university community engagement literature review

Unraveling University–Community Engagement

A literature review.

To reference this document use:

Published Date

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Research Group

University–community engagement has been implemented by anincreasing number of universities across the world, in a period characterized by growing international competition. The growth of interest in university–community engagement has led to multiple definitions of this term and a high level of complexity in defining what it entails. Using a literature review, this article offers a critical assessment of the academic literature on university–community engagement. The article aims to provide insight into trends, commonalities, and variations in the literature, to enable the identification of an agenda for future research. We identify four main gaps in the literature, which we suggest addressing through a more critical conceptual discussion supported by empirical research, broadening the theoretical lens, and using particular research approaches, such as theories of change. Altogether, this will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of university–community engagement.

• Help & FAQ

Unraveling university-community engagement: a literature review

• Population and Health Research
• School of Geography & Sustainable Development

Research output : Contribution to journal › Literature review › peer-review

• Community engagement
• Higher education
• Engaged university
• Civic engagement
• Literature review

Access to Document

Copyright © 2021 by the University of Georgia. © Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. This work has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies or with permission. Permission for further reuse of this content should be sought from the publisher or the rights holder. This is the author created accepted manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1586

• https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1586

Fingerprint

• Theory of Change Economics, Econometrics and Finance 100%
• International Competition Economics, Econometrics and Finance 100%

T1 - Unraveling university-community engagement

T2 - a literature review

AU - Koekkoek, Anouk

AU - van Ham, Maarten

AU - Kleinhans, Reinout

PY - 2021/3/31

Y1 - 2021/3/31

N2 - University-community engagement has been implemented by an increasing number of universities across the world, in a period characterized by growing international competition. The growing interest in university-community engagement has resulted in a variety of definitions and a high level of complexity as to what the concept means and what it entails. Using a literature review, this paper offers a critical assessment of the academic literature on university-community engagement. The paper aims to provide insight into trends, commonalities and variation in the literature, to enable the identification of an agenda for future research. Four main gaps in the literature are distinguished. The paper calls for a more critical conceptual discussion that should be supported by empirical research. The paper suggests to broaden the theoretical lens, and the use of particular research approaches such as theories of change, in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of university-community engagement.

AB - University-community engagement has been implemented by an increasing number of universities across the world, in a period characterized by growing international competition. The growing interest in university-community engagement has resulted in a variety of definitions and a high level of complexity as to what the concept means and what it entails. Using a literature review, this paper offers a critical assessment of the academic literature on university-community engagement. The paper aims to provide insight into trends, commonalities and variation in the literature, to enable the identification of an agenda for future research. Four main gaps in the literature are distinguished. The paper calls for a more critical conceptual discussion that should be supported by empirical research. The paper suggests to broaden the theoretical lens, and the use of particular research approaches such as theories of change, in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of university-community engagement.

KW - Community engagement

KW - Higher education

KW - Engaged university

KW - Civic engagement

KW - Outreach

KW - Literature review

M3 - Literature review

SN - 1534-6104

JO - Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

JF - Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Taking stock: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on University–Community engagement

This article examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on university–community engagement (UCE) as an academic mission. The aim of the work is to outline the ways in which UCE has been functioning since the turbulent onset of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. The study undertakes a systematic review of the UCE literature to identify major trends, raising important questions regarding ongoing scholarly discussions and managerial/policy debates on the subject. The results show seven distinct types of engagement responses by higher education institutions (HEIs) across the globe. In addition, the review identified that HEIs faced difficulties in either adapting existing engagement practices or while establishing new ones, especially regarding the efficient use of digital technologies. In terms of implications, the findings suggest that the pandemic has resulted in new debates about the societal role of HEIs, with medium- and long-term implications for policy and management.

The emergence of COVID-19 at the end of 2019 and the subsequent worldwide outbreak in early 2020 significantly changed the dynamics of society, economics and education, among other spheres of life. In the field of higher education (HE), in many countries around the world, disruptive and immediate changes were observed as higher education institutions (HEIs) struggled to adapt their activities to the context of social distancing and lockdown measures ( UNESCO, 2021a ). The pandemic has impacted teaching and learning mainly through the adoption of remote education, but also regarding HE systems overall, ranging from funding to supply and demand to the organisation and management of HEIs, reinforcing a set of external and internal pressures and trends, including digitalisation ( CEPAL-UNESCO, 2020 ; IESALC-UNESCO, 2020 ; UNESCO, 2021b ).

According to Marinoni et al. (2020) , by May 2020 HEIs were closed in 177 countries with restrictions on face-to-face activities, impacting the three missions of teaching/learning, research and (community) engagement. In the case of university–community engagement (UCE), defined as the extent to which academic communities actively collaborate with societal actors across the public and private and civic sectors (cf. Benneworth, 2013 ; Pinheiro et al., 2015 ), the report showed that a third of the HEIs (424 in 109 countries) had observed a decrease in activities, with 45% reporting that COVID-19 had led to growth in this (third) mission. About a fifth of the HEIs indicated that they did not know how COVID-19 had impacted community engagement. These findings revealed an interesting paradox – namely, while the restrictions may have negatively affected ongoing UCE tasks and the capacity to carry them out, the sets of new problems and pressures caused by the pandemic may have stimulated HEIs to engage more (yet perhaps differently) with their community partners across the board.

Indeed, despite the numerous studies on COVID-19 and HE, the novel, turbulent and uncertain nature of the phenomenon ( Ansell et al., 2020 ) still raises challenges when attempting to understand its short-, medium- and long-term impacts on HE systems and HEIs alike. In the case of UCE, this turbulent scenario may have amplified the tensions historically observed around this academic mission (cf. Pinheiro et al., 2012 ; Watson et al., 2011 ), especially in terms of the level of institutionalisation and linkages with the primary missions of teaching/learning and research.

In view of these developments, the purpose of the article is to reflect on – to take stock of – the possible paths of UCE as an academic mission in the face of the pandemic based on a literature review of the topic. That is, based on the existing literature about UCE and COVID-19, the article aims to identify the impacts of COVID-19 and the trends accelerated or created by the pandemic in UCE.

The paper is organised as follows. First, we provide descriptions of UCE, including its main characteristics as an academic mission, and a discussion of its institutionalisation within HEIs, as well as the tensions involved. Next, we present the methodology of the study to proceed with the literature review on UCE and COVID-19, discussing the impacts of the pandemic. In the conclusion, we reflect on the possible paths that UCE and HEIs could take in an eventual post-pandemic scenario (medium and long term).

University–Community engagement

Broadly speaking, UCE is connected to universities’ participation in public life and their surrounding communities, building awareness of and intervening in current social or public issues ( Goddard et al., 2016 ; Hazelkorn, 2017 ; Koekkoek et al., 2021 ; Teixeira and Shin, 2020 ). The idea of UCE includes myriad related terms, such as social or public engagement ( Cuthill, 2011 ). In addition, the term ‘third mission’ has been used in discussions about the relationships between universities and society, a topic that has gained in prominence in the last decade or so in Europe and abroad ( Laredo, 2007 ; Pinheiro et al., 2015 ). This paper conceives of UCE as ‘the range of ways in which university staff, students and management interact with external communities in mutually beneficial ways, either as part of teaching and research or as part of other projects and joint initiatives’ ( Farnell, 2020 : p. 6). The notion of UCE implies three interconnected elements: (1) a set of processes or practices of interaction and mutual exchange of knowledge within (2) a wide range of non-academic communities/organisations that are (3) anchored in societal needs (societal factors that influence the society’s quality of life). Such a definition encompasses a wide range of interaction possibilities, institutional arrangements, values, knowledge exchanges and connections within teaching and research missions ( Benneworth et al., 2018 ). As pointed out below, the possibilities of engagement include service learning, partnership research, community access to university services and facilities, knowledge exchange, technological development, among others. Values and institutional arrangements will depend on differences in the three dimensions mentioned above; however, it is possible to state that the interactions between university and community are largely shaped by normative and strategic views regarding the role and social responsibility of the university and the social impact of knowledge production and transmission processes.

Considering this debate, UCE practices can be assessed in terms of the following thematic dimensions ( Farnell, 2020 ): (a) teaching and learning activities aimed at a non-academic public (such as service learning initiatives); (b) research oriented to the societal needs of the external community or participatory research in partnerships, including methodologies such as action research and participatory research; (c) service, knowledge exchange, and public service; (d) student initiatives within the community; (e) university-level engagement, taken as formal partnerships, and the opening of services and facilities to the external community.

This variety highlights the context-specific and bottom-up nature of UCE ( Benneworth et al., 2018 ). Also, in addition to government and business, Benneworth et al. (2018) refer to the existence of a wide variety of actors within the idea of ‘community’, including excluded and marginalised groups. In this sense, Benneworth (2018, p. 4) describes excluded communities as “a group whose problems are societally urgent and who traditionally rarely interact with universities”; in other words, it can be stated that engagement goes beyond the interaction with business and government, and can encompass the community (in its cultural, social, environmental, political and other dimensions), as well as socially vulnerable groups. Goddard et al. (2016) shed light on the interaction between universities and cities in the larger context of ‘civic engagement’, defined as attempts to promote the public good through ‘active, reciprocal engagement with a wide range of groups and organisations at different geographical scales’ (p. 5). This is associated with the idea that universities (as relatively autonomous institutions centred on knowledge transmission and production) can establish more integrated relations with the urban spaces of which they are part – not only through participating actively in socio-economic development, but also through being more relevant in other dimensions of citizens’ daily life (e.g. cultural, political, overall well-being, inclusion, governance). Despite such links to the local/city surroundings, it is possible to infer that UCE also considers agendas on a broader scale, connecting the local and regional with both national and global spheres ( Puukka, 2017 ).

In a normative sense, this debate is related to ongoing discussions about the role of universities in promoting the public good, citizenship and democracy, among other areas ( Bryer et al., 2020 ). Such discussions have become increasingly important in the context of grand challenges like rising socio-economic inequalities within and across countries, democratic backsliding, crisis management, etc. (cf. Gilbertson et al., 2019 ). This has led to renewed external calls for more active and responsible engagement by academic communities in general ( Pinheiro et al., 2015 ). Discussions surrounding university engagement are deeply embedded in the societal context in which HEIs, especially in the last 30 years, have been pressured to exert greater economic and social impact within the conceptions of the ‘knowledge society’ and the ‘knowledge economy’ ( Hazelkorn, 2017 ; Laredo, 2007 ) – for example, to promote the United Nations (UN)’s Sustainable Development Goals ( El-Jardali et al., 2018 ).

