HERANA From Engagement to Interconnectedness Preliminary findings from Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum (SAHECEF) 4 April 2014
Themes from Day 1 › Connectedness › Definitions of ‘community’ (doorstep, industry, etc.) › Engagement as core academic activity / third mission › Recording/tracking university engagement activities » to share experiences across institutions » as an imperative for (DHET) funding › This presentation » touches on all of these issues by sharing the methodology and preliminary findings of a research project on university engagement activities » attempts to offer both theoretical insights and a practical solution
Relevance in the national context WHITE PAPER FOR POST-SCHOOL Chairperson: Professor D Lortan T el: (031) 3732720 F ax: (031) 3732724 Email: dlortan@dut.ac.za Secretary: Mrs D Hornby T el: (046) 6037229 F ax: (046) 6038869 Email: d.hornby@ru.ac.za EDUCATION AND ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19 th February 2014 TRAINING Professor Nico Cloete Director: CHET / Extraordinary Professor of Higher Education University of the Western Cape Cape Town Dear Professor Cloete “Given budgetary and other resource constraints The South African Higher Education Community Engagement Forum (SAHECEF) cordially invites you to “…funding will be restricted to programmes present at its fourth seminar entitled ‘ White Paper for Post-School Education, The National Development Plan Vision 2030, and The Future of University Community Engagement ’. within higher education and the vastly different linked directly to the academic programme The Seminar will be hosted by the University of the Western Cape, 3 rd – 4 th April 2014. SEMINAR 4: WHITE PAPER FOR POST-SCHOOL EDUCATION, THE NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN VISION ways in which universities approach community of universities, and form part of the 2030, AND THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Universities in the round have potentially a pivotal role to play in the social and economic engagement, it is likely that future funding of such development of their regions. They are a critical ‘asset’ of the region; even more so in less teaching and research function of these favoured regions where the private sector may be weak or relatively small, with low levels of research and development activity (Goddard, 2011: viii). initiatives in universities will be restricted...” institutions.” Given budgetary and other resource constraints within higher education and the vastly different ways in which universities approach community engagement, it is likely that future funding of such initiatives in universities will be restricted (DHET, 2013: 39). (DHET, 2013: 39). (DHET, 2013: 39). Despite the challenges of national policy disconnect, institutionalisation, funding, and conceptual clarity, the past two decades has seen an increase in the rhetoric and praxis of Community Engagement (CE) as ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Prof D Lortan (Durban University of Technology, Chairperson) Mrs D Hornby (Rhodes University, Secretary) Prof N Mollel (University of Limpopo, Vice-Chairperson) Dr J Boughey (University of Zululand, Treasurer) Prof V Netshandama (University of Venda) Mrs B Bouwman (North-West University, Marketing) Ms E Meyer-Adams (University of Johannesburg) Ms J Munsamy (Central University of Technology)
Background › CHET HERANA I study » Links between universities and economic development » 8 African universities (including NMMU) » small sample size (n≈6) » ‘projects’ selected by leadership » mixture of centres, programmes and projects » unstructured interviews
Direct HERANA I FINDINGS articulation 12 1. While there was evidence of 11 ACTS 5, 11 connectedness between the PBMR 4, 10 10 MD 3, 10 IV 5, 10 university and industry , this was generally confined to the level of units 9 CB 3, 9 or centres rather than institutional-level AP 2, 8 8 partnerships. 7 2. Projects/centres tended to score well Weakening Strengthening academic on the articulation indicators – in other academic 6 core core 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 words, they reflected national priorities 5 (and to a lesser extent institutional 4 objectives), had more than one funding source and, in some cases, plans for 3 financial sustainability, and may have 2 had a connection to an implementation 1 agency. 3. A number of these projects/centres also 0 Indirect managed to keep a strong connection articulation to the academic core of the university, whilst some were more disconnected Key: from these core knowledge activities. Abbreviation Project/centre 4. There were ‘exemplary’ development ACTS Automotive Components Technology Station IV InnoVenton: NMMU Institute for Chemical Technology and Downstream Chemicals Technology Station projects/centres. The problem was PBMR Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Project scale : there were simply not enough, AP Agro-Processing Study for the East London Industrial Development Zone (ELIDZ) and some seemed overly dependent on MD Govan Mbeki Sasol Mathematics Development Programme exceptional individuals. CB IlingeLomama Cooperative Bakery Project
Institutional context
HERANA II: Research question and limitations › Interconnectedness : How are academics negotiating the tension between engaging with those external to the academy and strengthening the core functions of the university? › The research project does not : » assess the impact of engagement projects on communities » assess the quality of engagement projects or their outputs
HERANA II: The academic core and the third mission › Some claim that the third mission of universities, i.e. providing services to the communities in which they are embedded, is a core function of universities. › It is both conceivable and possible for third mission activities to be carried out by organisations external to the university. » Civil society, government agencies, corporate social responsibility initiatives as well as organisational structures created at the periphery of the university are all capable of delivering third mission-type services to communities. › Not so in the case of knowledge creation and, in particular, knowledge legitimisation and credentialling. These are unique to the university.
