PEP Insights Research Short Report

The pandemic reminded us that universities are part of a complex ecosystem, and whilst they have much to contribute, they can’t act alone. There is a balance to be struck between promoting your own work, and recognising the value contributed by others, being humble and realistic about your own contribution, and acting responsively and decisively to meet society’s needs. The experience of PEPs has foregrounded the immensely significant role of ‘human’ contact and connection, and the importance of investing in relationships and acting with empathy and compassion. It will be interesting to see to what extent this becomes the default setting in how universities approach their external engagement.

Universities will need to consider how they embrace effective public engagement, rooted in relationships, alongside needs to communicate their value to government and stakeholders. Tensions can arise, particularly when universities capitalise on the public mood, celebrating their work in ways that neglect the input of others. These hero narratives can undermine the quality of relationships developed with publics. It will be important for universities to consider how they can marry up their marketing and communications work, alongside the reality of their engagement work (a point we return to later).

The NCCPE has long advocated for a holistic understanding of what it means to be an engaged university, considering four areas of activity: student engagement; knowledge exchange; PE with research; and social responsibility. Whilst those working on PE with research have a significant contribution to make to the engaged university, their work can be greatly enhanced when universities bring all of these orientations to engagement together with a robust strategy, well-organised internal systems and excellent internal communication. PEPs lucky enough to work in institutions with this kind of capability were much better able to respond to the challenges of the pandemic. This learning can hopefully be drawn on to help other universities re-consider and re-focus their support for PE.

As we all continue to live alongside Covid-19, those working in the HE sector must develop and build on what has been learnt so far, capturing the promising practices that were developed, and making this commitment to acting quickly and decisively to ‘play their part’ business as usual.

The research revealed that many universities default engagement setting is ‘dissemination’: telling rather than listening and connecting. This, coupled with the trend to use attendee numbers as a proxy for value, could lead universities to invest in this style of activity at the expense of everything else.

However, where universities invested in more open and responsive interactions, there was palpable mutual benefit. The stresses placed on communities by the pandemic brought into the spotlight the need for more responsive modes of engagement. PEPs with expertise in community engagement were able to demonstrate the need and value of such long-term, committed approaches to collaboration and partnership working. The increasing focus on ‘civic’ responsibility provides a useful platform to consolidate the lessons learned during the pandemic, and to ensure these practices are built into future institutional strategy.

There was a clear sense that whilst digital engagement needed to be embraced as a key methodology for engagement, it should not be the only approach. PEPs were keen to cherish the new publics who could now access engagement opportunities, but recognised that online practices were still exclusive in many ways. In addition, PEPs recognised that more could be done to improve digital engagement practices, to embrace more inclusive ways of working.

Hybrid programmes of activity, which wove together the best of digital and the best of face-to-face elements emerged as a potential way forward. This approach was favoured over hybrid events, the distinction being that hybrid programmes would have different elements of a programme of activity done in different ways, whilst hybrid events would try to do online and face to face synchronously.

All forms of public engagement require skills and understanding to do well. The emerging field of digital public engagement with research, which was under developed for many universities, requires new learning, new skills, and the use of new platforms and approaches. There is an opportunity to share current practices within the sector, as well as learn from the substantial expertise outside of the sector and from research into online engagement.

Whilst costs associated with face-to-face events were reduced when moving online, the real costs associated with developing an effective online approach - including the need for skilled facilitation, the importance of marketing, and production skills for online content - need to be taken into account. To embrace both digital and physical engagement, universities will need to consider how they will resource this appropriately, critically reflecting on the purposes of their engagement work and the publics that they seek to engage, and resourcing the necessary staff and infrastructure to deliver their work.

The relationship between communications and engagement has not always been straightforward. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has encouraged many institutions to better integrate their communications and engagement work – recognising the importance of both to delivering social outcomes, and navigating through the challenges posed by the pandemic. This resulted in a more nuanced approach to building understanding and appreciation of their work. PEPs were often in a position to emphasise the need to open up conversations, rather than just promote the work of the university; to champion listening and encourage responsiveness to community concerns; to demonstrate sensitivity to the experiences and needs of their institution’s communities; and to balance a celebration of the role of science and research with considerations of the social and ethical context. Whilst the purposes of university communications are distinct from the purposes of public engagement, there are clear overlaps that could be better mobilised for social good.

PEPs typically work with many different collaborators and contacts inside and outside their HEIs. The pandemic caused many PEPs to reflect that their key relationships were with external partners, researchers and senior HE leaders. PEPs experienced very different levels of access to these three groups during the pandemic, significantly impacting on the effectiveness of their work. Some PEPs felt the burden of responsibility towards researchers and community groups, often without the authority to help.

