Report 99/25

Partners and providers

The role of HEIs in the provision of cultural and sports facilities to the wider public

Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Warwick

Oliver Bennett, Project Director
Phyllida Shaw, Lead Researcher
Keith Allen, Researcher

April 1999

Summary, introduction and findings (read online)

Download

[ Adobe PDF 482K ]

Contents

1. Summary

1.1. Introduction, brief and methodology

1.2. Findings

1.3. Conclusions

2. Introduction

2.1. The origins of the study

2.2. The brief

2.3. The methodology

2.4. The steering group

3. Findings

3.1. What is cultural provision in the higher education sector for?

3.2. The diversity of HEIs

3.3. Monitoring public use

3.4. Ownership and management

3.5. Sources of income

3.6. The impact of the National Lottery

3.7. Relationships between HEIs’ cultural provision and the wider community

4. Case studies

4.1. The active archive

4.2. Access to libraries in Sunderland

4.3. An experiment in the management of museums

4.4. Community benefit from Lottery-funded facilities

4.5. The roles of HEI arts venues

4.6. HEI sports facilities and community use

4.7. The festival

5. Appendices

5.1. The brief

5.2. The methodology

5.3. HEIs participating in the surveys

5.4 Individual contributors

5.5 Documentation

1. Summary

1.1 Introduction, brief and methodology

1.1.1. This report was commissioned, in April 1998, by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI). The research was undertaken by a team from the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick.

1.1.2. The brief (Appendix 5.1.) was to examine the nature and extent of relationships between the cultural facilities and services of higher education institutions (HEIs) and the wider community of providers and consumers of cultural facilities and services. The term ‘cultural’ was defined to include the arts, museums, sport, tourism, libraries and archives. The ‘wider community’ was to include any individual or organisation outside the higher education sector. It could, for example, mean individual members of the public, a local authority, commercial sports club or quango.

1.1.3. In the context of this report, the term cultural provision is a large umbrella covering the sub-sectors of sport, libraries, archives, the arts, museums, tourism and many different types of activity and provision within each of those sub sectors. In surveying the nature and extent of the relationships that exist between HEIs’ cultural provision and the wider community, the different elements of that provision need to be considered separately.

1.1.4. The methodology (Appendix 5.2.) comprised desk research, interviews and a postal survey of 137 HEIs: the 135 funded by the HEFCE and the two funded by the DENI. Four different questionnaires sought information about the arts and museums, libraries and archives, sport and tourism. The purpose of the survey was to provide an outline of the type and scale of HEIs’ cultural facilities and services, and of their relationship to the wider community. This would provide a context in which HEIs’ reasons for developing such relationships, and the financial and management implications of doing so, could be examined.

1.2. Findings

1.2.1. The quality of cultural facilities and services provided by HEIs in England and Northern Ireland varies greatly, according to the history, geographical location, priorities and wealth of the institution.

1.2.2. All HEIs’ cultural facilities have one or more of the following aims:

• to support teaching and research

• to enhance the quality of life of students and staff

• to raise the academic profile of the institution

• to enhance the quality of life of the wider community

• to raise the local, regional or national profile of the institution

• to earn income for the institution

1.2.3. The quality of data collected by HEIs on the public use of their cultural facilities is very uneven. The HEIs most likely to monitor use are those with facilities in receipt of funding intended to provide a public service, or those which are planning to apply for such funding. The paucity of comparable data makes it impossible to produce a reliable estimate of the volume of public use of the cultural facilities of the higher education sector as a whole.

The range of relationships

1.2.4. The volume, range and quality of the links between HEI facilities and the wider community are determined largely by what the HEI has to offer, in terms of facilities and staff. The facilities may be of interest to the community because they are the best in the area, or because they fill a gap in provision (for example the only floodlit, all-weather football pitch in town). The commitment of HEI staff to creating and maintaining links with individuals and organisations outside the HEI is essential, especially where the facilities are not of the highest standards.

1.2.5. Many HEIs claim to be well connected at local, regional, national and international level. Links between their cultural facilities and the wider community of providers and consumers range from the organisation of a one-day athletics event for local schools to a multi-million pound deal with local government, sports governing bodies and a quango to build a new, mixed-use sports facility. The managers of HEIs’ cultural facilities maintain that even the smallest intervention can strengthen the institution’s relationship with its different communities of interest. The weekly letting of a room to a writers’ group may create a favourable impression with local residents, local politicians, schools and so on, while a high quality, ten-day festival of contemporary music may raise the status of the HEI within the cultural sector nationally and internationally.

1.2.6. More than half of the HEI library and information services that responded to the survey have links with their local authority library services. Of the arts and museum facilities responding, 78 per cent have links with local authorities, and most HEIs with public arts facilities have some contact with their Regional Arts Board (in England) or Arts Council (in Northern Ireland). Similarly, those HEI sports departments competing and/or working with other providers are most likely to have regular contact with the national sports governing bodies, local authority sports development departments and the Sports Council. HEI staff maintain that in order to improve the quality of cultural provision in the HE sector, it is essential to know about to developments in other parts of the sector.

