Education, Citizenship and Social Justice http://esj.sagepub.

com/

The university in the modern world: Ten lessons of civic and community engagement
David Watson Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 2008 3: 43 DOI: 10.1177/1746197907086718 The online version of this article can be found at: http://esj.sagepub.com/content/3/1/43

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Education, Citizenship and Social Justice can be found at: Email Alerts: http://esj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://esj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://esj.sagepub.com/content/3/1/43.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 28, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

ecsj

Watson: The university in the modern world

The university in the modern world

Ten lessons of civic and community engagement

David Watson
Institute of Education, University of London, UK

ABSTRACT

Building on the analysis in his Managing Civic and Community Engagement (McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, 2007), the author offers an international perspective on the ways in which universities relate to their various communities. Relevant issues of leadership, policy and management are approached through key areas such as: the narrative of the institution (especially in relation to its foundation and development); funding of relevant activities (who pays for what, and with what strings attached); external relationships, including the sharing and management of risk (with partners and stakeholders of various kinds, as well with as the institutions of civil society and the state); the contributions of staff and students; and the physical and moral presence of the university. He concludes by assessing the prospects for a twenty-first century reinvention of liberal higher education.

civil society, community, engagement, leadership, liberal higher education, universities

KEYWORDS

introduction: the primacy of context (national, regional, local)

Until the advent, in the late 20th century, of company or for-profit universities, all university institutions grew in some way from the communities that originally sponsored them. These acts of foundation varied according to a range of local circumstances, in time and location. Many such founding commitments have been transformed positively and perversely over the ensuing years, but the familiar image of a university as somewhat separate from its community as, for example, an ivory tower is curiously unfaithful to the historical record.
education, citizenship and social justice Copyright 2008, SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com) Vol 3(1) 4355 [ISSN 1746-1979 DOI 10.1177/1746197907086718]

43

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

education, citizenship and social justice 3(1)

Most university foundations had an immediate element of service to the community in their agreed mission and purpose. The idea of responsiveness to social priorities was much more central to the founding goals of their institutions than many subsequent generations of university leaders and members have to believe. There is a pattern here, as I have tried to set out in an article for the 3rd edition of the Elsevier International Encyclopedia of Education (Watson, forthcoming). The early foundations were specialist communities such as the late medieval colleges for poor scholars in England (Oxford and Cambridge), and for urban professionals (such as Bologna and Paris in continental Europe). Three centuries later, a similar trajectory was followed by the American colonial seminaries (many of which subsequently became expensive private schools in the USA, including the heart of the Ivy League). Stephen Lay (2004: 109) points out that what distinguished all of these foundations from their ancient predecessors was the presumption of independence from the state, or what has subsequently become termed autonomy. After a further fallow period, the next significant wave of foundations took place in the mid- and late 19th century. These grew similarly out of perceived social and economic needs, but in the radically different context of industrialising societies. Examples are the great Victorian and Edwardian Civic universities in the UK and the Morrill Act inspired Land Grant universities of the American West and mid-West, leavened by specific, primarily research-based institutions on the German Humboldtian model, such as Johns Hopkins. It is often helpful to go back to the founding acts or charters to see what was intended. The illustration below is of extracts from the royal charter of what is now the University of Sheffield. Note the emphasis on practical knowledge, as well as the sense of place.
Extracts from the Charter granted by Edward VII in 1905, to convert the University College of Sheffield (founded 1836) into the University of Sheffield. To provide for: Instruction and teaching in every faculty. Such instruction in all branches of education as may enable students to become proficient in and qualify for Degrees Diplomas Associateships and Certificates in Arts Pure Science Applied Science Commerce Medicine Surgery Law and all other branches of knowledge. Such instruction whether theoretical technical artistic or otherwise as may be of service to persons engaged in or about to engage in Education Commerce Engineering Metallurgy Mining or in other industries or artistic pursuits of the City of Sheffield and the adjacent counties and districts. Facilities for the prosecution of original research in Arts Pure Science Applied Science Medicine Surgery Law and especially the applications of Science. (University College Charter, 1905: Paragraph 14. For the full document see: http://www.shef.ac.uk/ calendar/incorp.html)

