Engaged universities and intelligent city/regions

In recent years, universities in Europe, North America and Australasia have begun to engage more effectively and collaboratively with local partners in the cities and regions in which they are located. Larger and more prestigious universities regarding themselves as significant actors at national or international level had previously downplayed their civic role in mission and strategy documents, despite their history. Many redbrick universities in the UK and equivalents elsewhere were founded to support the growth and competitiveness of the city or region where they are located, but had outgrown their origins as they aspired to national or international status.

The rediscovery of the civic was triggered partly by the perceived significance of universities as actors/drivers of growth within the regional economy and partly through recognition in recent years that those cities or regions that have a research-intensive university, and especially those that have one or more large multi-faculty institutions, are at a competitive advantage compared with those that haven’t. Across several dimensions – economic, cultural, diversity, demography, access to international markets and links to the frontiers of both innovation and knowledge – the presence of a university makes a significant difference to the vibrancy and connectedness of place.

Other reasons for the rediscovery of the civic that apply across most or all jurisdictions include (i) the increased appetite amongst students and staff to connect their academic work with their actions, interests and values as citizens and to develop and utilise their skills in socially useful work, (ii) the extent to which expansion of higher education has led to universities becoming large employers, land and property developers and attractors of people to the place they serve, alongside their more traditional roles as knowledge generators and providers of clinical and technical education, and (iii) university rectors and deans seeking to ally themselves to local elites and enhance their institution’s visibility by highlighting the contribution universities make to economic prosperity and cultural enrichment, thereby justifying the institutions’ privileged status.

University funding and accountability arrangements vary from country to country, as does the configuration of the higher education sector, so caution is needed about cross country comparisons, but rankings as measured by international league tables are now major performance indicators against which universities measure their success alongside income from student fees, teaching and research grants. These two strands – the prestige and financial sustainability of the institutions – are intertwined and remain core elements of university missions.

But with the rediscovery of the civic, universities of all sizes and types have been incorporating a third strand into their strategies. In some instances, civic has been bolted on as a statement of intent, without impacting on institutional arrangements such as academic promotion or recruitment criteria that reward citation of publications and/or contribution to knowledge within the framework of academic disciplines. In other institutions, resource has been found, new posts have been created, both within senior management structures and at Faculty and Institute level, with responsibility for building relationships and facilitating collaboration between institutions, academics and civic partners.

Professor John Goddard – recognised internationally as founder of the civic university movement – has argued that for those places that host a university to fully benefit from university collaboration with civic partners, a civic mission needs to be fully integrated within the university’s core purpose and mission. While more local, teaching-focused universities have retained a strong civic commitment – but with limited capacity beyond the teaching role that is core to their mission – there is evidence that larger, more prestigious universities – with more research capacity and scale as economic, political and cultural actors to support the cities and regions where they are located – are taking their civic role and commitments more seriously. Competitiveness is enhanced most where research intensive universities are engaged, as in Boston, Pittsburgh and North Carolina in the USA where there are well-developed, stable, flexible networks and channels of communication linking universities to local or regional public bodies, firms, business support agencies, philanthropic, voluntary sector, and other civic partners.

The intelligent city or region is one that has mechanisms that enable it to make effective use of the capabilities of its civic partners, including universities, and where universities collaborate effectively with each other and with civic partners in advancing the interests of the city or region, while helping civic leaders and city managers address their challenges. An intelligent city is much more than a ‘smart city’ – one which uses data and technology to manage services. Intelligent cities or regions draw on data and digital capability, together with a wide range of other types of expertise and resource, much of which lies within universities and other civic partners, to engage partner organisations (and increasingly citizens where there is a commitment to open government) in devising and implementing evidence-informed strategies to achieve their shared purpose. The focus of this article is on how this is done – (i) how can civic partners make systematic use of universities to become intelligent cities or regions; and (ii) how could and should engaged universities enhance their contribution (and their reputation) by creating better mechanisms through which impactful collaboration at city and regional level is encouraged and supported, and opportunities are created for the exchange of ideas and capabilities.

Science-Push versus Demand-Responsive approaches to Engagement

University missions emphasise their dual roles in the advancement of knowledge through research and its transmission to students. Academics are often wedded to perceptions of themselves as scientists engaged in ‘discovery’ research or as experts whose legitimacy rests on scholarship. Their key audience is other academics in their discipline or field who either edit or review papers for academic journals or who might cite their work. However, alongside this, there is a well-established ‘science-push’ tradition of public engagement that neatly fits with these notions, which focuses on communicating and explaining scientific discoveries and new knowledge generated within universities to external audiences. This is done is a variety of ways, ranging from news items on university websites, newspaper stories, features on research findings on television, to events showcasing research findings customised for non-academic specialists, aimed at the wider public.

