Links between Community Psychology in the Academy and the Community. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Lawthom, R. and Duckett, P. (2008). Making Universities work for local communities: extending knowledge boundaries beyond the campus. Global University Network for Innovation 4thInternational Barcelona Conference on Higher Education. Barcelona, April 2009. Vol.8 Higher Education, Citizenship, Participation and Democracy. Lee-Treweek, G. and Gorna, B. (2008). Managing Ethical Issues in Participatory Action Research with Migrants. 7th International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Milan. August. Lee-Treweek, G. and Gorna, B. (2008). Managing Ethical Issues in Participatory Action Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Lee-Treweek, G. and Gorna, B. (2008). Dangers in the Community: Researcher risk in participatory action research approaches. MMU Cheshire Community Research Group. Lee-Treweek, G. and Gornat Does To International Emotions Conference, University of Surrey.
119 Lee-Treweek, G. ,Gorna, B. & Reichenfeld, L. (2008). Changing Community Perceptions of Economic Migration: What is the local university doing to help communities to get on Micallef, A-M., Kagan, C., Hassan, A., Fatimelehin, I., Zack Williams, T. and Bunn, G. (2008). Story Telling: Co-constructing Social Spaces. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Micaleff, A-M, Kagan, C., Fatimilehin, I., Hassan, A., Zack Williams, T. and Bunn, G. (2008). June 2008 Community Psychology and Participative Action Research with Fathers and Sons. Poster presented to 2ndWorld Congress Community Psychology, Lisbon. Micallef, A-M., Kagan, C., Hassan, A., Fatimelehin, I., Zack Williams, T. and Bunn, G. (2007). Participative Action research with Somali and Yemeni Father s and Sons.. Paper presented to URMAD Showcase, Manchester. MISPA (2007). Inspiring Leaders Seminar Programme. Poster presented to Public Health Conference, Helsinki. MISPA (2007). Inspiring Leaders Seminar Programme. Workshop Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change, RIHSC, Manchester, July. MISPA (2007). Inspiring Leaders Seminar Programme. Presentation to Conference on Practical Action for Social design, Bristol, September 2007. MISPA (2008). Inspiring Leaders Seminar Programme. Presentation to Conference on Practical Action for Social design, London, March 2008. MISPA (2008) Case Study of Inspiring Leaders Programme in The Leadership Labyrinth, Third Sector Leadership centre. Paterson, E. and Dunn, M. (2008). Perspectives on Utilising Community Land Trusts as a Vehicle for Affordable Housing Provision. Paper presented to Housing Studies Association Conference, York, April 2008. Ramwell, A., Clarke, B. and Connor, H. (2008). Social Change through Building Confident Leaders. Paper presented to conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July.. Quick, C. and Davies, C. (2008). The Family: Analysis of the role of new technologies in cultural exchange. Engaging Communities Through the Arts. Dissemination event, URBIS, Manchester. Sixsmith, J. and Woolrych, R. (2008) Social Transformations and Urban Regeneration: Building Well-being in Community Contexts. Paper to be presented at The European Urban Research Association Conference, Milan, October. Sixsmith, J. and Woolrych, R. (2008). The Impact of Regeneration on Resident Wellbeing. A Visual Approach to understanding People in Place. presented at Northern Urban Regeneration and Exhibition Conference, Liverpool, July. Woolrych, R. and Sixsmith, J. (2008). The Impact of Regeneration on Resident Well-being: A Visual Approach to Understanding People in Place. Paper presented to
120 conference, Health and Social Change: Community Cohesion strand, RIHSC, Manchester, July. Woolrych, R, Sixsmith, J (2008) Happiness, Social Well-being and Community Hubs.Social Futures Institute Conference, University of Teeside, June- July. Woolrych, R and Sixsmith, J (2008) Putting Well-Being back into Regeneration. Regeneration and Well-being: Research Into Practice. University of Bradford, April. Woolrych, R and Sixsmith, J (2007) The Impact of Regeneration on the Well-Being of Local Residents. Paper presented at 7thManagement Regeneration Framework, Manchester, June. Woolrych, R., Stewart, A. and Sixsmith, J. (2009 forthcoming). Participatory Visual Methods: Purposeful or disengenuous?. Community, Work and Family Conference, Utrecht. see www.mmu.ac.uk/rihscfor projects presented at RIHSC keynote Papers and reports Allen, C. and Wilson, L. (2007/8) The Seedley and Langworthy Trust and its Community: An independent evaluation. Manchester, MMU Biddle, P., Robinson, J., Davies, C., Thomas, R. (2008). Extended