44

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

Watson: The university in the modern world

In the next wave of development, the mid-20th century saw the establishment of local authority-based public systems of higher education, as in the English Polytechnics, the Scottish Central Institutions, and American state systems (of which the archetypes are Wisconsin and the Californian Master Plan). These were equally specifically tied to expectations about relevant education and training, with a new element of ensuring both access by groups previously underrepresented, and progression. In many societies the result was to create what came to be known as binary systems of higher education: a group of traditional university institutions contrasted with a more local, apparently more locally accountable, and apparently more responsive pattern of provision. Around the turn of the 21st century this juxtaposition posed real dilemmas for policy-makers dealing with the advent of mass higher education. Those with binary systems felt that they had run their course; those without them felt that the only way to re-inject mission diversity was to try to create a polytechnic-style counterpoint to unresponsive autonomous universities; others who had tried the change decided they needed to change back. These were followed by late 20th century experiments in curriculum, pedagogy, and a further drive towards accessibility (such as, notably, the pioneering of open access, or admission of adults without formal qualification by the UKs Open University and New Yorks City College system, and their imitators around the world). At the same time nations began to establish the mega-universities, as analysed by John Daniel, making use of open and distance learning technologies (ODL) to speed up participation, and to cut costs (Daniel, 1996). The notion of community interest is thereby dramatically expanded. However, even the experiments in ODL built upon traditional foundations. In 2007, the University of Londons external degree scheme (which will celebrate 150 years of such business in 2008) supports 43,000 students in 183 countries. Finally the latter part of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries have seen significant action on the frontier activity between compulsory education, optional tertiary provision, and the initial rungs of higher education. Examples are the UK phenomenon of higher education in further education and the vitally important American Community College network: the former especially in the provision of intermediate qualifications such the Higher National Certificates and Diplomas and Foundation Degrees, and the latter through twoyear (when taken full-time) Associate Degrees. The latest descriptor of activity in this borderland is that of dual sector provision. These latter two waves of developments illustrate that as communities have changed most recently in response to global communications not only have existing universities had to respond, but also the acts and intentions of foundation of new institutions have also adapted. In a work on Managing Civic and Community Engagement, I have suggested that as a result of this history universities relate to their communities in three main ways (Watson, 2007: 13241). 45

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

education, citizenship and social justice 3(1)

First order engagement arises from the university simply being there. One of the primary roles for universities is to produce graduates who go to work (perhaps in areas completely unconnected with those they have studied); who play their parts in civil society (where the evidence suggests they are likely to contribute more than if they had not been to university); who have families (and read to their children); who pay their taxes (and return a proportion of their higher-than-average incomes as graduates through progressive taxation); and who support their universities through gifts and legacies. An analysis of national cohorts in the UK summarized in the work by Schuller et al., on The Benefits of Learning has securely established that graduates are not only wealthier, but also happier, healthier, and more democratically tolerant than their non-graduate peers. Also in this first domain, universities guard treasures (real and virtual) in their museums, galleries and archives. They provide a safe place for the exploration of difficult issues or challenging ideas. They also supply material for a branch of popular culture (the campus novel, film and television series). Together these features add resonance to the university as a social institution in its own right: at its best a model of continuity and a focus of aspiration for a better and more fulfilled life; at its worst a source of envy and resentment. First order considerations also imply that universities should strive to behave well, to be ethical beacons. Some of the sticking points include the following. Universities can offer misleading promotion and advice, to staff, students and potential students, about their real performance and intentions. As powerful institutions they can undermine and intimidate their members, their partners and their clients. They can perpetuate self-serving myths. They can hide behind specious arguments (narrow constructions of academic freedom, force majeure and the like). They can displace responsibilities, and blame others. They can fail the stewardship test (for example, by not assessing and responding to risk, by cutting corners, or by failing to safeguard their assets). They can be bad neighbours. Above all, they can fail to tell the truth to themselves at least as easily as failing to tell the truth to others. Second order engagement is generally structured and mediated by contracts. In this domain the university produces graduates in required disciplines and professional areas (whether directly or indirectly required to do so). It responds to perceived needs for particular skills, or for professional updating, or to more general consumer demand for courses in particular subjects. It supplies services, research and development, and consultancy at either a subsidised or a for-profit rate. The university may run subsidiary businesses some as spinouts or joint ventures, others in the service sector of entertainment, catering, conference organising or the hotel business. Also in this domain the university is often an important local and regional economic player. It supplies employment from unskilled occupations to the 46

