The Civic University Commission was interesting, rigorous, and almost perfectly timed.
Coming off the back of Brexit, on the heels of Covid, and foreshadowing a putative levelling up agenda, it gave shape to things universities had always done and permission to discuss more openly the things they had always wished to do.
The civic university agreements were sometimes a fresh coat of paint on already ongoing work but undoubtedly provided new momentum to an old idea. There has been significant debate on how to define civic, the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA) happens to have a very good framework, but this is less important than the interest that was generated which made the debate worth having.
The civic movement – and whether it is a movement is also debatable – has given an intellectual hinterland to a set of disparate activities. It is the wrapper through which anything can be presented as being civic. The research project in the heritage centre, the outreach programmes with school, and employing people, are no longer just things universities do but they are part of a grander civic mission.
It can also all feel a bit hollow. The shell of the strategies break open to reveal a kind of saccharine sweetness of advertisement and gross value added appraisals that tell the world what a university is doing, but tell us very little about what has been done differently thanks to their renewed civic approach.
Commissioning
The test of whether a civic approach is working can’t be whether a university is doing things that are labelled civic. Every single university that employs anyone locally, or puts students in the NHS, or does any kind of access scheme in their local area, is doing something civic. Universities have to geographically exist somewhere (mostly) and therefore they are lashed to the mast of their places.
Recent work by NCIA talks about civic capitals. These are the deep internal resources that allow civic work to happen:
Civic capitals are resources that exist in an organisation that enable it and the individuals who work within it to achieve their civic goals. They include day-to-day resources such as the budgets that pay for staff time and activities, and the resources such as skills and knowledge that are built up over time and that individuals and teams draw on to do their work.
This is not the same as how these resources might be structured. As the UPP Foundation note in their recent report emerging from a series of roundtables with sector leaders:
Participants highlighted that the civic role doesn’t fall under typical funding or strategic pillars, and has in the past been prone to being seen as a ‘nice-to-have’ extra, rather than a necessary function of the university, making it vulnerable to cuts in times of financial pressure. With the Government’s renewed attention on civic purpose, universities should embrace the chance to re-embed this ambition into their work and future-proof it for the coming decades.
Put together, the fundamental weakness at the heart of the civic agenda is that at the point it becomes separate from other business in the university it becomes vulnerable. It becomes far too easy to cut or quietly put away.
Incentives
The people I speak to across the sector give a sense that programmes of work are being scaled back and posts that were once devoted to civic work are being quietly not filled. Last week’s report from the National Civic Impact Accelerator appears to agree with these conclusions.
Aside from the roles that are distinctly labelled as civic there is definite pressure on activities that are civic in and of themselves. It is much harder for universities to be good employers, or run significant school interventions, or co-build research projects, when there is such acute financial pressure facing the sector.
Outside of anything that universities can do to maintain their civic work there are a set of incentives that militate against their ambitions. Their primary financial incentive is to recruit students whose fees are uncapped above any consideration for the local labour market or local recruitment cold spots. Their major research incentives are about quality, their university environment, and impact – but impact does not have to be in their places. And while the access regime is tilting toward school engagement the business of raising educational standards is expensive, difficult, and often gets comparatively few students through the door.
The secretary of state has called for universities to “to shape and deliver the economic and social change that is needed across skills, research and innovation,” but this is hard to do with a range of incentives working against them doing things in skills, research, and innovation.
Give up?
The fatal risk in all of this is not that universities stop doing civic work. Every university, to a lesser or greater extent, is civic. The risk is that universities try to salami slice their civic activity in the same way they might other funding pots. The widespread harm would potentially fatally damage the whole civic project.
The work of being civic should be everyone’s business but aside from finances and national incentives there are substantive barriers.
The main one is that civic work, done properly, is a long-term endeavour. Improving school attainment, or deploying research for local impact, or shared capital ambitions, and the litany of things which actually improve the economic fortunes of a place and the people that live in it take years, sometimes decades, not months. The things that actually move the dial on civic impact will often live well beyond the tenure of any one vice chancellor.
The problem is that it is often the case that investing in long-term civic capacity comes at a distinct short-term cost. Universities could do more to support school improvement, there are lots of examples universities who are, but often this will come from the same funding pot used for bursaries for current students. Embedded research projects which meet a local need require deep listening, trust, and expertise that cannot easily be built over a single REF cycle.
The irony is that being civic is usually used as a proxy for being “nice” but to do it properly means making some very hard decisions. The most crucial is whether the greatest civic impact is achieved through the cumulation of small wins within an institution or through the longer-term, less immediately rewarding, and very difficult, capacity building out in the town or city.
Put bluntly, every pound spent on the students of today is a pound not spent on the students of tomorrow.
Embed
A strategy, no matter how well thought out and how popular, is not the same as doing civic work well. There is no lack of excellent ideas. There are significant and ambitious pieces of work with widespread support on getting in, getting on, and getting out of higher education. There are universities like LJMU that have thought deeply about the needs of their local businesses and places and built new partnerships and programmes off the back of their analysis.
The impact of civicness is sometimes achieved through the big-bang initiatives but more often civic impact is mundane. For example, the University of Derby is doing a lot of excellent things – but crucially civic is one of their key organisational purposes. It is not this fluffy sense of doing good but a series of embedded work packages with targets, staff, and a shared responsibility throughout the organisation for doing civic good.
This means not a dramatic moment of civic leadership but the slow tedious grind of looking at every single activity through a civic lens and supporting and rewarding staff members who do so. Analysing not just how many students can be recruited but how recruitment would have to change to support more local students into university. Targeting not only research income but how much research funding is redistributed to civic, business, and education partners. Engaging not only in on campus developments but considering how the university estate should be shared, expanded, or condensed, to meet the needs of a place.
The prize
The government has not lost sight of the civic agenda and while it might no longer be called levelling up the idea that universities should make their places better is embedded in every major education and research strategy, missive, and ministerial statement. The government may not save universities on their own terms but they may save places where universities are key to their economic success.
The tragedy would be that just as a constellation of industrial strategies, new modes of qualifications, and new research funds become available, the sector steps away from the civic strategy. It may save some short-term income but in the long-term it would close doors to future income, harm the prospects of a place, and make everything a university does with their partners that much harder.