2005:9 R

Cooperation with the surrounding community - examples of good practice

The aim of the evaluation was to provide a perspective on and knowledge about how the higher education institutions cooperate with their surrounding communities. Another aim was also to contribute to developments in this area. The evaluation also involved identifying the institution where this cooperation was best and to describe examples of good practice in the form of projects or routine activities. A panel of assessors was appointed for the evaluation.

This panel consisted of Mårten Carlsson (Professor Emeritus, Vice-Chancellor of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 1982-94), Peter Johansson, (responsible for R&D issues at the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise), Maria Lönn (National Agency for Higher Education, also project manager for the evaluation ) Katrin Sjunnesson (The Swedish Students´ Union), Christina Skantze (head of the Structural Funds Unit at NUTEK) and Lena Wollin (Information Officer for the Swedish Research Council). Administrative support was provided by Margot Wojdas (National Agency for Higher Education).

Important to circulate ideas and examples of good practice

No institution was allowed to submit more than five examples of good practice. All of them submitted one or more examples of their cooperative activities. In connection with the meetings with the administrations of the institutions, students etc. we asked for more information about what we considered to be examples of good practice in this area. These are also included in the anthology.

The good examples published here have been chosen so that hopefully all the institutions and stakeholders will be able to find models that can serve as a source of inspiration for the development of their own ventures.

We have divided these examples into three groups - the same division as for the goals of the cooperation of the higher education institutions as laid down in the statutes and government bills (see below). The demarcation lines between these areas are not always clear. As a result some of the good examples could belong to more than one group.

Cooperation has become an approach

Higher education institutions cooperate with the surrounding community through their research and teaching. The task of cooperating has been assigned by the government and the Riksdag - and indirectly by the electorate - mainly through the stipulation on cooperation laid down in the Higher Education Act.
“The institutions of higher education shall also co-operate with the surrounding community and give information about their activities." Higher Education Act, third paragraph of Section 2 of Chapter 1 (1992:1434)

The higher education institutions cooperate with the general public, the commercial and public sectors and various organisations. Among the actors that support this process can be found local authorities, regional bodies and various public agencies. On the basis of the government´s intentions we have construed the aim of cooperation between the higher education institutions and the surrounding community as

• The development of democracy
• Development and growth of knowledge
• Better educational programmes.

Cooperation can be organised through three main processes that are linked to the research and teaching at the higher education institutions:

• The development of profiles, recruitment and extra-mural education/dissemination of research findings.
• Participation in knowledge and innovation systems to support the start of companies and the transfer of expertise.
• Planning programmes to meet labour market requirements and to provide students with scope for contact with the surrounding community during their period of study.

Finally, in connection with this anthology of examples of good practice we can mention that some of the recommendations made by the panel of assessors in its report Cooperation with the surrounding community in higher education were the following:

• Greater weight should be given to participation in cooperation activities in the assessment of qualifications.
• Resources for cooperation should be allotted to a greater extent in the form of direct government grants to all higher education institutions instead of being channelled through public agencies accountable to either the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications or the Ministry of Education, as is the case today.
• Government funds should be allocated to the higher education institutions on the basis of their success in terms of their own objectives.
• Monitoring should be improved.
• The higher education institutions should cooperate with each other and strive to pool their efforts to a greater extent than today.
• The factors leading to the success of strategic alliances between higher education institutions should be identified.
• Those responsible for the governance of the higher education institutions should ensure that a balance is maintained between the openness involved in cooperation with the surrounding community and academic integrity.
• Greater weight should be placed on cooperation measures whose goal is to develop democracy.
• The stakeholder role of the general public should be upgraded.
• Studies should be made to determine in what ways internal support for cooperation can best be organised to meet the needs of different situations.