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

Watson: The university in the modern world

highly skilled. It provides an expanded consumer base, as students and staff are attracted to the institution and its locality. The university offers a steady, well-indemnified customer for goods and services. It is a source of development, such as of buildings, amenities, office space and green spaces, although this has its downsides, like controversy over planning, car-parking, congestion or studentification (the perceived take-over by temporary student residents of streets and neighbourhoods, as well as the potential displacement of local residents from low-paid jobs). The first domain affects the second in some complex and significant ways. The university, as a kind of moral force, is expected to behave better than other large organisations (which are similarly concerned about the bottom line). Third order engagement relates to commitments between the university and its members. Universities are voluntary communities: around the world they are rarely part of the compulsory educational infrastructure of the state. Thus they should not be regarded as agents of the state in creating citizens or subjects. This is not to say, following the precepts of first order relationships, that universities do not play a role in ensuring social cohesion, in promoting community solidarity and in problem-solving for policy makers and practitioners of all kinds. University members have a similar set of obligations as individuals; this is the dimension of academic citizenship. To be a full member of a university requires more than completing basic, obvious tasks. For traditional academics this has meant collective obligations: to assessment, to committee membership and to strategic scoping. There is a growing body of literature about such professional academic practice. Since the late 20th century, such practice has been recognised as no longer belonging exclusively to the ranks of the faculty. The teaching, research and service environments are increasingly recognised as being supported and developed by university members with a variety of expertise (e.g. finance, personnel, estates, libraries, and information and communications technology), each with their own spheres of professional competence, responsibility and recognition. At the heart of academic citizenship is the concept of membership. As consumers, students have entitlements and expectations. Both students and staff have responsibilities, along with all of their rights, within the community. Such responsibilities include the following. A special type of academic honesty, structured most clearly around scientific procedure. Reciprocity and honesty in expression, for example avoiding plagiarism by accurately and responsibly referring to other peoples work within ones own. 47

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

education, citizenship and social justice 3(1)

Academic manners, such as listening to and taking account of other peoples views. Self-motivation and the capacity for independent learning, along with learning how to learn. Submission to discipline (most clearly in the case of assessment for both assessors and the assessed). Respect for the environment in which members of the college or university work. Adherence to a set of collectively arrived at commitments and policies (on equalities, grievances, harassment, etc.).

Understanding their institutions history is an important part of any university managements drive to contribute to contemporary society, including on a global scale. In what follows I try to unpack some practical lessons for university leaders in different national contexts. It is clear to me that the scope and style of civic engagement is to a very significant extent culturally determined. This can in itself lead to an interesting variety of cross-national comparative analysis. However, it should also always involve a health warning. We need to approach comparative judgements about the culture of higher education systems (and hence of the institutions which make them up) with an appropriate degree of humility. Our perspective ought to be more social-anthropological than macro-economic or political. You do need to live inside a system before you can understand what is really going on. That said, there do seem to be some almost universal cues to effective management and responsible behaviour in the universitys civic sphere.

the 10 lessons
know your history
Understanding the pattern of university foundations set out above is essential. So, too, is the use of founding purposes however and how far they need to be updated in testing university strategic choices. Understanding their institutions history is an important part of any university managements drive to contribute to contemporary society, including on a global scale.

think about civil society (more than about the state)

Humboldts famous memorandum of 1810 was about the university in support of the state, although paradoxically he saw the university most effectively serving the state when it was allowed to be wholly independent (Elton, forthcoming). Two decades later, Hegel, in the Philosophy of Right, presented 48