1.2.7. As student numbers increase, other cultural providers report that the use of their facilities by students is increasing. This is particularly so for local authority library services, but also for sports facilities and museums with specialist collections (such as the Theatre Museum in London). Where no charge is levied, this raises an important point about the extent to which publicly funded cultural facilities should be expected to cater to the demands of the HE sector, without recompense, when the HEIs are funded to provide their students, staff and researchers with the basic facilities they need and are not funded to serve the general public.

Sources of funding

1.2.8. Most HEI cultural facilities are owned and managed by the institution, but their funding comes from several sources. In England, the main source of income for arts and museums facilities and for libraries and archives is the institution, including its HEFCE funding. Significant contributions are also made by national and regional arts and museums funding bodies, local authorities, charitable trusts and foundations. For HEI sports facilities, earnings from public hire and admissions are as important as the financial support of the institution. HEI facilities for business and leisure tourists (accommodation and catering for conferences and holidays) are expected to be financially self-sufficient. The higher education funding bodies do not pay for student or conference accommodation.

1.2.9. The National Lottery (in England and Northern Ireland), which makes awards to the arts, museums, archives, libraries and sport, has been an important source of capital funding for HEIs. Between April 1995 (when the first grants were made) and August 1998, over £100 million was awarded to HEIs for arts, museums and sports facilities and for the purchase of archives and works of art. With the legislation amended to allow more of the proceeds of the Lottery to be spent on non-capital projects and running costs, it may also become an additional source of project and revenue funding for the higher education sector. The Lottery distributors have varied in the extent to which they have allowed grants to go to non-capital projects.

In Northern Ireland, for example, the Arts Council has been running a fund to support new work for some time and the Sports Council has offered funds for coaching and for hosting international events. The requirement that all bids for Lottery funding must demonstrate some community benefit has encouraged the managers of HEIs’ cultural facilities to think more thoroughly about how they serve, or might serve, the public.

1.2.10. The National Lottery, the European Commission and national and regional funds and schemes for urban regeneration, for example, or, in Ireland, for peace and reconciliation projects) often require an element of partnership funding. The study has found HEIs working with partners in the public, private and voluntary sector to raise funds for new cultural facilities with shared HEI and public use. This collaborative approach both provides facilities of a higher standard than the individual partners could have built, and raises the HEI’s profile as an important civic player.

Examples of relationships

1.2.11. HEIs are hiring sports facilities to individuals, clubs and schools, and operating schemes to facilitate public use of their sports facilities, both during term and the vacations (for example summer schools for children and coaching sessions).

1.2.12. HEIs are playing a key role in sports development at local level. They are the largest suppliers of research and advice on the subject, and are working closely with local authorities on putting the theory into practice.

1.2.13. The HEIs with the best facilities are providing training facilities for élite athletes and jointly submitting bids for national and international sports events. This marks a significant shift in the role that HEIs are playing in mainstream sports provision in the UK. (The Sports Council has a Lottery-funded scheme to support organisations that are bidding for, or staging, one-off international events.)

1.2.14. HEIs are providing publicly accessible, professionally managed arts and museums facilities in many areas and hundreds of facilities with limited public access. In some parts of England and Northern Ireland, HEIs are key local, and even regional, providers of arts venues and museums.

1.2.15. HEIs have managed museums and galleries for public benefit, for many years. Some of these are nationally and internationally known and attract the academic community, local residents and tourists. As newer HEIs develop museum collections, the number of publicly accessible museums is expected to grow.

1.2.16. HEIs are playing an important role in supporting living artists of all disciplines, by employing them as artists in residence and by buying and promoting their work. The art schools and conservatoires employ hundreds of artists and musicians as part-time or freelance teachers. Some HEIs also provide a base for arts organisations and fund posts in partnership with the arts and museums funding system and with arts organisations and museums themselves.

1.2.17. Collaboration between HE and non-HE libraries is a long established practice, considered by all parties to be essential to providing a better library service. There are several established library networks, based on a geographic area or academic interest, which share their holdings and collaborate on research and training initiatives. The debate about cross-sectoral use of libraries was presented in detail in a paper by John Sumsion.1

1.2.18. Few HE libraries offer easy access to readers from outside the HE sector, but most operate schemes which allow limited access to certain categories of reader, such as those from the further education and adult education sectors and from commercial and special interest libraries. Most HEI librarians will also allow occasional individual access to people who are not registered with an HEI, but who have a particular inquiry.

1.2.19. Some librarians cite digitisation and remote access to libraries and archives as the key to increased public access to HEI holdings. Others disagree, pointing to the time and money required to make even a small proportion of material available. This study has identified several HEI museums and archives that are making use of new technologies to inform the public about their collections.

