CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER OBJECTIVE

This Chapter presents literature review in the field of University Social Responsibility as a new
and challenging dimension in the field of Higher Education. The literature review seeks to
understand the “third mission” of the universities and place it in a context from which useful
lessons can be drawn. It has also helped in the identification of the parameters required for the
discharge of Institutional Social Responsibility.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The review of literature is one of the important steps in the research design. To develop a better
understanding of the topic and to note the type of work already done, the knowledge of literature
is necessary. Such reviews help to provide ideas, theories, explanations and information valuable
in formulating hypothesis and giving directions to the problem investigated.

Literature review discloses appropriate theoretical structure of the study and helps in its
understanding. It verifies that it is has not been done already. It is the best way to establish the
importance of study. It is important to judge research questions and to provide the latest research
material for the readers. Review of related studies implies locating, reading and evaluating
reports of research as well as noticing reports of casual observations and opinions that are related
to the individual‘s planned research project. It helps in delimiting the research problem and
defining it. It provides an opportunity of gaining insight into the methods, measures and
approaches employed in other research works.

This review examines the contribution done by various authors in giving meaning to this term
and how this concept has evolved in the field of higher education. Similar to the field of
Corporations, this term demands the education system to consider social responsibilities as their
important mission and not merely a spillover from other core university activities such as
teaching and research. Therefore, the question that strikes one‘s attention is whether universities

12
are concerned about their social responsibilities and, if yes, to what extent they are currently
involved in community related activities and committed to their social responsibilities. To
answer this research question, this study seeks to look more in depth in the social roles and
responsibilities of universities worldwide by examining a wide literature.

The review will present the contributions done towards defining social responsibility from
corporate viewpoint and further define it in the higher education context. It will also examine the
role higher education has towards community engagement and how it finds a place in the ‗idea‘
of a university. In the higher education sector, the contribution of various scholars has been
approached both in the international context and in the Indian context.

2.2 DEFINING CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The term ―corporate social responsibility‖ (CSR) came into common use in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, as modern multinational corporations came into their own (Mehrdost, 2012).
However, academic interest in CSR can be traced back to the 1930s. Since then an impressive
body of empirical and theory-building research has been amassed, mainly in the fields of
business ethics and management science generally (Fairbrass, 2012). As given by (Vallaeys et
al., 2009) the key attributes of CSR are- good governance, managing social and environmental
impacts, dialogue and communication with key stakeholders and partnerships with other
organization for reaching sustainable development. In the 19th century, many business leaders
assumed an active, and indeed, a leading role in the development of the local communities and
society where they were based. Business leaders helped get schools and universities built and
made financial contributions over and above their taxes to support infrastructure projects,
museums, sports, and recreation facilities. With the arguments of E. Merrick Dodd over the role
of managers (Post, 2003; Turner, 2006), he argued that the powers of corporate management are
held in trust for the entire community. Dodd contended that in addition to the economic
responsibilities toward shareholders, managers had social responsibilities to society because the
modern large firm is ‗‗permitted and encouraged by the law primarily because it is of service to
the community rather than that it is a source of profit to its owners‘‘ (Dodd, 1932, p. 11-49).

13
Standard presentations of CSR literature begin with Bowen (1953) and go through Friedman
(1962), Carroll (1979), Freeman (1984) and Woods (1991), tracing the development of various
concepts regarding business responsibility. ‗CSR‘ is more than a new term for academic study.
It is a response to contemporary circumstances of globalization, in which capitalism is expected
to play a social or ameliorative role rather than merely making profits for business owners
(Lucian 2008:380).

Bowen (1953) defined CSR “as one of the first obligation to pursue policies, to make decisions
and to follow lines of action which are compatible with the objectives and values of society‖. In
the beginning, however, the term Social Responsibility was rather used than CSR. Howard R.
Bowen‘s book on ―Social Responsibilities of Businessman‖ published in 1953 started the
modern debate on the subject. Bowen reasoned that there would be general social and economic
benefits that would accrue to society, if business recognized broader social goals in its decisions
(Jayantee Sah, 2006, p.474). Carroll has described Bowen as the modern ‗‗Father of Corporate
Social Responsibility‘‘ and believed that his study marked the beginning of the modern period of
literature on CSR (Carroll, 1999, p.270). Bowen adopted a broad approach to business
responsibilities, which includes responsiveness, stewardship, social audit, corporate citizenship
and rudimentary stakeholder theory (Windsor, 2001, p. 230). While the term Social
Responsibility mainly started to be used in the 1980‘s, the framework of CSR had already been
established in the 1950‘s and 60‘s. Social Responsibility assumes that economic and legal duties
of the companies should be extended by certain responsibilities to society (D. Ebner and
Baumgartner, 2006, p.2).

Milton Friedman (1962) a Nobel laureate, as well known defender of the neoclassical view of
economics –defines Social Responsibility completely differently: ―There is one and only one
social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities to increase its
profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free
competition, without deception or fraud‖. If they are unsuccessful in this mission, they cannot
reasonably be expected to assume other responsibilities. His very famous statement says it all -
“The business of business is business‖. Friedman‘s defense of this theory depends importantly
on the factual claims about the efficient working of the markets. He has also advanced the
following arguments:

14
 a) Business executives have no special competence to directly promote the general welfare.
Friedman‘s argument is that people have responsibilities but business does not. A
corporation is an artificial body created by real people; so business cannot be expected to
act in the same way that people do. Friedman examines the notion of social responsibility
by questioning what is implied by it. The starting point of his discussion is with
businessmen and with the CEO who have the responsibility of running the business. The
role that Friedman attributes to the CEO in a corporation is that of an agent. The
corporation employs him to make as much money as possible. Thus ―in his capacity as a
corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation
and his primary responsibility is to them‖ (Friedman, 1970, p156).
b) Friedman does not deny that corporate executives as individuals may also act based on
their own will. However, these actions are acceptable outside the area of business since
the individual uses his own time and money. If the executive officer then acts in a
socially responsible way, it is not in the interests of his employers, because he acts as a
principal not as an agent.

With regard to Friedman‘s argument, it is important to point out that he does not claim that the
corporation has no responsibilities at all. On the contrary, he argues that corporations are
responsible, but only to one group of people - the stockholders, since they bring the money into
corporation and appoint managers to maximize their capital (Bichta, 2000). Milton Friedman
(1970) criticized corporate social responsibility arguments by stating that ‗few trends could so
thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by our corporate
officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as
possible‘. Those who adopt the neo-classical view of the firm would believe that the only social
responsibilities to be adopted by business are the provision of employment and payment of taxes.
This view is most famously taken to the extremes of maximizing shareholder value and reflected
in the views of Milton Friedman (1962, p. 133)

Carroll (1979) argues that Social Responsibility consists of four components such as economic,
legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society has of a company and that companies
have to decide which layer they focus on. Carroll (1994, p.14), described CSR as ―an eclectic
field with those boundaries, multiple memberships, and differing training/perspectives; broadly

15
rather than narrowly focused; multi-disciplinary; wide breadth; brings in a wider range of
literature; and interdisciplinary‖. The social responsibility framework of Carroll (1979, 1998;
Schwartz & Carroll, 2003) gives further guidance. It suggests all firms have economic, legal and
ethical dimensions. He argues business institutions first have ‗a responsibility to produce goods
and services that society wants and to sell them at a profit‘.

Carroll‘s 1979 conceptualization

In 1979, Carroll proposed a four-part definition of CSR that was embedded in a conceptual
model of CSP. In this model, Carroll (1979) differentiated between four types of corporate social
responsibilities: economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary. He also presented the argument that
firms wishing to effectively engage in CSP needed to have

(a) A basic definition of CSR;

(b) An understanding of the issues for which a social responsibility existed; and

(c) A specification of the philosophy of responsiveness to the issues

A basic starting point for effective Corporate Social Performance (CSP) Model from this
perspective is the assimilation and adoption of the basic types of CSR. The first category that
Carroll (1979) delineated is a responsibility that is economic in nature, entailing, for example, a
return on investment to owners and shareholders; creating jobs and giving fair pay to workers;
discovering new re-sources; promoting technological advancement, innovating, and creating
new products and services. Business from this perspective is the basic economic unit in society
and all its other roles are predicated on this fundamental assumption (Carroll, 1979).

The legal responsibility is the second part of the definition and entails expectations of legal
compliance and playing by the ‗‗rules of the game.‘‘ From this perspective, society expects
business to fulfill its economic mission within the framework of legal requirements. But while
regulations may successfully coerce firms to respond to an issue, it is difficult to ensure that they
are applied equitably (Pratima, 2002). Moreover, regulations are reactive in nature, leaving little
opportunity for firms to be proactive. Laws therefore circumscribe the limits of tolerable

16
behavior, but they neither define ethics nor do they ‗‗legislate morality‘‘ (Solomon, 1994).In
essence, ethical responsibility overcomes the limitation of law by creating an ethical ethos that
companies can live by (Solomon, 1994). It portrays business as being moral, and doing what is
right, just, and fair. Therefore, ethical responsibility encompasses activities that are not
necessarily codified into law, but nevertheless are expected of business by societal members such
as respecting people, avoiding social harm, and preventing social injury. Such responsibility is
mainly rooted in religious convictions, humane principles, and human rights commitments
(Lantos, 2001). However, one limitation to this type of responsibility is its blurry definition and
the consequent difficulty for business to concretely deal with it (Carroll, 1979).

The final type of responsibility is where firms have the widest scope of discretionary judgment
and choice, in terms of deciding on specific activities or philanthropic contributions that are
aimed at giving back to society. The roots of this type of responsibility lie in the belief that
business and society are intertwined in an organic way (Frederick, 1994). Examples of such
activities might include philanthropic contributions, conducting in-house training programs for
drug abusers, or attempts at increasing literacy rates (Carroll, 1979). This type of responsibility is
the most controversial of all since its limits are broad and its implications could conflict with the
economic and profit-making orientation of business firms.

The neo-classical view has been the paradigm of business and justifies the very existence of
business but the responsibility towards the environment and the society cannot be neglected. But
as Wood puts it, ―the basic idea of corporate social responsibility is that business and society are
interwoven rather than distinct entities; therefore, society has certain expectations for appropriate
business behaviour and outcomes‖ (Wood, 1991).

Wood (1991) revisited the CSP model and introduced important refinements by going beyond an
identification of the different types of responsibilities to examine issues relating to the principles
motivating responsible behavior, the processes of responsiveness and the outcomes of
performance. She further broadened the concept and further incorporates in the study of CSR the
principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, as well as observable
outcomes as they relate to the firm‘s societal relationships.

17
The model offered by Wood (1991) constitutes a significant advance in CSR research. A
researcher using the model would first consider the principles that motivate a firm‘s social
responsibility actions at three levels of analysis: institutional, organizational, and individual.
Therefore, the motivation for a firm's social responsibility actions may stem from the principle of
legitimacy (institutional level), i.e., from a desire to maintain credibility and legitimacy as
responsible societal actor in a shared environment. Alternatively, the motivation could stem from
an organizational sense of public responsibility, particularly for outcomes related to the firm's
primary and secondary areas of involvement. Ultimately the ambition could stem from the
choices of individual managers and their personal responsibility preferences and inclinations.
There is also room for interactivity among two or more of these principles in motivating CSP.

Further the social responsiveness constitutes an action dimension that will be required to
complement the normative and motivational component of social responsibility. It is majorly
based on three factors;

i. Environmental assessment,
ii. Stakeholder management
iii. Issues management.

