Exploring the futures of higher education and reimagining research: Reflections after our last Community of Practice

1. The extractive nature of traditional research 

People mentioned that research is often initiated by academics, who extract data, ideas, and time from communities without adequate reciprocity or benefit flowing back to them.

This was felt especially the case from rural and island perspectives, leading to a sense of communities being "mined" for information rather than being partners or peers in research. There is a history of researchers coming into communities, gathering information, and then nothing concrete happening or being shared back with them, which has produced a lack of trust. For example, papers published in journals are not directly visible for communities and provide little benefit to the communities from which the knowledge was derived.

“a lot of rural communities, isolated and remote and island communities, the history of the extractive research, where the researchers come in, they spend their time, it all feels pretty good, and then nothing happens. There's no change, right? There's nothing you know, an article might get published in some obscure journal somewhere, but whoop, they do, right?” 

Participants see the traditional research process (how questions are developed, how funding is awarded, who benefits from the "products" of research) as heavily skewed towards academic institutions and funders, rather than being driven by community needs and priorities. 

They discussed the challenges of extractive research practices and the need for systemic change. Particularly around the under valuing of community knowledge, as the system does not adequately value or compensate the time, knowledge, and lived experience of community members involved in research. 

“A bit about payment for research, but that's a massive, structural thing that needs to change, because that's a DWP issue, but just drives me crazy that affluent people can earn money from research, and people who are not affluent cannot either be involved in the research.”

2. The disconnection between the universities and the society/the communities

A key question was raised about the purpose of research and education, and whether it truly serves the wider society and communities, rather than primarily benefiting academic careers or institutional prestige. People expressed that currently universities are not adequately serving communities needs, particularly regarding inclusive knowledge creation and active community engagement. 

For them, universities are seen as somewhat separated and isolated from everyday community realities and challenges. 

“because people's lives cut across the boundaries, but then the whole system is geared towards becoming an expert in Topic x, or working within a disciplinary structure. So everything about it, you know, the whole individualism of it versus the collective, nothing about that system currently seems to quite lend itself to these equitable models.”

1. People would like to see a higher education system that is highly adaptable and interconnected with the wider world.

Participants envisioned flexible and collaborative learning ecosystems that foster  collaboration and co-production between universities and communities, and encourage researchers to undertake research that directly connects with and addresses community and societal needs.

“Problem solving absolutely!”

“I'm remember Carol Weiss' work which talks about the importance of conceptual influence on knowledge and how that can shift thinking in bigger ways than direct application.”

“Researchers have to be incentivised and supported to do more responsive research - research that matters to people and communities.”

2. A systemic change that ensures fair and equitable payment for communities' time, knowledge, and participation in research.

This includes overcoming bureaucratic hurdles in university payment systems and advocating for policy changes to allow those on benefits to receive payment without penalty. It also includes a system where communities’ skills and experience are recognised and valued. 

“Recognising value in community engagement and co-production/development. Often communities are expected to provide their time and resources for free, while academics are well paid via grants and salaries.”

“Even where there is budget within a project to pay participants for their time individual institutions bureaucratic processes make payments difficult/impossible.”

“Can this work influence the Dept of Work and Pensions to allow people on benefits to receive payment for engagement or involvement in research?” 

“Recognising that the exploitation of communities in the research process is mirrored by the way institutions extract large amounts of unpaid labour from researchers  - especially ECRs.”

There was also an acknowledgement that payment within the current economic system preserves a model where people’s knowledge and activities have to be monetised, and that a genuine change would overhaul economic relationships and explore things like universal basic income, which would enable a very different model around work and collaboration and value.  

3. People would like to see reimagined roles for universities and researchers.

The traditional role of a "researcher" was reimagined by participants, with communities potentially leading their own research and where knowledge is shared and co-created. People also mentioned these new roles include/require a change in how we want to learn and teach in 2045. 

“To some extent, this will require a reset of traditional and long standing power relationships tied to academia, research funding, and the research agenda in general (e.g., who determines the approach, identifies the issues, develops the questions, etc.?).” 

“Being a researcher in 2045 is less about the qualifications and more about knowing how to do things in a way that benefits the community and the ethics. Communities would have bases with different levels of researchers, they could teach each other and the community. Sharing and exploring information would bring about actual change.”

“A system that served the needs of students too. This is so important and interconnected with questions of inclusive knowledge - how diverse 'researchers' and 'teachers' are within the system. This is the generational question - also applies to voluntary and cultural sectors too and middle class dominance.”

4. Participants emphasised the need for more equitable research in the future, the role of universities in supporting community-led research, and the need for governance structures that include community input.

People desire a complete change of the current research paradigm, where communities define the research agenda, questions, and priorities, and universities support them. This extends to community representation and input in university governance structures, ensuring structural inclusion and shared power (not just one person from the community in the board). 

“As has been seen in the rise of 'citizen journalism' there needs to be some accepted standards that provide guidance to anyone or any community to take on research approaches to address local challenges.  The goal is to ensure some level of acceptable norms to ethics, data collection, etc to enable accurate findings and potentially shareable or spreadable results.”

5. People would like to see equitable funding models in 2045.

Participants envisioned a fundamental change to funding models that currently disadvantage communities and perpetuate extractive practices. This involves shifting power dynamics in how research is funded and how research agendas are set, ensuring financial support directly reaches community partners.

“One approach may be to flip the research granting process whereby applications are generated through a co-development process with communities in a more bottom-up and relevant manner.”

“Need to think about financial support for communities more broadly, as researchers in their own right and in the vital role they play when acting as community partners to research - fairer funding models.”