Considerable thought and effort therefore goes into making topics interesting to different audiences. Most universities employ professional public engagement staff whose role combines event management, marketing and communication. Their task is to find ways of bringing research or scientific findings to life, for example through striking visual images, or building a narrative that the target audience is likely to be interested in. Whatever the topic, all scientific communication of this type conveys an underlying message about the relevance and importance of science and the contribution that university experts make to society.

The science-push approach works on the presumption that knowledge is generated by the academic expert. This presumption is also embodied in an approach to the (mainly) commercial marketing of scientific findings known as Knowledge Transfer (KT). KT specialists employed by universities are focused on income generation through the formation of spin-out companies or the licensing of intellectual property (IP) based on the outputs of university science and technology-related research. The Knowledge Transfer process, like science push communication, is linear – from the university to user – and income is obtained with the application of university generated research to new products or processes. The KT approach has been challenged, particularly in the social sciences, by an alternative notion of knowledge production in which users and academics exchange information and ideas, and collaborate to generate useful and relevant knowledge, recognising the different skills and contributions that each can make and the limitations of both practitioner and scientific expertise.

This approach, referred to as Knowledge Exchange (KE), covers a spectrum of forms and extent of collaboration, ranging from involving practitioner/users as consultees at the start and at the end of the research process, the academics maintaining tight control over the data gathering and analysis processes, to more inclusive approaches in which academics and their civic and community partners act as co-producers of research which is demand-responsive, i.e. geared towards the needs of non-academic partners, rather than being determined by national research funding bodies or the curiosity or interests of the university staff member, which has often been the default approach. Research we have been carrying out internationally shows that the shift towards KE has changed the job specification for many public engagement professionals, whose role now includes brokering links between academics and research users, upstream pre-research engagement and supporting co-production and processing evidence of impact, rather than just the marketing and communication of academically-led research. Job titles are changing to reflect changes in the nature of the job, creating new sub-professions with titles like ‘Knowledge Exchange Lead’, and there has been significant growth in the numbers of positions recruited, reflecting the importance of these functions.

Several factors are driving a further shift towards the demand-responsive model. Topics that focus on challenges that public sector or business partners have highlighted as priorities – and that are solution-focused – increase the likelihood of obtaining funding from UKRI in the UK (or the National Science Foundation in the USA) compared with proposals that are aimed at filling in gaps in disciplinary knowledge (although there is resistance amongst some academics to any threat to their professional autonomy or weakening of disciplinary integrity. Strong pressure has been exerted to ensure that ‘fundamental’ as well as ‘applied’ research is funded). Funders increasingly require applicants for research grants to not only include their knowledge exchange plans in bids, but to also demonstrate that they are actively collaborating with partners on the choice of topic, the design of the research, and the research process itself. How research will be used can no longer be an afterthought.

The shift towards more partner-focused, collaborative research requires not only that academics engage with partners, but that they also improve their listening and synthesizing skills and report-writing capability, so their outputs are more accessible and impactful. Partners and funders are looking for evidence and outcomes that are measurable and relevant. In the UK, the Research Excellence Framework rewards universities (financially and reputationally) for discipline-focused impact case studies graded by quality (the highest being 4*), linking scientific publication to adoption of findings or knowledge derived from the paper. The intensification of impact requirements and increased accountability (e.g. by evidencing and measuring outcomes) has encouraged universities and a growing number of academics (not just in social science disciplines) to adopt a mindset which focuses attention on understanding and responding to the needs of partners, and building trust (and mutually supportive relationships). As mentioned earlier, to help them do that, there has been a growth in professional services staff whose role it is to broker relationships and gather the evidence required to demonstrate the contribution of research and the researcher to achieving impact.