These three factors are interlocked to each other. However it to be said that responsiveness is
deeply rooted in knowledge which is about the external environment and an environmental
analysis or scanning. Such kind of knowledge used to formulate strategies for adapting to the
environment or changing it. Stakeholder is another factor of responsiveness and can be explored
by particular kinds of stakeholder management devices (e.g., employee‘s newsletters, public
affairs officials, and corporate social reporting).Issues management, the last factor, demands an
investigation of the firm‘s approach to formulate monitoring response to social issues. The
consequences of corporate behaviour are in turn direct and obvious in the assessment of
corporate social responsibility. Hence following the Wood‘s Corporate Social Responsibility
model, outcomes are divided into three types:

 The social impacts of corporate behaviour,

18
  the programs companies use to implement responsibility and the policies developed by
companies to handle social issues and
 Stakeholder interests.

Whether corporate behavior has positive or negative impact should objectively be assessed
(positive impact as in the provision of jobs, the creation of wealth or technological innovation
and negative impact as in toxic wastes or illegal payments to politicians). The nature of
programs selected for investment of resources to achieve specific ends is also important as is the
extent of the integration of social issues and impacts within the body of company policy.

Wood and Jones (1995) extend the CSP model by finding that the type of measure involved
depends upon the particular stakeholder to be addressed. Measures they examine include
reputational measures or others such as corporate crimes which have been ‗developed for certain
purposes‘. They observe that ―although the measures that have been used so far have focused on
particular areas of CSP ... they have limited use in depicting how and why specific stakeholder
relationships occur and develop.‖

Table 2.1 The Corporate Social Performance model (Wood, 1991)

Principles of corporate social Processes of corporate social Outcomes of corporate

responsibility responsiveness behavior

Institutional principle: legitimacy Environmental assessment Social impacts

Organizational principle: public Stakeholder management Social programs

responsibility
Issues management Social policies
Individual principle: managerial
discretion

The concept of social responsibility has been evolving for decades and has been conceptualized
and defined by various authors in a number of different ways. The following Table 2 gives the
alternative opinions on social responsibility concept as has evolved over the time.

19
Table 2.2 Alternative opinions on Social Responsibility Concept-Historical View (Source:
Carroll, 1979; Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Pinkston, 1996)

2.3 MODERN THEORIES TO EXPLAIN CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

In recent years, CSR has been linked with sustainable development. The sustainable
development position explains that business has a moral responsibility to insure that its activities
be ecologically sustainable. Business remains free to pursue profits but at the same time must
take care of the ecosystem in which they survive and leave it no worse off in the process. The
sustainable development model seeks to combine the natural constraints established by
ecological laws with minimal moral constraints placed upon business activity. Accordingly, the
World Commission on Environment and Development defines sustainable development as

20
development that ―meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs‖.

Social responsibility has become indispensable (Mintzberg, 1983). Another important dimension
of CSR today views the engagement of a firm with stakeholders rather than shareholders alone
and is derived from the stakeholder model of a firm (Freeman, 1984). Epistemologically
however, the stakeholder model of the firm and the current ‗business case‘ for CSR are different.
This is mainly because the stakeholder model of the firm is rooted on the (deontological)
assumption that the firm ought to engage stakeholders in the decision-making of the firm as they
are likely to be affected by the firm activities whereas, the ‗business case‘ for CSR is rooted on
the (utilitarian) notion that shareholders will increase their financial interests by engaging in
dialogue with other stakeholders of the firm. The strategic decisions of large companies involve
social as well as economic consequences, which are intimately connected.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCD,1999) proposes a definition
for CSR as the ethical behavior of a company towards society, management acting responsibly in
its relationships with other stakeholders who have a legitimate interest in the business, and CSR
is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic
development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of
the local community and society at large. Porter and Kramer (2006) discuss the existence of the
interdependence between corporations and society, since a company‘s activities have a direct
impact on the communities with which they work.

Social Contracts Theory

Gray, Owen and Adams (1996) describe society as ‗a series of social contracts between members
of society and society itself‘. In the context of CSR, an alternative possibility is not that business
might act in a responsible manner because it is in its commercial interest, but because it is part of
how society implicitly expects business to operate.

Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) develop Integrated Social Contracts Theory as a way for
managers to take decisions in an ethical context. They differentiate between macro-social
contracts and micro-social contracts. Thus a macro-social contract in the context of communities,

21
for example, would be an expectation that business provide some support to its local community
and the specific form of involvement would be the micro-social contract. Hence companies
which adopt a view of social contracts would describe their involvement as part of ‗societal
expectation‘ – however, whilst this could explain the initial motivation, it might not explain the
totality of their involvement. One of the commercial benefits that were identified in the
Australian study (CCPA, 2000) was described as ‗license to operate‘ – particularly for natural
resource firms. This might be regarded as part of the commercial benefit of enhanced reputation,
but also links to gaining and maintaining legitimacy (Suchman, 1995).

It can be concluded that corporate social responsibility is therefore founded on a stronger

recognition of the role of business as an active partner in a world of scarcity and dwindling
resources. The narrow vision of responsibility is closely associated with the classical perspective,
suggesting that the main function of business is to provide goods and services that lead to the
maximization of profit within the framework of legal requirements (de la Cruz Deniz and
Cabrera Suarez, 2005; Quazi and O‘Brien, 2000). The focus here is on the economic and legal
responsibilities of business. The broader view of responsibility associated with the second camp
translates into attempts at meeting a wider spectrum of expectations, as in protecting the
environment, developing the com- munity, conserving resources, and philanthropic giving (de la
Cruz Deniz and Cabrera Suarez, 2005; Quazi and O‘Brien, 2000). From this perspective,
business like ordinary persons or citizens, is expected to assume responsibility and conform to
the principles of morality, accountability, and integrity with a much wider scope for potential
contributions and intervention

Legitimacy Theory

Suchman (1995, p.574) defines legitimacy as ‗a generalized perception or assumption that the
actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system
of norms, values, beliefs and definitions‘. Legitimacy is just like money, is a resource that a
business requires in order to operate. Certain actions and events increase that legitimacy and
others decrease it. Low legitimacy will have unfavourable consequences towards operations of
an organization. Therefore, it is important to shift the focus from trying to assess legitimacy and

22
instead focus on measuring it in terms of the resources the stakeholders provide. He identifies
three types of organizational legitimacy:

1. Pragmatic
2. Moral
3. Cognitive

He also identifies three key challenges of legitimacy management – gaining, maintaining and
repairing legitimacy .Gaining legitimacy relates to the early stages of firm‘s development,
maintain legitimacy means that the organizations need to be responsive to the environment in
which they operate and repairing which involves defending the legitimacy from internal and
external threats. He points out that ―legitimacy management rests heavily on communication‖ –
therefore in any attempt to involve legitimacy theory, there is a need to examine some forms of
corporate communications.

Lindblom 1994 study (cited in Gray, Owen and Adams, 1996) notes that legitimacy is not
necessarily a benign process for organizations to obtain legitimacy from society. She argues that
an organization may employ four broad legitimation strategies when faced with different
legitimation threats:

1. Seek to educate its stakeholders about the organization‘s intentions to improve

that performance.
2. Seek to change the organization‘s perceptions of the event (but without changing
the organization‘s actual performance.
3. Distract (i.e. manipulate) attention away from the issue of concern.
4. Seek to change external expectations about its performance

Thus legitimacy might be seen as a key reason for undertaking corporate social behaviour and
also then using that activity as a form of publicity or influence (Lindblom, 1994 cited in Gray et
al., 1996 and in Clarke, 1998). On the other hand, a converse view i.e. not that business uses its
power to legitimate its activity but, rather that society grants power to business which it expects
it to use responsibly is set out by Davis 1973 (cited in Wood, 1991): ‗Society grants legitimacy
and power to business. In the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society

23
considers responsible will tend to lose it‘. In effect, this is a re-statement of the concept of a
social contract between the firm and society.

Stakeholder theories

The Stakeholder Theory of the firm is used as a basis to analyze those groups to whom the firm
should be responsible. As described by Freeman (1984), the firm can be described as a series of
connections of stakeholders that the managers of the firm attempt to manage. Freeman‘s classic
definition of a stakeholder is ―any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the organization‘s objectives‖ (Freeman, 1984, p.46). Stakeholders are typically
analyzed into primary and secondary stakeholders. Clarkson (1995) defines a primary
stakeholder group as ―one without whose continuing participation the corporation cannot survive
as a going concern‖ – with the primary group including ―shareholders and investors, employees,
customers and suppliers, together with what is defined as the public stakeholder group: the
governments and communities that provide infrastructures and markets, whose laws and
regulations must be obeyed, and to whom taxes and obligations may be due‖. The secondary
groups are defined as ―those who influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by the
corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are not essential
for its survival‖. Thus Freeman (1994) is of the opinion that if a group of individuals could affect
the organization and be affected by it than the managers need to worry about the group and
develop and explicit strategy for dealing with them.

2.4 FROM CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO UNIVERSITY SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been widely discussed, argued (Friedman, 1962 and
1970; Carroll, 1974 and 1991; Davis, 1973; Epstein & Roy, 2001) and researched (Dahlsrud,
2008; Heslin & Ochoa, 2008) over the last decades, but it has eluded a definitive and
standardized concept accepted by all (COM 2001, 6; Ethos Institute, 2007). CSR has also been
discussed from the Corporate Social Performance perspectives (Hocevar & Bhambri, 1989;
Sethi, 1979; Preston, 1978; Ullmann; 1985; Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991) and its
impact on the financial bottom line (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes, 2003)

24
and the firm‘s competitiveness (Kong et.al., 2002; Burke & Logsdon, 1996; Porter & Kramer,
2002 & 2006; and Weber, 2008). Though there are multifarious and diverse perspectives,
approaches and frameworks, most of these literatures on CSR are converging into some widely
accepted aspects that underpin the directions for the future of CSR.

As observed by Georges Haddad (quoted in Neave 2000, p. 29), the term university finds its
origin both in legal Latin ―universitas‖, meaning ―community‖, and in classical Latin
―universus‖, meaning ―totality‖. According to Social Council of Huelva‘s University (2009),
USR is defined as a “new way of functioning of the university, based on a more fluid and direct
relationship between the university and its social environment, for it takes into account the
effects impact the activity and expectations of the university generates both in their members
(professors and researchers, other staff and students) and society,” (p. 15).

Another dimension to explaining the concept of USR focuses on the democratic nature of
internal processes of the university, the university‘s respect for the environment and whether or
not the university is designing programs to produce socially responsible graduates or running
programs that involve engagement with the community. It also includes a discussion of the
potential for university partnerships with business to contribute to economic development.
Finally, the literature includes a strong focus on the impact that neoliberalism or a general
market-orientation have on the focus of curriculum, partnerships and the internal democratic
process of the university. It is observed that privatization or corporatization of the higher
education institution has made the curriculum more focused on economics, any partnerships with
social sciences stakeholders is given a decreased priority and the internal process of the
university are guided by corporate management models. Therefore, there is a need for
developing a supportive policy environment that places value on the social sciences and
participatory community-university partnerships.

‗Higher Education Institutions, through their core functions (teaching, research and service to the
community) carried out in the context of institutional autonomy and academic freedom should
increase their interdisciplinary focus and promote critical thinking and active citizenship. This
would contribute to sustainable development, peace, wellbeing and the realization of human right
Higher Education must not only give solid skills for the present and future world but must also

25
contribute to the education of ethical citizens committed to the construction of peace, the defense
of human rights and the values of democracy (UNESCO, 2009).‘

The practice of USR was born in Chile in 2001 through joint efforts of 13 universities with the
initiative Universidad Construye País (Vallaeys, 2007). These 13 universities created a network
with the purpose of expanding the concept and the practice of USR among Chilean universities.
The network now includes 14 universities. Since the last decade, students, professors, staff,
community members, and other external actors have undertaken studies, reflected, discussed, and
detected challenges that Chilean universities have faced regarding social responsibility,
establishing principles and reasons that inspire Latin American universities to adopt USR
practices (Universidad Construye País, 2004). The main aim of the Universidad Construye
País approach is to put values and ethics at the very centre of universities. The project
―University Builds Country‖ (2007) describes USR as a ―Capacity possessed by universities to
put into practice a conglomerate of general and specific principles and values, through processes
considered as crucial by the Universities; they are, management, teaching, research and
extension. This socially answers to the university community itself and the country it is inserted
in‖. However, social responsibility of universities is effected through key university processes.
Therefore, it is not an extracurricular activity or an activity for students alone. Infact, it involves
the very essence of a university, its way of being and its ethos.