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

Watson: The university in the modern world

the historicist logic of the state as an all encompassing ethical idea. In the early 20th century, the independence of the university from the apparatus of the state seems more important than ever, as eloquently argued by Michael Daxner in his account of society-making not state-making (EUA/ACE, 2004: 68). The engaged university can, of course, serve the state critically and supportively, but it is wise to retain both a wider and a deeper vision, and one that can survive political vicissitudes. Most seriously, it should avoid cooption into state crusades, for example of a nationalistic or ethnic nature.

do not rely on public funding

In terms of understanding progress and impact within the civic and community agenda, higher education institutions (and their sectors) face problems of measurement and of accountability. We have fairly secure metrics for research (success in competitive funding, citations etc.). We have some more contested (but none the less utilised metrics for teaching (student satisfaction, retention and employment destinations, for example). Even the third leg of business and community interaction is beginning to build up a relevant suite (spin-offs, business support interactions, consultancy income, and so on). We dont have the same for engagement (Watson, 2007: 10813). Public funding lives by accountability; it does not deal at all well with the kind of risk and provisionality involved in the public sphere. This is why so many significant initiatives have begun with what appears to be free money, usually philanthropic donations (see the account of the University of Brightons Community-University Partnership Programme [CUPP] in Watson, 2007: 5261).

identify your (genuine) stakeholders (and share risk with them)

According to the conventions of corporate governance, organizations are governed in the interests of either share-holders (the institutions, groups or individuals who own the shares and expect dividends) or stake-holders (the individuals and groups, including the staff whose interests might be affected by aspects of the organisations performance). To the frustration of several commentators, most universities are neither shareholder nor stakeholder institutions. On one end of a spectrum, institutions with the university title may be wholly for profit institutions, especially in jurisdictions where the title is relatively unprotected in law. At the other end they may be unmediated emanations of the apparatus of the state. However, in the vast centre ground they are unashamedly sui generis, with, as Lay says, institutional autonomy lying at the heart of the conception of the modern university. 49

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

education, citizenship and social justice 3(1)

In these circumstances, who owns the university (or pieces of it) or thinks that they do? There are several potential candidates. The state, directly and indirectly, is invariably a major funder. It will also claim to represent the peoples share by investing the proceeds of taxation. However, attempts to co-opt universities into politically influenced national priorities, is as Daxner warns, dangerous. Nor is it likely to work. Early results from a fifteen country project on the role of universities in the transformation of societies would urge caution on the more aggressive advocates of higher education and the national interest. This finds, in general, a relatively weak role for HE in stimulating economic change, complex and contradictory influence on political change, and a social role that is at least as much about reproduction as about transformation (Brennan et al., 2004: 8). Other big investors may be other public services, the professions, business and employers, including through sponsorship and purchase of student places. The professions are a particularly interesting case. They were in at the beginning of the modern European university (law at Bologna; theology at Paris), and they played their part in the 19th and 20th century expansion of the system (science and technology in the civics especially engineering throughout the Commonwealth, and beyond and more recently the addition of health professions to the traditional formation of doctors of medicine). Then there is the public more generally, especially as refracted through the media. There are contrasts between cultural roles of universities and colleges in different national contexts: in the USA they are more loved and respected than may be deserved; in Australia and the UK they stimulate more opprobrium than is objectively fair. This picture may, however, be changing, as US higher education is hitting almost for the first time a combination of cuts in public subsidy, consumer resentment and consumer debt (Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 2005: 3712). I have outlined above the various communities that interact with and within the university. But probably most important in the historical sense are the members of the university. Here a degree of detachment and self-knowledge is required. As Gordon Graham (2005: 280) concludes his study of The Institution of Academic Values, when it comes to debates and disagreements about their own affairs, universities are as prone to self-protecting flights of unreason as any other institution. To describe these all as stake-holders is by no means straightforward. Stakeholder, is one of those words which has almost exactly the opposite meaning from when it was originally coined. The stake-holder used to be the person who held the coats and the prize-money while the fight was on; the notion was one of scrupulous disinterest. Stake-holders need to understand that if they are to live up to the modern designation (as having invested something themselves), they have to put something at risk. A rigorous stakeholder analysis 50

