Upload
heirri
View
226
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
The Civic University and Responsible
Research and Innovation
John Goddard OBE
Emeritus Professor & Formerly Deputy Vice Chancellor
Member, H2020 Advisory Group on Science With And For Society
Overview
• RRI as an aspect of the broader issue of how
universities engage with civil society
• The implications of an endeavour to enhance civic
engagement for institutional governance, leadership and
management
• The civic university as a normative model
Outline
• The European and national HE policy context
• The drivers for civic engagement and the institutional response
• University governance, management and performance models
• The changing nature of innovation: the civic university and the city
• The link to Responsible Research AND Innovation : the SWAFS
perspective
• Institutional change – international comparative study of leading and
managing the civic university
• Complementary perspectives : the Normative Business Model
• Some evidence: academic and institutional behaviour
EU Context : Consultation themes around
the modernisation of HE
• “Enhancing ‘relevance’ to society of learning and teaching”
• “Helping HEIs become strong regional innovators”
• “Ensuring education and research activities are mutually
reinforcing”
Policy Implications
• Linking domains of different DGs : Education and Culture,
Cities and Regions and Research and Innovation (and their
national equivalents)
The perspective from one member state:
The Netherlands
• Ministry of Education, Culture and Science : The Value of
Knowledge : Strategic Agenda for Higher Education and
Research 2015-2025
• “ This strategic agenda addresses a fundamental question. It
asks what significance changes in the world and in our society
hold for day to day life in our institutes of higher education.
This question is of relevance because universities and
universities of applied science do not operate in a vacuum,
but rather in open connection with their surroundings”
The drivers behind civic engagement
• The impact of the post 2008 economic crisis on public finances
• Public funding for higher education is under scrutiny, compelling universities to demonstrate their value and contribution to society and the economy nationally and locally
• Local politicians asking the question especially in less well off places : ‘ we have a university in our community but what is it doing for us?’
• The refugee and migration crisis has exacerbated the challenge : what contributions are universities making to the assimilation process in their communities?
The H.E. response
• In response, university leaders are rethinking their university’s
responsibilities to society : engaging in learning beyond the campus walls;
participating in discovery which is useful beyond the academic community;
and service that directly benefits the public.
• Higher education policy makers are also coming out of their silos within
national governments and working with other agencies with specific, direct
and sometimes conflicting expectations of “what universities are for “
(e.g. contributions to: innovation, skills, the arts, cities and regions)
• All of this requires institutional transformation from the inside and new ways
of steering autonomous universities ‘at a distance’
• The ‘Civic University’ as a model to capture the mutually beneficial
engagement between the community, region or wider world and the
university.
Deepening levels of engagement and complexity
(after Hazelkorn)
• Volunteering
• Outreach/extension
• Service learning
• Knowledge and Technology Transfer (linear)
• Knowledge exchange ( co-production)
• Holistic civic engagement embracing teaching and research
and requiring active institution leadership and management
The potential: The University and the Knowledge
Society
• “The university is the institution in society most capable of
linking the requirements of industry, technology and market
forces with demands of citizenship. Given the enormous
dependence of these forces on university based experts the
university is in fact in a position of strength not weakness”
• “The great significance of the university is that it can be the
most important site of connectivity in the Knowledge society…
(and)… a key institution for formation of cultural and
technological citizenship … (and)… for reviving the decline of
the public sphere”.
Gerard Delanty (2002)
The ‘Good University’President of Arizona State University
• ‘A good university is an institution which understands its role as one of the most
powerful adaptive forces to society. Its role is not the maintenance of Western culture
or the protection of ancient traditions, but in fact is the preparation for our next
generation as to be adaptive as they can be to all things that they encounter , as well
as driving up, in the case of a university held in the public trust, the ideals of
democracy…, as an underpinning core set of values. To me, the role, or the purpose,
or the objective of the public university is to be powerfully transformative to the
success of society…. That we are willing to accept responsibility for economic, social
and cultural vitality and the health and well-being of the community. Well if all our
social scientists, and our business specialists, and our scientists, and our doctors,
and our teachers, and our teacher trainers can’t produce that, and if that’s not the
outcome, then why do we even exist? ‘ ( Sally Randles, Manchester University
Interview with Michael Crow, October 2013).
