Conference paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003
The university role in community development: responding to challenges of globalisation
Irena Leliugiene, Viktorija Barsauskiene
Kaunas University of Technology
Institute of Educational Studies
Donelaicio Str. 20, Kaunas-3000, Lithuania
e-mail:
Abstract
The paper focuses on community development in the global world. Referring to the work of the American, West European and Lithuanian researchers, the notions of community and community development, as well as the university mission and role in community development in response to the challenges of globalisation are discussed. To support the theoretical discussion, the paper ends with a case study about the participation of one of the largest Lithuanian universities, Kaunas University of Technology in community development.
Introduction
In the global world, information and knowledge have become a new source of welfare for nations. The whole system of human values is changing, placing a major emphasis on knowledge as one of the key factors of social empowerment of individual. Individuals and society are participating in the globalisation processes, where knowledge is one of the key conditions of self-realisation and success and one of the key guarantees of social wellbeing. The paradigm of the new economy encompasses not only a learning individual, but also a learning community and a learning society (institutions, companies). Zeleny (1998) argues that the learning process is more important than what is learned. The global economy has replaced the Soviet era slogan ‘Learn, learn, learn’ with a new one ‘Learn to learn’, a requirement set by demands of the information society.
Globalisation is characterised not only by the globally oriented production, information and activities, but also by globalisation of human resources. Investment into human resource development has significantly increased. Development of human resources implies the development of individual’s innate and acquired personal qualities, enhancement of systemic knowledge and exploitation of human capabilities (Kazmierczak, 1996).
Social and political change in Europe, increasing labour mobility, development of the new European social policy and increasingly global nature of the social problems had a profound effect on the socio-cultural and socio-educational work in community and on its objectives. New trends in social development call for coping in creative and competent ways with poverty, social exclusion, discrimination, racism, destruction of the traditional social model and cultural and ethnical traditions.
In recent years, significant attention in the research literature has been devoted to communities, community development in the modern world, the impact of future technologies on the social empowerment in the modern community, the influence of globalisation on the community development, the nature of community work in the 21st century, and the methods and principles of community development (Halal, 1998; Passing, 1998; Zisser, 1998; Smith and Babcook, 1998; Babacan and Gopalkrishnan, 2001; Appadurai, 1990; Brecher and Costello, 1994; Craig, 1998; Habermas, 1976; Kenny, 1994; also a number of Lithuanian authors - Grigas, 1999; Slapkauskas, 1999; Jacikevicius, 1995; Stoskus, 1996; Karalius, 1999; Leoncikas, 1999; Nefas, 1999; Barsauskiene and Leliugiene, 2001, 2002, and others). Lithuanian researchers Juceviciene and Jucevicius (2002), Kuzmickaite (2003), and Dvarionas (2003) analyse the role of entrepreneurship in resolving the social problems of community and the learning city as one of the factors of community empowerment.
The role of higher education as a provider of services and a potential stimulator of social empowerment of the community has been addressed by Western scholars Tjeldvoll (1998), Kvil (1998), Currie and Newson (1998), Cummings (1998), Burton (1998), Marginson and Considine (2000), Scott (2000) and others.
However, most of the researchers who deal with the issues of community development, community work and social empowerment, do not analyse them in relation to the role of higher education (universities). Those authors who discuss the idea of a service university (Tjeldvoll, 1998; Waterhouse, 2000) do not address service provision as a way of university intervention into empowerment of communities (especially, territorial ones) in today’s increasingly global world.
In the global world, it is difficult to ensure efficient community development and social empowerment without exploitation of the intellectual resources possessed by universities as institutions of research and studies.
In this context, an important question is what role should be played by a modern university participating in community development in the context of challenges posed by globalisation.
The paper has the following aims:
1. To discuss the notions of community and community development.
2. To show the role of university in community development.
3. To present a case study featuring the participation of a specific university (Kaunas University of Technology) in community development.
Research methods: literature analysis and case study.
1. The notion of community
In the community studies, monographs and research papers, one can find a number of definitions of community. Referring to Hillery, a Lithuanian sociologist Budvytis points out that this American scholar has found about 90 different definitions. According to Budvytis (1999), researchers do not attempt to provide an exact community definition any more. They simply regard as community a certain territory with its inhabitants and their interrelationships. Communities emerge stimulated by a clear, specific purpose.
According to Tonnies (1997), community is a primary form of social organisation which emerged on the basis of kinship and is characterised by immediate relations (Slapkauskas, 1999). Virtas defines community as a group of individuals inhabiting a certain territory which are united by common interests, activities and other characteristics. Natorp (1854-1924) argues that community is impossible without individual as well as individual cannot survive without community, and that education is impossible without interaction of these two subjects. According to him, community means internal relationships between individuals. Its task is ‘materialisation of values’, i.e. formation of individuals by taking them out of chaos, giving them a shape, developing them (Jovaisa, 1993).
In her discussion of the theoretical and practical aspects of community operation, Jodiene (1998) argues that community is a concept used for describing social relations in a group or certain territory (Collins Educational Dictionary of Social Work, 1995). Also, community can be defined as an immediate environment of an employee, customer or agency which is analysed as a social system (Johnson, 1996).
Territorial community is a group of people who have common values and service institutions (local government, health care institutions, schools, etc.) and live on a certain territory (village, district, etc.). Geographical proximity can be understood on the national, regional, city or village level. In this paper, by territorial community we mean a city (village) community.
Every territorial community is comprised of people and their groups, has a certain subculture and micro-socium as well as educational and confessional institutions, business organisations, etc. Hence, a territorial community can be analysed as a social environment with the problems characteristic to such environment.
In a survey on communities conducted by Nefas (1999) in Lithuanian municipalities, a question ‘what is a community?’ produced the following answers:
- a group of people with common interests;
- a group of people with common traditions.