Based on the works by Farnell (2020) , Benneworth et al. (2018) and Pinheiro et al. (2015) , institutionalising UCE pertains to the formal and informal factors embedded in this specific mission. These encompass supportive policies and measures, resource mobilisation, strategic plans, formal and informal/cultural recognition, the integration of community engagement in the core knowledge activities and services of HEIs, administrative support and academic staff. In the case of flagship and research-intensive universities, UCE can be considered a peripheral mission in relation to the core tasks of teaching and research, although in more regionally embedded and vocational universities, engagement is often cultivated due to its links within the localities ( Benneworth, 2018 ; Benneworth, 2013 ; Cristofoletti and Serafim, 2020 ; Goddard et al., 2016 ; Pinheiro et al., 2015 ). Another related discussion concerns the methods for assessing engagement, shedding light on the need for the development of novel and more sophisticated frameworks to measure the societal impact of HEIs and their collaborations with external stakeholders ( Benneworth et al., 2018 ; Farnell, 2020 ; Wise et al., 2021 ). In other words, UCE is still considered a rather peripheral activity in relation to teaching and research, and the relationship between these three missions or functions constitutes an important source of tension in HE and science policies and within HEIs ( Pinheiro and Abualrub, 2021 ; Pinheiro et al., 2015 ).

Another potential source of tension is to be found in the ‘modernisation’ reforms in HE systems – with differences at the national level – that have taken place over the last three decades. In Europe, for example, the reforms were inspired by New Public Management (NPM), arguing for universities to be strategically managed, encompassing stronger steering and a focus on efficiency, market competition and excellence, among other things ( Benneworth et al., 2015 ; Canhilal et al., 2016 ). Such reforms also consider universities as instruments to promote governmental objectives ( Olsen and Maassen, 2007 ). Benneworth et al. (2016) argue that the policies and reforms have tended to consider simplistic university ‘ideal types’ based on ‘one size fits all’ models. Neither universities nor academics are passive actors, which causes tensions in the adoption of top-down engagement agendas in the context of governmental reforms and external stakeholders’ strategic interests. Moreover, universities are complex organisations that historically have co-evolved with other societal subsystems, like the economy and politico-administrative regimes ( Young and Pinheiro, 2022 ; Pinheiro et al., 2022 ).

Considering these points, the enactment of engagement processes and practices is likely to generate tensions along three interconnected dimensions ( Benneworth et al., 2015 , 2016 ; Goddard et al., 2016 ; Koekkoek et al., 2021 ; Pinheiro et al., 2015 ): (a) between engagement and the core missions of teaching and research, especially considering the orientation towards academic excellence, output-based funding and global research rankings; (b) within the possibility of conflicts and discussions that certain practices and external stakeholders could generate related to the legitimacy of the practices within and outside HEIs; and (c) from the interactions between the academic community and external actors in terms of conflicting interests, values and objectives, among other things.

In that sense, while there are pressures to perform engagement and ‘deliver’ social impact, there is a series of tensions that push UCE towards or keep it as a peripheral mission ( Goddard et al., 2016 ), seen by many as an ‘add-on’ activity or a ‘nice to have’ ( Koekkoek et al., 2021 ). In this sense, although the pandemic may have negatively impacted previous engagement initiatives, it would be interesting to assess whether COVID-19 has created any positive stimuli towards strengthening UCE and its institutionalisation or, instead, has reinforced existing tensions and/or led to the emergence of new ones.

This paper is based on a systematic literature review ( Trierweiller et al., 2021 ; Xiao and Watson, 2019 ) on the effects of COVID-19 on HE, focusing on: a) studies that directly address UCE and b) studies and reflections that seek to discuss the societal role of HEIs in the face of the (ongoing) pandemic. In both cases, we considered the mentioned literature on UCE, guiding the review with the following four questions:

• 1. How are universities engaging with external stakeholders in the face of societal problems caused/intensified by COVID-19?
• 2. To what extent are there similarities and commonalities (cross-cutting issues) in the literature consulted?
• 3. What kinds of stimuli and tensions have the pandemic caused/intensified in the institutionalisation of UCE?
• 4. How is the societal role of HEIs being debated in view of a pandemic and ‘post-pandemic’ context?

The selected articles reflect the context-specific and bottom-up characteristics of UCE since they present a variety of engagement initiatives shaped by disciplinary and institutional contexts, as well as by the broader social contexts in which HEIs are embedded.

More specifically, the literature search was conducted on 5 November 2021. The Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, the World Health Organization and UNESCO databases were used. The search considered the following keywords (by topic and relevance): COVID-19 OR Pandemic AND ‘university-community engagement’ OR ‘Outreach’ OR ‘Third Mission’ OR ‘University Extension’ OR ‘Public Engagement’ OR ‘University partnership’. Materials that were close to the theme/questions of the study were manually selected by first examining the abstracts in the databases – adapting the literature screen procedure mentioned by Xiao and Watson (2019) . The search and first selection procedure resulted in 56 materials (articles, books and reports), which were used for the qualitative study. In total, the review considered 51 materials: 45 papers, mostly focused on reports of engagement practices and experiences from several areas of knowledge, including one Special Issue (representing nine papers of the sample); five reports of HEI associations, supranational organizations and HEIs themselves; one book with a compilation of chapters with reflections on COVID-19, the future of higher education and engagement.

From this selection, we considered producing a narrative description of the collected materials ( Xiao and Watson, 2019 ). This narrative was organized based on the identification of three elements: UCE practices in the face of COVID-19 , cross-cutting issues and discussions about the societal role of the university vis-à-vis COVID-19 along with impacts on UCE as an academic mission . In order to identify these elements, we read the selected materials to identify similarities in UCE practices and recurrent topics – to do so, Farnell’s (2020) classification of the UCE dimensions was used as support. Next, we selected and read the materials that developed broader reflections (either from engagement experiences or theoretical debates) on the impacts of COVID-19 on UCE as an academic mission. In other words, from the material analysis, the studies identified three lines of information and argumentation: (a) accounts of experiences of engagement in the context of the pandemic; (b) themes that appear in various studies together with these experiences of engagement (cross-cutting issues); and (c) discussions of the negative impact and opportunities generated by the pandemic on UCE as an academic mission and broader reflections on the societal role of HEIs. As a methodological note, it should be stressed that the materials confirm the diverse and bottom-up nature of UCE, which makes it difficult to pick up in a more comprehensive analysis. In addition, considering the exploratory nature of the study, we opted to approach the literature from the classification of the initiatives and the mentioned debates (no comment is made, for example, on the institutions and countries, among other details).

Figure 1 summarizes the steps of the literature review.

The literature review process. Source : Authors’ own.

Before the narrative description of the results according to the identified topics (Step 3), we present in Table 1 , in outline, the sample of selected materials.

Source : Authors’compilation

As can be seen, the sample shows three type of sources (materials). With regard to the reports, it is noted that they are varied in terms of publishing institution, country of origin and features. In terms of origin, the reports and the book under consideration are predominantly from European countries; however, some cover studies and data of other regions of the world, such as the International Association of Universities’ survey, UNESCO and the book published by the Council of Europe. The reports usually present findings from wider research conducted at institutional (one or more HEIs), regional or global level, as well as reflections and debates on the impact of COVID-19 on UCE. As for the papers, most, in general terms, are from the areas of health and education – with a great variety of sub-areas and cross-cutting themes. As for the ‘others’, it is also worth noting the variety of areas, such as sociology, administration, science and technology, engineering, among others. There is a predominance of papers from the USA, followed by Brazil. Finally, for the Special Issue, its nine articles focus on case studies about action research and university–community engagement (with a variety of themes) in the context of COVID-19.

For exposition purposes, the narrative is divided into two items. The first describes the findings in terms of UCE practices and experiences around COVID-19 and also gives an overview of related cross-cutting issues. The second concerns the debate on the impact of COVID-19 on UCE together with discussions about the societal role of HEIs.

COVID-19 and societal engagement

From a general analysis of the abstract and keywords, we categorised these initiatives into seven categories (noted below as (i)–(vii)), established for descriptive and analytical purposes, and the categories intersect.

Overall, some of the literature reports the (i) development or adaptation of engagement activities in the field of health and well-being , mainly through community medical care and services, the provision of facilities and structures (e.g. university hospitals) and the development of protocols and new technologies and tools to assist the community, among other initiatives, to provide care and support to health systems ( Maglia and Braida, 2020 ; McElfish et al., 2021 ; Michener et al., 2020 ; Perry et al., 2021 ; Rosa et al., 2021 ; Tozini et al., 2022 ; Vinson et al., 2021 ; Welter et al., 2021 ). Such initiatives are especially connected to government partnerships (vi) and were developed at the institutional level or led by groups of academics (staff, students) within their departments or disciplines. In that sense, the literature points out that the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, as an essentially epidemiological and public health problem, has led HEIs to adapt their structures and seek to act more proactively in combating and mitigating the virus in their respective communities.

Another set of engagement initiatives refers to (ii) science communication for a broad public/vulnerable communities and advisory actions ( Carvalho et al., 2020 ; Doumbia et al., 2020 ; Nicolò et al., 2021 ; Perrotta, 2021 ; Tozini et al., 2022 ; UNESCO, 2021 ). In the case of communications, the mobilisation or creation of portals and communication platforms to disseminate information about the pandemic is highlighted. These efforts also include the civic and public actions of HEIs and the scientific community in the fight against the so-called ‘fake news’ ( Deca et al., 2021 ; Harkavy et al., 2020 ). When it comes to policy advice, experts were called on by government authorities and the media to build awareness about the disease and the mechanisms of prevention or to contribute with advice to decisions and public policies related to the pandemic ( Arrais et al., 2021 ; Maglia and Braida, 2020 ; UNESCO, 2021 ). It can be said that the pandemic has been generating stimuli to the connections between engagement and science communication; the role of digital media and technologies can also be highlighted in this context.

A third set of initiatives refers to the creation or adaptation of (iii) courses and service learning for a non-academic audience ( Benitz and Yang, 2020 ; Bintliff et al., 2020 ; Seru, 2021 ). In this category, a diversity of course types and themes was observed, and the role of student participation can be highlighted. In addition, it was observed that this type of engagement mostly used digital technologies as mediators, either in the adaptation of existing courses or in the creation of new courses in the pandemic scenario.