3/20/2016Footer Text 10
Public value of the social sciences
“ Use of the adjective ‘public’ not only implies fundamental
questions about accountability but also poses additional queries
about to whom we as social scientists should feel
accountable…Public social science has both a research and
teaching agenda and involves a commitment to promote the
public good through civic engagement”
John Brewer : The Public Value of the Social Sciences (2013)
The reality
• “We treat our opportunities to do research not as a public trust but as a reward for success in past studies”
• “Rewards for research are deeply tied up with the production of academic hierarchy and the relative standing of institutions” BUT
• “Public support for universities is based on the effort to educate citizens in general, to share knowledge, to distribute it as widely as possible in accord with publically articulated purposes”
Calhoun , “The University and the Public Good” Thesis 11 (2006)
N.B. Linkage between education and research
University Governance, Management and
Performance Models
Some management and performance models for
engagement
• The entrepreneurial university model with a strengthened steering core, enhanced development periphery, a diversified funding base and stimulated academic heartland (Burton Clark 1998) (A variant of New Public Management)
• The triple helix model of universities, business and government with semi-autonomous centres that interface with the external environment supported by specialist internal units (e.g technology transfer offices) and external intermediaries (e.g technology and innovation centres) (Etzkowitz et. al . 2000)
• Performance Metrics – business income, patents, licenses and spin outs
• Each of these models underplays the role of teaching and learning, the arts and humanities, place based communities and civil society. This requires a new model of the civic university
• BUT the performance metrics for civic engagement remain challenging
• All this matters because the way innovation takes place is changing
TEACHING RESEARCH
The New Public Management
Model
‘THIRD MISSION’
ACTIVITIES
Funding targets
THE ‘CORE’
THE ‘PERIPHERY’
Hard Boundary between enabling
and non enabling environments
The Civic University
Enhancement
TEACHING RESEARCH
TRANSFORMATIVE, RESPONSIVE,
DEMAND-LED ACTION
ENGAGEMENT
Socio-economic impact
Widening participation, community work
Soft
Boundary
THE ACADEMY
SOCIETY
The civic university and the city:
Universities as urban ‘anchor’ institutions
• ‘Anchor institutions’ are large locally embedded institutions, typically non-
governmental public sector, cultural or other civic institutions that are of
significant importance to the economy and the wider community life of the
cities in which they are based.
• They generate positive externalities and relationships that can support or
‘anchor’ wider economic activity in the locality
• ‘Anchor institutions do not have a democratic mandate and their primary
missions do not involve regeneration or local economic development.
Nonetheless their scale, local rootedness and community links are such that
they can play a key role in local development and economic growth
representing the ‘sticky capital’ around which economic growth strategies
can be built’ (Work Foundation)
• Institutions that are of the city not just in the city
People, Place and Community:
Universities and the leadership of place (Hambleton)
Political Leadership
Community Leadership
Managerial Leadership
Intellectual
Leadership
What does anchoring imply for universities?
• Relationships with other institutions that inhabit the city
• Normative questions about the need for academic practise to be of relevance to the place in which practitioners live and work as citizens
• Exploration of a more broadly conceived territorial development process than just economic growth and competitiveness
• Interrelated physical, social and cultural dimensions
• More broadly based interpretations of the role of universities in innovation
The changing nature of innovation
21
BUT the triple helix is not enough as the way we innovate is changing
Elberfelder Farbenfabriken vorm. Friedrich Bayer & Co
Open innovation
Social innovation
Innovation in servicesUser innovation
Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Open Innovation
• “Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) is a new paradigm based on
a Quadruple Helix Model where government, industry,
academia and civil participants work together to co-
create the future and drive structural changes far beyond
the scope of what any one organization or person could
do alone. This model encompasses also user-oriented
innovation models to take full advantage of ideas' cross-
fertilisation leading to experimentation and prototyping in
real world setting”
• European Commission .
Social innovation as processes and outcomes
• “Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means…new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations.
