Session Information
15 SES 07 A, Trust and Community Visions in Partnerships
Paper Session
Contribution
Universities can be seen as ‘anchor institutions’, i.e. in, and of, their place, making significant economic and social contribution, and likely to be sustainable over time (Goddard et al 2016). They are thus uniquely placed to respond with a long-term vision to local challenges. Newcastle University, in particular, sees itself as one of a growing number of ‘Civic Universities’ that prioritise an enhanced engagement with civic society, and one that aims to help address social challenges (Brink 2018). As part of our approach to ensuring that the University takes an active role in stimulating change in our local community, the authors have been drawing on their research to work with schools and other local organisations in developing a partnership approach to addressing socio-economic disadvantage.
Levels of child poverty in the West End of Newcastle in Northern England are higher than the national average. For example in the Newcastle Central area (the doorstep of Newcastle University) almost half of all children are living in poverty (48%). The life chances of the most disadvantaged children in the poorest areas are still worse than those of other children, even after decades of intervention. Evidence suggests that a multi-strand approach can achieve far more in terms of good outcomes for those children, than interventions trying to address single issues in those children’s lives (Dyson et al 2012).
Research conducted over the last two decades supports the development of a collaborative model of working – a Children’s Community - that can respond to educational disadvantage (Cummings et al 2011). Building on the concept of a ‘Zone’, and inspired by the Harlem Children’s Zone in the US, several Children’s Communities are currently being developed across the UK. One such Children’s Community, in the inner west area of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in Northern England, is being led by a partnership (Trust) of 8 primary schools, and the authors. They have worked with local government, health services, local charities and the cultural sector to form a steering group which is driving the partnership to develop a vision for all children in the area, a robust long-term strategy for tackling disadvantage, and an effective set of actions (Dyson et al 2012).
By working in partnership to develop a vision for all children in the area, providing support and opportunities for children and families ‘from cradle to career’ and across all aspects of their lives (e.g. education, health, employment), the West End Newcastle Children’s Community aims to eventually create a ‘tipping point’ at which the effects of poverty can be challenged effectively and outcomes for children are improved. Through consultation, an agreed set of aims were developed and guide the work they do on behalf of all children who live or go to school in the areas adjacent to the 8 schools of the trust and its surrounding schools. A wider set of some 70 local organisations are also engaged with the West End Children’s Community in different ways. One current priority for the partnership is to support the awareness of, and opportunities for play, which evidence shows plays a primary role in children’s development, but the primacy of which has been somewhat overlooked in recent years, partly as a result of austerity measures.
This paper describes the development of the partnership, and using the concepts developed by Anne Edwards of relational expertise (interpreting problems with others to reveal complexity), common knowledge (knowing what matters to others) and relational agency (i.e. using common knowledge to take action with others), will explore the successes and challenges of working in this way.
Method
Working more closely with local communities can lead to a blurring of the boundaries between teaching, research, engagement and impact (Goddard et al 2016). As researchers, we have been embedded and active in the development of the Children’s Community and have taken an approach to methodology that is situated, contextual and responsive to change. With an overarching ethos of co-production, the project utilises the principles of design based research, being pragmatic, theory-based, flexible, iterative and interactive, while integrated into the local systems (Anderson and Freebody 2014). The key research question that guided our study is: 1. What can we learn about multi-strand doubly holistic area-based initiatives to tackle the impact of socio-economic disadvantage by working in partnership to develop a Children’s Community? Several sub questions have enabled us to explore partnerships in more depth, and the relationships between the organisations and individuals involved: a) What can we understand about the role of the university in the partnership? b) How can the partnership build on existing networks and structures? c) How can the learning from a Children’s Community partnership inform the development of similar partnerships in other areas? The data collection has been embedded on several levels and incorporates qualitative evidence about the process of partnership, drawing on a portfolio of data such as minutes of meetings, observations, and interviews; and mixed-methods evaluation of specific initiatives undertaken by the partnership. Ongoing structured dialogue sessions and research diaries have enabled the researchers to reflect on their own role in the partnership in relation to others.
Expected Outcomes
The development of this partnership has taken a long time, and required an enhanced capacity for building relational power. Partners have had different ideas about what a Children’s Community should look like and do (i.e. the model) and there has been an inherent tension between needing to hold to a long term shared vision, with the need to be seen to be taking action. Garnering sufficient resources to enact the vision has been a key issue to tackle, despite the commitment shown by partners, and finding ways in which to involve parents and children in a spirit of co-production has been challenging. During the process, conflicts of interest and cultural mismatches have been exposed, and accountability and autonomy questioned. The day to day demands of maintaining the collaboration have been considerable, but developing relationships of trust and focusing on the wider vision have enabled the partnership to overcome some challenges, while others have proved more deep-seated and difficult to resolve.
References
Anderson, M. and Freebody, K. (2014) Partnerships in education research: Creating knowledge that matters. London: Bloomsbury. Brink, C. (2018) The soul of a university: Why excellence is not enough. Bristol: Bristol University Press. Cummings, C., Dyson, A. and Todd, L. (2011) Beyond the school gates: Can full service and extended schools overcome disadvantage? Oxon: Routledge. Dyson, A., Kerr, K. and Wellings, C. (2012) Developing Children’s Zones for England: What’s the evidence? London: Save the Children. Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L. and Vallance, P. (2016) The Civic University: The policy and leadership challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.