Fourth, some experiences of (iv) university–school engagement have been identified ( Dresden et al., 2021 ; Galindo et al., 2021 ). HEIs have been helping local schools adapt to the impositions of the pandemic (remote teaching and vulnerable students, among others), strengthening and creating links between educational institutions at all levels.

Going forward, (v) volunteer and humanitarian actions by students and academic staff were identified, looking at vulnerable population groups ( Aluisio et al., 2020 ; Arrais et al., 2021 ). It was noted that the pandemic intensified the level of vulnerability of several population groups. The academic community has often mobilised through humanitarian actions (carried out by student and staff groups, institutional campaigns and other types of assistance initiatives).

Furthermore, the review identified (vi) university–government partnerships , mainly formed to conduct research in collaboration with other entities or on demand (in all areas of knowledge). These partnerships included those between universities, governments and communities, as well as joint initiatives aimed at the formulation of public policies, protocols and campaigns, among others ( Arrais et al., 2021 ; Joseph et al., 2021 ; Luppi et al., 2021 ; Maglia and Braida, 2020 ; Maurrasse, 2021 ; Nawangwe, 2021 ; Perrotta, 2021 ; Rosa et al., 2021 ; Souza et al., 2022; Vinson et al., 2021 ). Public–public partnerships have important intersections with other dimensions, especially with (i), (ii) and (vii). Here, the importance of the participation of HEIs and the academic community in the processes of the formulation, implementation and evaluation of public policies is highlighted; moreover, it causes one to reflect on the interaction models that have at their centre articulations between universities, governments and civil societies/communities/vulnerable groups . In summary, the literature highlights that, given the nature of the crisis (its uncertainty, complexity, etc.), many governments at the municipal, regional and national levels have sought to partner with HEIs to conduct research (e.g. about the virus, impacts and predictions, vaccine and treatment development, etc.) and to engage in joint actions.

Finally, the literature review identified a diverse range of (vii) university–community engagement projects and action research related to the pandemic . These encompassed the development of cultural initiatives aimed at the academic and non-academic public ( Luppi et al., 2021 ); engagement initiatives to help small and medium-sized businesses facing the economic consequences of the pandemic (Brauner et al., 2020); participatory social design projects within the community to design solutions for social problems, using participatory research methodologies ( De Bernardi et al., 2021 ); the development of participative maps (using digital technologies) with the objective of connecting vulnerable territories/social groups with possible donations or governmental/community aid (Polli et al., 2020); online university–community participatory research projects ( Manikam et al., 2021 ); the use of interactive web-based distance-learning platforms in medical education ( Saini et al., 2021 ); and adaptation experiences of museums and libraries related to the pandemic ( Cioppi et al., 2020 ; Neatrour et al., 2020 ).

The review also revealed several cross-cutting issues worth noting. The first was the need to adapt previous engagement practices in the face of the sudden appearance of the pandemic. That is, it was possible to observe in the reports of engagement initiatives the conducting of adaptive actions to maintain the execution of projects negatively impacted by the pandemic. The second issue concerned the establishment of new engagement practices, given new or intensified societal problems brought about by COVID-19. The literature highlighted that the pandemic brought challenges and opportunities, especially given the restrictions on face-to-face contact. In both cases, many studies have reported the adoption of digital technologies to mediate the engagement process and the building of undeveloped organisational capacities/skills for engagement. Moreover, we observed that the connections between engagement, scientific communication and more flexible and adapted forms (e.g. through digital technologies) featured as an important aspect.

Institutional impact and the societal role of HEIs

Part of the identified literature focuses on discussing the performance and societal role of HEIs in the short (during the pandemic), medium and long terms from general reflections on trends in HE and science, as well as from initial attempts to gather more general information on the impact of COVID-19 on university–community engagement as an academic mission, mostly through surveys or case studies encompassing HEIs ( Bergan et al., 2021 ; Davenport and Holland, 2021 ; Law et al., 2021 ; Maglia and Braida, 2020 ; Marinoni et al., 2020 ; NCCPE, 2021; Perrotta, 2021 ; Reimers, 2021 ; UNESCO, 2021 ). In general, the need to think of HE as a public good was emphasised, as well as the ideas of civic character and social commitment and the need to develop HEI models that are more closely connected to their communities – i.e. the various external stakeholders.

The most pertinent materials for such discussions were found in the institutional reports and in the book ( Bergan (2021) . For this part of the analysis, six main materials (cited throughout the narrative) were used: a UNESCO report on UCE and COVID-19 ( UNESCO, 2021 ); a report by the International Association of Universities (IAU), which presents broader data on the issue ( Marinoni et al., 2020 ); a report by the Montevideo Group Association of Universities covering major universities in South America ( Maglia and Braida, 2020 ); two research reports by HEIs on the impact of COVID-19 on their UCE mission (NCCPE, 2021; Law et al., 2021 ); and an edited book by the Council of Europe ( Bergan et al., 2021 ) with reflections and empirical cases of universities’ contributions to engagement in the face of the pandemic alongside the future impacts insofar as university–society relations are concerned.

Supra-level organisations highlight UCE as an important avenue for HEIs to assist communities in addressing problems related to COVID-19. UNESCO (2021a) argues that the connection between teaching, research and engagement enhances HEIs’ community actions, especially in devising innovative solutions to tackle both the internal problems and the societal problems caused by the pandemic:

‘HEIs have been instrumental in helping communities respond to the pandemic. Actions taken include providing free online learning provision for a wider public, conducting research on COVID-19 and its impact, communicating and raising awareness by sharing accurate and scientific knowledge about the virus, as well as students volunteering to support vulnerable groups.’ ( UNESCO, 2021b , p. 2)

UNESCO’s report also argues that the pandemic has generated a renewed stimulus for the development of more flexible and creative forms of engagement. Overall, the assessment by the UNESCO experts, unsurprisingly, places the challenges brought by the pandemic within the scope of the global challenges of the UN Sustainable Development Goals agenda, stressing themes such as healthcare and climate change. In this sense, the pandemic has added further strains on previous engagement agendas, reinforcing discussions about the societal impact of HE and science.

Providing a general idea of the impact of the pandemic on UCE, the IAU reported, based on a survey (spring 2020) of 424 universities and other HEIs in 109 countries, that 31% had observed a decrease in UCE activities; 45% claimed that COVID-19 had led to growth in this mission; 19% indicated that they did not know how COVID-19 had impacted UCE; and 6% replied that the situation had remained the same. The survey pointed to differences between world regions: 56% of the Americas reported an increase in UCE, 46% in Europe, and 37% in Africa – in these cases more positive than negative or uncertain responses were received. The only region that indicated more negative responses was Asia-Pacific, with a 48% decline.

The survey also presented data regarding some engagement initiatives ( Marinoni et al., 2020 ): 22% declared ‘Our university hospital provides care for affected people’; 28% ‘Our students and staff provide mobile care for affected people’; 40% ‘We provide medical advice and support’; 49% ‘We develop science communication initiatives’; 52% ‘We increase our community actions’; and 27% selected ‘Other (please specify)’. The report concluded that there was diversity in UCE practices related to COVID-19. The data allowed us to note – considering the broad categories previously delimited by the survey – a slight predominance of engagement in the healthcare and science communication fields. Of course, the nature of the pandemic relates to such outcomes; in addition, we note that a greater connection between the debates on UCE and science communication seems to be an emerging trend.

Bergan (2021) put into perspective reflections and studies on the impact of COVID-19 on HE, highlighting the turbulent and tense context in which the academic community has found itself and, at the same time, the major structural inequalities (e.g. access, inclusion and democratisation) in which HE systems and HEIs are enmeshed: ‘[T]his has served as a “wake-up call” warning that these inequities can no longer be addressed partly, or fitfully, but that a longer-term, strategic approach is needed’ ( Bergan et al., 2021 , p. 8). Again, the reflections attempted to define the role of HE in combating field-level inequalities (e.g. on access and funding) and, at the same time, to address the societal problems observed (inequalities, human rights, sustainable development, etc.). Another aspect highlighted by the authors was the participation of HEIs in building more resilient societies, also indicating the need to think about the development of adequate institutional capacities. Furthermore, Harkavy et al. (2020) emphasised the need to reflect on the social role of HEIs and to stimulate connections and cooperation between HEIs at various scales.

Hazelkorn (2021) highlights interesting elements regarding the future of HE through the construction of new institutional models that are more integrated with or embedded in communities. The author warns of the possibility that the pandemic will have accelerated competitive tendencies in the sector, taking into account its composition, governance, business dynamics and the trajectory of reforms over the last 30 years (in Europe). We chose to highlight this chapter because it raises an important issue: most studies and reflections, going towards a normative point of analysis, highlight the need to rethink the role of HEIs in the short, medium and long terms. In general, such reflection defends models capable of solving the inequalities of the sector and, at the same time, acting more proactively within the community. However, some of the trends and tensions prior to the pandemic (e.g. rankings, the view that engagement stifles the excellence of research, distribution of funds, competition dynamics, etc.) may have also gained momentum, undermining the possibility of the development of HEIs in the directions discussed so far.

Moving to a more regional focus, Maglia and Braida (2020) have shown that many Latin American public universities actively participated in their communities during the pandemic. The authors present data about UCE collected from 38 Latin American associated public universities: 68% provided advice to national authorities in relation to the pandemic; 78% advised local and regional policies; 71% produced health protocols for the local, regional and national communities; 82% developed communication initiatives and the dissemination of scientific knowledge; 92% implemented COVID-19 prevention mechanisms in their communities; 81% had been offering health services directly to citizens; and all the universities reported developing research related to COVID-19 and on the pandemic’s societal consequences. What is more, Maglia and Braida (2020) contend that the pandemic has institutionally strengthened debates about the social commitment of public universities in Latin America:

‘It is perceived by the State Public Universities that the population notices the role they are fulfilling, thus making their social function visible and strengthening the recognition of the role of science, research and the societal role of these universities, increasing their legitimacy.’ ( Maglia and Braida, 2020 : p. 19)

The above report further stated that the pandemic had demanded more university–public sector interactions and partnerships, and that the universities’ responses also related to the need for social and political legitimisation. Nevertheless, Reimers (2021) has argued that public universities throughout the region, considering Latin America’s engagement trajectory since the Cordoba Reform of 1918, have had the opportunity to develop innovative engagement initiatives and organisational learning through connections between research, teaching and engagement.