• The process of social interactions between individuals undertaken to reach certain outcomes is participative, involves a number of actors and stakeholders who have a vested interest in solving a social problem, and empowers the beneficiaries. It is in itself an outcome as it produces social capital” (Board of European Policy Advisors, BEPA, 2010: 9-10)
The quadruple helix
• “Quadruple Helix (QH), with its emphasis on broad cooperation in
innovation, represents a shift towards systemic, open and user-centric
innovation policy. An era of linear, top-down, expert driven development,
production and services is giving way to different forms and levels of
coproduction with consumers, customers and citizens.” (Arnkil, et al, 2010)
• “The shift towards social innovation also implies that the dynamics of ICT-
innovation has changed. Innovation has shifted downstream and is
becoming increasingly distributed; new stakeholder groups are joining the
party, and combinatorial innovation is becoming an important source for
rapid growth and commercial success. Continuous learning, exploration, co-
creation, experimentation, collaborative demand articulation, and user
contexts are becoming critical sources of knowledge for all actors in R&D &
Innovation” (ISTAG 2010)
The triple helix + users model (Arnkill et.al)
The citizen centred quadruple helix model
(Arnkill et.al)
The Link to Responsible Research AND
Innovation
Sally Randles :Framings and frameworks of rri/RRI:
6 Grand Narratives :
Sites of Normative Contestation and Institutionalisation
Narrative
A Autonomy of Science :Traditional interpretation of Research Excellence & the responsible conduct of
research. Self-regulation inc Ethics Committees (Iron triangle? State/Univs/Researchers)
B Science with/for ‘in the service of’ society. Societal relevance. Challenge to the ‘traditional’ understanding
of Research Excellence. Techniques and methods of governance: deliberative democracy, inclusion,
engagement, in particular ‘upstream’ inclusion of civil society or ‘3rd sector’. EC SWAFs. Rome Declaration.
C Responsible governance of new and emerging technologies & technology controversies. Techniques and
methods of governance : CTA, STIR, TA, mid-stream modulation, ELSI, Foresight.
D Responsible Business and industry .CSR/RRI/Industry standards and reporting, triple bottom line,
Business Codes of Ethics.
E Responsible Innovation Systems :distributed governance across all actors inc responsible value chains.
Techniques and governance instruments: labels/accreditation schemes.
F Orienting R & I systems to societal problems and challenges inc social innovation, sustainability.
28
29
H2020 Cross cutting theme:
Science With and For Society
Responsible Research and Innovation?
RRI is a process where all societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, business) work together during the whole R&I process in order to align R&I outcomes
to the values, needs and expectations of European society
30
need not
always be
harmonious
A guiding vision for RRI
• “In tomorrow’s Europe, science institutions and scientists
engage with society, while citizens and civil society
organisations engage with science; thereby contributing to a
European society which is smart, sustainable and inclusive”
• Horizon 2020 Advisory Group
SWAFS Advisory Group
• “While the European Research Area has been somewhat successful in creating spaces for European science, it is now time to become more pro-active, and not just in relation to the Grand Challenges.
• There is a need for a new narrative drawing on a broad-based innovation strategy encompassing both technological and non-technological innovation at all levels of European society, and with a stronger focus on the citizen and responsible and sustainable business - a quadruple helix and place-based approach to science, research and innovation.
• This goes further than the procedural challenge how each part of Horizon 2020 can engage citizens and civil society in its activities.”
The Rome Declaration on RRI, 2015
“ Research and innovation deliver on the promise of smart,
inclusive and sustainable solutions to our societal challenges; it
engages new perspectives, new innovators and new talent from
across our diverse European society, allowing to identify
solutions which would otherwise go unnoticed; it builds trust
between citizens, and public and private institutions in supporting
research and innovation; and it reassures society about
embracing innovative products and services; it assesses the
risks and the way these risks should be managed”
The Rome Declaration and institutional change
• “We call on public and private Research and Innovation Performing Organisations to:
• Implement institutional changes that foster Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) by:
• Reviewing their own procedures and practices in order to identify possible RRI barriers and opportunities at organisation level;
• Creating experimental spaces to engage civil society actors in the research process as sources of knowledge and partners in innovation;
• Developing and implementing strategies and guidelines for the acknowledgment and promotion of RRI;
• Adapting curricula and developing training to foster awareness, know-how, expertise and competence of RRI;
• Including RRI criteria in the evaluation and assessment of research staff “
An international learning network
The leadership and management of civic
universities
The participants
• University College London and Newcastle (UK)
• Amsterdam & Groningen (Netherlands)
• Aalto (Helsinki) & Tampere (Finland)
• Trinity College Dublin & Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland)
• Testing a conceptual model through baseline data collection, online survey
of academic staff, senior management workshops and collective roundtable
• Findings to be published by Edward Elgar in book to supersede Burton
Clark’s Leading and Managing the Entrepreneurial University:
Organisational pathways to institutional transformation which underpins the
triple helix model of university/business and government
• Contributing to a dialogue around future models of European Universities
initiated by the European Economic and Social Committee
Seven Dimensions of the ‘Civic University’
1. It is actively engaged with the wider world as well as the local community of the
place in which it is located.