The above definitions of community suggest that it develops stimulated by a clear, specific purpose. Its most important element is people with common interests. For example, confessional communities are gathered around a certain religion, ethic minority communities seek to preserve their ethnicity, etc.
2. The notion of community development in the context of globalisation
At the end of the 20th century, a number of scholars from Western countries (Della-Pergola, 1998; Halal, 1998; Passig, 1998; Appadurai, 1990; Pilger, 1998; Mulgan, 1997, and others) attempted to identify the features of community development in the global world.
Della-Pergola (1998) argues that ethnic, religious and social diversity, pluralism and multiculturalism have a direct influence on the prospects of community development. International migration also impacts the development of territorial communities. According to Della-Pergola, an organised community and its institutions play an increasingly important role in today’s societies.
Halal (1998) points out that, according to research repeated every two years and lasting for ten years now, a revolution is taking place which has a profound effect on the development of communities, including the local ones.
Discussing the prospects of the development of social community, Passing (1998) argues that communities, especially the local ones, should not be afraid to change. However, according to this author, some community members are indifferent towards change. Many of them are of senior age, and they hardly feel themselves as a part of society because they are afraid of it.
A useful approach to analysing the notions and features of community development is Appadurai’s (1990) ‘concept of the core’ which enables ‘drawing a sociological landscape of community development’. The ‘concept of the core’ encompasses five dimensions: the ethno core, the information and knowledge dissemination core, the technological core, the ideological core and the financial core. A deeper analysis of these dimensions reveals various aspects of the global community development and community work.
The global economic crisis raises demand for greater responsibility on the part of communities. Community participation is increasingly being related to returning the responsibility for community development to the volunteer work sector, i.e. the concept of community development has been strongly influenced by the currently dominating ideologies. For example, Etzione (1995) defines communitarianism as people’s responsibility for themselves, their community and neighbourhood. Many social democratic governments in Western societies accepted these ideas as a justification for community participation.
Summarising it can be argued that globalisation raises new tasks for community development, which can be defined as follows: community development implies purposeful efforts which are aimed at developing the competences of collective life and action. These efforts can be of two types: 1) oriented directly at developing the competences; 2) directed at creating conditions for developing the competences in the community.
Community development (especially in case of the territorial communities) requires competences in the following areas: partnership, organising, project development and management, entrepreneurship, harmonisation of the educational environment, multiculturalism and social work. The latter competence is closely related to the partnership competence which should be developed by special agents, i.e. the professionals – social and community workers.
The above-mentioned community development competences can be acquired through close links with universities.
3. The role of university in community development
Referring to the above discussion it can be argued that although the above-mentioned Western researchers represent universities and demonstrate high erudition in the area of community work and community development, they leave aside the role of higher education in developing and empowering communities. At the same time, their community studies and theoretical models can be directly applied to community development.
A number of scholars (Tjeldvoll, 1998; Clark and Burton, 1998; Cummings and Willam, 1998; Margison and Considine, 2000; Waterhouse, 2000) focus on the role of universities as service institutions in society and community.
The purpose of the service university, according to Marginson and Considine (2000), is to adopt the emerging key features of the higher education institution of a new type, and to open this institution for detailed study and debate.
A service university, its organisational form and work methods are marked by great change: a contemporary university turns into a mediator between the researchers, who create a certain product, and the external world. To define the service university as a certain phenomenon the above authors are using the terms of ‘academic capitalism’, ‘entrepreneurial university’ and ‘corporate university’. ‘Enterprise’ covers both economic and academic dimensions. ‘Enterprise’ means that such university is mostly concerned with its prestige and income.
A contemporary university, according to Marginson and Considine (2000), has broad possibilities to implement new technologies in virtual ways. In this sense, universities are both a cause and an effect of globalisation. At the same time, distance education and virtual universities can play a crucial role in reducing social exclusion in communities.
Universities are a part of the expanding market which is oriented to people and communities. Both academic community and local community have developed and became equal partners, which can be illustrated by creation of partnership networks between universities and communities, development of joint projects, etc.
Asbly (quoted in Altbach et al., 1999, p. 4) also notes that universities, which traditionally educated the elite and served as an institutional basis for research, are forced to turn to the surrounding world. Already in the 1980s it was noted that university is increasingly becoming a service provider, in addition to knowledge creation and dissemination (Bowden and Marton, 1998). An entrepreneurial university is establishing external units which by flexibly collaborating with university departments conduct applied and contractual research (Clark, 1998), enabling them to understand the needs of the university environment.
Although the authors of the ‘learning university’ Bowden and Marton argue that by providing services to community, serving society and collaborating with it, university emphasises learning at the local community level, Markeviciene (2001) notes that while providing services at the local level, higher education institution at the same time gives a possibility to understand the modes of perception of other participants of the educational process. In other words, it encompasses the shaping of the collective consciousness.
In his discussion of the priorities of Oslo University, Tjeldvoll (1998) points out that it must use its knowledge for developing the society and community and for maintaining relations with the environment. Oslo University is meeting government’s expectations through various research related to the society life.
Tjeldvoll claims that universities which seek service orientation are facing two key structural requirements:
1. They have to develop the channels of communication with possible stakeholders outside the university.
2. University management has to develop a human resource policy to motivate the best researchers to get involved into the service providing activities.
In the context of community development and empowerment, Waterhouse (2000) gives an interesting example of Derby University, where an organisation and infrastructure for meeting long-term community needs has been created. This University is highly sensitive to the community expectations, which can be illustrated by organising various training courses (e.g. in computer literacy) for the community members. Derby University provides significant intellectual help to community members who are involved in organising rural tourism and developing small business.