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

Watson: The university in the modern world

from the perspective of the university would throw up some surprising results. Questions arise including the following: whose are the stakes on the table (really) in the sense of sharing risk? who can most effectively (i.e. legitimately as well as logically) claim to hold the third party stake (the celebrated peoples money) on behalf of the community as a whole? The politicians would like to claim the latter is theirs through democratic validation although they too can fail the stewardship test. The key sharers of risk with universities in the civic arena are likely to be other public services (notably health and education) and the voluntary and charitable sector.

cultivate your allies (especially other public services, and other institutions)
This special array of partners requires special treatment. The contractual terms may vary from traditional HE procurement of places. They may also be best served by alliances of higher educational institutions, not seeking that elusive individual competitive advantage. Deepening alliances such as these holds out another enticing possibility within democracies: that of developing a supra-political consensus on what should be done in investment, in policy and provision in order to escape the regular fate of higher education as political football with which partisan interests are only too willing to play (this also relates to the points made above about public confidence). The discussion of the pensions crisis in the UK shows what can be done to elevate analysis of public policy above party-political pointscoring.

use your intellectual capital (and establish the audit trail)

What, exactly does the university bring to the party? To use a classic formulation of change in the intellectual mode of production: we understand the shift from Mode 1 to Mode 2 research; weve begun to face up to Mode 2 teaching; what are Mode 2 higher education services (Gibbons et al., 1994)? In assessing which opportunities to pick up, it does, however, seem important to relate back to the core intellectual capital of the university itself: to establish an audit trail to core business. Universities cannot exist as safety-nets for hardpressed social services; they can identify areas where they can add value by imaginative use of their intellectual resources (Watson, 2007: 107113).

mobilize your members

University members students as well as staff live in their local communities, in the first case often temporarily, in the second case sometimes permanently. 51

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

education, citizenship and social justice 3(1)

They can thus bring a number of important relationships, based upon lives outside of mainstream work, into the university. At the same time they can take relevant skills in the other direction, through volunteering and community roles. Then there is the essential element of what is called in the USA service learning, of using the content of the undergraduate or postgraduate curriculum especially in many of those areas which involve the public services outside in community based applications (see Benson et al., 2007: 7892).

open your gates

If there is no longer an ivory tower, or a castle in the swamp, so there is no longer a drawbridge between the university and its community, to be raised and lowered. For at least the past two decades, universities have regularly developed their facilities (especially their sporting and cultural facilities) with public access in mind.

nurture the neighbourhood

There is a special local dimension to lesson 8. As established in the introduction, it is important to remember that universities are big players, and they can sometimes appear to be a cuckoo in the nest. Planning applications, and the controversies which surround them, can become a key test of the quality of university-community relationships. Students also play a major part. Transient students can take over neighbourhoods and casual employment, creating resentment and reaction. As indicated above, this phenomenon has been named and dissected in the UK as studentification.

keep your nerve

Finally, it is important to recognise that none of this is easy. As stressed throughout this article, universities are expected to behave well, and have not always done so. Universities can choose to behave well or badly in a number of different directions, in relation: 52 to applicants (and their families); to students (and their sponsors); to staff (of all kinds); to the local community (or neighbours); to the institutions of civil society; to investors and supporters (the stakeholders discussed above);

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

Watson: The university in the modern world

to government (in their role as a commentator and contributor to policy, as well as a deliverer of a public service); to global citizenship (for example, by progressive engagement with political, economic, social and environmental issues); and to groups of other higher education institutions (locally, regionally, nationally and internationally).