2. It takes a holistic approach to engagement, seeing it as institution wide activity and
not confined to specific individuals or teams.
3. It has a strong sense of place – it recognises the extent to which is location helps to
form its unique identity as an institution.
4. It has a sense of purpose – understanding not just what it is good at, but what it is
good for.
5. It is willing to invest in order to have impact beyond the academy.
6. It is transparent and accountable to its stakeholders and the wider public.
7. It uses innovative methodologies such as social media and team building in its
engagement activities with the world at large.
The ‘Civic University’ Development Spectrum
Embryonic Emerging Evolving Embedded
Dimension X
The spectrum describes the ‘journey’ of the institution against each
of the 7 dimensions of the civic university towards the idealised
model. It accepts that a university may be at a different stage of
development on the different dimensions. This is intended to provide
guidance in building a deeper understanding of where the university
is currently positioned and help in future planning, and is NOT
intended to be used as an assessment or ranking tool.
Sense of purpose
Sense of Place
Unpacking Institutional Change: the
Normative Business Model
(Sally Randles)
Dimensions of the Normative Business
Model
• Normative orientation
• (De) institutionalisation process
• Institutional Entrepreneurialism
• Governance instruments
Managing ‘Publicness’ in universities
(from Randles)
NPM Managing Publicness
Preference for ‘hands-on’ professional management;
active, visible control from top managers
Emphasis on participation from lower echelon and from
citizens in addition to ‘hands-on’ professional
management; active, visible control from top managers.
Preference for quantitative indicators and explicit
standards and measures of performance.
Preference for outcomes-based performance management
with outcomes focussed on explicit public values
Emphasis on output controls; resources linked to
performance and decentralized personnel
management
Preference for resources linked to public value
prerequisites rather than performance.
Disaggregation of bureaucratic units; unbundling of
management systems into corporatized units centred
on products and services and with decentralised
budgets, dealing with one another ‘at arms length’
Emphasis on integration of public duties, coordination,
but recognizing that the co-ordinated networks may be
(often should be) temporary.
Shift to greater competition, term contracts, and
competitive bidding.
Focus on maintaining capacity, contracting augmenting
existing capacity; competitive bidding only when there is
‘real’ competition (multiple vendors)
Emphasis on private-sector style management
practices; greater flexibility in hiring and rewards.
Neutral on management style; pragmatic choice of
management approach; reinforce public service
motivation.
Stress on greater discipline and parsimony in resource
use; cutting direct costs, resisting union demands,
limiting businesses’ compliance costs.
Emphasis on effectiveness in achieving public values and
administrative effectiveness
Managing ‘publicness’
(Randles)
New Public Management Managing Publicness
A shift in management focus from input and processes to
output
A shift from input and output to outcomes and distributional
equity
A shift toward more measurement and quantification,
especially in the form of systems of performance indicators
A shift toward capacity-based outcomes-based performance
indicators
A preference for more specialised, ‘lean’, ‘flat’ and
autonomous organisation forms; ‘arm’s length’ relations
among agencies
A preference for neutral on organisational design, pragmatically
choose those that are most effective
Use of contracts or contract-agency relationships in lieu of
formal and hierarchical relationships
Use of contracts to supplement agency capacity
Much wider than hitherto deployment of markets or
marketlike mechanisms for delivery of public services
Skeptical about marketlike mechanisms; judge on basis of public
value achievements
Broadening and blurring of the frontiers between the public
sector, the market sector, and the voluntary sector
Neutral on ownership arrangements and sector blurring
Shift in value priorities away from universalism, equity,
security, and resilience toward efficiency and individualism
Shift in value priorities toward equity, community, and
pragmatically determined public interest
The challenge based university
Igor Campillo
University of the Basque Country
… the way of thinking
… the way of acting
… the way of being
The sum of all these shifts, of the way of thinking, acting
and being, from EGO to ECO, characterised by
transdisciplinary complex collaborative challenge-pull
actions bottom-up co-created by T-shaped people
bridging fragmented capacities, gives rise to a new type
of university, the challenge-based university, in which
students are considered education prosumers engaged
with both local and global communities.