Turning to the UK, it is worth mentioning a study that stressed the impact of the pandemic on the institutional dimension of UCE. The 2021 report, entitled The Experience of Public Engagement Professionals During COVID-19 , draws on research conducted by the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) with public engagement professionals in the UK (including procedures such as surveys, interviews and focus groups, encompassing about 150 public engagement professionals). As well as the other studies mentioned, this report sets the research in a context in which the pandemic has reinforced broader societal problems (inequalities, racism, poverty, democracy, etc.), and HEIs are called on to act in this situation, increasing the pressures for engagement. The report states that the pandemic ‘has created opportunities to re-think and re-imagine many aspects of social life, including the role played by universities in their communities’ (NCCPE, 2021, p. 4).

Summarising the findings, NCCPE (2021) classified three types of COVID-19 impacts on UCE: (i) challenges, (ii) opportunities and (iii) future. The identified challenges included the following: the uncertainty of the professionals involved, the continuity of the engagement and the problems generated by a lack of face-to-face contact, the lack of knowledge and skills when faced with a new situation, problems related to the planning and financing of activities, and the digitalisation of engagement activities. On the other hand, opportunities came to the fore with regard to the development of new skills (e.g. digital skills), opportunities for new audiences and forms of engagement, networking among engagement professionals and increased public interest in research. In the future category, it was noted that the pandemic might have generated impacts on governance, funding and learning regarding UCE, as well as greater inclusion in terms of under-represented social groups like the poor, women and ethnic minorities.

The pandemic has brought uncertainty, pressures and difficulties regarding the capacity to engage, but it has also stimulated new forms of interaction in communities and the development of new engagement capacities (digital skills in particular). The scenario generated short-, medium- and long-term uncertainties about UCE-related funding and planning, as well as sparking a renewed interest in discussing the social commitment of HEIs – including rethinking the work of the professionals. Notably, the survey also indicated that the pandemic had strengthened UCE in HEIs that had already successfully institutionalised this mission prior to the turbulence of COVID-19, stimulating the development of new engagement skills and capabilities. In contrast, at HEIs where this mission was seen as a ‘nice to have’ (peripheral), UCE was not prioritised at all, with the pandemic ultimately reinforcing previous difficulties with engagement. Such findings are important, as they reveal that the trajectory of HEIs’ engagement and its institutionalisation and valuation both within the university and in the surrounding communities are important factors in understanding the impact of COVID-19 on UCE and the university as an organisation and institution more generally.

Finally, a study that examined the impact of COVID-19 on engagement at the University of Melbourne (Australia) sought to identify the key barriers and challenges facing university staff and external stakeholders in sustaining engagement, alongside ways to improve UCE ( Law et al., 2021 ). A total of 25 interviews were conducted with university staff during 2020. In general, the report concluded that COVID-19 raised a strategic opportunity to reflect on what engagement meant and on the best ways to improve this academic mission, including institutional improvements to systems, structures, governance, career development and funding to support engagement. This report posits the importance of thinking of engagement in terms of the co-construction of knowledge (cf. Brandsen et al., 2018 ) beyond the classic idea of knowledge transfer, which could be considered dominant in the thinking of policymakers in the country. Figure 2 summarises the main aspects identified in the literature review.

COVID-19 and UCE overview. Source : Authors’ own.

‘Initiatives’ refer to the numbered items (above) relating to UCE practices vis-à-vis COVID-19. ‘Transversal topics’ refer to issues that cut across the discussion of many of the reported UCE practices. Furthermore, ‘Background discussions’ highlight the institutional impacts of COVID-19 on UCE, including the reality that the pandemic has highlighted some broad debates on HE with the potential for intensification in the medium and long terms.

Concluding reflections

The literature review on COVID-19 and UCE revealed a heterogeneous and bottom-up range of practices and initiatives, reinforcing these previous characteristics of this academic mission. Among the initiatives, one can highlight the engagement between university and government , university and community and university, government and community , as well as greater concern with communication initiatives and public awareness . In this regard, the experiences in the health field stand out, although several other societal problems are addressed. To what extent such initiatives represent a novel character that will remain in a (possibly) ‘post-pandemic’ future, with the ability to move UCE as an academic mission towards greater institutionalization and a closer relationship with other missions in HEIs, remains open for future study. The literature review identified that, in the face of the abrupt and turbulent COVID-19 scenario, UCE initiatives had to adapt through the development of new capacities and skills and the use of digital technologies. Such adaptation occurred both for the continuation of established UCE practices and for the development of new ones. It is possible to conclude that the pandemic may have accelerated the trend towards the digitalisation of UCE, alongside the trend of digitalisation observed in higher education in general.

It should be noted that this study aims to make a first approximation – of a general nature – about the impact of COVID-19 on UCE. In this sense, there is a limitation in gaining a more in-depth understanding of the reported experiences and examining these in the light of deeper contextual aspects related to spatial and temporal dimensions, as well as actors’ motivations, strategic intentions and resource constraints. Nevertheless, based on the literature review, both the strengthening of certain partnerships and the development of new engagement structures and capabilities are critical factors that policymakers and university managers alike should take into serious consideration. More specifically, the devising of policy and strategic mechanisms that can support the nurturing of an enabling institutional environment (locally and at the level of the academic profession as a whole) which both acknowledges and rewards engaged academics and activities that deliver mutual value to the partners involved. What is more, the salience of digital technologies as mediators of social relations suggests that the barriers for active engagement beyond the immediate vicinity of the university have been somewhat eroded. That said, it is important to highlight the importance of face-to-face encounters as well as lived (on and off-campus) experiences in the context of sense-giving and sense-making, alongside the building of mutual trust. Interesting topics to be further explored by future research, thus, include qualitative and longitudinal accounts aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of actors’ motivations, experiences and practices alongside the identification of structural and cultural barriers impeding such initiatives. A fruitful path to better grasping the impact of COVID-19 on UCE as an academic mission also includes paying close attention to the complex and dynamic interplay amongst key, co-evolving and nested elements at the macro (policy and society), meso (organisational strategy) and micro (sub-units and academic communities) levels. Two areas of significant scholarly and policy interest pertain to the extent to which, as a mission, UCE (a) fosters the capacity of universities to adapt to environmental circumstances, including crises like COVID-19, in the context of resilience over time (cf. Pinheiro, et al., 2022 ), and (b) contributes to hybrid arrangements within universities, changing structures, activities and mindsets across the academic profession (cf. Pekkola et al., 2022 ).

Finally, the review also points out that the pandemic has provoked discussions about the societal role of HEIs. In this sense, the UCE debate comes alongside a backdrop of discussions on how to rethink and reshape higher education in the medium and long terms. The literature has stressed the need to strengthen the character of higher education as a public good and as a space for inclusion and democracy, as well as to rethink models of HEIs so that they have the capacity to act more strongly within communities and to participate more actively in the resolution of societal problems at local, regional, national and global levels. Furthermore, we posit that HEIs have an important role in co-constructing a post-pandemic society and also that they need to legitimise themselves socially and politically in the face of new and future scenarios. In this context, such discussions, at least in the literature consulted, indicate a positive vector for the greater institutionalisation of UCE and for making this academic mission less peripheral. Despite this positive signalling, this series of tensions involving UCE continues (and perhaps many of them have been intensified by the pandemic, in terms of stimulating competition and disputes about resources). Thus, a cloud of uncertainty remains over the place of UCE in the medium and long terms.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Evandro C Cristofoletti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5178-6451