HERANA II: Notes on methodology › Two universities » NMMU, Port Elizabeth » Makerere University, Kampala › Larger sample sizes » NMMU (n=80) » Makerere (n=30) › Projects only (smallest unit of activity) › Projects selected across faculties › Structured questionnaires completed by leaders of engagement projects and follow-up meetings for clarification and input from participants › Indicators for articulation and for academic core developed; weighted scores for each. Each project plotted according their scores on these two dimensions
Indicators Articulation indicators A1 Alignment between project and university development objectives (as expressed in the vision and mission statements) A2 Initiation / agenda-setting A3 Links to external stakeholders and implementation agencies A4 Funding Academic core indicators C1 Application of existing knowledge versus creation of new knowledge C2 Dissemination of research findings (multiple types) C3 Links with teaching and with curriculum development C4 Academic networks
Weighted scores Max Articulation Indicators Q Score score A1 Alignment between project and A1.1 For each project objective in alignment with university development objectives A1.2 1.00 university mission/vision = 0.25 A1.3 A2 Initiation/agenda-setting A2.1 Self-initiated = 1 1.00 A2.2 Proposal more than one author = 0.5 0.50 A2.3 Project plan / TOR flexible = 1 1.00 A2.7 Advisory group and meets at least once p.a. = 0.5 0.50 A3 Links to external stakeholders (non- A2.6 For each link to an external stakeholder = 0.25 1.00 academic) and to implementation A3.1.2 agencies A3.2 Direct link to implementation agency = 2 A3.3 OR Indirect link to implementation agency = 1 2.00 OR Self-implemented = 1 A3.4 A4 Funding A4.1 For each source of funding = 0.25 1.00 A4.1 Long-term funding (more than 3 years) = 0.5 0.50 A4.1 Renewable funding (at least one source) = 0.5 0.50
Max Academic Core Indicators Q Score score C1 Generates new knowledge C1.1 New knowledge or product = 1.25 1.25 or product or data OR New data = 0.5 A1.4 Publicly available = 0.25 0.25 C1.2.5 C2.1 C2.3.2 Postgraduates linked to project = 0.5 0.50 A1.4 C2 Dissemination C1.2.2 C1.2.3 C1.2.4 C1.2.6 For each publication/presentation listed = 0.25 2.00 C1.2.7 C1.2.8 C1.2.9 C3a Teaching/curriculum development C2.1 Changes to courses/modules = 1 2.00 C2.2 OR New courses/modules/programmes = 2 C3b Formal teaching/learning of students C2.3.1 Students involved = 0.5 0.50 C2.3.2 C2.4 Participation in project is course requirement = 1 1.00 C2.5 C2.6 Other roles for students in project = 0.25 per role 0.50 C2.7 C2.8 C4 Links to academic networks A3.1.1 Links to academics from other universities = 1 1.00
Interconnected Faculty of Science TURTLES 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 ENERGYIND WILLARD 5 5 REFFARMS 4 4 3 3 TECHBLEND MATHMXIT MATHISP 2 2 On-going Complete 1 1 5+ MATHSUP 0 Academic 0 Articulation core 4.00–4.99 3.00–3.99 PSYSCI 2.00–2.99 0–1.99 Duration of engagement project Disconnected
Recommend
More recommend