Schools and Community Cohesion: A good practice guide. Newcastle, Centre for Public Policy. Duggan, K. & Kagan, C. (2007). ‘We don’t Believe You Want A Genuine Partnership. Universities Work With Communities’. Manchester, Research Institute for Health and Social Change. Duggan,K. & Kagan,C. (2008) ‘Is Community Cohesion the same as Cohesive Communities? A case study of a university-community engagement project’. Manchester, RIHSC. Kagan, C. (2007) Interpersonal skill and reflection as the core of transformational change in regeneration? Public Money and Management, 27, (3)169-174 Lawthom, R. and Duckett, P. (2008). Making Universities work for local communities: extending knowledge boundaries beyond the campus.Higher Education, Citizenship, Participation and Democracy, Vol 8Woolrych, R and Sixsmith, S. (2008) Understanding health and well-being in the context of urban regeneration: Manchester Case Study.Final Report. Woolrych, R. and Sixsmith, J. (submitted) Placing well-being and participation in the context of regeneration: A reflective case study. International Journal of Public Sector Management Special Issue: Regeneration and Wellbeing: Research into PracticeOther presentations Presented at Full of Life festival, Monday 6th October, Manchester Kagan, C. (2008) Regeneration should start with people not places. Invited debate. CLES summer Seminar, Manchester.
121 West-Burnham, J. and Hacking, S. (in preparation) What’s in it for us? An investigation into partnership working between and across SectorsWest- Burnham, J. (in preparation). Did the words lead to actions? Questions of academic aspirations and community engagement. Evaluation Reports Caunce, S. (2008). Frenchwood: Building our Pasts. An Overview of he Urban regeneration: Making a Difference Project. Preston, UCLAN. Biddle, P., Robinson, J., Davies, C. and Thomas, R. (2008). Extended Schools, Community Cohesion and Urban Regeneration: Evaluation. Newcastle, Centre Public Policy, UNN and Centre Urban Education, MMU. Davies, C., Griffiths, C., Philburn, R., and Philips, S. (2008). Young People's Voice on Urban Education: Evaluation. Manchester, MMM, Centre Urban Education. Froggett, L., Farrier, A. and Poursanidou, D. (2008).Engaging Communities Through the Arts: A meta evaluation. Psychosocial Research unit, UCLAN. Griffiths, C., Eccles, M., Davies, C., and Thomas, R. (2008). Children’s Workforce: Every Child Matters. Evaluation. Manchester, MMM, Centre Urban Education. Hacking, S. and Doyle, M. (2008). Developing a sustainable and socially inclusive model of community capacity building. External Evaluation report. Preston, UCLAN. Kagan, C. (2008) Active and Positive Fatherhood: HEI-Community Engagement Project Evaluation. Manchester, Research Institute for Health and Social Change, MMU Knudsen, E. (2008). Record from the Outside 1: External Evaluation. Salford, Salford University. Lambie, E., Simpson, G., Newcomb, H. and Moore, C. (2008). Community Perceptions of Economic Migrants and Migration. Centre public Policy, UNN Lee-Treweek, G. and Gorna, B. (2008) Final report on the 'Community Perceptions of Migration' Project in Crewe. Crewe, MMU. McGuiness, D. (2008). Excellence in Sport and Physical Activity Management Seminar Programme. Final Evaluation. Centre Public Policy, UNN. Woolrych, R., and Sixsmith, J. (2008). UnderstandingHealth and Wellbeing within the context of Urban Regeneration in the North East: A participatory action research approach.Manchester, Research Institute for Health and Social Change, MMU Press Coverage-Communications Management Universities & Regeneration-General article in New Start Magazine CC05 Extended schools CC02 WP of Targeted groups-New start Magazine CC09 Success Magazine (Various other TV and Radio coverage (tbc)) CC12 Active & Positive Fatherhood-Regeneration & Renewal Magazine
122 CC15 Engaging Communities Through The Arts-North West Tonight-CC15 Writing is pure poetry for single mums (Sara Eyre-Salford University Staff Newsletter) Websites http://www.inspiringleadersnow.net/www.incertainplaces.orgwww.arts.salford.ac.ukhttp://www.uclan.ac.uk/ahss/education_social_sciences/history/research/frenchwood_focus.phpFilms: CC15 : Engaging communities through the arts Davies, C. (editor) (2008). The Family. UCLAN Single Mothers (2008) UCLAN CC12 Active and positive fatherhood Yemini You-Life in the Black British Fathers (2008) Black British Fathers in 2008. Building Bridges, Liverpool. CC07 Record From The Outside -Carpenter E06 Community Land Trust Community Land Trust CC13 Record from the outside (Bolt on) films Other Visual Methods Footage Talking Heads-Showcase Event at Manchester Conference Centre, Manchester