Sitting at the interface between communities and colleagues, all of whom were being impacted by the pandemic, had an impact on the wellbeing of PEPs. Engagement, done well, requires empathy and understanding, but for many PEPs these emotional antennae, so critical to their effectiveness, were overwhelmed with what was happening.

The extent to which PEPs were recognised for the skills and experiences they had, and the value placed on these roles during the pandemic, had a profound impact. Whilst the majority of PEPs involved in the research were able to redesign their approach to their work, participants reflected that their skills were not always recognised or valued by their institution.

The data speaks of the importance of informal conversations and ad-hoc meetings to the ways that PEPs work. The pandemic closed down these informal spaces, and it could be difficult to find alternative opportunities for engagement with colleagues, with more formal internal meetings often not providing the space needed for these necessary conversations. The data suggests more needs to be done to formalise engagement into the official processes of the institution, rather than to rely on informal networking.

The pandemic has brought these four topics into stark relief and have confirmed the very significant evidence base that had already been established concerning the role of so called ‘third space’ professionals in university settings, and their relatively precarious status. The implications for PEP wellbeing are profound, and echo many of the worrying trends identified in recent work, by Wellcome and others, to surface the more challenging aspects of research culture. To date, the work on research culture has not fully acknowledged the very particular stresses placed upon professional staff. The findings of the PEP Insights research can hopefully be used to inform how future policies to improve research culture take fuller account of the challenges faced by staff in PEP roles, and other professional services staff in similar roles

The desire for a more inclusive higher education sector, and more inclusive engagement practices, was repeatedly referenced by PEPs involved in the research. There was a clear sense that this needed to go beyond treating inclusive engagement practices as ‘magic bullets’: and to encouraging HEIs and funders to develop more systemic, collaborative and sustained approaches to identifying and tackling the causes of exclusion.

Whilst inclusion was seen to be the top priority, there was also a desire to see practices of online engagement, learnt through the pandemic, be more effectively utilised as we emerged from lockdown. There was a concern that in returning to face-to-face practices, we would lose some of the people who had found these forms of engagement more effective for their needs. Whilst issues relating to digital exclusion were also important to tackle head on, PEPs were keen to see the practices of online engagement refined and improved, and integrated into broader programmes of work.

The pandemic also ‘stress tested’ public engagement infrastructure, and exposed significant challenges in how this is resourced. Whilst recognising that these things are seldom simple, there was a desire to see more effective funding mechanisms that enable the engaged research work that is known to work well. PEPs were also keen to see university leaders take more strategic oversight of the engagement footprint of their institution, and commit funding to support this in a sustained way.

The pandemic has highlighted the huge impact of inequality, and the potential of universities to play their part in addressing this. The research revealed a range of promising engagement practices (such as co-produced research, community led engagement, and community listening projects to inform strategic direction) which urgently need scaling up, alongside a range of systemic issues that need collective action.

Many institutions are still tentative about their commitment to public engagement and lack a clear strategy to guide their investment. There is an urgent need for institutions to clarify the scope and focus of their commitments in this area. This would be helped if there was clearer and more robust guidance from funders about their expectations

PEPs – in common with many other professional services staff – are often in marginal roles and their contribution is often not clearly valued or understood. In the context of renewed interest in research culture, it is vital that steps are taken to address the effects of this, and to maximise the impact and influence of PEPs and other ‘third space’ professionals.

There is no shortage of aspiration about the public role of universities, but resourcing often falls far short of need. The research has revealed how intensely that lack of resource impacts on the quality and scope of the work PEPs can realise, and the strain this places on people and projects. This gap between ambition and actual investment needs to be faced head on.

These four areas will require action from the various stakeholders in the HE engagement ecosystem:

• Funders can contribute by ensuring that their funding calls and assessment processes recognise the contributions of both professional services staff (including PEPs) and community organisations, and by ensuring that engagement activity is appropriate to the context, and is resourced appropriately. -
• Senior HE leaders can collaborate with staff and stakeholders to develop a secure strategic grip on the engagement work being undertaken, clarity about its role within the aims and objectives of the university or research organisation, and to ensure appropriate resources are invested in this area.
• PEPs have a key role to play in supporting effective practices, and proactively sharing their experiences and insights to build capacity across the sector.
• The NCCPE has a responsibility to collaborate with all of these groups to act on the findings of this research, to ensure that the lessons learned are applied to bring about lasting improvements in how the HE sector engages with the public.