Gerholz Civic Engagement in Higher Education Institutions in Europe

1. Auflage 2018
ISBN: 978-3-7528-8949-9
Verlag: BoD - Books on Demand
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 184 Seiten

Over the last decade, the concept of Civic Engagement in Higher Education Institutions (HEI) has led to lively discussions. This special issue about Civic Engagement in HEI in Europe presents workshop reports and scientific papers which have an implicit statement in common: we need to talk concrete and analytical about Civic Engagement activities, approaches and programs on a European and national level without celebrating only normative believes and visions. Furthermore, the contributions describe the starting point of a new field of empirical and theory oriented research.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Gerholz, Karl-Heinz

Leseproben

Laura BRANDT, Barbara SCHOBER, Marie-Therese SCHULTES2, Veronika SOMOZA & Christiane SPIEL (Vienna)
Supporting Third Mission activities at Universities: Deans’ opinions and recommendations Abstract Universities are increasingly required to address societal challenges in teaching and research as their third mission (TM). We took an educational-psychological approach to assessing parameters which support university members in setting goals and taking action for TM activities. For that purpose, we conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with the deans of all 19 faculties at the University of Vienna assessing opinions and recommendations related to the TM. In addition, we conducted interviews with 23 TM actors and a university-wide online survey to capture current TM activities. Key requirements for implementing the TM were improved visibility and explicit appreciation of related activities. Keywords Third mission, university, social engagement, knowledge transfer, implementation 1 The diverse conception of the Third Mission Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the interface of basic research, innovation and societal/civic engagement has become increasingly important. Universities and other higher education institutions are called upon in using the results produced by their first (teaching) and second mission (research) to help resolve the growing challenges societies and local communities are facing (Bleiklie, Laredo, & Sörlin, 2007; Pinheiro, Langa, & Pausits, 2015; Schober, Brandt, Kollmayer, & Spiel, 2016). This Third Mission (TM) of universities involves actively taking responsibility for society, on whose behalf they are working (European Commission, 2011). Amongst others, TM activities involve social and civic engagement, technology and innovation transfer and entrepreneurial activities (E3M, 2013; Henke, Pasternack, & Schmid, 2015; Observatory of the European University, 2006). Specifying what the TM means for universities as well as for individual academics is hampered by different conceptions of “relevance” or “social impact” by different scientific communities and domains (Pinheiro, Benneworth, & Jones, 2012). This controversy has been identified as a key challenge for the TM’s realization (Pinheiro et al., 2015). Despite this challenge, there are many higher education institutions conducting a variety of TM activities in research and teaching. However, these are often neither systematically documented, nor sufficiently interconnected (Lassnigg et al., 2012; Pausits, 2015). Based on the increasing external demand for universities to fulfill their TM in society, the rectorate of the University of Vienna commissioned the project “Third Mission of the University of Vienna” (first project phase: March 2016 – February 2018; Third Mission of the University of Vienna, 2017). The starting point was a clear commitment to the TM expressed in the university’s development plan (University of Vienna, 2016). Therefore, the University of Vienna, which is the largest university in the German-speaking area with around 94,000 students and close to 10,000 employees, seems particularly suitable for exemplifying the development of a systematic strategy for the realization of the TM. The experiences gained in the negotiation process related to the definition and first implementation steps of the TM at the University of Vienna may help university managers entering the debate on Civic Engagement and the TM at their own universities. 1.1 Definition of the Third Mission at the University of Vienna In a first step of the project, the university management determined the general focus of the TM. Given the size of the University of Vienna and its large variety of disciplines, the focus was rather broadly defined and two key priorities of the TM were determined to achieve greater societal impact of research: Targeted use and transfer of academic knowledge to help resolve diverse societal challenges Transfer of technologies and innovations in the form of cooperation with public and private companies According to the project’s definition, TM activities have to meet the following criteria: Relevance to society/economy: Activities expand research and teaching to societal/economy transfer Activities are based on (one’s own) research Networking: External cooperation partners are included Sustainability: The activity has a long-term perspective and includes quality/impact measures The project team determined these criteria considering the relevant international literature and in consultation with the university management. Roessler and colleagues (2015) propose two different approaches to defining the TM: TM may be seen as (1) separate from teaching and research, and (2) embedded in and fulfilled through teaching and research activities. In addition, there may be hybrid forms of both approaches. According to the University of Vienna’s definition, the TM is strongly connected with research and teaching, while at the same time expanding these missions to engagement with society and economy. 2 Supporting structures for Third Mission activities A successful realization of the TM requires a conceptual framework for this “third task” of universities, and a systematic strategy for its implementation. As a precondition, this implies creating a climate that promotes university members’ motivation for the TM (Spiel, Schober, & Strohmeier, 2016). 2.1 Evaluating preconditions for implementing the Third Mission at the University of Vienna The project “Third Mission of the University of Vienna” follows an educational-psychological approach to assessing parameters which are necessary for a person to set goals and take action in relation to the TM. This approach is based on the actiotope model. The so-called actiotope of a person is “the subjective living space with which a person comes to terms by means of his/her actions” (Ziegler et al. 2006, 144). Promoting a person’s actions in specific areas requires to systematically focus on all relevant action parameters (see Fig. 1): If and how a person takes action depends on their currently available options for operation, i.e. their action repertoire. The subjective action space addresses a person’s attitudes and preferences, values, self-view and interests. Based on these variables, specific parts of the objective action-repertoire are selected and concrete action-goals are formed. Goals determine the direction of actions; i.e., they limit the action-repertoire to those actions which are necessary to achieve a specific objective. The choice of goals and options for operation as well as their conduction are co-determined by environmental features such as the expected appreciation and reinforcement for a specific action. Figure 1: The actiotope model (ZIEGLER et al., 2006) To assess the status quo of these parameters at the University of Vienna, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with the representatives of all 19 faculties and centers (one interview per faculty/center), in order to (1) assess the perception of the TM, (2) gain insight into existing and planned TM activities, and (3) evaluate supporting conditions and barriers for the realization and sustainable implementation of TM activities. 2.2 Interviews with deans at the University of Vienna The interview guide addressed each component of the actiotope model (see Fig. 1) in order to capture the status quo regarding the four action parameters in relation to the TM at the University of Vienna. Prior to the interview, the deans were introduced to the TM-concept and the project. During the interview, we first inquired about the current perception of the TM and related activities at the faculties/centers to capture the deans’ subjective action space. Subsequently, we asked for ongoing TM activities in order to gain an insight into the currently available operational options (action-repertoire). To identify goals with regard to the TM, we asked for activities planned in the future. Finally, the deans were asked for requirements (environmental features) for the realization and sustainable implementation of the TM. The interviewees’ answers were recorded in writing and on tape. Interview protocols were created and sent to the interviewees with the option for amendment. After the interviewees’ approval of the protocols, we categorized the data using a deductive code system (Forman & Damschroder, 2007) based on the actiotope’s action parameters. We categorized the information on each parameter into topics and ranked them according to their agreement among interviewees (from “all deans mentioned this aspect/agreed on its importance” to “only one dean mentioned this aspect/considered it important”). In the narrative description of the results below, we included topics/aspects that were mentioned and considered important, respectively, by at least one third of deans (n = 6). The aim was to provide an overall representation of the university, and not to single out faculties/centers or persons. 2.2.1 Results The results represent the appraisal of all...