1.2.20. The conference, accommodation and catering business is an important source of income to HEIs. A report by Deloitte & Touche and the Conference of University Business Officers notes that in 1996-97 public sources provided just 60 per cent of total funding for the higher education sector, leaving 40 per cent to be earned from other sources. Together, accommodation and catering has become the second most important source of income for HEIs, ahead of research income and fees from foreign students.2 More institutions are investing in new facilities and marketing them more vigorously. Some offer tourist attractions (such as the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge); some provide conference facilities and holiday accommodation.

1.2.21. HEIs are seeing the benefits of participating in initiatives that promote their town, city or region. They are the co-authors of bids for funding for regeneration projects, events and major facilities, and are featuring themselves as an attraction in local and regional tourist literature with slogans such as ‘Welcome to Manchester - the learning city’.

1.3. Conclusions

1.3.1. This study has found HEIs to be acutely aware of the academically and financially competitive environment in which they operate. Many of the institutions consulted argue that the relationships they sustain outside the HE sector help to sharpen their competitive edge. They provide new contacts and information and new sources of funding, and heighten the public profile and understanding of the institution. According to a large number of contributors to this research, public access to HEIs’ cultural facilities can act as a gateway to higher education for those who might not otherwise have considered further study.

1.3.2. Through the provision of facilities and services, HEIs in England and Northern Ireland have become key players in the cultural sector as a whole and in the arts, museums and sports in particular. In some parts of the UK, the HEI’s museum, gallery, concert hall, theatre, arts centre, swimming pool, sports hall or running track is not only the best facility, but sometimes the only facility available.

1.3.3. For some HEIs the professional management of cultural facilities is the norm. However, many institutions are still not investing in the staffing skills required to operate their cultural provision to the standards now expected by the public. According to contributors to this study, there are still too many HEIs where concepts as basic as customer care are alien. HEIs will only attract and retain public use of their cultural facilities if they offer the highest standards of public service in addition to good facilities. Institutions that have invested in the management, as well as the fabric, of their cultural facilities state that they are repaid in volume of use, profile, customer satisfaction and, in some cases, higher levels of earned income.

1.3.4. Only a small number of HEIs rigorously record the volume, frequency and make-up of public use of their cultural facilities. The exceptions are those in receipt of public funding, where the funders require this type of information as a condition of grant. While HEIs might see such data gathering as yet another diversion of resources, those aiming to develop their role as a cultural provider will find that the collection of reliable data on public use, and other aspects of their operation, will be essential in presenting their case to funders.

1.3.5. There are cultural facilities within HEIs which are virtually unknown to the wider community. This is either because the HEI has taken the view that the facilities are not suitable for public use (on account of the demands of student and staff use, or of licensing and security considerations), or because it is uncertain about how to develop that public use, for the benefit of the public and the institution. The research suggests that some HEIs may be underestimating the potential of their facilities to play a more active role in the cultural life of the region.

1.3.6. Whatever the level of corporate commitment to external relationships, this research found that the outcome of those relationships depends as much upon individual members of staff as upon the quality of facilities or services. It identified many instances where individual members of staff have built relationships with partners, either by taking the initiative or by responding to opportunities as they have arisen. The staff who say they have a certain amount of autonomy, and are able to respond swiftly to external requests, appear to be most effective.

1.3.7. Some HEI staff have suggested that the prevailing climate of competition between HEIs may be influencing attitudes to partnership. They argue that because HEIs are encouraged to think competitively in terms of attracting students and staff, scoring high points in teaching and research assessment exercises, and securing contracts to host events, there is a risk that HEI staff may view the wider community of providers as competitors rather than collaborators.

1.3.8. The government has placed renewed emphasis on the National Lottery as ‘the people’s money’. It therefore seems likely that HEIs in receipt of Lottery grants will need to be more certain about what they plan to provide in terms of community benefit and will need to demonstrate that they know how to plan for, deliver and evaluate that benefit.

1.3.9. Joint bids for funding (for example, to the European Community, the Single Regeneration Budget and the Lottery) are enabling HEIs to develop cultural facilities of a scale and quality that most would not be able to provide alone.

1.3.10. Under financial pressure, some HEIs are opting not to maintain or invest in those cultural facilities which they see as serving no direct academic purpose. During the course of this study, we have met vice-chancellors and heads of department who argue forcefully that such facilities are an essential part of the institution, whether or not they support taught courses or research, but this is not a unanimous view. This study was unable to unearth any research on the contribution of cultural facilities deemed to be recreational (that is, sports, arts and museums) to the quality of life of an institution. There is a risk that in the interests of short-term financial gain, some HEIs will allow their cultural facilities to run down. While it is clearly the business of each institution to decide what to do with its facilities, the loss of a cultural facility may be a loss not only to the institution but to the wider community.

1.3.11. The managerial and financial implications of increasing public access to HEI facilities remain a concern for some HEIs. These include staffing costs, marketing, wear and tear on facilities, licensing and insurance. Some HEIs fear that, by opening up their facilities, the service to staff and students will decline. HEIs convinced of the importance of providing a public service have found ways to limit public use, for example through subscription and membership schemes, timed sessions, pricing and booking systems.