Universities have become increasingly active in identifying know how and its transfer towards
individuals and corporations (Bok, 2003, p.7). Being in the service to great ideals and advocating
civic engagement, universities have to promote learning outcomes that go beyond discipline-
specific knowledge and to produce good citizens who are trained for both competency and
character (Wilhite and Silver, 2005; Ehrlich, 2000). Panduranga and Nair‘s (2010) observation
that universities need to move into more interdisciplinary areas in order to be more connected to
the realities of the outside community without compromising on the quality of the education
being imparted is central to any discussion on CSR within the university framework.

26
2.5 DEFINING SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY- IN THE CONTEXT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION

The term ―university‖ is generally understood as a ―higher education institution‖ . In the broader
concept, it is an educational institution providing high school graduates with tertiary education
and higher education. These institutions provide bachelor, master and doctoral courses, as well as
lifelong learning programs. The primary functions of contemporary universities include the triad
of teaching, research, and community service. The key importance of the social responsibility in
the case of universities stems from the fact that they represent the centres of intelligence,
knowledge and creative activity, and play the key role in the scientific, cultural, social and
economic development of the society.Universities and universities colleges are important social
institutions (Bleiklie, Hostaker and Vabo, 2000). Richard Goossen (2009) suggests that
universities are, in fact, platforms for leadership activities and that they can either choose to be
followers in the initiatives of corporations or ―seize the opportunity to be leaders and adopt CSR
as a vital aspect of their competitive advantage‖.

The social responsibility of Universities implies their relevance and contributions to the future
development of individuals and societies. It implies that teaching and research as the core
functions of the university are linked closely with the elaboration and promotion of shared
societal visions and common public goods. Their fundamental objective is to promote the social
usefulness of knowledge, and hence their relevance goes beyond responding to the needs of
economic development. It requires a two-way perspective between universities and society,
which involves directly multiplying the critical uses of knowledge in society (GUNi, 2014).
Therefore, university community linkages have to be integrated into the processes of making and
sharing knowledge, into teaching-learning, research and practice. Strengthening higher
education-community linkages means that we place the connection between community and the
university at the heart of the educational process in order to ensure the continuing relevance of
higher education (Tandon, 2014).

Dr. Gajaseni, at the 2nd Asia-Europe Education workshop (2011) remarked that USR involves
formulation of five action points to be implemented:

27
1. Universities should reform their curricula by integrating USR and linking with Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs)/Education for All (EFA) in order to serve society;

2. Universities should gear towards informal learning and social entrepreneurship to eradicate
poverty, hunger, and other MDGs;

3. Universities should enhance research directions to serve global markets as well as local
demands of a particular society to respond to MDGs/EFA;

4. Universities should promote the role of USR and ensure effective communication and
information exchange among all stakeholders; and

5. Universities should consider not only cooperation within their countries, but should extend it
to with other countries and regions.

University Social Responsibility (USR) encompasses many different areas including the
following: the need to strengthen civil commitment and active citizenship; to provide services to
the community through community engagement and outreach; to promote economic and national
development; to promote ethical approaches to issues; to develop a sense of civil citizenship by
encouraging the students and the academic and administrative staff to provide social services to
their local community; to promote ecological or environmental commitment for local and global
sustainable development; to develop local and global human resources; to expand human
knowledge through quality research and education for the nation and for humanity (Vasilescu et
al., 2010; Shawyun, 2011).

Prof Saran Kaur Gill rightly puts it at the Asia-Europe Education workshop 2011― We focus a
lot on the term knowledge transfer, it is essential in this partnership era to start using knowledge
exchange, which breaks the universities away from the idea that they are the sole custodians and
developers of knowledge, and exemplifies that they have just as much to learn from the
communities and the larger society. ‖

The concept of ―university social responsibility‖ (USR) obliges establishments to broaden the
scale and objectives of education and not to be confined solely to educating responsible citizens

28
or generating new knowledge through research and transmitting it appropriately. As an
establishment influencing society, the university has been ―responsible for channelling this
influence with a clear transforming tendency towards the areas of social and economic
vulnerability existing in our societies‖ (De la Cruz and Sasía, 2008, p. 85).

According to Gourova, Todorova and Gourov(2010) ―Educational institutions have a special

place in the society and provide services related to the transfer of knowledge to their customers –
individuals, public and private organizations and the society in general. Their development is
influenced by various factors linked to political, technological, economic, environmental, as well
as social trends and changes.‖ Above all, universities preserve and extend the achieved
knowledge, carry out scientific, research, innovatory and artistic activities, and play an important
role in public and open discussion on the social or ethical problems, in the formation of mutual
understanding, promotion of the civil society and strengthening the cultural diversity .

Universities are now entering this dynamic of regulated good practice and are beginning to
formulate, as well as their own socially responsible initiatives, management tools intended to
serve as a model and paradigm: STARS in the USA, LIFE in the UK, AISHE in Holland, PLAN
VERT in France and Sustainability and Social Responsibility Reporting in Spain, not to mention
the United Nations Academic Impact initiative (2010) and the Principles for Responsible
Management Education applying to business schools. Latin America, since the early years of the
new century, has also invested efforts in promoting USR, culminating in the publication of
guidelines entitled Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: Manual de Primeros Pasos (Vallaeys et
al., 2009).

This concept also represents a superstructure of the university statutory responsibility, where the
university management and staff behave the way they not only fulfill the university‘s economic
and social mission , but also facilitate meeting the intentions and objectives of all stakeholders.
At the same time, the university‘s social responsibility can also be seen as a purposeful and
rewarding communication between the university and its stakeholders.

A number of standards for good business practices have been developed in recent decades (ISO
14000, EMAS, SD 21000, AA 1000, SA 8000, SGE 21, GLOBAL GAP, GRI, Dow Jones

29
Sustainability Index, ISO 26000, and so on). These standards define the best management
practices for organizations to follow, according to their own core business and irrespective of the
laws of their State. These standards are voluntary (since they are not laws), but the combined
pressure of customers, investors, government, professionals, managers, and others makes them
universal. They are often defined by experts, sometimes in multi-stakeholder round-table
discussions or in lengthy negotiations between public and private national and international
social stakeholders, as was the case for ISO 26000 (Capron et al., 2011).

HEIs have a crucial role to play in a country‘s development, along with addressing various social
concerns, termed as ‗Social Responsibility of Universities‘, it is this role of the University that
has the potential to erase the discrepancies and inequalities existing in our societies, through the
sea of knowledge it holds. Social responsibility in higher education is looked upon in many
different ways , both inside and outside the higher education institution.It ranges from an
orientation in the curricula directed towards solving societal problems to parternship with
communities or projects involving students with the communities.It also encompasses the
identification of the stakeholders both internally and externally and how the universities fulfill
the expectations of these stakeholders.

2.6 THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE SOCIETY

Universities create ‗smart power‘, power of influence, and one of its vectors is social
responsibility. With increase in business like practices and the Universities responding to the
needs of the corporate world, or vested interests, questions are raised about the social relevance,
identity and the purpose of such Universities and the knowledge/education imparted therein.
Thus, emphasis have been on the importance of quality teaching and research (Watson, 2003);
some others focus on the importance of ethics, human values and environment sustainability in
the teaching imparted (McIlrath, 2014; Mark Noguera, 2011; Berube and Berube, 2010; Watson,
2013; Gibbons, 2005; Colby. et al, 2000; Barber, 1997; Newman, 1985) and how they can
contribute towards the social and economic development of the country by finding solutions to
the current problems. Some have talked of the relationship between universities and the different
stakeholders categories (Stevens and Bagby, 2001; Benneworth and Jongbloed, 2009)
emphasizing stakeholders importance in knowledge transfer or in the way the administration

30
answers the interests of the university community. Many scholars also emphasized the role of
higher educational institutions and its impact in shaping an individual's character, their capacity
to understand and demonstrate morality and ethics and making him capable of operating more
effectively in the contemporary world- (Escrigas et.al, 2014; McIlrath, 2014 ; Watson, 2013;
Badat, 2009; Tandon, 2009; Adomssent and Michelsen, 2006). The role of higher educational
institutions should be one of engaged service, engaged learning and engaged research. Service
learning has to be the pedagogy to link up service, teaching and academic learning and
community participatory research is the research method to engage with the community and
create knowledge exchange.

In their efforts to look into the causes of sustainability in Higher education, Clugston and Calder
(1999) argue that an institution bears the threefold mission of helping students to explore the root
problems of ecosystem destruction, to assist them in finding solutions that minimizes
environmental degradation and teach them to behave towards their fellow men in a socially and
ethically sound manner. Sustainability literacy cannot be achieved without education for
sustainable development and higher education institutions in particular play a critical role in
terms of laying the foundations of a sustainability-literate society. By their special mission in
teaching and training, by their rich and increasingly extensive experience in conducting inter-
disciplinary research, and by their fundamental nature as engines of wisdom and sagacity,
colleges and universities have the capacity to push the advancement of human development.
Higher education institutions as the most suitable disseminators with their mission, vision and
strategies in education and research (Lukman & Glavic, 2006)

Kotecha (2010) highlights in her presentation to the Bellagio Conference ―the need for a wider
debate around the role of public universities in promoting the public good and in helping to
address development challenges facing our society.‖ (Kotecha, 2010). She also provides some
examples of the different roles that the higher education institution can play in terms of civic
engagement in her presentation wherein she explains ―civic engagement occurs through research,
engagement with policy development, public commentary on development issues and strategies,
disseminating knowledge and ideas derived from research, promoting active citizenship among
the student population, empowering external constituencies, improving the relevance of the
curriculum, and providing opportunities for lifelong learning‖ (Kotecha, 2010).

31
In the context of universities, previous research shows that higher education institutions can
cause ―significant environmental impacts‖ (Jabbour, 2010). As argued by Alshuwaikhat and
Abubakar (2008), many of them as a result of their large size, expressive movement of people
and vehicles, high consumption of materials, and strong development of complex activities, may
even be considered as ―small towns‖. Hence, universities should be responsible towards society
and their stakeholders.

Saleem Badat is the Vice-Chancellor of South Africa‘s Rhodes University. He says, higher
education must play 5 key roles: cultivation of highly educated people; democracy and
democratic citizenship; development needs and challenges; engagement with the intellectual and
cultural life of societies; and research and scholarship. Both Kotecha and Badat share the view of
many scholars in the field that the higher education institution plays an important role in
development. Their views also centre on other key roles such as democracy and democratic
citizenship.

Badat (2009) provides detailed recommendations on the focus of teaching. In his view,
universities should not only focus on preparing students to enter the labour force and to
contribute to the economy and economic development but should also support their development
of skills that have social value. Higher education teaches students what it means to be human and
raises their awareness of our cultural, scientific, intellectual inheritance and historical and
contemporary understandings (Badat, 2009, p.8). He believes that education should teach
students to see the world from other people‘s perspectives (Badat, 2009, p. 9). It is proposed that
the higher education institution must provide quality teaching that prepares students not only to
contribute to economic pursuits but also develop an awareness of social issues and contribute to
social as well as economic value. The idea is presented in the literature that the higher education
institution has the capacity not only to teach students about global issues and problems but
impart and generate new knowledge through this teaching, learning and research. Through this
teaching and learning, the higher education institution contributes to the resolution of these
global problems. Badat (2009) explains that ―Through teaching and learning, universities can
develop a consciousness of myriad economic, educational, health, environmental and other
problems, and through research they can confront and help contribute to their management and
resolution.‖ (Badat, 2009, p. 10).