123 Photography Learning From Practice Event, MMU Manchester Community Cohesion Theme-Satellite Event (11 CC projects presented)(RIHSC) -Satellite Event (RIHSC) CC03 YPV Forum (visual/audio) CC12 Dissemination event H10 Action Research Event Video diaries Photo Show Magazine: Ahmed, S., Hussein, Z., Yusuf, M., Hussein, A. Jama, A. (2008). Geedka Shirka: Under the Tree. Young Somali in Liverpool. Building Bridges, Liverpool Games: Kagan, C. and Duggan, K. (in preparation). Games for participation and conscientization in urban regeneration and community cohesion. Manchester RIHSC. Awards: Higher Futures4U nominated for awards with Aim Higher; CIS Other Events/Workshops: balance is right: power, boundaries and vested interests: Social Change and Well-being. Interactive Games Workshop on Decision-making: MMU Manchester. Funding linked to theme Duggan,K. (2007) NWUA grant of £11,000 to fund nine HEI staff to engage in knowledge exchange and explore models of university-community engagement in Portugal
124 Appendix 2: Definitions of Project Outputs Output Definitions Evidence Organisations & businesses assisted Public-sector and community organisations, sole proprietorships, partnerships & companies, including not-for-profit social & community enterprise organisations, receiving a minimum of 2 hours consultative/non-financial assistance support (including information, advice & guidance via face-to-face or telephone consultations, conferences or workshops, networks or web-based dialogue). Organisations that receive assistance more than once within a project should only be counted once. Organisations may, however, receive assistance under different projects, on the grounds that the projects serve distinct purposes, provided this complies with state-aid (de minimis) requirements. Care will be needed to ensure that there is no double counting of outputs. Name of company, contact person and address, details of support provided and date(s) when it was provided Days of organisational support Organisations receiving a minimum of 6 hours consultative/non-financial assistance which can include direct engagement or desk-based assistance that supports a broader intervention. Where support is less than 6 hours, this may be counted on a fractional basis. Timesheets provided by project delivery staff CPD Learner days Beneficiary attendance on any university run, vocational training or general education course designed to improve the regional skills base or the development of an individual’s transferable skills. The day should last at least 6 hours (including teaching & learning hours) –cumulatively or in a single block - but may be counted on a fractional basis. Learning may also take place in the workplace. There is no requirement for a formal qualification or accreditation. Name of beneficiary, name of company/organisation, and address, details of training provided and date(s) when it was provided New accredited learning programmes Any new vocational training or education course designed, delivered or supported by one of the partner universities with the aim of improving participants' knowledge and skills. The programme should deliver a minimum of 3 hours teaching or training, cumulatively or in a single block, and must result in a formal qualification or accreditation. Course validation document(s) and timesheets. Learners progressing to HE (including PG qualifications) Beneficiaries who, as a direct result of the Project, enroll on an accredited HE module at either the UG or PG level, within the life of the project. List of student names, modules and dates of enrollment. Completion dates should be provided where available. New advisory posts for academics in external agencies A new appointment of an academic to a public sector, not-for-profit social or community enterprise, &/or business support organisation, in an advisory capacity and as a direct result of the Project. Name, department and university of academic. Name, contact and address of agency. Date of appointment and role description. Academics on strategic forums in the North Appointment of an academic to a strategic forum, in a representative capacity, as a direct result of the Project. Name, department and university of academic and name, contact and address of host organisation for forum and date of appointment Multi-agency teams including an HE representative The formation of a team, or a new role for an HE representative on an existing team, comprising advisors from differing agencies with a remit to address particular thematic issues linked to urban regeneration. Names and organisation details of team members and date of team/new role creation.