1.3.12. The experience of HEIs in England and Northern Ireland suggests that HEIs seeking relationships with other cultural providers, and with the consumers of cultural services, need to be ready to engage with those providers and consumers at different levels. Above all they need to avoid assuming a senior role where it is not appropriate. The wider community has many choices: the higher education sector is just one of them.

2. Introduction

2.1. The origins of the study

2.1.1. There is nothing new in the idea of the higher education (HE) sector having links with the wider community. For many HEIs, the relationships they maintain with organisations and individuals outside the HE sector are essential to the fulfilment of their educational, social and economic aims. The more institutions scrutinise their local and regional relevance, the more important their relationships with other providers and consumers become.

2.1.2. This report examines the nature and extent of relationships that exist between HEIs’ cultural facilities and services and the wider community of providers and consumers. It also considers the organisational implications for HEIs of developing such links.

2.1.3. HEIs are an integral part of the cultural sector in England and Northern Ireland, but a part which is to some extent fenced off to pursue its primary purposes of teaching and research. This study is concerned with the gates in that fence, through which an increasingly heavy flow of cultural traffic is passing, in both directions.

2.1.4. In November 1996, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) commissioned the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick to undertake a scoping study of links between the cultural facilities and services of the HE sector in England and the wider community. Cultural facilities and services were defined to include the arts, museums, heritage, sport, libraries and tourism. The definition of the wider community included individuals and organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

2.1.5. In 1992, the Government had created, for the first time, a ministry with lead responsibility for the arts, heritage, museums, film, broadcasting, sport and tourism: the Department of National Heritage (DNH). The areas cited in the brief for the scoping study were part of the DNH remit. The HE sector was the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), but the DNH clearly had a direct interest in the cultural provision of HEIs. Here, it seemed, was a sector within a sector.

2.1.6. When the Labour Government came into office in May 1997, the DNH was replaced by a ministry with a similar portfolio, but a different name - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). This was the first use of the word ‘culture’ in the title of a British government department. The interests of the DCMS and the DfEE overlap in several places:

• the DCMS’s responsibility for the National Lottery and the funding opportunities it presents for the education sector at all levels;

• the state of instrumental teaching in schools and the creation of the Youth Music Trust;

• financial support for dance and drama students.

2.1.7. The Government’s pronounced commitment to supporting opportunities for lifelong learning and access to cultural provision of all kinds makes this a particularly timely study.

2.1.8. In July 1998, the Secretary of State for Culture announced the findings of the DCMS departmental spending review and published a consultation document. That document, the recommendations of which are now being implemented, argued for a strengthening of cultural provision at regional level, and the development of regional cultural consortia, incorporating the arts, museums, libraries, sport and tourism. The review observed that the existing regional bodies (including Regional Arts Boards, regional offices of the Sports Council, the Regional Tourist Boards and the Area Museums Councils) ‘already share the cultural objectives of promoting access, pursuing excellence and innovation, nurturing educational opportunity and fostering the creative industries. Increasingly they also share a desire to maximise the contribution of the sector to broader social objectives, such as tackling social exclusion, cutting crime and improving health. Yet as small and fragmented bodies they are often constrained from turning these shared objectives into joint practical action.’3

2.1.9. Many HEIs define themselves as regional bodies, in their capacity as employers, as partners in regeneration initiatives, as creators of educational opportunities for the residents of their region and as providers of cultural facilities and services. As such, they might reasonably expect to participate in the proposed regional cultural consortia, yet the review barely mentions the HE sector, except to cite the number of libraries and museums it provides. There is no discussion of HEIs’ actual or potential strategic role in cultural provision. This omission underlines the extent to which the HE sector is overlooked as a serious player in the public cultural sector.

2.1.10. ‘The key objective,’ states the DCMS review, ‘is to provide a coherent and effective voice for the Department’s cultural and economic sectors, including the unsubsidised, creative industries, which properly reflects the strength of regional identity and their role in reinforcing and focusing regional pride.’ The findings of this research are that an increasing number of HEIs see themselves as important contributors to that ‘coherent and effective voice’.4

2.2. The brief

2.2.1. In April 1998, the University of Warwick’s Centre for Cultural Policy Studies was awarded the contract to undertake this research. The study was funded by the HEFCE and the Department for Education Northern Ireland (DENI). The brief, which is attached in full at Appendix 5.1, was to examine the nature and extent of links between the cultural facilities and services of the higher education sector and the wider community in England and Northern Ireland. The areas to be investigated were the arts, museums, sport, tourism, libraries and archives.

2.2.2. Heritage, as distinct from museums, museum collections and archives, was thought by the commissioners to be a relatively minor concern of HEIs and was excluded. Broadcasting, which is an important component of the DCMS portfolio and one in which increasing numbers of HEIs are involved, was judged by the commissioners to be too large a subject to add to an already wide-ranging brief.