That is not to say that the science-push approach to public engagement has been supplanted. Universities and academics remain keen to demonstrate the value of scientific discoveries and to profile existing research through their public engagement, communication and marketing strategies. Increasingly, however, civic commitments which previously did not figure prominently in core missions are now being taken more seriously, both top-down – i.e. at the most senior management level (university presidents, vice-chancellors and deans) – and bottom-up – i.e. by researchers wanting to co-produce work that is not just career-enhancing in their professional lives, but also impactful and relevant to them as citizens. The culture change involved is proceeding unevenly – faster in some universities and some academic fields than in others. It depends not just on internal adjustments within universities but also on the receptiveness of civic partners to working with academics, the capacities as well as attitudes on both sides, whether there is trust, and whether both sides see advantage in collaboration. There is clear evidence from research I have undertaken with colleagues from the University of Birmingham that demand-responsive collaboration is becoming more common in the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, especially in conurbations and metropolitan regions where capacity exists within governance structures, as well as in the higher education institutions. The structures and missions of universities are now laying greater emphasis on collaboration with civic partners.

Universities as Anchor Institutions

An anchor institution is one that is rooted in place – typically it is one that has the name of a city or region in its title. Local and regional government, health bodies, chambers of commerce and universities are place anchors, playing a key role in promoting local prosperity and delivering inclusion. Large industrial or financial institutions would have been counted as anchor institutions within a city or region in the past but, in order to compete, many of these organisations have either had to turn into national or international companies, or be absorbed into larger entities. This has diluted their ties with place, even though in many instances they may remain large employers and exert influence through historic or philanthropic ties to their host city or region, and/or by being active civic partners.

Mega-cities such as London, Paris and Rome are national capitals and have a wide range of economic actors, making them less dependent for their economic and cultural vitality or political importance on collaboration between civic partners, and/or less reliant on the contribution of their universities to drive growth, than medium-sized cities where universities are significant players and among the biggest employers. This may be less apparent in places such as York or Bath, where the cities themselves are major tourist destinations and the contribution of universities to the city or regional economy as attractors of students and staff is overshadowed because of visitor numbers, compared with places where the economy is more differentiated, or where the university is the key driver of the city economy.

In Northern Europe and North America, medium- sized cities and metropolitan regions nearly all have universities, but only a minority of them are prestigious and have strong research profiles. Those cities or regions with research-intensive universities typically outperform places with smaller or weaker institutions. There are several reasons why this should be so. Innovation in clinical, scientific and technological fields is driven to a significant extent by collaboration between university-based researchers and firms that exploit discoveries. Clusters are formed when firms base themselves near to centres of research excellence, such as Cambridge in the UK or Boston in the USA, developing sectoral strengths and attracting investment.

The beneficial effect of having a university is not confined to white coat science or technological disciplines. Places that have made long-term investments in their universities have reaped substantial benefits, the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill triangle in North Carolina being a frequently cited example. It is increasingly recognised that collaborative working between universities and other anchor institutions in the place they are located, across disciplines or functions, contributes to economic growth, better public services, citizen wellbeing and cultural vibrancy.

In the past, universities may have assumed that they contribute to place without thinking systematically about what their contribution might be, or how it might be enhanced. This is changing, for reasons set out earlier, to the extent that senior university managers and research funders are focusing on place. More attention is being paid to building partnerships, increasing the scope and range of collaborations, looking at how they influence leaders and decision-making, and at how universities can better evidence and quantify their contribution. Part of this is self-interest. The attractiveness of a university to potential students and staff relative to its competitors is not simply a matter of what facilities the university can offer or its rankings profile. Applicants also make choices based on perceptions about the quality of life the city and the surrounding region.

Universities have previously been required to demonstrate excellence in research to funders and in teaching quality to applicants. But increasingly other criteria are used by governments, funders and by staff and students such as:

• Value of research output, shown not just by citations/academic excellence but by the impact the research has on policy or practice
• Extent of social and community impact along with economic impact indicators at local/regional level
• Willingness and ability to engage with civic partners to address competitiveness and social challenges at local/regional level
• Success in matching supply to local/regional skills requirements and responsiveness to both student preferences and employer needs

This is not an exhaustive list and so far there is no agreed methodology that would allow comparisons of the range of activity or effectiveness, although attempts to quantify economic impact, sustainability and social value are increasing in the UK, US and Australia.