32
Tandon (n.d) also shares the view that HEIs should be generating new knowledge to resolve
pressing issues. He explains that ―societal development issues (such as multiculturalism,
sustainability and so on) have become so complex that new knowledge is needed in order to
address them. HEIs are expected to generate this knowledge and the research and teaching
functions of HEIs should serve the larger mission of human and social development.

In Badat’s (2009) view, programs must teach students to function in the rapidly changing
society we live in today. They must be prepared to not only receive knowledge but also to create
it and should emerge from a university experience with a sense of democratic principles, ethics
and sensitivity to human rights issues. Badat (2009) believes that the first purpose of HEIs is the
production of knowledge ―which advances understanding of the natural and social worlds, and
enriches humanity‘s accumulated scientific and cultural inheritances and heritage‖ (Badat, 2009,
p. 5). The second purpose is the ―dissemination of knowledge and the formation and cultivation
of the cognitive character of students‖ (Badat, 2009, p. 5). In his view, students are viewed as
agents of change and through the higher education experience they learn and gain new
information, and also develop the ability to generate new knowledge and contribute
constructively to the discussion and ultimately the resolution of the problems that they face and
grapple with.

Adomssent and Michelsen (2006, p. 86) state that Universities do not only need to become more
open minded, they also need to transform themselves into a learning academia, constantly
adapting to new challenges and comprehending themselves as one player interacting with others.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching created a new elective classification
of community engagement in 2006. This new classification raised the visibility and
accountability of engagement in the university. The Carnegie Foundation through 2010 has
recognized 297 universities and colleges, including public and private institutions, for the
curricular engagement of their students and the community outreach and partnerships of their
faculty. Eligibility for this recognition requires the incorporation of democratic processes in the
identification of problems and their resolution, as well as documentation of the partnerships and
the scholarship associated with those partnerships. The Carnegie classification has contributed to

33
institutionalizing community engagement in higher education and clearly created accountability
for the moral activities of universities as they address significant community problems.

Gibbons (2005) argues that nowadays universities are affected by the new context they operate
in involving a rightward shift in political thinking, globalization, innovation and the knowledge
economy Under these circumstances, higher education becomes more competitive, facing a lot of
challenges: massification, decrease of public funding, diversification of higher education
provision, internationalization, commercialization, challenges of ICT development (Barblan,
Daxner and Ivosevic, 2007; Eckstein, 2003; Vukasovic, 2008).

Reed (2004) is of the opinion that Universities are institutions whose fundamental tasks are
teaching, engaging in basic and applied research assisting the professional development of their
faculty members and the character development of their students. Organizations are social
constructions, influenced by the decisions of individuals who work there (Hall, 2004; Jabbour,
2010). Since education provides awareness and many organizational decision makers were once
a student in universities, it is important to know how universities regard CSR.

Matten and Moon (2004) found that that many professors and practitioners believe that social
responsibility should be fully integrated into the curriculum for helping students to make social
and environmental decisions as businesspersons.

Sir David Watson (2003) is professor of higher education and principal of Green Templeton
College, University of Oxford (Watson‘s book The Question of Conscience: Higher Education
and Personal Responsibility was recently published by the Institute of Education Press).
According to him ―the successful 21st century university ―has to earn and sustain a positive
reputation, locally, nationally and internationally‖ and ―the successful 21st century university has
to be, and be seen to be, ethically and environmentally responsible‖. Watson (2003) believes that
an HEI should understand itself and play a role in improving ―the domains in which it works,
like education, the environment or health.‖ The higher education institution must then not only
promote and embody social responsibility, but it must also wear it. He emphasizes the
st
importance of quality of the teaching and explains that ―The successful 21 century university: It
has to devise an excellent portfolio of courses, and teach them well‖ and ―has to contribute at the

34
highest level in at least some aspects of research‖. He has in his article entitled Does Higher
Education Make You Think? Provided some of the ways in which the role of higher education
and its impact on students is understood.

According to him higher education shapes a student‘s character in the following ways: in
existential terms (how students come to be); in epistemological terms (how they think and
appraise information); in behavioural terms (how they learn to conduct themselves); and in
positional terms (both through competition and collaboration)‖ (Watson, 2013). He explains that
the application of these claims varies depending on factors such as the institutional setting, the
subject and mode of study or the expectations of funders and stakeholders (Watson, 2013). He
explains that ―Most of the claims about the purposes and achievements of higher education relate
to the individual: it will change your life, through conversion or confirmation of faith, by
improving your character, by giving you marketable abilities, by making you a better member of
the community, or simply by being capable of operating more effectively in the contemporary
world‖ (Watson, 2013).

Colby et al. (2000) is of the view that the role higher education can and should play be in
promoting the development of civic values and responsibility. There are several reasons that
explain the extension of the social responsibility concept towards universities:

• Universities form forthcoming employees in both public and private companies;

• Universities play a major educational and research role within the communities in which
companies operate;

• Universities help people find a balance between their personal and social needs and wants;

• As the higher education market changes, universities need to build stronger strategic
relationships with their stakeholders (e.g. students, employers, state, society etc.) in order to stay
competitive;

• Universities contribute to regional lifelong learning and employability;

35
• The corporate involvement in universities has increased due to the broader marketization of
higher education services;

• The rising of the collective awareness of students and professors creates the need for
implementing initiatives related to social responsibility;

• Universities are urged to play an important role in meeting the environmental challenges by
integrating the sustainability concept in their curricula.

Barber (1997, p. 230) states that creating responsible citizens is a task ‗colleges and universities
can be expected to undertake, for it reflects nothing more than a recognition of and
recommitment to the traditional ideal of education as preparation of young people for civic life in
a free society‘. In his view, the traditional and the modern mission of universities, as community
builders, are reconciled. Academic CSR is thus perceived as a way through the challenges of
today‘s markets, without abandoning its core responsibilities. Therefore it is essential for
educational institutions to actively monitor the quality of the education they offer and commit to
continuous improvements in order to survive in this competitive environment (Brigham, 1994).

According to Newman (1985, p. 150), the crisis in education is less about declining test scores
and more about the failure ‗to provide the education for citizenship that is still the most
important responsibility of the nation‘s schools and colleges‘. He reformulates Barber‘s idea
(1997), insisting on the university‘s role in the social contract: to educate the citizens of the
nation state, to create a cultural bound to a tradition of thought, be it National, or European. This
mission is recalibrated, but not abolished. Social responsibility in the academic environment is
not only a challenge, it must become a purpose of the academic environment, as young people‘s
formation also means to create a high level of awareness about involving the members of society
in solving social problems.

.2.7 COMMUNITY –UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT- THE THIRD MISSION

The partnership of university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private
sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching, and
learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic

36
responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good. (Fitzgerald,
Smith, Book, Rodin, & CIC Committee on Engagement, 2005, p. 2) This third role beyond
teaching and research that centers specifically on the contribution to regional development is
another dimension by which these institutions are judged by government and other stakeholders
(Goddard 1999; Chatterton and Goddard 2000; Charles and Benneworth 2002; OECD 2007).

Many authors have explained this concept of social responsibility by higher educational
institutions in terms of their capacity to satisfy their stakeholders. A particular community is
relevant for the university only if there is some expectation on both sides (i.e. the university and
the community) that some service can be rendered or a mutually beneficial exchange (a
transaction) can take place. This illustrates that the concept of community is close to the
stakeholder concept. The stakeholder concept originates from the business science literature
(Freeman1984). The concept is derived from Adam Smith‘s ―The Theory of Moral Sentiments‖.
Its modern use in management literature comes from the Stanford Research Institute that in 1963
introduced the term to generalize and augment upon the notion of stockholder as the only group
to whom management need be responsive. Originally, the stakeholder concept was defined as
―those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist‖ A more modern
definition of stakeholders is ―any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the
achievement of the firm‘s objectives‖ (Freeman 1984, p. 16). Freeman argues that business
organizations should be concerned about their stakeholders‘ interest when making strategic
choices.

The communities—or stakeholders—that a university is expected to respond to consist of

organizations and groups of individuals. They will often possess a number of common
characteristics. Most stakeholders have a human scale; the members of a group of stakeholders
often share a common identity (in the sense of belonging together, or sharing a common culture
or location) with certain shared obligations both on the side of the members as well as on the side
of the university. In higher education, the most important, or core, community would be the
students. Another important stakeholder is the government. As the main funder of higher
education it would like to ensure that higher education meets the interests of students and society
in general.

37
This engagement between universities and communities can be at the local, regional, national or
even virtual levels, and is aimed at the co-creation of knowledge, which is beneficial to society at
large. Such engagement therefore deviates from normal outreach/extension functions to an
approach which is more participative and committed to the creation and sharing of knowledge. In
general, ‗community engagement‘, as defined by the Carnegie Foundation, ‗is the collaboration
between institutions of higher education and their larger communities for the mutually beneficial
exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity…to enrich
scholarship , research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare
educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address
critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good‖( McIlrath, 2014).

Universities must retrieve their original task of creating good citizens instead of only good
workers (Escrigas et.al, 2014). HEIs as agents of knowledge creation, exchange and
dissemination need to become more conscious of their importance and responsibility towards
society. In today‘s context, as accelerated changes pose challenges to them, they are obligated to
address and redefine their traditional roles, to review their perspectives on social responsibility
and to consider its implications. This cannot be accomplished with the help of an educational
model which thrives on old ways of thinking. Thus, the time is ripe for reviewing and
reconsidering the interchange of value between university and society; that is to say, we need to
begin thinking on the lines of ‗social relevance of universities‘ (GUNi, 2014).

Cantor 2012 is of the opinion that what is required today is a model of university outreach
which is far more collaborative than the customary one. There is a need to move from a model of
‗public service‘ where universities do things for a ‗passive and needy public‘, to one of ‗public
work that taps engages and develops the civic agency, talents and capacities of everyone, inside
and outside the academy‘. It is proposed that research that involves the community must be
collaborative. The challenge for HEIs is to engage with society in an integral manner as a way of
improving teaching and research, and collaborate in social transformation. There is evidence that
partnership facilitation structures between communities and HEIs enhance the capacities of civil
society organizations to systematize knowledge in their sectors, to play the role as equals in the
co-construction of knowledge with engaged academics and generally strengthen the knowledge

38
democracy functions in society. These innovative structures, based both in the community and
higher education settings, need much more study from an impact assessment perspective.

The community with whom the universities needs to be partnering and developing projects has
been well categorized by Jongbloed & Salerno (2007)who defines the term community to be
large number of what they term ‗stakeholders‘ (abstract categories) and constitutive groups of
communities (real actors) which have relationships with universities, and who are involved in
knowledge exchange with universities. This is summarized in table below:

Table 2.3 Stakeholders categories and constitutive groups (Source: Burrows, 1999)

Stakeholder category Constitutive groups, Communities,

Stakeholders, Clients etc.

Governing entities state & federal government; governing board;

board of trustees, buffer organizations;
sponsoring religious organizations
Administration president (vice-chancellor); senior
administrators
Employees faculty; administrative staff; support staff

Clienteles students; parents/spouses; tuition

reimbursement providers; service partners;
employers; field placement sites …
Suppliers secondary education providers; alumni; other
colleges and universities; food purveyors;
insurance companies; utilities; contracted
services
Competitors direct: private and public providers of post-
secondary education; potential: distance
providers; new ventures substitutes: employer-
sponsored training programmes

39
Donors Individuals (includes trustees, friends, parents,
alumni, employees, industry, research councils,
foundations,)

Communities Neighbours; school systems; social services;

chambers of commerce; special interest
groups.

Government regulators Ministry of Education; buffer organizations;

state & federal financial aid agencies; research
councils; federal research support; tax
authorities; social security; Patent Office

Non-governmental regulators foundations; institutional and programmatic

accrediting bodies; professional associations;
church sponsors
Financial intermediaries banks; fund managers; analysts

Joint venture partners Alliances & consortia; corporate co-sponsors

of research and educational services.