2.2.3. The areas of cultural activity under review are not all self-explanatory: the arts, museums and tourism need some elucidation. The arts are defined by this study to include those activities for which the Arts Councils of England and Northern Ireland, the Regional Arts Boards in England, the Crafts Council, and the British Film Institute are responsible. They include the performing arts (theatre, music, opera, dance, mime, puppetry and so on); the visual arts (including painting, sculpture and photography); crafts (including ceramics, textiles, furniture, jewellery); and the literary and media arts (including film, video and digital arts and multi media, but not broadcasting).

2.2.4. Galleries with permanent collections (which may or may not receive touring exhibitions) are likely to be defined by the funding system as museums, but not all of them are registered as museums with the Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC). The Tate Gallery, which has a permanent collection, is a registered museum. Funded galleries with no permanent collection are more likely to receive support from the arts funding system than from the museums funding system. It is also possible for a gallery to be registered with the MGC but to receive part of its funding from an Arts Council or Regional Arts Board. In its discussion of galleries, this report refers to art galleries, whether or not they have permanent collections or show only touring exhibitions and takes no account of whether they are funded by the arts funding system, the museums funding system or neither.

2.2.5. Tourism has a business element and a recreational element. HEIs contribute to the first by providing conference facilities, and to the second by providing holiday accommodation and by enhancing the environment for tourists. HEIs may also provide catering services to both categories of tourist. Although HEI conference facilities are used to support events directly related to the institution’s academic interests, the motivation of HEIs’ tourism provision (business and recreational) is more commercial than cultural. HEI staff with responsibility for this type of provision are much more likely to see themselves as part of trading, business or student services than as a part of cultural provision. The steering group for this study therefore decided to limit the brief to recreational tourism provision, and the role played by HEIs in attracting tourists to the area and providing services when they arrive.

2.2.6. The terms of reference of this research gave a small number of contributors cause for concern, and it is important to record their misgivings here:

• Some argued that HEIs are an integral part of the cultural sector and should not be singled out from other providers of cultural facilities and services. To do so, they say, is to set up a false division, which then has to be overcome.

• Some suggested that students and staff are members of ‘the wider community’ to which the brief refers, and their use of HEI facilities should be defined as ‘public use’.

• A small number of librarians suggested that information services, which are taking up an increasingly large part of libraries’ resources, should not be described as ‘cultural’ services or facilities.

2.3. The methodology

2.3.1. The methodology (Appendix 5.2.) comprised a postal survey of the 135 higher education institutions funded by the HEFCE in England and the two universities funded by DENI in Northern Ireland, interviews and desk research.

The survey

2.3.2. The purpose of the survey was to collect information about the range of cultural provision with some element of public access (for individuals and/or groups) and to establish the nature and extent of that access. The survey was not intended to be a comprehensive mapping of cultural facilities or services. Its purpose was rather to provide a context in which HEIs’ reasons for developing links, and the financial and management implications of doing so, could be examined.

2.3.3. Four questionnaires were distributed to collect information from HEIs: one for libraries and archives, one for sport, one for the arts and museums and one for tourism. Mailing lists were provided by the HEFCE (librarians), the British Universities and Colleges Physical Education Association, BUCPEA (sport), the Council of University Business Officers, CUBO (tourism), and by the Performing Arts Yearbook and Museums Yearbook (arts and museums). These lists were supplemented by telephone calls to the HEIs to establish the name of the most appropriate recipient of a questionnaire, where none appeared in the lists.

2.3.4. Not all institutions have facilities in each of the categories under review, so where there was no obvious recipient no questionnaire was sent. The libraries questionnaire was sent to 137 institutions; the sports questionnaire went to 131 institutions; the tourism questionnaire to 121; and arts and museums questionnaires to 118 institutions.

2.3.5. The target response rate was 40 per cent in each category. This sample was deemed to be large enough to give a reliable and sufficiently diverse picture of cultural provision in the higher education sector. The survey returns included most of those HEIs known for their provision in each sector. The number of HEIs returning questionnaires in each category was as follows:

2.3.6. Most HEIs used one form to report on all facilities in a particular category. The exception was the arts and museums, for which some completed separate forms for each facility. (The University of Southampton, for example, returned separate questionnaires for the John Hansard Gallery, the Turner Sims Concert Hall and the Nuffield Theatre.) The response rates shown above count each HEI once only.

2.3.7. The arts and museums responses included information on at least 150 separate arts facilities and museums facilities in 48 HEIs. The different types of facility cited in the questionnaires are listed in Table 1 below, in descending order of frequency.

Table 1 The range of HEI arts provision available for public use

Exhibition space
Concert hall
Theatre
Museum
TV or radio production space
Recording studio
Darkrooms
Outdoor space (such as a sculpture trail)
Artists’ studio
Arts centre
Video edit suite
TV or radio broadcasting facilities
Digital arts facilities
Cinema

Source: Warwick/HEFCE survey, June 1998
Sample: 48 HEIs in England and Northern Ireland

2.3.8. The range of HEI sports provision with some public use is shown in Table 2. As in Table 1, the most frequently cited facility is listed first.