Universities embracing their anchor role are interested in evidencing their commitment, capabilities and impact, together with their contribution to the competitiveness of their place. Interviews conducted with deans and senior engagement staff in the UK and the USA reveal that universities are increasingly attempting to:

• Highlight their contributions to economic development measured in terms of jobs, GVA etc.
• Highlight their engagement with community organisations and contribution to cultural vitality
• Quantify impact of specific initiatives where university engagement has delivered tangible wellbeing outcomes e.g. on homelessness, net zero etc.
• Demonstrate their role in contributing to national and international place competitiveness – stimulating growth, innovation and improve skills mix
• Demonstrate the relevance of academic research to local priorities and challenges
• Express willingness to collaborate with each other and with other local anchor institutions

Engaged Universities and Intelligent cities and regions

As important as evidencing the universities own contribution is the realization that collaboration with city and regional government, and with civic and community partners more generally, carries with it inter alia opportunities (i) to influence decision making on matters of city strategy and infrastructure investment which are of significance to the university; (ii) to input research-based evidence into the ways in which social, economic or environmental challenges affect the city or region; and (iii) to contribute to solutions that benefit the city and its people while having wider relevance to similar issues elsewhere. From the perspective of the city or region, engaged universities are important as:

• “place-responsive” partners in shaping economic and spatial strategies;
• conduits in the national/international exchange of knowledge, linking city and region with global partners and trends, which they need to be abreast of to maintain competitiveness;
• generators/ promoters of innovation (broadly defined) – which is needed to address local and global sustainable development goals in the context of place, most notably tackling inequality and climate change.

Intelligent cities and regions are defined as places that maximise use of the capabilities of engaged universities, connecting academic knowledge to that embedded in other anchor institutions to (for example):

• devise, evidence and gather support for a coherent economic strategy.
• make effective use of data and digital analytics not just to manage services but to engage citizens.
• help the city or region function effectively in an inclusive way, promoting community wellbeing and coping with transitions such as climate change adaption.
• link the supply of skills with current and future employer demand, while looking beyond the skills pipeline to supporting a skills ecosystem.
• innovate, e.g. by identifying and facilitating new economic specialisations that mirror place assets and advantages, as well as innovating in the foundational economy.

In the UK, the USA and Australia, the civic movement is demonstrating the benefit to universities of being engaged, of becoming more demand-responsive and collaborative in their relationships with place. Our interviews with colleagues in the UK and the US reveal that universities at the leading edge are adapting to governance contexts and working with community and civic partners to find new ways of engaging researchers with priorities and challenges at city and regional levels. Meanwhile, city governments and indeed national governments and other partners are recognising that universities can be harnessed to make significant contributions to improving the competitiveness of places and the functioning of cities and regions, provided that the collaboration is broader and deeper than it has hitherto been. Progress is sporadic, however. In the US, civic engagement tends to rely heavily on philanthropic funding. In the UK, the resources put in, in numbers of professional staff and other resource remains significantly less than universities are investing in the impact agenda geared towards the Research Assessment Framework (REF), which contributes to both prestige/rankings and to finance. But there are significant changes taking place. UKRI, the main research funding agency has issued calls for place-based research that asks universities to build local partnerships to deliver change across the undernoted areas of focus:

• Inclusive and sustainable local economic performance
• Living and working sustainably in a greener economy
• Innovation (in pursuit of local economic development objectives)
• Skills (demand and supply within a location)
• Communities in their Places
• Felt Experiences and Pride in Place
• Cultural Recovery

While curiosity driven research and research that responds to topics set by national funders sometimes leads to useful information for policy makers, quite frequently it is not communicated or made accessible to users – hence the need for knowledge exchange and public engagement intermediaries. Co-produced research, where academics engage directly with practitioners and policy makers and where the needs of the city or region influence the research agenda, is increasingly seen to be more impactful. Place is after all where policies come together and change can take effect. Universities are being asked to build collaboration into their top-down commitments to supporting place while providing encouragement and support for bottom-up engagement between academics and practitioners, enabling them to work out where they can make a difference.

Conclusion

As anchor institutions, one of the largest employers and income generators in a locality, universities should more consciously link their management policies to benefit place.

While senior management involvement in formal partnerships are important, even more benefit can be gained from staff applying their skills with encouragement, rather than direction, from above. Civic university agreements recognise that staff and students are major assets of a university. Effectively harnessing their energies and enthusiasm and recognising/celebrating their efforts greatly enhances the profile and reputation of the university, as well as increasing impact. This impact is gained through engagement, dialogue and a collaborative mindset that builds mutual understanding and trust, rather than by policy-makers or practitioners reading monographs or papers published in academic journals. Moving the civic into the core of university missions, and making civic contribution a strand of higher education policy at national as well as at regional level, will maximise returns from investment and make more effective use of capability, benefitting those places and universities that embrace this way of collaborative working.