125 Evaluation studies In-house or commissioned studies evaluating: (i) the impact of project activities on beneficiaries & communities, and/or (ii) the effectiveness of working partnerships formed between delivery partners & stakeholders. Copy of report New products & services Products and/or services new to the organisation which are developed and/or introduced to the market during the course of the Project. Description of new product/service and name, contact and address of organisation for which it was developed and date of completion Enterprise start-ups Sole proprietorships, partnerships and/or companies, including not-for-profit social & community enterprise organisations, registered (defined as when the business registers for VAT or below the threshold) or within the first 12 months of trading during the course of the Project. Name, contact and address of start-up and date of incorporation Business/community support events An event organised by the project partner(s) providing support to project beneficiaries; support includes the provision of information, advice & guidance via workshops, seminar or conference formats. Name, date and location of event and list of attendees Network events An event organised by the project partner(s) with the intention of introducing beneficiaries to networks & developing organisational clusters. Name, date and location of event and list of attendees Dissemination workshops An event organised by the project partner(s) to disseminate project outcomes to beneficiaries & other stakeholders/agencies; dissemination may take place via workshop or seminar formats. Name, date and location of event and list of attendees Academic journal & conference papers Papers published at regional, national or international conferences, &/or articles/papers published in refereed journals. Papers under review at the time of reporting should be noted as such. Title of paper, publication/conference and date of submission/approval. Enterprise related CPD courses Any vocational training or general education course delivered with the aim of improving the regional skills base or the development of an individual’s transferable skills. This should have a 3 hour minimum duration, cumulatively or in a single block. There is no requirement for a formal qualification or accreditation. Statement about type and duration of training with intended learning outcomes, plus delivery dates Jobs created Increased levels of employment within beneficiary organisations, attributed to the activities of the project, which are sustained beyond the project term. Where employment is less than full-time, this may be counted on a fractional basis. Name of company, contact person and address and name of employee and date of commencement of employment Jobs safeguarded Sustained levels of employment within beneficiary organisations, attributed to the activities of the project, which would otherwise have been lost/made redundant. Where employment is less than full-time, this may be counted on a fractional basis. Name of company, contact person and address and names of employees safeguarded Additional funding leveraged Funding received from other grant-awarding bodies, directly or indirectly (ie. through partner organisations), which is employed in delivering the project during its course. List of funders, grants, start/end dates values and max 100 word description of funded activity. Increased sales Increase in turnover attributable to the support provided. Name of company, contact person and address and value of increased sales. GVA Measurement of regional money flow, based on an organisation's turnover & individual's personal expenditure. The GVA calculation is based on 3 iterations of spend (or 'local multipliers') measured across suppliers, contractors, employees, utilities & taxes Survey completed by project team
ISSN 1750-1571 ISBN 978-1-900139-29-8 £10.00