RRI and the Civic University

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).

Footer Text

3/20/2016

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

The New Public Management Model RESEARCH

TEACHING

THE ‘CORE’ Funding targets Hard Boundary between enabling and non enabling environments

‘THIRD MISSION’ ACTIVITIES

THE ‘PERIPHERY’

The Civic University THE ACADEMY

TEACHING

RESEARCH Enhancement

TRANSFORMATIVE, RESPONSIVE, DEMAND-LED ACTION

Widening participation, community work

ENGAGEMENT

Socioeconomic impact

Soft

Boundary

SOCIETY

The civic university and the city: Universities as urban ‘anchor’ institutions •

• •

•

‘Anchor institutions’ are large locally embedded institutions, typically nongovernmental 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 Intellectual Leadership

Managerial Leadership

Community 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

BUT the triple helix is not enough as the way we innovate is changing

User innovation

Innovation in services

Elberfelder Farbenfabriken vorm.

Friedrich Bayer & Co Social innovation

Open innovation Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ

21

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 cocreate 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' crossfertilisation 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 ICTinnovation 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, cocreation, 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 ‘3 rd 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

H2020 Cross cutting theme: Science With and For Society

29

Responsible Research and Innovation? need not always be harmonious 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

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 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’

Preference for resources linked to prerequisites rather than performance.

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.

Emphasis on effectiveness in achieving public values and administrative effectiveness

Stress on greater discipline and parsimony in resource use; cutting direct costs, resisting union demands, limiting businesses’ compliance costs.

public

value

Emphasis on integration of public duties, coordination, but recognizing that the co-ordinated networks may be (often should be) temporary.

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