The Dialogue of Higher Education Institutions with Their Partners

The traditional role of universities

• Autonomous national institutions of HE with only limited goals and accountability to their region and the society in general
• The mission of the universities is to promote free scientific research and to provide higher education based on research
• The universities´ basic functions (teaching and research) have aspired to the achievement of national and international reputation and significance

The third role of universities

• The universities have become more active in serving the needs of their regions and society
• The universities have opened up more than before to their partners and external stakeholders
• The increased activity (the third role of the universities) has come together with the emergence of new approaches to institutional management

The old model

• Key parameters
• National (government) funding to meet national labour market and RTD needs
• Single paymaster and long term security in funding
• Predictable cohorts of young full-time students
• Provision of infrastructure to support the pursuit of individual academic research and scholarship
• Management implications
• Limited demands on university management
• Supports academic self management and collegiality

The new model

• Key parameters
• Mass higher education and life-long learning
• Pursuit of efficiency gains in public funding
• New ICT based modes of knowledge production  and distribution outside the universities
• Management implications
• Privileged relations with government undermined
• New intermediaries articulate demands of others
• New requirements for locally relevant knowledge production, gateways to global info resources, adapt-able workforce, leadership in regional governance

Regional Dimensions of the Universities

• Increase of the level of education
• Effects on the economic sector
• Universities as industrial dynamos
• Technology villages, entrepreneurship, spin-off's
• Education and consultancy, R & D
• Cultural and social benefits
• Way to internationalisation
• Putting the city on the map

The mission of a responsive university

• Do the universities have a dilemma in balancing the endeavours towards
• a national and international academic reputation and success and
• bringing an interface with the partners and external engagement into the mainstream of teaching and research?
• In order to benefit their stakeholders best the universities have to fulfil high standard inter-national criteria in teaching and research

Self assessment of stakeholder interface (according to John Goddard)

• Synthesis: Does the university recognise that by its very nature the processes in partnership are broadly based embracing economic, technological, environmental, social, cultural and political agendas?
• Objectives: Are the objectives of partnerships clear?
• Collaboration: Are procedures in place to support inter-university collaboration?
• Mapping and measuring: Who talks to whom about what? Where do the students come from and go to?
• Human resource development: Is the partner-ship agenda incorporated into HR policies?
• Focus: What is the focus of the university in the partnership interface (e.g. regional, nation-wide in a sector etc.) and the distinctive contribution thereupon?
• Geographical identity: What are the unique features of the region to which the university can contribute?
• Regional policy and leadership: What are the main drivers of regional policy? What role does the university play in regional leadership?
• Teaching and learning: Have labour market needs and intelligence influenced the shape and contents of teaching and learning programmes?
• Research: Is the university providing its partners with intelligence for their future planning?
• Communications: Are the needs and priorities of the partners communicated through the university?
• Responsiveness: Is the university able to res-pond quickly to unanticipated external needs?
• Mainstream: Has the engagement in interface with the partners become a part of the academic mainstream of the university?

Recommendations for an improved dialogue (Results of a  project by CRE, EU Commission, ERT)

• In order for the dialogue to be coherent, it  needs to be based on a strategy which respects the academic mission of the university
• the choice of partners (some are automatic choices, stakeholders select, universities can also select)
• Institutionalisation of the dialogue with key stakeholders; long-term development plans for the university in its local, regional, national   and even international environments
• representation of important stakeholders on university and research councils; representation of  the university on relevant external bodies
• Dialogue needs to be conducted at different levels, depending on the partnership in question
• a clear policy is needed to create a relevant division  of labour between the different levels and assure sufficient and genuine information flows within the university
• Dialogue needs to be managed, marketed, encouraged and developed; the people within the institution must be convinced of its importance
• a special development officer is needed to facilitate  a fruitful dialogue with the stakeholders
• Universities have a responsibility to assist stakeholders to articulate expectations in terms of level, specificity and priority
• partners must become aware of the parameters of autonomy, resources and expertise within which the universities may operate
• Universities must be pro-active in the quest  for dialogue with their stakeholders and not just wait for partners to knock at the door
• universities can learn from their partners in trying to better understand their needs and to present their services
• Universities and partners need to be sensitive to the dynamics and evolution of partnership
• identification of conceptual frameworks to enhance understanding and to accelerate progress in reaching objectives