Table 2 The range of HEI sports provision available for public use

Sports fields
Sports halls (including courts/pitches)
Fitness centre/fitness room/health suite
Squash courts
Tennis/netball courts
Swimming pool
Gymnasium/gymnastics centre
Athletics centre/facilities
Weights rooms
Dance studio
Climbing wall
Snooker/pool
Golf course
Sauna/solarium
Rifle range
Watersports
Table tennis
Environment chamber

Source: Warwick/HEFCE survey, June 1998
Sample: 53 HEIs in England and Northern Ireland

2.3.9. Research commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) highlights the uneven provision of HEI sports facilities. It reports that fewer than half of all HEIs have sports halls, only 40 per cent have a fitness centre, and 25 per cent have a swimming pool.5

2.3.10. The libraries questionnaire requested information on facilities with some public use. Some respondents simply put ‘library’ while others gave more detail, such as lending library, reference library, IT suite and so on. For this reason, Table 3 lists the facilities cited by respondents, without placing them in any order.

Table 3 The range of HEI library provision available for public use

Archive
Binding service
CD-ROMS
European Documentation Centre
Exhibition space
Lending library
Music library
On-line services
Photocopying facilities
Press cuttings
Publications and postcard sales
Reference library
Video library

Source: Warwick/HEFCE survey, June 1998
Sample: 77 HEIs in England and Northern Ireland

2.3.11. The responses to the tourism questionnaire identified a varied range of HEI tourism provision, from purpose-built conference centres to rooms for hire. Table 4 shows the types of facility available for public use. It is important to recognise the potential difference in size and services between facilities with the same name. A recently designed HEI conference suite will have built-in recording, broadcasting and projection facilities. Older conference suites are essentially meeting rooms, into which the overhead projector and public address equipment have to be imported. Catering could mean self-service or waiters at tables; residential accommodation could mean en-suite bedrooms or a walk down the corridor to the bathroom. The facilities listed in Table 4 are those cited by respondents, but are not in any order.

Table 4 The range of HEI tourism provision available for public use

Auditoria/lecture theatres
Bedroom accommodation
Catering/restaurants/bars
Exhibition centre/halls
Holiday accommodation
Learning resource centre
Non-residential conference centre
Residential conference centre
Syndicate rooms
Training centre
Video conferencing

Source: Warwick/HEFCE survey, June 1998
Sample: 48 HEIs in England and Northern Ireland

The interviews

2.3.12. Interviews were conducted with 15 vice-chancellors and principals, 43 members of HEI staff and 14 representatives of bodies working in partnership with the higher education sector. The latter included representatives of the arts, museums, film and sports funding bodies, local authorities, professional associations, voluntary groups, independent researchers and consultants. As well as suggesting leads to possible case studies, the interviewees provided valuable contextual material and insights into why HEIs might or might not wish to develop links with the wider community. A list of interviewees is attached at Appendix 5.4.

The desk research

2.3.13. The work of other researchers, writers, professional associations and government inquiries has informed the focus of this report. Throughout the 1990s, research has been commissioned, reports published and meetings held by the constituent parts of the cultural sector, notably in libraries and sport, to track and debate the nature of partnerships in and with the higher education sector and to develop them to the advantage of all parties.

2.3.14. Useful, detailed work has been done on the community use of HEI sports provision,6 on cross-sectoral use of libraries,7,8 and on the impact on library and information services of developments in information and communications technologies.9 HEI museum collections are the subject of a continuing research programme supported by the Museums and Galleries Commission, HEFCE and the regional arts and museums funding systems;10 the University of Manchester has recently received a report, for internal use, on the future of its departmental collections, commissioned with funding from the HEFCE, the Museums Association and the North West Museums Service. A study of HEI museum collections in the south of England is in progress. Towards the end of the research period, three other useful reports were published: one on access to higher education,11 one on promoting vocational lifelong learning in the HE sector12 and a third on the performance of residences, conferences and catering in universities.13

2.3.15. These are studies which have carefully picked through the bones of their particular sectors and provided a wealth of information and prognosis. This research did not aim to replicate this detailed work, but rather to identify issues pertinent to the higher education sector’s cultural provision as a whole, and to put flesh on the bones, in the form of contemporary illustrations of partnerships between the higher education sector and the wider community. A list of the principal reports on which we have drawn is attached at Appendix 5.5.

The case studies

2.3.16. On the basis of the survey, interviews and desk research, a matrix of factors which might be reflected in the case studies was drawn up (see overleaf). This included factors such as the age, size and location of HEIs, the nature of their cultural provision, their partners, and the sources of funding for particular links. Using the matrix and taking into account the quality of information provided by the HEIs, a list of potential case studies was produced for discussion with the steering group.

2.3.17. The case studies illustrate the different types of link between HEIs’ cultural provision and the wider public. They look at why some HEIs are investing more resources in these links, at how initiatives are managed and funded, and at the benefits to the higher education sector and its partners. Many of the factors identified in the matrix feature in the case studies.