• Aluisio AR, Zhu E, Gil G, et al. (2020) Academic-humanitarian partnerships: Leveraging strengths to combat COVID-19 . Global Health Action 13 ( 1 ): 1797296. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Sørensen E, Torfing J. (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems . Public Management Review 23 ( 7 ): 949–960. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arrais CA, Corcioli G, Medina G. (2021) The role played by public universities in mitigating the coronavirus catastrophe in Brazil: Solidarity, research and support to local governments facing the health crisis . Front. Sociol 6 : 610297. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.610297 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benitz MA, Yang L. (2020) Adapting a community engagement project in engineering and education to remote learning in the era of COVID-19 . Advances in Engineering Education 8 ( 4 ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth P. (2013) University Engagement with Socially Excluded Communities . Drodrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth P. (2018) Universities and Regional Economic Development: Engaging with the Periphery . London: Taylor & Francis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth P, de Boer H, Jongbloed B. (2015) Between good intentions and urgent stakeholder pressures: Institutionalizing the universities’ third mission in the Swedish context . European Journal of Higher Education 5 ( 3 ): 280–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth P, Pinheiro R, Sánchez-Barrioluengo M. (2016) One size does not fit all! New perspectives on the university in the social knowledge economy . Science and Public Policy 43 ( 6 ): scw018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benneworth PS. (2018) Mapping and Critical Synthesis of Current State-Of-the-Art on Community Engagement in Higher Education . Zagreb: Institute for the Development of Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergan S. (2021) Public responsibility for higher education in the time of Covid-19 . In: Bergan S, Gallagher T, Harkavy I, et al. (eds), Higher Education’s Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic . Council of Europe Higher Education Series. No. 25 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bintliff AV, Holtzman C, Ko E, et al. (2020) Innovations in undergraduate mentoring: School–university partnerships to address needs and inequities during pandemic-related remote learning . Journal of Service-Learning in Higher Education 11 ( 2 ): 54–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brandsen T, Steen T, Verschuere B. (2018) Co-Production and Co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services . New York and London: Taylor & Francis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryer TA. (2020) University–community partnerships in the literature . In: Bryer TA, Pliscoff C, Connors AW. (eds), Civic Mission of the University . Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canhilal SK, Lepori B, Seeber M. (2016) Decision-making power and institutional logic in higher education institutions: A comparative analysis of European universities Towards a Comparative Institutionalism: Forms, Dynamics, and Logics Across the Organizational Fields of Health Care and Higher Education . Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho LM, Nascimento FAA, Granato RR, et al. (2020) e-COVID Xingu: Mídias Sociais e Informação no Combate à Covid-19 em Altamira, Pará . Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica. [ Google Scholar ]
• CEPAL-UNESCO (2020) La educación en tiempos de la pandemia de COVID-19 . Informe COVID-19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cioppi E, Gutiérrez NG, Lawrence E, et al. (2020) University Museums from Home: Observations on Responses to the Impact of Covid-19 . University Museums and Collections Journal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cristofoletti EC, Serafim MP. (2020) Methodological and analytical dimensions of university extension . Educação & Realidade. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuthill M. (2011) Embedding engagement in an Australian Sandstone University: From community service to university engagement . Metropolitan Universities 22 ( 2 ): 21–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davenport B, Holland B. (2021) Note from the Guest Editors . Journal of Higher Education Outreach & Engagement 25 ( 3 ). [ Google Scholar ]
• De Bernardi AM, Rezende EJC, Franco JR, et al. (2021) Community engagement by social design: Research and outreach facing the COVID-19 pandemic . Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 25 ( 3 ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Deca L, Gologan D, Santa R. (2021) The covid-19 pandemic and its impact on higher education . In: Bergan S, Gallagher T, Harkavy I, (eds) Higher Education’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic . Council of Europe Higher Education Series No, p. 203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doumbia S, Sow Y, Diakite M, et al. (2020) Coordinating the research response to COVID-19: Mali’s approach . Health Research Policy and Systems 18 ( 1 ): 1–7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dresden J, Baker MA, Gómez DW. (2021) Introduction to the themed issue: The response and responsibility of school–university partnerships in a time of crisis . School–University Partnerships 14 ( 3 ): 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• El-Jardali F, Ataya N, Fadlallah R. (2018) Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: Rising up to the global challenge through institutionalising partnerships with governments and communities . Health Research Policy and Systems 16 ( 1 ): 38. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farnell T. (2020) Community Engagement in Higher Education: Trends, Practices and Policies. NESET Report . Luxembourg: Publications Of Ice of the European Union. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galindo CL, Sonnenschein S, Sanders MG. (2021) A case study of a school–university partnership focused on literacy and educational equity: Responding to COVID-19 in the early grades . School–University Partnerships 14 ( 3 ): 17–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbertson ML, Craft ME, Potter TM. (2019) Planetary grand challenges: A call for interdisciplinary partnerships . Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies 6 ( 1 ): 1–17. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goddard J, Hazelkorn E, Vallance P. (eds), (2016) The Civic University: The Policy and Leadership Challenges . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harkavy I, Bergan S, Gallagher T, et al. (2020) Universities must help shape the post-COVID-19 world . In: Bergan S, Gallagher T, Harkavy I, et al. (eds), Higher Education’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic . Council of Europe Higher Education Series. No. 25 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazelkorn E. (2021) Some challenges facing higher education in Europe in view of the COVID-19 pandemic . Council of Europe Higher Education Series, pp. 53–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazelkorn E. (2017) Global Rankings and the Geopolitics of Higher Education: Understanding the Influence and Impact of Rankings on Higher Education, Policy and Society . London; NY: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• IESALC-UNESCO (2020) Covid-19 and Higher Education: Today and tomorrow. Impact Analysis, Policy Responses and Recommendations . [ Google Scholar ]
• Joseph JJ, Glover A, Olayiwola JN, et al. (2021) Mask up: Academic-Community-Government Partnerships to Advance Public Health during COVID-19 . Population Health Management. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koekkoek A, Van Ham M, Kleinhans R. (2021) Unraveling university–community engagement: A literature review . Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 25 ( 1 ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Laredo P. (2007) Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy 20 ( 4 ): 441–456. [ Google Scholar ]
• Law SF, Cattlin J, Locke W. (2021) Understanding University Engagement: The Impact of COVID-19 on Collaborations and Partnerships . Melbourne: Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luppi E, Consolini E, Scagliarini A, et al. (2021) The University of Bologna during the Covid-19 pandemic: Protect, provide and innovate—Responses from a resilient community . In: Higher Education’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Building: A More Sustainable and Democratic Future . [ Google Scholar ]
• Maglia A, Braida E. (2020) El papel de las Universidades públicas en el marco de la pandemia COVID-19 . In: Mutti VG. (ed), El tiempo que vivimos. COVID 19 y su impacto en nuestras sociedades. Comité de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales AUGM . [ Google Scholar ]
• Manikam L, Allaham S, Zakieh O, et al. (2021) Online community engagement in response to COVID‐19 pandemic . Health Expectations 24 ( 2 ): 728–730. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinoni G, van’t Land H, Jensen T. (2020) The impact of Covid-19 on higher education around the world . IAU Global Survey Report . [ Google Scholar ]
• Maurrasse D. (2021) Challenges to US higher education in performing local missions during and after the Covid-19 pandemic . Higher Education’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic : 67 . [ Google Scholar ]
• McElfish PA, Cleek AB, Willis DE, et al. (2021) Leveraging community engagement capacity to address COVID-19 disparities among Pacific Islander and Latinx Communities in Arkansas . Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 5 ( 1 ): e81. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michener L, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alberti PM, et al. (2020) Peer reviewed: Engaging with communities—Lessons (re) learned from COVID-19 . Preventing Chronic Disease 17 : 200250. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nawangwe B. (2021) Re-thinking African higher education in the post-Covid-19 era . Higher Education’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic 16 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Neatrour AL, Myntti J, Wittmann RJ. (2020) Documenting Contemporary Regional History: The Utah COVID-19 Digital Collection . Digital Library Perspectives. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicolò G, Aversano N, Sannino G, et al. (2021) Investigating web-based sustainability reporting in Italian public universities in the era of Covid-19 . Sustainability 13 ( 6 ): 3468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olsen JP, Maassen P. (2007) European debates on the knowledge institution: The modernization of the university at the European level . In: Maassen P, Olsen JP. (eds), University Dynamics and European Integration . Dordrecht: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pekkola E, Pinheiro R, Geschwind L, et al. (2022) Hybridity in Nordic Higher Education . International Journal of Public Administration 45 ( 2 ): 171–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrotta D. (2021) Universities and Covid-19 in Argentina: From community engagement to regulation . Studies in Higher Education 46 ( 1 ): 30–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry J, McClure N, Palmer R, et al. (2021) Utilizing Academic–Community Partnerships with Nursing Students to Improve Hand Hygiene in Elementary Students to Reduce transmission of COVID-19 . NASN School Nurse 1942602X20986958. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro R, Abualrub Y. (2021) When excellence meets relevance: Challenges and tensions facing higher education institutions . In: Broucker B, Pritchard R, Melin G, et al. (eds), Sustaining the Future of Higher Education . Leiden & Boston: Brill, pp. 45–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro R, Benneworth P, Jones GA. (2015) Beyond the obvious: Tensions and volitions surrounding the contributions of universities to regional development . In: Farinha L, Ferreira J, Lawton-Smith H, et al. (eds), Handbook of Research on Global Competitive Advantage through Innovation and Entrepreneurship . Hershey, PA: IGI, pp. 150–172. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro R, Benneworth P, Jones GA. (eds), (2012) Universities and Regional Development: A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions . Milton Park and New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro R., Frigotto M., Young M. (eds), (2022) Towards Resilient Organizations and Societies: A Cross-Sectoral and Multi-Disciplinary Perspective . Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinheiro R, Langa P, Pausits A. (2015) One and two equals three? The third mission of higher education institutions . European Journal of Higher Education 5 ( 3 ): 233–249. DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044552 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puukka J. (2017) Local and global engagement: Balancing needs at global, national and local level . In: Towards a Socially Responsible Higher Education Institution: Balancing the Global with the Local . GUNI Report, 74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reimers FM. (2021) Cómo puede la universidad contribuir a construir un futuro mejor durante la pandemia de la COVID-19? Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 86 ( 2 ): 9–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosa MFF, da Silva EN, Pacheco C, et al. (2021) Direct from the COVID-19 crisis: Research and innovation sparks in Brazil . Health Research Policy and Systems 19 ( 1 ): 1–7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saini K, Conway-Jones R, Jurdon R, et al. (2021) Distance-learning collaborations for rapid knowledge sharing to the occupied Palestinian territory during the COVID-19 response: Experience from the OxPal partnership . Medicine, Conflict and Survival 37 ( 1 ): 55–68. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seru EJ. (2021) Critical, Interdisciplinary, and collaborative approaches to virtual community-engaged learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and social unrest in the Twin Cities . Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 25 ( 3 ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Teixeira PN, Shin JC. (2020) The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions . Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tozini K, de Souza CSS, Leal F, et al. (2022) Public higher education response to COVID-19: The case of federal institutions in Southern Brazil . 25–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trierweiller A, Vefago Y, Huisingh D, et al. (2021) University’s third mission: An exploratory vision . In: Giannetti BF, Almeida CMVB, Agostinho F. (eds), Advances in Cleaner Production, Proceedings of the 10h International Workshop . Ferrara, Italy. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2021. a) COVID-19: Reopening and Reimagining Universities, Survey on Higher Education through the UNESCO National Commissions . [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2021. b) Higher Education Institutions’ Engagement with the Community. Issue Note N°5 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Vinson AH, Fishstrom AB, Rooney DM. (2021) Learning and collaboration during crisis: A novel university–community partnership to manufacture medical personal protective equipment . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 ( 5 ): 2258. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson D, Hollister R, Stround S, et al. (eds), (2011) The Engaged University: International Perspectives on Civic Engagement . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welter C, Jarpe-Ratner E, Bonney T, et al. (2021) Development of the healthy work collaborative: Findings from an action research study to inform a policy, systems, and environmental change capacity-building initiative addressing precarious employment . Health Promotion Practice 22 ( 1 ): 41–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wise E, Nilsson C, Romare P, et al. (2021) Moving beyond traditional measures—Lessons from evaluating collaborative initiatives at Lund University Academic and Practitioner Proceedings of the 2021 University-Industry Interaction Conference Series: Challenges and Solutions for Fostering Entrepreneurial Universities and Collaborative Innovation . University Industry Innovation Network, pp. 45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiao Y, Watson M. (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review . Journal of Planning Education and Research 39 ( 1 ): 93–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young M, Pinheiro R. (2022) The post-entrepreneurial university: The case for resilience in higher education . In: Pinheiro R, Frigotto L, Young M. (eds), Towards Resilient Organizations and Societies: A Cross-Sectoral and Multi-Disciplinary Perspective . London: Palgrave, pp. 179–200. [ Google Scholar ]

• Help & FAQ

Unraveling University–Community Engagement: A Literature Review

• Urban Studies

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

University–community engagement has been implemented by anincreasing number of universities across the world, in a period characterized by growing international competition. The growth of interest in university–community engagement has led to multiple definitions of this term and a high level of complexity in defining what it entails. Using a literature review, this article offers a critical assessment of the academic literature on university–community engagement. The article aims to provide insight into trends, commonalities, and variations in the literature, to enable the identification of an agenda for future research. We identify four main gaps in the literature, which we suggest addressing through a more critical conceptual discussion supported by empirical research, broadening the theoretical lens, and using particular research approaches, such as theories of change. Altogether, this will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of university–community engagement.