Hall and Tandon (2012) also share the view that ―community engagement may sometimes
actually contribute to improvements in HEIs, especially to their teaching and research functions‖
(Hall and Tandon, 2012, p. 4-5). In this sense higher education institution can benefit through
collaborative, equal partnerships with communities. Effective knowledge partnerships build
better communities. A strong knowledge democracy movement can build a better world (Hall,
et.al, 2013). However, the challenge of community university engagement is the development of
initiatives that enable the integration of the three dimensions enhancing teaching, research and
outreach or service (Hall & Tandon, 2014).

Kotecha (2010) emphasizes the importance of engaging with external stakeholders in the
development of solutions to issues such as climate change, poverty and unemployment. She
highlights the importance of socially responsive education, which she explains is education with

40
―an intentional public purpose or benefit‖. Examples of socially responsive education include,
socially engaged teaching and research and socially engaged service and learning. The
importance of social responsiveness or social responsibility in the context of development is
often directly linked to partnerships and the outcomes of those partnerships.

Raghunandhan (2009, p.37) is of the opinion that ―Universities have the means to teach
tomorrow‘s decision makers as to how the interrelationships among society, economy, and the
environment determine our destiny, our success or failure to achieve long term prosperity for all
human beings on the earth. While universities have to prepare their students to cope with the
problems arising in hundreds of diverse and highly specialized professional fields, they also have
to show the way toward cooperation, understanding, and more specifically the benefits and tools
of collective problem solving‖.

Andrew Petter is President of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby British Columbia (Petter,
2008, p. 1) describes such engagement to be meaningful if it develops research objectives and
produces result that are relevant to the society, ―Much has been said...about the need for
community- based research to be collaborative – for such research be done with rather than for
communities, with community representatives engaged as full partners in, rather than as subjects
of, such research‖. It is felt that by working with communities in an equal partnership, the
research that is generated will be more likely to produce positive and sustainable results. It is
also felt that the quality of the research in the higher education institution will increase through
these types of partnerships

Many authors share this general perception that partnerships are critical and that the nature of
these partnerships is key. Vallaeys (2007) articulates the view that a socially responsible
organization develops partnerships for socially and environmentally sustainable development
while Hall and Tandon (2012) explain that ―engagement should be approached in ways that
accept multiple sites and epistemologies of knowledge, as well as the reciprocity and mutuality
in learning and education through such engagement.‖ (Hall and Tandon, 2012, p. 5). Many
different worldviews and cosmologies exist globally in every society. Respecting and
accommodating this diversity while conducting research in communities is essential in order for

41
both the research institution to learn from the interchange and for the community to benefit from
the engagement.

Many authors agree that socially responsible higher education institutions carefully manage their
relationships with communities and external stakeholders. In some cases, engaging with the
community is a requisite for being considered socially responsible, while for others it is the
quality and nature of these partnerships that determines the level of social responsibility being
demonstrated. It is generally understood, however, that both the higher education institution and
the community should benefit from the interaction and that partnerships support social and
economic development goals. A common thread through this discussion is the issue of ethics and
how a higher education institution might integrate ethics and morality into its mandate and
actions.

Francois Vallaeys is a philosopher specializing in university social responsibility and adviser to

the Regional Observatory on Social Responsibility in Latin America and the Caribbean
(ORSALC-UNESCO). He is one of the founders of the University Social Responsibility (USR)
movement in Latin America. In contrast with the explanation of University Social responsibility
as put by Vallaeys (2007), Universidad Construye País project (2006), emphasized university
processes, rather than the impact of universities. Thus, the initial focus of the project was on the
values and principles that the universities aimed to embody and develop in their main
functions. Whereas Vallaeys (2007) defines it as ―a way to carry out an integral administration of
the institution, in such a way that its impacts regarding all actors involved be socially managed‖,
making clear that ―this impact management must be ethically and intelligently done;
understanding intelligent as a management seeking for revenues benefitting the organization‖.

In his 2007 article ―Responsabilidad Social Universitaria: Propuesta para una definicion madura
e eficiente (University Social Responsibility: Proposal for a Mature and Efficient Definition)‖,
he discusses definitions of social responsibility in higher education and points out that in a
university setting social responsibility cannot merely be understood as philanthropy but rather an
orientation integrated into the mandate and programming of the university. In his view, social
responsibility should not be considered separate from the normal functioning of the university
and must not be confused with individual acts of generosity that mask underlying problems

42
within the organization. It should rather be understood as an inherent characteristic of the
organization that suggests a different mode of administering organizations at once internally and
in its relationship with the exterior (Vallaeys, 2007, p. 3-4).

Vallaeys (2007) bases his assessment of the role of higher education institutions on the impact
the HEI has on society. In order to better understand the role that the HEI can play in society,
Vallaeys (2007) identifies the impacts that the university has on society and groups them under
four key areas. Zaffaroni (2007) distinguishes four areas of impact, which were increased to five
in the last AUSJAL meeting in Caracas:

 Organizational Impacts: As with any organization, universities have also impacts on the
life of internal publics (staff, professors, and students), and specific impacts on the
environment regarding how campus operations are performed (waste, deforestation,
transportation, contamination, etc.). Universities must ask themselves how they are
fulfilling everyday operations around campus. All organizations inevitably have an
impact resulting from the ways in which they are managed
 Educational Impacts: It involves teaching-learning processes and the development of the
curriculum. Universities must ask themselves what kind of professionals are educating
and how they can restructure teaching and training in order to educate responsible
citizens. This arises when students are educated in values to be democratic citizens and to
participate actively in the interdisciplinary projects that serve the community.
 Cognitive Impacts: It encloses all related to epistemological and ethical orientations,
theoretical approaches, research, and production and diffusion of knowledge. Here
universities must ask themselves how they generate and manage knowledge.
 Social Impacts: As with also any organization, universities should participate in the
development of local communities and social capital. Universities have a clear impact on
the economic, social, and political development of society.

A similar study in Chilean Higher Education Industry has made universities start implementing
clear initiatives of Social Responsibility in their strategic planning with the purpose of improving
their position in the market in aspects as image, reputation, trade mark strengthening and
enhancement of institutional value. Given in the Figure below are the four dimensions covered

43
by social responsibility in the university: Organization‘s environment, educational, social and
cognitive impact (Militaru and Ionescu, 2008). Today, the organizations have to understand that
they are a part of a system in which they have to pay special attention to demands and
expectancies from the varied public included in that society. This is applied to any type of
organizations, including universities. All of them must respond to the community needs
expressed in connection with environment, security, health, fair labor conditions etc.

Figure 2.2 The four dimensions of University social responsibility (Source: Vallaey, 2009)

44
2.8 MORE STUDIES RELATED TO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION

Nemerowicz and Rossi (2014) mentioned that there is a lack of leadership in existence for
deciding global and national problems. Colleges and universities are generally expected to
produce national, political, scientific and corporate leaders. Most institutions maintain that their
graduates are leaders, yet few institutions explicitly address the issue of leadership and social
responsibility in a systematic and comprehensive way. Often academic approaches consist of
unfocused courses of leadership, looking at leadership styles and managerial decision-making
within a business context. Basing their work on research, they discussed an important
programme for the development of leadership and social responsibility in schools and institutions
of higher education.

Tomlinson and Basit (2014) shows that higher education has made deliberate strides in recent
decades to become more inclusive and accessible; the number of students from non-traditional
backgrounds has increased dramatically. There has been much study of the effects of higher
education on previously underserved populations, showing that it can lead to higher lifetime
income and higher status. But there has been little research on what happens to those students
once they are in a university. They took a close look at this issue and the problems that face non-
traditional students, the resources they and their families are able to draw on, and the ways that
administrators and staff can help them succeed (Basit and Tomlinson 2014 p. 105).

Jamilah Ahmad and David Crowther in their book ―Education and Corporate Social
Responsibility: International Perspectives” tried to discuss about how the Corporate social
responsibility is becoming rapidly embedded into the strategic planning and operational
processes of all organizations, while at the same time they also tried to develop our
understanding of what is meant by this phenomenon and how it continues to develop and to be
extended beyond the domain of the corporate into that of all other organizations. Ahmad and
Crowther argued that academics have responded to this by embedding CSR into the curricula of
their respective institutions. However, practice differs throughout the world and they tried to
explore such different practices in order to develop suggestions about what might be best

45
practice and to consider the respective benefits of developing the curriculum in this manner
(Ahmad and Crowther 2013, p.85).

Reason (2013) focused on personal and social responsibility as outcomes of a college education,
with the understanding that such a focus would return American higher education to its historical
purpose of preparing active and engaged citizens. Expanding the conversation this way leaves
room for behavioral measures, like voting or hours spent in community service, but also opens
our understanding of citizenship to include issues of civic identity, civic attitudes, personal
integrity, and ethics. Reason explored the research and practice related to the development of
personal and social responsibility in college, drawing data directly from institutions that were
part of the Core Commitments Initiative and providing instructive examples of good practice at
both the programmatic and institutional levels (Reason 2013, p.64).

Although in today‘s days if we see the structure of higher education it has also changed into a
business mindset which we need to be managed in the same manner. Therefore implementing
CSR strategies in a higher education institution should be considered in order to obtain a true
competitive advantage and a positive reputation. However implementing whatever is taught and
thereby generating a real example from its academic knowledge would create a peculiar
hypothesis for any higher education institution. Apart from the complexities of higher education
the majorly performance of it are overlapping with societal interests, therefore higher education
institutions are pressured for responsible practices. Thus responsible higher education practices
not only will contribute to the welfare of the shareholders and the common people in general, but
also these practices will increasingly become a long-term value proposition for the institution
itself (G.S. Dahan and Isil Senol 2012, p. 98).

Saltmarsh and Zlotkowski (2011) focussed on how civic engagement in higher education
works to achieve the academic and civic purposes of higher education. These include creating
new modes of teaching and learning, fostering participation in American democracy, the
development and respect for community and civic institutions, and encouraging the constant
renewal all of these dimensions of American life. For the authors, service-learning is positioned
as centrally important to the primary academic systems and structures of higher education,
departments, disciplines, curriculum, and programs that are central to the faculty domain.

46
Progressing from the general and the contextual to specific practices embodied in ever larger
academic units, the authors conclude with observations on the future of the civic engagement
movement (Saltmarsh and Zlotkowski 2011, p. 40).

Evans (2009) suggests the political consensus on lifelong learning which marked the end of the
20th century fundamentally reshaped discourses on the role of lifelong learning. In ‗knowledge-
based‘ economies, we are engaged in a lifelong competition for livelihoods; learning for a living
as part of a global learning revolution. The argument (of the author), simply, revolves around
social justice, and active and engaged citizenry. Policies to encourage lifelong learning are based
on the view that individuals must learn new things primarily to secure employment in an ever-
changing world. The result of these policies has been to open up unsustainable inequalities which
ordinary people are unlikely to tolerate for much longer. For politicians, bringing politics closer
to the world and aspirations of ordinary people will mean seeking solutions based on broader and
fairer forms of meritocracy and bringing work and the pursuit of broader social purposes into a
better balance at all levels of the social world (Evans 2009, p.68).

Tomusk (2007) brings together a group of higher education researchers across Europe and looks
into the implementation of the Bologna Process in the countries often attributed a peripheral
status. Although it is also obvious that if the Process has a center, it stands external to higher
education systems and universities it concerns. One can possibly find it either in Brussels or
across the Atlantic in the United States, internationally perceived as the main competitor to
European higher education. In addition to cultural and political issues the European higher
education project faces in various countries, the Tomusk particular attention is on the role of
students as well as the changing position of the intellectuals under its impact (Tomusk 2007,
p.128).