The case study matrix

Policy developments

2.3.18. In addition to published and current research, this report takes account of a number of government initiatives or plans which have a bearing on the cultural sector within higher education. These include the DCMS’s departmental spending review, with its reference to access, partnership, the pursuit of excellence, the nurturing of educational opportunity, the creation of regional consortia encompassing sports, arts, museums, libraries and tourism; the plans for regional government; and the creation of education access zones, the National Grid for Learning and the campaign for lifelong learning.

2.3.19. In Northern Ireland, this study has taken place against a background of the peace talks and constitutional change, which is thought likely to increase the potential for partnerships between the higher education sector and the wider community within and outside Northern Ireland.

2.4. The steering group

The steering group for this study comprised:

3. Findings

3.1. What is cultural provision in the higher education sector for?

3.1.1. Higher education institutions are both public places and private places; they are places of exposure and places of retreat; they provide a gate into the wider world and a refuge from it. This report focuses on the gate between HEIs’ cultural facilities and services and the wider community, and examines the experience of HEIs in making and sustaining relationships with the providers and consumers of cultural provision.

3.1.2. Any discussion of the desirability and feasibility of partnerships between HEIs’ cultural facilities and services and the wider community must start with an understanding of the role of cultural provision in HEIs. There is no single answer. The 122 (of 137) HEIs in England and Northern Ireland which contributed to this study describe a wide range of facilities of different standards and purposes including:

• supporting teaching and research

• enhancing the quality of life of students and staff

• raising the academic profile of the institution

• enhancing the quality of life of the wider community

• raising the local, regional or national profile of the institution

• earning income for the institution

3.1.3. The reasons why HEIs invest in cultural provision vary from institution to institution and from facility to facility. For some, the aim is to ensure that students, teachers and researchers whose academic work requires the appropriate facilities are well served (for example, the music department needs a good recital hall). For others, arts and sports facilities are essential contributors to the life of the institution, whether or not the institution makes direct use of them for teaching or research purposes. Students are active participants in sport, and good facilities are thought by an increasing number of HEIs to be a factor in attracting applicants.

3.1.4. A number of HEIs have excellent museums and galleries, which support scholarly activity and provide a public service. There are also small HEI museums and galleries with little academic function, but which are supported because they add to the quality of life of the institution and provide a service for and a link with the wider community (for example, the Peter Scott Gallery at Lancaster University).

3.1.5. A few HEIs have arts facilities which were designed to serve both the institution and the wider public. Some of the theatres, arts centres and galleries of the 1960s campus universities fall into this category. For some HEIs, public access to their cultural facilities is a requirement of a funder, a benefactor or the trustees of a building or collection donated to the institution. At the University of Newcastle, for example, the Museum of Antiquities cares for the collection of the Society of Antiquaries, which requires free public access to the collection. In such cases, the HEI has a clearly understood responsibility to serve the public. The issue is how that public service element is financed.

3.1.6. HEI libraries are less accessible to the wider community than other cultural facilities, mainly for reasons of demand on materials, space, security and cost. Nevertheless the study has found several instances of libraries which, as they have expanded, have done so with improved public access in mind. Opening hours are lengthening; catalogues are being put on line; and the HE sector’s involvement in lifelong learning is introducing a wider range of users to its library and information services. Meanwhile, experiments in digitising material are testing the feasibility of providing remote access to archives, without reducing the quality of service to staff, students and researchers.

3.1.7. The HE sector has long recognised the income-earning potential of conference rooms, catering and accommodation for hire; the number of purpose-built conference facilities in HEIs continues to grow. Arts, museums and sports facilities are regularly promoted by the conference and accommodation offices as part of the attraction of their institution. Good conference facilities benefit the academic staff, enabling them to host conferences in their own institution, but those HEIs that are investing in conference facilities, with or without accommodation, are doing so mainly to earn income. A recent report by Deloitte & Touche and the Conference of University Business Officers (CUBO) notes that in 1996-97 the HE sector received 60 per cent of its funding from public sources, leaving 40 per cent to be earned from other sources. Together, accommodation and catering has become the second most important source of income for HEIs, ahead of research income and fees from foreign students.14

3.1.8. The provision of holiday accommodation is less important as a source of income than the conference trade, but a significant number of HEIs see benefits in letting vacant student accommodation during vacations. Lets may be to individuals, to families or to groups (such as language schools). The campus universities have taken particular advantage of their green field locations near open countryside to promote their holiday accommodation (examples include Lancaster and the Lake District, Sussex with its Downs and coast, Kent with easy access to Canterbury and the surrounding countryside). The Deloitte & Touche/CUBO research15 reports a reduction in the number of bedspaces being occupied during vacations, in both self- catering and catered residencies. Due to the different ways of calculating and reporting vacation occupancy, the report is not conclusive on this point, but suggests that one of the reasons for the reduction is that the number of bedspaces provided by HEIs in Britain rose by 25 per cent between 1992/93 and 1996/97.