• civic engagement
• community engagement
• engaged university
• higher education
• literature review

Access to Document

• rs1586-book-layout Final published version, 479 KB

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Literature Social Sciences 100%
• Literature Reviews Social Sciences 100%
• International Competition Keyphrases 100%
• Main Gap Keyphrases 100%
• Agenda for Future Research Keyphrases 100%
• Theory of Change Keyphrases 100%
• Complexity Level Keyphrases 100%
• Academic Literature Keyphrases 100%

T1 - Unraveling University–Community Engagement

T2 - A Literature Review

AU - Koekkoek, Anouk

AU - Ham, Maarten Van

AU - Kleinhans, Reinout

N2 - University–community engagement has been implemented by anincreasing number of universities across the world, in a period characterized by growing international competition. The growth of interest in university–community engagement has led to multiple definitions of this term and a high level of complexity in defining what it entails. Using a literature review, this article offers a critical assessment of the academic literature on university–community engagement. The article aims to provide insight into trends, commonalities, and variations in the literature, to enable the identification of an agenda for future research. We identify four main gaps in the literature, which we suggest addressing through a more critical conceptual discussion supported by empirical research, broadening the theoretical lens, and using particular research approaches, such as theories of change. Altogether, this will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of university–community engagement.

AB - University–community engagement has been implemented by anincreasing number of universities across the world, in a period characterized by growing international competition. The growth of interest in university–community engagement has led to multiple definitions of this term and a high level of complexity in defining what it entails. Using a literature review, this article offers a critical assessment of the academic literature on university–community engagement. The article aims to provide insight into trends, commonalities, and variations in the literature, to enable the identification of an agenda for future research. We identify four main gaps in the literature, which we suggest addressing through a more critical conceptual discussion supported by empirical research, broadening the theoretical lens, and using particular research approaches, such as theories of change. Altogether, this will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of university–community engagement.

KW - civic engagement

KW - community engagement

KW - engaged university

KW - higher education

KW - literature review

KW - outreach

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104046146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85104046146

SN - 1534-6102

JO - Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

JF - Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 13 April 2018

Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review

• E. De Weger 1 , 2 ,
• N. Van Vooren 1 ,
• K. G. Luijkx 2 ,
• C. A. Baan 1 , 2 &
• H. W. Drewes 1  

BMC Health Services Research volume  18 , Article number:  285 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

55k Accesses

101 Citations

34 Altmetric

Metrics details

Community engagement is increasingly seen as crucial to achieving high quality, efficient and collaborative care. However, organisations are still searching for the best and most effective ways to engage citizens in the shaping of health and care services. This review highlights the barriers and enablers for engaging communities in the planning, designing, governing, and/or delivering of health and care services on the macro or meso level. It provides policymakers and professionals with evidence-based guiding principles to implement their own effective community engagement (CE) strategies.

A Rapid Realist Review was conducted to investigate how interventions interact with contexts and mechanisms to influence the effectiveness of CE. A local reference panel, consisting of health and care professionals and experts, assisted in the development of the research questions and search strategy. The panel’s input helped to refine the review’s findings. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted.

Eight action-oriented guiding principles were identified:

Ensure staff provide supportive and facilitative leadership to citizens based on transparency;

foster a safe and trusting environment enabling citizens to provide input;

ensure citizens’ early involvement;

share decision-making and governance control with citizens;

acknowledge and address citizens’ experiences of power imbalances between citizens and professionals;

invest in citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage;

create quick and tangible wins;

take into account both citizens’ and organisations’ motivations.

Conclusions

An especially important thread throughout the CE literature is the influence of power imbalances and organisations’ willingness, or not, to address such imbalances. The literature suggests that ‘meaningful participation’ of citizens can only be achieved if organisational processes are adapted to ensure that they are inclusive, accessible and supportive of citizens.

Peer Review reports

Ageing populations with increasingly complex health and care needs, growing health inequalities, and the challenging financial climates in OECD countries, have long emphasised the need for the provision of better and more efficient care [ 1 ]. In an effort to tackle such problems, a diverse range of organisations, including healthcare providers, insurance companies, municipalities and patient representatives are collaborating to implement new models of care [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]). Community engagement (CE) is increasingly seen as a key component of such new collaborative models of care. Communities often have a more holistic view of health and wellbeing, thus enabling organisations to look beyond their own interests and traditional remits [ 5 ]. The assumption is that involving communities can act as a lever for change to bring a wider range of services together even including, schools and local businesses, which would then be more tailored to the needs of the communities themselves. Many suggest that such tailored and integrated services would ultimately lead to improved community health [ 6 , 7 ]. Others also believe that as citizens become more engaged and empowered to shape their local services, the management of their own health and wellbeing would also improve [ 8 ]. Many health and care organisations in the Netherlands have started implementing new CE interventions; however, there is limited insight regarding the best ways to implement successful CE initiatives.

Previous studies have evaluated different types of CE interventions that have been implemented with the aim of improving local health and care services or neighbourhoods’ healthy living infrastructure [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Earlier literature reviews have focused on how CE interventions affect populations’ health and social outcomes [ 8 , 13 ] or organisational structures and processes [ 14 , 15 ]. Each of these studies has shed some light on the problems that prevent CE interventions from reaching ‘meaningful’ citizen participation. For example, earlier studies have shown how power imbalances and the inaccessibility of organisational structures and processes experienced by citizens can prevent CE interventions from producing the intended outcomes and can instead lead to mistrust between citizens and professionals [ 9 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]). However, while these earlier studies have been insightful, they do not provide professionals with the information they need to successfully implement CE interventions in their own contexts. This is partly because previous studies have provided limited insight into the ways in which the different contextual factors (e.g. existing service fragmentation) and underlying mechanisms (e.g. staff’s support and facilitation making citizens feel valued) influence CE intervention outcomes (e.g. levels of community trust).

To start providing such information, this rapid realist review (RRR) sets out eight guiding principles for ‘meaningful’ participation. The principles are based on a review of the peer-reviewed literature and are underpinned by an investigation of which CE interventions work, for whom, how, to what extent and in which contexts. The principles, along with the contextual factors and the mechanisms that influence the outcomes of CE interventions are useful for policymakers and professionals to explore when struggling with the implementation of their own CE intervention. The review specifically investigated the application of CE in health and social care, focusing on the macro and meso levels of CE, e.g. developing policies, designing, implementing and delivering health and care services, setting service and policy priorities. The review addressed the following research questions:

What are the action-oriented guiding principles by which community engagement interventions can be implemented successfully?

What are the mechanisms by which these principles operate? What are the contextual factors influencing the principles?

What impact do the interactions between contextual factors and mechanisms have on CE intervention outcomes?

This review applied the rapid realist review (RRR) methodology. The realist methodology aims to highlight the impact that interactions between the contextual factors and the mechanisms have on intervention outcomes [ 19 ]. RRRs aim to provide a similar knowledge synthesis as traditional systematic realist reviews, but within a considerably shorter timeframe to ensure the relevance and applicability of results for the stakeholders [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ].

The review was undertaken in consultation with a local reference panel. As this RRR represents the first stage of a four-year mixed methods multiple case study evaluating six community engagement interventions in the Netherlands, the local reference panel consisted of the six CE interventions’ stakeholders, including professionals, citizens and citizen representatives who will be further developing and implementing the interventions. The panel also included experts in the fields of health inequalities, citizen participation, and public health, to ensure the review addressed relevant gaps in the literature. The review followed five iterative stages, which have been applied and described by others previously [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]:

Developing and refining research questions

Searching and retrieving information

Screening and appraising information

Synthesising information

Interpreting information

Because there are such wide-ranging definitions and interpretations of CE, an important first step was to find one clear definition that the authors could then apply throughout each stage of the review. Based on a preliminary search of the literature and early consultations with the panel, the authors chose the following definition of community engagement:

‘Involving communities in decision-making and in the planning, design, governance and/or delivery of services. Community engagement activities can take many forms including service-user networks, healthcare forums, volunteering or interventions delivered by trained peers’ ([ 24 ], p. xiii).

The authors engaged with the stakeholders of the six interventions at the start of the review to ensure their key areas of interest were covered in the review, and also consulted with the other experts in the local reference panel to confirm that the review addressed relevant gaps in the literature.

In consultation with the library scientist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and based on the chosen definition and the preliminary search of the literature, the review search terms and search strings were agreed (See Additional file 1 ) and applied in the electronic databases, Embase and Scopus. These two databases were chosen as they were deemed by the library scientist to be the most relevant to the review’s subject area. Furthermore, Embase and Scopus are two of the largest international databases with a focus on health and social research and include trade journals as well. Upon reviewing the results of these two databases, the authors felt that enough rich data had been obtained and so did not search any other databases in order to speed up the process to ensure the stakeholders received the relevant information on time and in line with their CE intervention implementation schedules.

The draft inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based on the preliminary search and were tested by two reviewers (EdW and NvV). Based on this test, the reviewers decided to expand the original criteria to ensure closer alignment with the review’s scope and the chosen CE definition. The reviewers screened the papers in two stages. During the first stage, papers’ titles and abstracts were screened, for example, based on whether the CE interventions described involved citizens or communities in the decision-making, planning, design, governance or delivery of health and care services or policies. EdW and NvV applied these criteria to the titles and abstracts and rated papers: (a) ‘red’, if papers did not follow the agreed definition of CE and/or if topics fell clearly outside the scope; (b) ‘amber’ if this was unclear; or (c) ‘green’, if the papers clearly applied the same definition and discussed topics within the scope. Initially, EdW and NvV both screened the same 100 papers to ensure standardisation of the screening process. After this, the reviewers each reviewed a different stack of papers to speed up the screening process. EdW and NvV crosschecked and discussed the papers rated ‘amber’ or ‘green’ to ensure consistency in their approach. Additionally, HD sampled 40 papers—20 papers which NvV and EdW had both screened, 10 papers which EdW had screened and 10 papers which NvV had screened—to ensure EdW’s and NvV’s screening was rigorous, consistent and standardised. Papers rated ‘red’ did not continue to the second, full-text, screening stage (Table 1 ).