Jiménez (2007) says that this approach carries the implication that values are learned from
emotion-motivation, and that we experience or experiment with them and then with thought and
argument, and therefore universities must identify and commit to the values we are willing to
live and which are key to their development process since ‗The statements of principles and
values do not guarantee the generation of commitments‘ (UCP, 2006, p. 131). Jiménez highlights

47
that "you cannot manage what you do not communicate, communicate what is not measured,
measure what is not defined, and define what is not understood." (UCP, 2006, p.109)

Ehrlich, T (2000) collected several essays in his book ―Civic Responsibility and Higher
Education‖ about the national leaders who had focused on civic responsibility and higher
education. He also argued that, more than a century ago John Dewey challenged the education
community to look to civic involvement for the betterment of both community and campus. But
if we see in today‘s situation, the challenge remains as it was. Ehlrich in his book tries to impart
both philosophy and working example. He also provides the inspiration for innovative new
programs in this essential area of learning (Ehrlich 2000, p.126).

Al-Hawaj, Elali and Twizell addressed some of the most important challenges and issues
relating to higher education in the twenty-first century, including:

 building capacity for higher education and the professional

 development of teachers;
 international education and strategic partnerships;
 quality assurance and academic accreditation;
 research in higher education institutions;
 labour markets in higher education.

Chapman and Austin (2002) expressed that half of the students enrolled in higher education
worldwide live in developing countries. Yet, in many developing countries, government and
education leaders express serious concerns about the ability of their colleges and universities to
effectively respond to the pressures posed by changing demographics, new communication
technologies, shifts in national political environments, and the increasing interconnectedness of
national economies. They identify five critical issues with which higher education institutions in
the developing world must grapple as they respond to these changing contexts: seeking a new
balance in government-university relationships; coping with autonomy; managing expansion
while preserving equity, raising quality, and controlling costs; addressing new pressures for
accountability; and supporting academic staff in new roles (Chapman and Austin 2002:152).

48
Gumport (2000) was of the view that higher education within itself plays an important function
in the social institutions through evolution of individual learning and human capital, the
socialization and cultivation of citizens and political loyalties, the preservation of knowledge,
and the fostering of other legitimate pursuits for the nation-state. Thus we can say that the
behaviour and actions of the higher education institutions indicate straight away to the society
through their alumni and through their daily operations higher education institutions have a
direct and immediate impact on the society.

Crews (2002) suggest that service-learning in higher education symbiotically combines

community service and academic study it means that both fields strengthen in the union is one
reason for the movement's increasing popularity (Crews 2002, p.102). Thomson discussed the
role a university ought to play in forming a social morality for society. Specifically, Thomson
addressed such questions as to what extent the university curriculum should treat morality or
human values, what should a university and its faculty do otherwise to improve moral thinking
and responsibility on the part of students, and what contribution to the improvement of morality
in the general society should a university make (Thomson 1991:159).

Whereas the role of higher education institutions is a topic that has to be studied individually and
can be explored deeply, to make a correlation between higher education and traditional
corporate, the responsibility of the higher education institutions can be encapsulate by conveying
the knowledge to the succeeding generations through teaching, training and doing research
(UNESCO 1991).

Votruba, J. (1996), President Emeritus and Professor of Educational Leadership at Northern

Kentucky University. In his article ―Strengthening the University‘s Alignment with Society:
Challenges and Strategies‖ he emphasizes the need for universities to adapt to a changing
marketplace and to shift the institutional focus toward engagement so that it is more integrated
into the general mandate of the organization (Votruba, 1996). From this perspective, the
integration of social responsibility into the mandate of the organization is tied to the specific
external focus of engagement. Other authors suggest a more comprehensive orientation of the
core mandate of the organization.

49
2.9 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BY HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN
THE INDIAN CONTEXT

‗Engagement is a core value for the University. It is fundamentally a mutually educative practice.
Engagement promotes ‗academic citizenship, central to which is the idea that a university is a
collective entity rather than a collection of individuals, asserting the compact between the
university and the society‘ ~ UGC Scheme on Establishing of Centre for Fostering Social
Responsibility and Community Engagement, 2014.

The Steering Committee for Higher Education and Technical Education decided to set up, on 25
August 2011, a sub-committee on Strengthening Community Engagement in Higher Education
Institutions In October 2014, as a result of the recommendations of this sub-committee, the
University Grants Commission (UGC) finally rolled out a scheme on fostering community
engagement in HEIs. Under this scheme, the UGC provides for the establishment of a Centre for
Fostering Social Responsibility and Community Engagement (CFSRCE) in select eligible
universities. The main objectives of the scheme include promoting community-university
partnerships to develop knowledge for improving the lives of the people and to encourage
participatory research, and to in alliance with community based organizations in planning and
execution of projects. It seeks to propagate integration of service, service-learning and
experiential learning into curricular/co-curricular programs. It also aims at creating
neighbourhood networks of educational institutions including schools and providing policy
suggestions and technical assistance to help foster community engagement and social
responsibility in higher education.

All Central Universities centrally funded deemed-to-be Universities and State Universities
receiving development assistance from the UGC and accredited by the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC) will be considered for UGC assistance under this scheme to set
up the center. Any university aspiring to receive financial assistance under this scheme should
meet the following criteria:

 It should have demonstrated competence and sustained commitment in carrying out

community engagement and social responsibility fulfillment activities.

50
  It should have made distinct contribution to the development of knowledge in the field of
social service, community engagement and inculcation of spirit of social responsibility in
students.
 It should have adequate infrastructure in the major disciplines engaged in the proposal,
and
 It should have conducted interdisciplinary research in some of the areas of knowledge
involved in the community engagement scheme.
 The overall ceiling for the financial assistance to be provided under this scheme is up to
Rs 2.5 crore, which will be disbursed under different heads such as start-up costs, staff
costs, yearly operational costs etc.

Most of the innovative examples of community engagement by institutions of higher education

in India tend to focus on ‗helping‘ the community through the students. Students volunteer to
support local schools, organize health camps, in tree plantation, or garbage collection. In many
such examples, the purpose of engagement is almost welfarist, based on the assumption that
community needs knowledge and expertise that students bring. The second general purpose in
these engagements is learning of students about the local realities through volunteering of their
time and efforts, periodically; usefulness to local communities is a secondary consideration, if at
all. It is important, therefore, to more clearly and forcefully mandate that the core purposes of
such community engagement by institutions of higher education is to serve mutually agreed
interests of both communities and institutions. This implies that the partnership is mutually
beneficial, and based on give and take by both sets of parties. Its translation in practice would
entail recognition of authentic and actionable knowledge that communities have, which
institutions can learn from; and empirical and theoretical knowledge of a macro nature that
institutions have from which communities can benefit.

This recently created UNESCO Chair uniquely has its home in two complementary but distinct
institutions. It is co-located at the Community Development Programme in the School of Public
Administration at the University of Victoria (UVic) in Canada and at the Society for Participatory
Research in Asia (PRIA) located in New Delhi, India. Dr. Rajesh Tandon, Founding President of
PRIA and Dr. Budd L Hall, Professor of Community Development at UVic serve as the first Co-
Chairs. The Global Alliance for Community-Engaged Research (GACER) is the global network

51
facilitated by Drs. Tandon and Hall to influence policy development and to share lessons within key
regional and global spaces and it serves as a link to regional and global networks around the world.

The Society for Participatory Research in Asia further emphasizes that the thrust of this
engagement is mutual empowerment, in the quest of supporting more democratic citizenship in
the communities, amongst the students, and academics alike (Tandon et al., 2014). This means
that

I. The engagement must be seen as one of the core purposes of contributions that
institutions of higher education make—in addition to teaching and research; this
contribution is a combination of citizenship building, public service and social
responsibility and accountability.
II. It thus implies that community engagement would be a core mandate of such institutions,
integrated in the two core functions of such institutions---teaching (curriculum, local
issues, practicums, etc.), and, research (accessing local knowledge, identifying local
issues/problems for study).
III. It will be applicable to all faculties, curriculum, courses and disciplines, and not
‗ghettoized‘ in social sciences or service oriented faculties alone. Thus, faculties of
natural sciences, engineering, arts and music, etc. will also have to creatively think of
ways in which their own teaching and research activities can embrace community
engagement meaningfully, so that both functions of teaching and research can also
improve through such an engagement.
IV. This will imply that students get formal credits for the work they do in their community
engagement, preferably through their existing courses. It will also mean that faculty get
‗recognized‘ and rewarded for their contributions to community engagements (much in
the same way as they do for teaching and research).
V. It will entail mainstreaming community learning and change as essential principles for
curriculum development for future citizenship; institutions of higher education thus
embed themselves in the larger national efforts of creating active, informed and ethical
global citizens of India.

The following are illustrative forms of such engagement:

52
Linking learning with community service

In this approach, students and teachers apply their knowledge and skills in a chosen community
to improve the lives of people in that community. This can be achieved through ‗adoption‘ of a
specific village or slum, and then providing engagement opportunities to students from various
disciplines and courses to apply their knowledge to address the challenges of that specific
community (Tandon et al., 2014; PRIA, 2015).

 In 2005 University of Pune launched the Samarth Bharat Abhiyan programme under the
leadership of the then Vice Chancellor Dr. Narendra Jadhav. Under this at least one
village was adopted by each college. In total, 573 villages were adopted for over-all
integrated development. A 12-point agenda was chosen which covered environment
awareness; drug addiction issues; history writing of village; writing flora and fauna of
villages; energy crisis issues; water and soil testing; GIS mapping of villages; socio-
economic and health issues. There were groups formed by students and they visited
adopted villages on Sundays. History of 400 villages was written by history teachers and
students in a span of 2 years GIS mapping was done for 52 villagers by geography
students with the help of GPS instruments, which were provided by the university to the
colleges. Four lakh trees were planted, nurseries were set-up. Water and soil testing was
done by chemistry students through which it was found that 80% of the villages did not
have potable water. Many soft skill developments programmes were also conducted by
English departments in the village schools. This contributed to the student‘s field
exposure/practical learning, while proving to be beneficial for the villagers as well, who
were made more aware, learned and responsible citizens.
 Similarly, engineering students of Rural Technology Action Group- North East
(RUTAG-NE) under the Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT-GUWAHATI in
Assam used their technical knowledge to upgrade the rural systems in surrounding
communities in an attempt to boost the rural economy. For instance, by engaging the
local artisans and villagers, they set up a pilot project on production of plain muga silk
fabric with power loom. By engaging artisans and communities it has successfully set up
a pilot project on production of plain Muga Silk fabric with power loom at the Export
Promotion Industrial Park in Amingaon, Guwahati. This not only contributed to the

53
 students practical learning, they were also able to put to use their theoretical knowledge
into something more practically useful and relevant. The communities on the other hand,
benefitted by way of monetary returns which resulted from the marketing of the silk
produced.
 The Tezpur University conducted certain outreach programmes which were carried out
by its various academic departments like English, Hindi, EVS and Math under which the
faculty members provided free teaching in the schools of the nearby areas. However,
since February‘ 2014, an integrated village development programme was initiated, under
which an adjacent village called Amolapam has been adopted.
 In Mysore University, Mysuru, most departments of undergraduate and post graduate
studies encourage students to take part in community engagement activities. The
University has Bharani Yojane since the 1970s where they have adopted villages for the
purpose of adult education, literacy practices, awareness for state and national
government programmes, societal development programs etc. the university has also
constituted Committee for Development of Science in Schools (CDSS) which inspires
high school students to take up science as a career option.
 The Social Work department at Christ University in Bengaluru is also very active in
conducting a range of activities under social action. The Faculty of Engineering students
teach the under-privileged children of the nearby communities and the University also
has a certificate course in NGO administration and Youth and Social Responsibility. The
students of Christ University support around 850 underprivileged children from nearby
slums by sponsoring their education, and every semester, all departments conduct social
responsibility week, creating awareness on various social issues.
 In Mount Carmel College, Bengaluru various courses have made community engagement
mandatory during coursework. This is followed in the Bachelors and Masters of
Commerce, Masters of International Business, and PG Diploma in Business
Administration courses. The students have to visit NGOs, orphanages, government
schools and slums and carry out various activities such as painting walls, building
classrooms, toilets and the like. The college has adopted a village near Bhagalpur district
in Bengaluru North. Students set up camps in this village and live there for 15 days while
working on the upliftment of village community and women in particular.