Some evidence:
academic and institutional behaviour
The Practise: How engaged is the academy?
UK Innovation Research Centre Survey of 22,000 UK academics -
External interaction and commercialisation activity (% of respondents)
http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/AcademicSurveyReport.pdf
A case study
Newcastle University
Mission : A world class civic university
“ The combination of being globally competitive and
regionally rooted underpins our vision for the future. We
see ourselves not only as doing high quality academic
work … but also choosing to work in areas responsive to
large scale societal needs and demands, particularly
those manifested in our own city and region”
Chris Brink, Vice-Chancellor
Newcastle University- mission
• ‘Paying attention to not just what it is good at but what it is good for
• Delivering benefits not just to individuals and organisations but society as a whole
• Putting academic knowledge creativity and expertise to work to come forward with innovations and solutions that will make a difference
• Combining academic excellence on the supply side with a range of regional and global challenges on the demand side
• Operating on a national scale but also recognising the extent to which location in the City of Newcastle forms the unique identity of the institution’
Societal challenge themes
•Ageing
•Sustainability
•Social Renewal
Newcastle initiative on changing age
• Brings together basic, clinical, social and
computer scientists and engineers to address:
• How and why we age
• The treatment of associated disease and
disability
• The support of through-life health, wellbeing and
independence
• Research, training, public engagement,
commercialisation
Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability
• To bring people together from throughout the
University AND the wider community to develop
sustainable responses to the great challenge of
our age: ensuring everyone has access to a fair
share of the world’s resources in perpetuity
• Urban living; low carbon energy and transport;
food security; water management; clean
manufacturing
Living Labs: the academic perspective
• “The notion of treating our city and its region as a seedbed for
sustainability initiatives is a potent one… the vision is of
academics out in the community, working with local groups
and businesses on practical initiatives to solve problems and
promote sustainable development and growth’
• “This necessitates that we proceed in a very open manner,
seeking to overcome barriers to thought, action and
engagement; barriers between researchers and citizens,
between the urban and the rural, between the social and
natural sciences, between teaching research and enterprise”
Director of NiRES
Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal
• The Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal as a
hub for research activity which is focused on
asking the big questions facing our society
• How individuals, communities and organisations
adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing and
challenging environment
Social renewal themes
• Arts and culture in social renewal
• Digital innovation
• Entrepreneurship and innovation
• Health and inequality
• The past in the present
• Learning for change
• People, place and community
• Social justice and injustice,
• Wellbeing and resilience
• Citizenship in the 21st Century
Overview of Newcastle city Futures
• Applying national Foresight methodology locally
• Lead Expert Group drawn from the three partners and includes representatives from Northumbria University
• Stakeholder Group – a wide range of interests from private and public sector, academia and the third sector (Quadruple helix)
• Using 7 methods to achieve a comprehensive picture:
Baseline evidence – the current picture
Newcastle City region research and literature database
Stakeholder Workshops
Delphi Survey of key actors
Newcastle City Futures Exhibition – an Urban Room
Scenario building
Possible city future themes
1. Relationships between an ageing society, housing needs, and the
use of digital technology in an age friendly city
2. Relationships between transport and highway design, digital
technology and public health benefits in a sustainable city
3. Relationships between enhancing local democracy and
engagement, visualisation of the urban realm, and cultural and
creative arts to generate public interest in a creative city .
.
The civic university as a social innovator
•a multi-level actor linking the global, national and local domains
• working across the silos of the disciplines and of the public
sector and linking with both business and the community
• developing the boundary spanning and social
entrepreneurship skills of its graduates
•testing research ideas in ‘living labs’
• shaping the future through action as well as analysis