3.1.9. The volume and quality of links made by HEIs’ cultural facilities and services with other providers and with the general public depends only to some extent on the quality of the HEIs’ facilities in relation to other local or regional provision. The other determining factor is the aspirations and skill of staff. This report is unequivocal in its finding that the most productive relationships between HEIs’ cultural facilities and services and the wider community are built upon the individual vision and commitment of HEI staff.

3.1.10. HEIs are large and complex entities to which it is difficult to attribute corporate attitudes and perceptions. However, the tone set by an institution’s governing body and its senior staff does play a role in facilitating or hampering relationships with other parties. Within each HEI, individual members of staff and departments have ideas about how they are perceived by the wider community, and themselves perceive that community in different ways. For every librarian who actively encourages the use of the institution’s library by local history groups, there is another pleading: ‘Save me from the genealogists’.

3.2. The diversity of HEIs

3.2.1. The diversity of cultural provision is reflected in the diversity of the institutions that house it. The 122 HEIs which contributed to this research are a varied group in terms of:

• their history

• their location

• the quality and distribution of their premises

• the size of their student population

• the extent to which they are ‘research led’

• their corporate approach to the wider community

• the relationship between taught courses or research and cultural provision

• the individuals involved in the management of cultural provision

• the quality of cultural provision

3.2.2. Any one of the factors listed above could help to determine why an HEI might seek or promote links with the wider community and could influence the extent to which it succeeds in doing so. It is not possible to impose the simple categorisation of ‘old university’ or ‘new university’, campus, rural, inner city or multi-site institution, and then to identify common standards of, or approaches to, cultural provision.

3.2.3. Even within groups which appear to have similar facilities, there are differences in the way those facilities are used. Most of the HEIs built on green field sites in the 1960s (such as Essex, Kent, Sussex, Lancaster, East Anglia, York, and Warwick) have purpose-built performing or visual arts facilities or both. Some of them receive funding from charitable trusts or local authorities to subsidise their service to the public, but these facilities have evolved at different speeds and in different ways. Some, like the Nuffield Theatre at Lancaster, are heavily used by the staff and students, both to put on productions related to their studies and for entertainment. At the other end of the spectrum, Warwick Arts Centre is the largest arts centre outside London and relies on the public to make up the bulk of its audiences for the large number of events it promotes.

3.2.4. Despite these contrasts, there are experiences common to particular groups of HEIs. Some of the newer institutions claim to be better integrated into their local communities than many other HEIs. They argue that this is partly because, until the 1990s, they were funded by their local authorities and partly because many of their students are local. This, they say, helps them to be informed about the local market for cultural facilities and to instigate relationships with other partners (such as the local authority or the business community) in response. Some city centre HEIs, regardless of their age and size, argue that they have a stronger local identity than HEIs on campuses some way out of town, and that they therefore feel a greater obligation to participate in civic life.

3.2.5. This picture is made more complex by the fact that each area of cultural provision covered by this study has its own distinct community of providers and consumers outside the HE sector. Each has its own professional bodies, networks and public face. For some HE providers, these external relationships are more useful than the links they have with other HEIs; for others (notably the libraries) the internal HE market is more important. This diversity underlines the importance of resisting generalisations about the purpose of cultural provision by HEIs and the way in which it relates to a wider community of providers and consumers. The research has nevertheless identified a number of common strands of principle and practice which are described later in this report.

Footnotes

1 John Sumsion, ‘Interactions between university and public libraries: practice and policy’ Issues in Focus No.14, (Newcastle upon Tyne: Library and Information Cooperation Council, 1998).

2 Deloitte & Touche Hospital and Leisure Consulting, 'A Summary of the Performance of Residences, Conferences and Catering in Universities' (Exeter: Conference of University Business Officers, 1998).

3 Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 'Comprehensive Spending Review: a new approach to investment in culture' (London: DCMS, 1998) p.6

4 Ibid.

5 Michael F Collins et al, 'CVCP/SCOP Inquiry into Sports Facilities at Higher Education Institutions and Community Use' (London: CVCP/SCOP, 1996) p4.

6 Michael Collins et al, op cit.

7 Clare Nankivell, 'People Flows' (Birmingham: Centre for Information Research and Training. University of Central England, 1998).

8 John Sumsion, ‘Interactions between university and public libraries: practice and policy.’ Issues in Focus, No.14 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Library and Information Cooperation Council, 1998).

9 Library and Information Commission, 'New Library: The People’s Network' (London: Library and Information Commission/DCMS, 1997).

10 Kate Arnold-Forster, 'Held in Trust, Museums and Collections of Universities in Northern England' (London: HMSO, 1993). The Collections of the University of London (London: London Museums Service, 1989). Study of museums in Southern England in progress.

11 CVCP, 'From elitism to inclusion' (London: CVCP, 1998).

12 Jane Field, Russell Moseley, 'Promoting vocational lifelong learning: a guide to good practice in the HE sector', 98/46 (Bristol: HEFCE, 1998).

13 Deloitte & Touche, op cit.