54
  In Tezpur University, since February‘ 2014, an integrated village development
programme was initiated, under which an adjacent village called Amolapam has been
adopted. The NSS also assists the University in the Amolapam village adoption initiative.
 Banasthali University is running students centered programme, National Service Scheme
(NSS) where every year most of the under graduate students enroll and work towards
identifying problems prevalent in the villages. Seven villages have been adopted by NSS
wing. Awareness in villagers is created through lectures, sheet play and with the help of
audio visual aids like films, documentary, charts and posters. Various social issues have
been dealt with like women and child education, child marriage, alcoholism, drug
addiction. AIDS, gender equality etc. Health campuses are also organized from time to
time.

Linking research with community knowledge

In this approach, various faculties and programs of higher educational institutions devise joint
research projects in partnerships with the communities. In this approach, the community‘s own
knowledge is integrated into the design and conduct of the research. New research by students
and their teachers gets conducted and students complete their thesis/dissertation and research
papers to complete their academic requirements (which can later be published), and at the same
time the community‘s knowledge is systematized and integrated in this research (Tandon et al.,
2014; PRIA, 2015).

 A University in Haryana, B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya in Sonepat, has

institutionalized a Centre for community engagement which particularly focuses on
research activities, through its add-on courses. For instance, a course on folk medicine is
based is based on the premise that indigenous knowledge residing within the
communities is valuable and needs to be documented. In this case, it is the herbs/plant
based effective remedies known to village women. This knowledge is tapped by the
students going into the communities, who then document indigenous medicines and
treatment methods, and finally produce it as academic literature.
 Engagement of dalit girls with the Kurukshetra University to study the dynamics of caste
discrimination and their future career options, through Centre for BR Ambedkar Studies.

55
  In Tezpur University, students under M.A. Sociology programme have to prepare a
dissertation in their final two semesters based on their field experience with the
communities both from nearby the university campus as well as from other parts of
northeast. The Department of Energy conducts study of energy consumption pattern,
demand supply and gap performance efficiency of energy devices, Grid integration of
renewable energy as well as energy recovery from locally available biomass under the
M.Tech course. Under the ‗Rural Hybrid Energy System Project‘, the local people are
involved during the analysis of energy efficiency process conducted by the Energy Dept.
for the Ph.D. and M.Tech courses.
 At Christ University, most research in social and community work is conducted by the
Centre for Social Action under the Department of Social Work. They have various
consultancy projects in various parts of Karnataka in association with Indian Oil- such as
assessment of government schools in many districts, baseline surveys of schools and
villages, a minor research project in Mandya district to assess the selection process of
Bhagyalakshmi scheme for girl child, a major research projects on Development induced
Displacement in Bagalkot and studying the effectiveness of Ujjawala Scheme for
prevention of trafficking, rescue and rehabilitation of the victims in Karnataka etc.
 At Mysore University, all M.Sc. students are involved in research activities with the
community as part of their curriculum. Students engage in many research projects which
have a direct relation with society and people.
 St. Joseph‘s College, Bengaluru, has been invited by Karnataka Branch of Indian Institute
of Public Administration to establish a civil service coaching center to provide guidance
and training to meritorious students from under privileged sections. The college organizes
conferences, fieldtrips and undertakes research projects to create knowledge and
awareness among students about the society, ecology, present education status etc.

Knowledge Sharing & Knowledge Mobilization

The knowledge available with students and teachers in various disciplines is made available to
the local community to realize its developmental aspirations, secure its entitlements and claim its
rights from various public and private agencies. These can take the forms of enumerations,
surveys, camps, trainings, learning manuals/films, maps, study reports, public hearings, policy

56
briefs, engagement with urban homeless shelters, teaching and health services in poor
communities, legal aid clinics for under-trails etc. Many universities across India engage in
knowledge sharing activities like awareness camps and drives on literacy, environmental
protection/conservation, gender sensitivity, health, entrepreneurship awareness, skill
development, legal literacy, human rights training etc. (Tandon et al., 2014; PRIA, 2015).

 Some universities embark on a novel initiative of ‗community radio‘, a channel which is

used for both academic discussion and engagement with the communities. This platform
provides for eliciting of views from the community‘s perspective on various issues
through dialogues, debates, etc. Example: A nodal initiative of the Guwahati University
is the Community Radio service Radio Luit 90.8 FM. Programs on general awareness
about health, education, environment, scientific temperament, folk culture, music and
various cultural programs are part of its main activity. Interactive talk with personalities
and programs specifically aim for women and children are significant component of the
initiative as well.
 Some universities also run campaigns on socially relevant issues such as ethnic conflicts,
violence against women, media literacy, e-governance, etc. The campaign mode of
knowledge sharing provides a dynamic interface between the universities and the
communities, which provides for vibrant sharing of ideas and perspectives like The
Institute of Information and Technology, Guwahati conducts awareness program on e-
governance, ethical hacking and ICT for the local communities.
 Institute Of Rural Research and Development (IRRAD) started ‗Good Governance Now‘
in 2008 by training 35 residents of six villages in Mewat, Haryana, one of the most
underdeveloped districts in India. Individuals are selected for training based on their
experience, understanding and ability to retain information and their willingness to learn
and work for their respective villages. In 2011, the initiative reached people in more than
100 villages in Mewat. To conduct the governance training in Mewat, IRRAD staff
works with students and their teachers from Jindal Global Law School in Sonipat,
Haryana. Inspired by IRRAD‘s rural governance initiative, the Jindal Global Law School
runs a clinic course entitled, ―Good Rural Governance and Citizen Participation.‖

57
  In West Bengal the National Bengal University of Juridical Science took up similar
initiatives in some areas.
 Different departments of the Bangalore University including Centre for Psychological
Counseling, Women‘s Studies, Political Science, Geology, Performing Arts, Rural
Development and the like are involved in conducting training programme for self-
employment of youth from rural areas, life skill training, conducting programs involving
physically challenged people and holding various capacity building workshops. They also
provide ideas and measures with regard to Industrial affluent, sewage water, toxic metals
and radio-active elements. Remedial measures are also being undertaken along with
research projects on these specified areas. The Faculty of Law organizes Legal Aid and
Legal Literacy programs in association with the Legal Services Authorities, Government
of Karnataka for the benefit of the rural masses.
 The University of Mysore departments, all share knowledge for two purposes- first with
the purpose of teaching and learning, and second for societal benefit. The University is
engaged in organizing several workshops and orientation programs, soft skill training,
computer training, and communication and personality development. It even has a
specialized center that caters to the demand of knowledge sharing with the community
which is the Centre for Proficiency Development and Placement Services (CPDPS).
 Banasthali Vidyapith University, Rajasthan, has a community F.M. Radio station known
as Radio Banasthali to broadcast all awareness programmes on health, food, clothing,
agriculture, cleanliness and agriculture. The programs are prepared and presented by the
senior students of the school. The Banasthali Sewa Dal (BSD) works towards community
development where students conduct literacy campaign, population control education and
vaccination immunization programmes in rural areas through door to door campaign.
BSD students assist villagers in opening bank account and also work for environment
conservation through plantation and protection of natural flora and fauna.

Devising New Curriculum and Courses

In consultations with local communities, local students, local community-based organizations

and local government agencies, institutions of higher education can develop new curricula in
existing courses as well as design new courses. This will enrich the curriculum of existing

58
courses through locally-appropriate subject-matter (which interests local students most); this will
also create new, locally appropriate educational programmes that will interest new generation of
students (Tandon et al., 2014; PRIA, 2015).

 Garhwal University Mountain Research Centre in Assam has introduced a course in one
of its social science departments, which responds specifically to the needs of the ethnic
and strife-torn communities of the north east. Departing from the traditional pedagogy
followed in most universities, this particular course focuses on more community
interface, in form of field based interventions, brainstorming workshops, multi-
stakeholder dialogues, as compared to plain class room discourse.
 B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya in Sonepat, realizing the importance of environment
conservation and micro-enterprises, has introduced specialized courses on integrated
energy resource management, Microfinance practices, co-operative management etc.
These courses are designed in a way that they deal specific issues in the community by
direct engagement with them.
 PRIA also partners with various universities to develop a range of courses, whose content
is prepared by practitioners having field expertise in association with teachers and
researchers in universities/colleges. The bulk of practical knowledge for these courses
comes from PRIA‘s own experiences. For e.g., diploma course in participatory
development, developed in association with Indira Gandhi National Open University
(IGNOU).
 Jain University, Bengaluru, has adopted a `bottom up` approach in designing new courses
and their curriculum. The University has started over twenty new courses in the domain
of innovation and emerging areas. All these courses were developed after a `need
analysis` involving extensive dialogue with different stake holders – prospective students,
past students, senior faculty, experts, industry and the corporate world and relevant social
organizations.
 The University of Mysore has established Department of Women Studies through which
specialized curriculum and courses have been initiated regarding women empowerment.
 Women‘s Studies and Research Centre, at Banasthali University, aims to impart teaching,
training, research and extension/ outreach activities like Diploma courses on ‗Women and

59
 Human Rights‘ and ‗Women and Entrepreneurship‘ and M.S.W. programme with
specialization in Women‘s Development. Centre has been doing incessant efforts to
inculcate gender‘s perspective in almost all activities undertaken by Banasthali
University. Courses on Woman 's Studies are going on at graduate and postgraduate
levels which are interdisciplinary in nature like, Foundation Course entitled 'Women in
Indian Society' for all undergraduate students and one Compulsory Interdisciplinary
paper i.e. 'Women's Studies' for all social science students at post graduate level.

Including practitioners as teachers

Local community elders, women leaders, tribals and civil society practitioners have enormous
practical knowledge of a wide variety of issues—from agriculture and forestry to child-rearing,
micro-planning and project management. This expertise can be tapped by inviting such
practitioners inside the institution to co-teach courses both in the classrooms and in the field.
Such instructors should be duly recognized, compensated and respected for their knowledge
(Tandon et al., 2014; PRIA, 2015).

 The National College, Bengaluru, has established collaborations with various academic,
cultural and social service organizations for students to be exposed to various social work
activities. Lectures, seminars, demonstrations, workshops, etc., are organized under these
collaborations. Practitioners are invited as teachers and guest lecturers to the institution to
provide practical knowledge to the students and share day-to-day challenges and issues.
These practitioners are invited from various fields such as advocacy, journalism,
government, politics, film and theatre, academics, social work, science and research, etc.
Some activists, such as Auto Raja, who conduct social experiments, have also been
invited as guest lecturers at the college.
 SPARC, a Mumbai based Civil Service Organization (CSO) has assisted in building the
capacities of women slum dwellers, using their own indigenous knowledge, who are then
recruited as teaching instructors in urban planning courses in universities in Maharashtra.
 The Christ University, Bengaluru, invites social practitioners and NGO workers to
address students. Various conferences organized by the University provide an
opportunity for students to hear and learn from experts of respective fields.

60
  Mysore University, Mysuru, also invites various experts in distinct fields to guide
community development activities at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. These
experts are usually NGO workers, industrialists, environmentalists, legal experts,
politicians, folk artists, scientists, journalists, specialists in Dalit literature etc.
 Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), another initiative at the Banasthali University, conducts
training programmes whose beneficiaries are practicing farmers, farm women, rural
youths and functionaries of development departments and voluntary organizations. On
Farm Testing is a joint venture of KVK staff, regional research scientists and local
farming community aiming at assessment and refinement of technologies. Farmer‘s
perspective and their participation are crucial to identify and develop area specific
demand driven technologies. KVK periodically organizes Farmers fair, Field Days,
Vichar Goshthi, educational tours, production and distribution of farm literature and
receives support from mass media for the dissemination of the same.

