Space configurations for empowering university-community interactions

Some see universities as a possible source of solutions to enable a sustainable transition and overcome societal challenges. Findings from three multisite case studies of Desis Labs, FabLabs, and Science Shops shed light on how universities can help empower communities and solve societal challenges locally. Adopting a sociotechnical and flat relational perspective inspired by science and technology studies (STS), we focus on the material and spatial aspects of how these spaces are configured, thereby ensuring practical relevance for policy makers and practitioners. Applying an analytical generalization methodology, we condense the qualitative data into a typology of three ideal space-types (i.e. affording, mediating, and impact-oriented) that represent specific configurations of actors, researchers, students, communities, spaces, infrastructure, equipment, facilitators, etc. The ideal space-types empower communities in different ways, require different resources to create and operate, and translate differently into specific local contexts.

[1]  M. Bernardo,et al.  An international comparison of community engagement in higher education , 2012 .

[2]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concep , 2000, Graphics Interface.

[3]  Bente Halkier,et al.  Methodological Practicalities in Analytical Generalization , 2011 .

[4]  Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo,et al.  One size does not fit all! New perspectives on the university in the social knowledge economy , 2016 .

[5]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  New activities of universities in transfer and extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions , 2009 .

[6]  J. Wachelder.  Democratizing Science: Various Routes and Visions of Dutch Science Shops , 2003 .

[7]  Masaru Yarime,et al.  Co-creating sustainability: cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations , 2013 .

[8]  E. Casey.  From space to place in contemporary health care. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[9]  Ivar Bleiklie,et al.  Organization and Governance of Universities , 2007 .

[10]  James J. Gibson,et al.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition , 2014 .

[11]  Steven B. Kraines,et al.  Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability , 2014 .

[12]  William H. Glick,et al.  Typologies As a Unique Form Of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling , 1994 .

[13]  Paul Stephen Benneworth,et al.  Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation , 2010 .

[14]  S. B. Emery,et al.  Maximizing the Policy Impacts of Public Engagement , 2015 .

[15]  Scott Taylor,et al.  Time for Space: A Narrative Review of Research on Organizational Spaces , 2007 .

[16]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Universities and external engagement activities: Particular profiles for particular universities? , 2016 .

[17]  Edwin Sayes.  Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? , 2014, Social studies of science.

[18]  Henri Lefebvre.  The production of space , 1992 .

[19]  Charlotte Delmar,et al.  ”Generalizability” as Recognition: Reflections on a Foundational Problem in Qualitative Research , 1970 .

[20]  J. Bryson,et al.  Knowledge, Space, Economy , 2000 .

[21]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[22]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[23]  Bostjan Antoncic,et al.  Social capital of academics and their engagement in technology and knowledge transfer , 2016 .

[24]  John Law,et al.  Objects and Spaces , 2002 .

[25]  Christian Clausen,et al.  Staging socio-technical spaces: translating across boundaries in design , 2007 .

[26]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[27]  M. Kearnes,et al.  Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market , 2013 .

[28]  Cindy Kohtala,et al.  Making “Making” Critical: How Sustainability is Constituted in Fab Lab Ideology , 2017 .

[29]  Christian Clausen,et al.  From the Social Shaping of Technology to the Staging of Temporary Spaces of Innovation: A Case of Participatory Innovation , 2015 .

[30]  J. Mason.  Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way , 2006 .

[31]  Rómulo Pinheiro,et al.  External engagement and the academic heartland: The case of a regionally-embedded university , 2016 .

[32]  Jürgen Enders,et al.  Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda , 2008 .

[33]  Norbert Steinhaus,et al.  Breaking Out of the Local: International dimensions of science shops , 2008 .

[34]  Matt Ratto,et al.  A Practice-Based Model of Access for Science: Linux Kernel Development and Shared Digital Resources , 2007 .

[35]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concep , 2000, Graphics Interface.

[36]  Maria Chiara Di Guardo,et al.  The third mission of universities: An investigation of the espoused values , 2015 .

[37]  P. Benneworth,et al.  Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge , 2016 .

[38]  Jorge Cunha,et al.  Universities' contributions to social innovation: reflections in theory & practice , 2015 .

[39]  Colin Elman.  Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies of International Politics , 2005, International Organization.

[40]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Grassroots Innovation Movements , 2016 .

[41]  Martyn Hammersley,et al.  Ethnography : Principles in Practice , 1983 .

[42]  J. Law.  After Ant: Complexity, Naming and Topology , 1999 .

[43]  M. Meyer,et al.  Situating knowledge intermediation: Insights from science shops and knowledge brokers , 2013 .

[44]  Robert Adams,et al.  Empowerment, Participation and Social Work , 2008 .

[45]  Colin Elman,et al.  Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods , 2006 .