During the second screening stage, EdW and NvV assessed the full text of those papers that had been rated ‘green’ or ‘amber’ for methodological rigour using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 25 ] and for relevance. Relevance was assessed by asking questions like whether CE was the paper’s main subject area and whether the CE interventions described operated on Rowe & Frewer’s [ 26 ] ‘Public Participation’ level. In line with the O’Mara-Eves et al. [ 24 ] definition, the authors used Rowe & Frewer’s [ 26 ] classification of public participation to assess whether the interventions described in the literature operated on the ‘public participation level’ whereby citizens are not merely receiving information from organisations (public communication level), or merely providing information to organisations (public consultation), but are actively engaged in dialogue with organisations (Table 2 ) [ 26 ].

Data extractions were conducted on the final set of selected papers using an extraction template (available upon request) . The template was used to extract data regarding the interventions’ strategies, activities and resources, and the context, mechanisms and outcomes directly stipulated in the papers. To aid the reviewers during the extraction process and to ensure consistency and transparency, the authors specified CE-oriented definitions of important realist concepts. The realist methodology is still developing and as such, realist evaluators continue to unpack and operationalise terms like ‘context’, ‘mechanisms’, and ‘interventions’ and how these interrelate [ 27 ]. The following CE-oriented definitions of the realist concepts were applied:

Intervention : refers to interventions’ implemented activities, strategies and resources [ 27 ] e.g., citizen advisory panel meetings, neighbourhood clean-up activities, or citizen learning opportunities.

Mechanism : the concept of ‘mechanism’ does not refer to the intentional resources offered or strategies implemented within an intervention. Rather, it refers to what ‘triggers’ participants to want to participate, or not, in an intervention. Mechanisms usually pertain to cognitive, emotional or behavioural responses to intervention resources and strategies [ 28 ], e.g., citizens feeling more empowered due to learning opportunities.

Context : pertains to the backdrop of an intervention. Context includes the pre-existing organisational structures, the cultural norms and history of the community, the nature and scope of pre-existing networks, and geographic location effects [ 28 , 29 ], e.g., pre-existing levels of trust between communities and organisations or previous experience of CE interventions.

Outcome: refers to intended or unexpected intervention outcomes [ 28 ] e.g. sustainability, quality integration of services (macro); citizens’ level of involvement in health and care services (meso); citizens’ health and wellbeing outcomes (micro).

Using completed extractions, EdW and NvV created Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations (CMOs) in order to understand and explain why CE interventions work, or not, and to generate the action-oriented guiding principles. For this review, the authors only created CMOs if those contexts, mechanisms and outcomes were explicitly correlated in the papers themselves to avoid conjecture. After drafting the configurations, the mechanisms of the CMOs were first clustered per type of CE intervention in order to ensure that the eventual principles were underpinned by mechanisms found across the range of CE interventions and thus across different contexts—i.e. (a) citizens involved in health and care organisations or neighbourhood panels, forums, boards, steering groups, planning and decision-making committees; (b) community-wide volunteering and community group activities in health and care related subjects; and (c) peer delivery. After this initial round of clustering, NvV and EdW searched for keywords in those mechanisms and then thematically clustered the mechanisms according to those keywords—independent of the types of intervention—thus generating the guiding principles. As papers were able to contribute to multiple principles, EdW and NvV also checked that each principle was based on mechanisms from several different papers to ensure the principles were transferable across different interventions and contexts. The final draft of the clustered mechanisms was shared with the other authors to confirm the mechanism themes and to refine the principles. The mechanisms of the CMOs were chosen as the basis for generating the principles, because the question of what makes citizens want to participate or not, are central to the CE literature and to the local reference panel. This question is inherently related to the concept of ‘mechanisms’—what ‘turns on in the minds of program participants and stakeholders that make them want to participate or invest in programs’ [ 28 ].

Finally, the authors held a workshop in order to present the review’s findings, including the final draft of the principles, to the local reference panel. During the workshop, the panel discussed the applicability of the principles within their local contexts and whether they are experiencing similar issues in the development of their own CE interventions. Confirming that the final draft of principles and their corresponding mechanisms had face validity, the workshop provided rich anecdotal evidence, thus further refining and finalising the principles discussed below.

After the removal of duplicates, the search resulted in 2249 potentially relevant papers (see Fig.  1 ). After the first title and abstract screening stage, 205 papers were selected to continue to the second full text screening stage. After applying the full-text inclusion and exclusion criteria and removing a further four papers as they contained no information on contexts or mechanisms and excluding six literature reviews to ensure this review’s findings were based on primary data, a total of 20 papers were used for data extraction.

Flowchart of document inclusion and exclusion process

The majority of papers focused on CE interventions involving citizens in healthcare organisations’ or neighbourhood panels, forums, boards, steering groups, or planning and decision-making committees [ 9 , 17 , 18 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. For example, [ 32 ] study described the Australian District Aboriginal Health Action Groups (DAHAGs), which included both Aboriginal community members and healthcare professionals who together, identified local solutions to important Aboriginal health problems [ 32 ]. Five papers investigated CE interventions involving community group activities or community wide volunteering ([ 11 , 12 , 31 , 41 ]; Schoch-Spana). For example, Hamamoto et al. [ 11 ] described how community volunteering and actions groups, together with the local Community Centre, developed and implemented a new healthy living infrastructure in the local neighbourhood. Only two papers described peer delivery interventions [ 10 , 16 ]. For example, De Freitas & Martin’s [ 16 ] study showed how Cape Verdean migrant mental health service-users were empowered and actively engaged in supporting and recruiting other service-users (Table 3 ).

A total of eight guiding principles was identified through the literature and enriched and triangulated by the panel’s input. Table  3 summarises the enabling contexts and mechanisms underpinning the principles that organisations can build on to ensure CE interventions are successful. It is worth noting that constraining contexts and mechanisms are largely two sides of the same coin—e.g. lack of previous positive relationships between organisations and communities (context) and lack of quick wins worsened residents’ feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness (mechanism) . The following section first describes each principle using the evidence from the literature review, including examples of individual CMO configurations underpinning the principle (full list of individual CMO configurations available upon request) . After each principle, the panel’s reflections will be summarised separately—the panel’s input did not change the wording of the principles and instead triangulated and enriched the literature findings (Table 4 ).

Guiding principle 1: Ensure staff provide supportive and facilitative leadership to citizens based on transparency

Supportive and facilitative leadership refers to organisational leadership that supports citizens in their roles and tasks without being too directive or restrictive. Such support should be based on transparency allowing both citizens and professionals to easily share information with each other. This helps to ensure that all those involved in CE interventions are clear on the expected outcomes [ 30 , 32 , 37 , 40 ]. One of the examples from the literature involves a hospital setting up a Citizen’s Advisory Panel not just to address the hospital’s significant deficit, but also to create community support for the required service changes and to foster closer relationships with the community. From the start, the Board was transparent about the difficult financial situation and stipulated that the Panel’s role was to make far-reaching recommendations regarding the Hospital’s operations and processes in order to make the hospital more efficient [ 30 ]. The Board supported the Panel, for example, by giving and receiving presentations and by enlisting the help of an external consultancy who facilitated the Panel in developing their recommendations. While the Panel felt anxious about the magnitude and complexity of their task and their own recommendations on how best to address the hospital’s significant deficit (context) , the supportive yet not directive facilitation and transparency of the Board ensured that the Panel remained positive and motivated throughout the process ( mechanism ). Ultimately, the Panel members stated they would engage in such interventions again (outcome) . Furthermore, the Board approved the majority of the Panel’s recommendations ( outcome ), which resulted in a balanced budget ( outcome ). While some in the wider community were angry about the service cuts, the overall response of the community was positive ( outcome ) [ 30 ].

As evidenced in Table 3 , CE interventions operate within a wide range of contextual factors relating to leadership. Enabling contextual factors include previous positive experiences of CE [ 30 ] and organisational structures providing separate points of connections between communities and local services (e.g. quarterly meetings, whole-area forums) [ 32 ]. Constraining contextual factors include engaging communities with pre-existing low-levels of community readiness to mobilise around a health or neighbourhood issue or citizens with deteriorating health [ 40 ]. If contextual constraints are not acknowledged, interventions will likely be met with resistance. For example, unsupportive leadership that is unable to release control to citizens living in low-income neighbourhoods, leads to those citizens feeling frustrated and disempowered [ 40 ]. However, the literature shows that CE interventions operating within constraining contextual factors do not automatically fail as long as such constraints are acknowledged and addressed within the intervention by supportive and facilitative leadership [ 30 , 32 , 40 ].

Local reference panel reflections

The panel acknowledged the importance of fostering supportive leadership and offering specific points of connection between communities and their local services. The panel proposed having one consistent professional in a leadership position whom citizens can contact if they need further information or support.

Guiding principle 2: Foster a safe and trusting environment enabling citizens to provide input

Creating forums where citizens and professionals alike feel comfortable enough to put forward ideas is critical to CE interventions’ success. Engagement processes and activities should, therefore, be adjusted to suit citizens’ needs and organisations should take steps to reduce practical as well as cultural barriers to enable their full participation [ 16 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 41 , 42 ]. Examples from the literature include holding meetings and activities when convenient to citizens, taking into account citizens’ language needs (e.g. less jargon), and ensuring activities aimed at ethnic minorities are culturally sensitive [ 16 , 34 , 42 ]. In Schoch-Spana et al.’s [ 42 ] study the enabling organisational infrastructure (context) helped management to create a safe environment for the community to ask questions during deliberative meetings, which helped to build trust and cohesion (mechanism) . Management’s efforts, in turn, enabled staff to dedicate time to building trusting relationships with the community (outcome) which then meant that citizens were more likely to come forward and volunteer their own time (outcome) . Luluquisen & Pettis’s [ 34 ] study highlighted that it is important for organisations to consider citizens’ potentially differing needs and cater to different groups so that safe spaces can be created for those different groups (e.g. a youth only steering group, separate from adult boards). Creating a safe and trusting environment is especially important in contexts of marginalisation and racism. Often, such communities are mistrustful of local services [ 42 ], especially if past engagement efforts have failed to bring any improvements [ 32 ]. Failing to accommodate citizens’ needs would result in citizens feeling intimidated by, e.g. professional meetings [ 41 ]. Before implementing any plans, organisations will need to invest time and resources into addressing these contextual factors [ 16 , 32 , 35 , 42 ].