 The Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies (CSSEIP), one of the
ambitious schemes of the University Grants Commission (UGC) under its X Plan, came
into existence at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in March 2007.This Centre aims
to formulate policies for protecting the rights of certain communities such as Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other religious minorities and eradicating the problem of
exclusion and discrimination.

Social Innovations by Students

In consultation with student unions, associations and clubs, student initiated learning projects
which have a social impact can be supported. Such social innovation projects by students can
also have meaningful links to curriculum and courses (Tandon et al., 2014; PRIA, 2015).

 A college in Delhi University embarks on a large student initiated project, which is aimed
at impacting the lives of the people in need. They work on a range of issues such as
empowering community puppeteers, liberating manual scavengers, improving rural
livelihoods etc.

61
  TISS-Koshish efforts on justice for beggars; and homeless shelters with Aman Biradari
supports student anchored field action project, which addresses the interrelated issues of
beggary, destitution and homelessness, through a combination of measures. It goes
further ahead and aims for development of meaningful policy for securing rights
entitlements.
 The Educate a Child Program of Christ University has been started by the students of the
university, which provides education to 850 slum children. The University also has a
magazine ‗We Care‘ in which articles discussing social issues are included to create
awareness and disseminate knowledge.

In practice, the above six forms can be integrated together in an organic and dynamic manner for
each institution and its surrounding communities. These are illustrative of what can be further
innovated upon, adapted and evolved by higher educational institutions in partnership with their
communities and civil society actors.

In addition to the above six forms of engagement defined by the University Grants Commission
(UGC), the regulatory agency has also issued certain directives and initiatives to be undertaken
by the higher educational institutions to actively participate towards the implementation of the
various socially responsible activities in their campuses and also to promote active citizenship
among the youth like Clean India campaign, promotion of Indian culture and languages
(Matribhasha Diwas) , prevention of Caste based discrimination in the universities promotion of
Indian handloom industry, pollution control etc. being introduced by the present government.
Some of these directives issued are:

a) To support the dream of “Clean and Sanitized India”, UGC has partnered with the
Ministry of Urban Development to launch a National Student Engagement campaign for
the purpose of making all students active stakeholders in making India Clean. The
institution is required to register on swachhbharat.mygov.in and upload video of the
pledge taking activity, and photographs/scanned copy of a certificate stating the number
of students who have taken the pledge. lt is also requested that a Swachhata Ambassador
Committee (SAC) of students and teachers be set up, for overseeing and monitoring the
cleanliness and hygiene status of the institution. It encourages every student to register

62
 individually on swachhbharat.mygov.in and upload pictures of cleanliness activities they
undertake.
b) Under the Digital India initiative introduced by the Ministry of Human Resource and
Development (MHRD), UGC has asked the universities to register in the National e-
scholarship Portal so that there is fast dispersal of scholarship to the eligible students who
apply online for scholarship.
c) To promote the development of Indian languages among the students at the school and
university level, UGC has invited suggestion from the school and higher education
authorities to define a roadmap for the spread and development of Indian Languages
( particularly Sanskrit language) in the school and university level for coming 10 years, .
d) Many cities around the world are setting targets and introducing polices for promoting
renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions. Accordingly, the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy, Government of India has taken initiatives to develop green campuses
under "Development of Solar Cities" Programme which aims at minimum 10 per cent
reduction in projected demand of conventional energy at the end of five years. UGC also
invites proposals from universities in this direction.
e) UGC has also instructed universities to conduct different events like seminars, debates,
conventions, panel discussions, lectures, pictorial exhibitions, documentary film and
display of writings of Swami Vivekananda to mark his birth anniversary.
f) All universities are also requested to consider use of handloom fabric for ceremonial
dresses prescribed for special occasions like convocations etc. This is with the view to
promote handloom industry in the country and improve the earnings of handloom
weavers.
g) To promote the spirit of Swachh Bharat- Swastha Bharat Abhiyan in the day to day
functioning of the institutions and to make it an integral part of the psyche of the
university community- teachers, students and the administrative staff. The institutions are
requested to maintain cleanliness in the campus, the buildings of the academic
departments, landscape of the campus and the residential buildings like the hostels and
staff residences, clean and operational toilet facilities for boys and girls and an effective
system of waste management in coordination with the municipal authorities on board.

63
h) UGC has also issued directions to the universities and colleges that no faculty or official
member should indulge in any kind of discrimination against any community or category
of students.
i) In order to promote social and economic equality and to ensure that all citizens of the
country have an equal access to quality education, UGC had recommended to the
universities / colleges to set up Equal Opportunity Centre (EOC). The functions of the
Equal Opportunity Centers are to sensitize universities/colleges about the problems of the
marginalized disadvantaged sections of the society so that they are able to improve their
performance not only in the education but also in other spheres of life. The functions of
EOCs are also to sensitize the mainstream sections of the society towards the problems of
the marginalized sections of the society. The EOCs are also meant to monitor the various
schemes / policies of the Government of India and State Governments relating to
marginalized/disadvantaged sections. EOCs are also empowered to ensure that there is an
effective functional SC/ST Cell as has been mandated in the DoPT Brochure on
Reservation for SC, ST & Other Backward Classes in Services. The EOCs, besides
looking after the above are also to become an effective tool for gender sensitization and
ensure participation in all socially relevant activities of the Universities/ Colleges and
NSS.
j) In view of the serious environmental health hazards and the toxic fallout from the
fireworks, UGC has instructed the university departments and affiliated colleges to
educate the students about the severity of the toxicity of fireworks and discourage their
use. In the direction, it has been requested to include a module on the ill-effects of
fireworks in the paper of Environmental studies which has to be compulsorily studied by
the students as per UGC‘s direction dated 30th March 2015, to organize forums,
discussions, workshops, lectures, presentations related to hazards of fireworks and ways
to reduce them.
k) In order to promote the need for creating an environment that fosters equal treatment for
engagement of Gender Champions in all educational institutions across the country, UGC
has requested the universities and affiliated colleges to implement the guidelines on
Gender Champions available on their website.

64
 l) UGC also recommends the universities to conduct two or three days Yoga Fest in their
campuses to sensitize the youth about the strengths and health benefits of yoga in
promoting physical, mental and spiritual health.

Some of the Fifteen best practices that have been identified by NAAC Report on best practices in
community engagement, ( NAAC, 2006) involving community engagements done by
universities across India can be summed up as follows:

1. Vivekananda Sammelan-To promote value education from primary to higher education

level as propagated by Swami Vivekananda. To instill such human values as honesty,
integrity of character, selflessness , devotion to duty, scientific temper devotion to duty
etc. initiated by Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira, West Bengal.
2. To consider these communities as Social Labs- Students of Loyola College of Social
Science, Kerala worked on the concept of getting associated with Aganwadis and
converting them into community resource centers, inculcating value of healthy practices
among adolescent girls and mothers and developing life skills in adolescent girls.
3. Cancer Awareness Campaign-Organizing health exhibitions and health talks for the
masses particularly the rural community where the awareness about health issues is
minimum was an initiative done by Armed Forces Medical College, Pune
4. A Model for Tribal Village Development-Adoption of a tribal village in the proximate
community followed by holding regular interactions ,camps and awareness programmes
were initiated by Dhenkanal College, Orissa
5. ―Learn with Me‖-To initiate a programme on Adult Literacy for illiterate and neo-literate
females in the society and State of Meghalaya by the students of St. Mary‘s College,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
6. Rehabilitation of women Prisoners- Students of Sophia Girl‘s College Ajmer developed a
spirit of social service and commitment towards the community, especially towards the
imprisoned. A lot of effort towards their rehabilitation through weekly interactions, legal
interventions, cultural programmes, occupational therapy, counseling sessions and
projects like paper bag making were initiated.

65
7. Service Learning through Blood Donation-Maharaja Agrasen Mahavidyalaya organizes
regular blood donation camps and aims to ensure easy accessibility and adequate supply
of safe and quality blood collected from voluntary blood donors to those in need.
8. Caring for Senior Citizens- With the objective of developing a sense of responsibility
among the students towards the parents and their grandparents, the students and teachers
of DAV Girl‘s College, Punjab regularly visit the old age home situated in their colony
and enquire about their requirements, problems and facilities. The college conducts
regular workshops on Diet Management and solves other problems like, basic needs,
social and emotional needs.
9. Social Insurance Awareness Programme for BPL community- The students of
Government College, Andhra Pradesh initiated spreading the message of insurance
products among the masses below the poverty line.
10. Total Literacy Drive-This drive initiated by Don Bosco Centre, Sacred Heart College,
Tamil Nadu aimed to create an environment conducive to studying and prevent dropouts.
To help them improve their performance in examination and encourage them for higher
education enrollment.
11. Using Infrastructure and Learning resources for social Transformation-An effort by St
Xavier‘s College Gujarat towards utilization of its existing resources i.e., availability of
almost 900 species of plants in the campus including some plants which are of ethno-
medicinal significance whose traditional tribal usage has been documented. The college
teachers and students have been involved in socially relevant research involving
marginalized groups and endangered bio-diversity.
12. Change of Life style through Low cost Nutrition, hygiene and Relaxation techniques-The
students of Mata Gujri Mahila Mahavidyalaya decided to serve their immediate
neighbourhood and teach the members of low-income groups to maintain hygienic
environment and take nutritious and balanced diet. Some steps like setting up public
toilets, discussions with nutritional experts and advocating relaxation techniques like
Yoga, Art of Living etc. were taken.
13. Study of Arsenic contamination of Ground water in parts of Bihar-Conscious efforts by
the students of A. N College, Patna lead to creation of a database of arsenic contaminated
ground water resources. Requisite steps taken for creating awareness among the rural

66
 people who were cynical about the whole exercise and adequate mitigation measures
taken.
14. Watershed Development Programme-This initiative by St. Agnes College, Mangalore
led to creating awareness by the staff and students about importance of rain water
harvesting and watershed management in the district of Dakshina Kannada where the
ground water level was sinking alarmingly fast.
15. Wildlife Conversation and Protection- S. N. Arts, D.J.M. Commerce & B.N.S. Science
College conducted training programmes in the conservation and protection of snakes. The
study area was the forests of Sangamner and Akole Tahasil. The entire community
involving teachers, students, medical practitioners, villagers and resource persons from
Forest Department actively participated in this drive of creating awareness about snake
species, protection from snake bites and removing superstitions about snakes.
16. These contribution towards social development point out to the fact that lot of good can
come out of such social engagements by HEI. Universities and colleges should be
motivated to engage more intensively with wider society and contribute to the local and
regional development and provide intellectual leadership to society.

2.10 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Through the extensive study of the literature available on community engagement by the higher
educational institutions, it is concluded that all eminent scholars like Francois Vallaey, Saleem
Badat, Dr. Rajesh Tandon, Sir David Watson etc. across the world have emphasized the fact that
social responsibility by higher educational institutions is the intrinsic characteristics of these
institutes and should be embedded in their day to day functioning. It is rather viewed both as an
internal and external process. Many international networks like GUNI, UNESCO, and GACER
are working extensively towards mainstreaming the practices of community based research in the
teaching and research functions of higher education worldwide. Morality and ethics has also
been explored in the literature and higher education institutions are viewed as moral institutions
which are responsible for teaching values and ethics to the students. In the Indian context, UGC
through its scheme of Fostering social responsibility in higher education institutions has also
defined six forms of community engagement that has been practiced by the universities across
the country towards fulfilling their social responsibility. Various reports indicating the status of

67
universities towards the implementation of the defined forms of community engagement has
been compiled by organizations like the Society of Participatory Research in India and the trends
or areas of improvement that can be further worked upon have been suggested.

68