Universities need an ethical reality check, at least as much as the economic realities they are consistently enjoined to observe (Watson, 2007: 10106).

conclusion: the reinvention of liberal higher education

As a sort of coda and returning to the fundamental purposes of universities, I sense that we are not only in a phase of renewed interest in civic engagement, but we may also be on the edge of a revival of interest in the broader purposes of liberal undergraduate education. This is encapsulated, for example, in some of the discussions of the Harvard core in the USA, of the Melbourne model in Australia, in the Dearing Committees concerns about breadth as well as depth in the UK (Watson, 2007: 1416). This could, for example, extend discussion of the soft skills employers say they want into the soft citizenship which is essential to a mature civil society. It is one important way of ensuring that engagement permeates the life of the academy. There is also a powerful international quality to this imperative. Various groups are coalescing around the idea that universities not only have a role securing confident, democratic communities, but also participatory development on a global scale (Benson et al., 2007: 11120; Taylor, 2007). Another strong example is the Talloires Network, founded by Tufts University in 2005 (see www.tufts. edu/talloiresnetwork). The Talloires signatories have affirmed the following:

The Talloires Declaration (2005)

Expand civic engagement and social responsibility programs in an ethical manner, through teaching, research and public service. Embed public responsibility through personal example and the policies and practices of our higher education institutions. Create institutional frameworks for the encouragement, reward and recognition of good practice in social service by students, faculty, staff and their community partners. Ensure that standards of excellence, critical debate, scholarly research and peer judgement are applied as rigorously to community engagement as they are to other forms of university endeavor. Foster partnerships between universities and communities to enhance economic opportunity, empower individuals and groups, increase mutual understanding and (Box continued)

53

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

education, citizenship and social justice 3(1) (Box continued) strengthen the relevance, reach and responsiveness of university education and research. Raise awareness within government, industry, charitable, not-for-profit and international organizations about higher educations contributions to social advancement and well-being. Specifically, establish partnerships with government to strengthen policies that support higher educations civic and socially responsible efforts. Collaborate with other sectors in order to magnify impacts and sustain social and economic gains for our communities. Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools, and other institutions of further and higher education, so that education for active citizenship becomes an integral part of learning, at all levels of society and all stages of life. Document and disseminate examples of university work that benefits communities and the lives of their members. Support and encourage international, national and regional academic associations in their efforts to strengthen university civic engagement efforts and create scholarly recognition of service and action in teaching and research. Establish a steering committee and international networks of higher education institutions to inform and support all their efforts to carry out this Declaration. (The full Tailloires declaration can be accessed at www.president.tufts.edu/conference.)

Set against the practical injunctions of my ten lessons,, the only truly plausible theoretical model for holding such key values together does seem to be an updated version of the liberal ideal of higher education. acknowledgement An earlier version of the ten lessons was presented at a seminar of the Centres for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) at the University of Melbourne on 6 August 2007. I am grateful to participants on that occasion for their advice. references
Benson, L., Harkavy, I. and Puckett, J. (2007) Deweys Dream: Universities and Democracies in an Age of Education Reform. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Brennan, J., King, R. and Lebeau, J. (2004) The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies: An International Research Project (synthesis report). London: Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI). Daniel, J. (1996) The Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media. London: Routledge. Elton, L (forthcoming) Collegiality and Complexity: Humboldts Relevance to British Universities Today. University of Manchester: Centre of Excellence in Enquirybased learning. European University Association (EUA)/American Council on Education (ACE) (2004) Charting the Course between Public Service and Commercialisation: Prices Values and Quality. Turin, conference proceedings, 35 June. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwarzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.

54

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014

Watson: The university in the modern world Graham, G. (2005) The Institution of Intellectual Values: Realism and Idealism in Higher Education. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic. Lay, S. (2004) The Interpretation of the Magna Charta Universitatum and its Principles. Bologna: Bononia University Press. Micklethwait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (2004) The Right Nation: Why America is Different. London: Penguin Books. Schuller, T., Preston, J., Hammond, C., Brassett-Grundy, A. and Bynner, J. (2004) The Benefits of Learning: The Impact of Education on Health, Family Life and Social Capital. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Taylor, P. (2007) Higher education and participatory development. GUNI Newsletter, 26 June. Watson, D. (2007) Managing Civic and Community Engagement. Maidenhead: McGrawHill and Open University Press. Watson, D. (forthcoming) Universities Engagement with Society. Elsevier International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd edn. Elsevier.

correspondence
David Watson, Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of Education, University of London, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, UK. [email: d.watson@ioe.ac.uk]

55

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at UNIV DE GUADALAJARA on February 7, 2014