The panel emphasised that local neighbourhoods do not consist of one homogeneous group of citizens with the same interests and needs. This means that local citizens sometimes have opposing views and priorities and that organisations should play a mediating role by, for example, setting up safe forums where such tensions can be openly discussed.

Guiding principle 3: Ensure citizens’ early involvement

Citizens should be involved as early as possible, though the point of citizen involvement should be discussed with citizens. Where possible, organisations should engage citizens in the identification and prioritisation of their own healthcare needs. In doing so, organisations ensure that their priorities and definitions of health are aligned with those of the citizens they serve [ 9 , 12 , 31 , 37 , 39 ]). Veronesi & Keasey’s [ 39 ] study showed how the early involvement of citizens was critical in overcoming initial staff resistance to the proposed reorganisation of an acute hospital. While staff was resistant to any change, the local community and patient representatives welcomed the chance to improve the failing local hospital and thus became active drivers for change. [ 30 ] study is particularly interesting, as the conflict of interest did not centre on the differences of opinions between ‘the organisation’ as a whole and ‘the community’. Instead, the organisation’s upper management seemed at odds with its staff, thereby creating a unique opportunity to leverage the community’s input to make the required changes. The literature includes several examples of how failing to include citizens early on negatively affected the outcome of CE interventions [ 9 , 12 , 37 ]). For example, Carlisle (2010) evaluated a Panel consisting of professionals and local community members tasked with tackling the social exclusion and health inequalities experienced by deprived local communities (context) . However, the Panel had already been operational for over a year before any community members were able to join (context ). Because the professionals in the Panel had already allocated funds and resources, the community members felt ‘like tokens’ on the Panel (mechanism) and were keen to ‘present a united front’ against the professionals (outcome) . This ultimately led to a tense and uncollaborative relationship (outcome) [ 9 ]. Organisations will struggle to involve citizens early on, if contextual power imbalances between professionals and citizens are not addressed and organisations maintain overall control of interventions’ projects and plans. Ultimately, citizens who are shut out of strategic and decision-making stages end up feeling disempowered and demotivated to continue their engagement [ 12 ]. Instead, the early involvement of citizens can build momentum and motivate others to join CE interventions [ 12 , 31 ].

While the panel recognised that early involvement of citizens is important, in the panel’s experience, citizens often struggle to participate if organisations have not yet worked out any concrete goals or plans, as they prefer having something tangible to discuss. They suggested organisations support citizens to turn their own ideas into workable plans and strategies.

Guiding principle 4: Share decision-making and governance control with citizens

Organisations should encourage citizens to take on governance and decision-making roles within CE interventions [ 9 , 12 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]). The literature includes many examples of how organisations maintain control of the management, governance and planning of CE interventions [ 9 , 12 , 31 , 33 ]). For example, in Carlisle’s study (2010), once the citizens had joined the Panel, the professionals continued to maintain control by monopolising the meetings by ‘wading through large quantities of complex paperwork’ and the tenant council of one of the interventions evaluated by Yoo et al. [ 40 ] maintained control by, for example, cancelling meetings at the last minute. The literature also highlights examples of how organisations can share control by amending interventions’ governance and management structures and processes [ 12 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. For example, Durey et al.’s [ 32 ] study showed that in the context of the community’s marginalisation and mistrust of culturally inappropriate mainstream health services (context) , enabling Aboriginal community members to choose their own representatives on the DAHAGs was valued by community members (mechanism) and led to more authority being placed in the hands of the community (outcome) . Renedo & Marston [ 18 ] took a broader view and recommended that organisations examine the way in which professionals view and discuss citizen participation and to enable citizens to shape their own roles and identities instead. This way citizens will not have to adapt to organisations’ ‘elite systems’ and are valued for their own unique input. Such sharing of control is harder to achieve in contexts of marginalised communities with lower levels of readiness and hierarchical organisational structures, and when interventions have been developed ‘top down’. In such contexts, engaged citizens quickly feel as if professionals dismiss their views [ 34 ]. Ultimately, as Lang et al. [ 12 ] highlighted, citizens’ willingness to participate in interventions significantly depends on the extent to which organisations are willing and able to share control.

The citizens and citizen representatives on the panel echoed the review’s findings and suggested organisational processes should be more tailored to citizens as they find it difficult to navigate organisational processes and structures. In their experience, citizens are often unaware of which organisations or professionals to approach with their ideas or what processes they are expected to follow.

Guiding principle 5: Acknowledge and address citizens’ experiences of power imbalances between citizens and professionals

Addressing power imbalances between citizens and professionals is crucial to CE interventions’ success. However, there are several factors, which contribute to citizens’ relative powerlessness [ 9 , 17 , 18 , 33 , 34 ]). Firstly, as we have seen, organisational structures and hierarchies are tipped towards professionals rather than citizens leading interventions’ most influential aspects as professionals continue to hold key decision-making and governance positions [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Secondly, studies like Renedo & Marston [ 18 ] and Lewis [ 17 ] highlights that the way in which professionals view and discuss citizens contains contradictions that maintain the institutional status quo. For example, Lewis [ 17 ] discussed how professionals dismissed and undermined engaged service-users of a mental health service, because of their having a mental illness. The professionals called into question the validity of service-users’ contributions by suggesting their mental health issues ‘made them unreasonable’. Renedo & Marston [ 18 ] explained that professionals’ contradictory discourse and expectations of engaged citizens limits citizens in the type and scope of contributions they are able to make—e.g. having professional-level skills, while at the same time being a ‘genuine’ citizen in the local area. Such discourses maintain a clear division between a ‘powerful us’ (professionals) and disempowered ‘others’ (engaged citizens). Constraining contextual factors, which may make it harder to address power imbalances, include disadvantaged communities used to being at the lower end of the privilege spectrum, and organisations remaining symbolic institutions of power and hierarchy [ 9 , 17 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]). For example, Lewis [ 17 ] showed that a lack of institutional status (context) can lead to citizens feeling out of place and unsure of how to contribute to organisationally run meetings (mechanism) . This led to some citizens feeling silenced (outcome) , while others felt angry and shouted out their views (outcome) , which in turn was dismissed by professionals (outcome) . Ultimately, CE initiatives will only be successful if organisations address power imbalances, share control with citizens and professionals and citizens view each other as legitimate and equal partners in the interventions [ 17 , 18 , 33 ].

The panel recognised the importance of the equal status between organisations and citizens. They felt that achieving such a balance would require open and honest discussions between organisations and citizens about their respective roles in a more equal CE structure.

Guiding principle 6: Invest in citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage

Organisations should offer learning opportunities to citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage. Without being offered the opportunity to learn the required skills and capabilities, many, more vulnerable, citizens will likely feel unable to effectively engage [ 10 , 12 , 16 , 18 , 32 ]. For example, Crondahl & Eklund Karlsson [ 10 ] evaluated a CE learning intervention, which aimed to empower socially excluded and discriminated against Roma citizens to become health promotion coordinators in their own Roma communities (context) . The training programme helped the Roma coordinators to develop a greater sense of control and empowerment (mechanism) , which led to increased self-acceptance and to a sense of positive Roma culture (outcome) [ 10 ]. De Freitas & Martin’s study [ 16 ] of a mental health provider’s advocacy project supporting migrants with mental health issues showed how culturally sensitive training programmes empowered disadvantaged service-users. The organisation recognised that the participants did not feel as if they had the required skills and delivered training aimed at raising their awareness about the causes of their disadvantage and the tools they could use to alleviate the causes. Additionally, the already engaged service-users were trained to deliver peer-support groups to other service-users. The direct peer recruitment enabled the marginalised service-users to recognise their own entitlement to participation and enable them to successfully recruit other migrants with mental health issues into the service. The peer supporters themselves increased their social interactions, improved their communication skills and adhered more to their own treatment plans [ 16 ]. Constraining contextual factors include organisations that maintain power imbalances, have unclear remits for citizens, and have tense relationships with communities. Organisations operating within such contexts will struggle to provide the right learning opportunities to citizens who do not already feel empowered; again highlighting the importance of first addressing such constraining contextual factors.

The panel agreed that in their experience it was difficult to engage citizens who are not already empowered. Most of their citizen-participants not only live in the area, but also work in the local healthcare sector. The stakeholders are still searching for the best ways of engaging more disadvantaged citizens, but suggested ‘buddying up’ vulnerable citizens with the already engaged citizens.

Guiding principle 7: Create quick and tangible wins

Quick wins are important for CE interventions to build and maintain momentum among citizens [ 11 , 32 , 34 , 40 , 41 ]. Hamamoto et al. [ 11 ] described how a local community health centre engaged thousands of citizens in tangible projects promoting active living in the area, e.g. a mother’s walking group, bicycle repair and distribution programme. Though the local community had pressing and visible socio-economic needs including a deteriorating infrastructure not easily lending itself to physical activity (context) , the early successes in the initial stages of the intervention provided momentum and energy for citizens to come together towards other common and achievable goals (mechanism) . This led to thousands of citizens to volunteer for health-related activities and youth programmes (outcome) . However, the community centre struggled to engage citizens in broader policy development (outcome) , partly because the Centre did not have enough supportive resources or clearly defined policy issues to mobilize the community around. Kegler et al. [ 41 ] evaluated communities’ participation in California Healthy Cities and Communities programmes and found that sites, which focused on tangible mobilisation efforts such as neighbourhood clean-ups typically, generated more spin-off activities, and had more citizens participating in projects’ implementation phases. Studies like Durey et al. [ 32 ] and Yoo et al. [ 40 ] suggest that quick wins are especially important for interventions where communities’ previous experiences of CE, or health and care services more generally, have been negative and failed to show any benefits to citizens , this is especially true for CE interventions with marginalised and low-income communities. In such contexts, a lack of quick, concrete improvements can worsen citizens’ feelings of powerlessness and will likely result in citizens being less likely to participate in future interventions [ 40 ]. While, quick wins which result in changes that improve services, help to create communities’ trust in the engagement processes and can trigger citizens’ dedication and ability to push through difficulties and obstacles [ 32 , 34 ].

The panel echoed Hamamoto et al.’s [ 11 ] findings and highlighted the difficulties in maintaining citizens’ engagement in interventions that had achieved the quick wins and were running smoothly. The panel mentioned that regularly relating to citizens how their input is being used and how it contributes to successful outcomes can be helpful in maintaining citizens’ interest. They felt that such transparency might also force organisations to actually use citizens’ input.

Guiding principle 8: Take into account both citizens’ and organisations’ motivations

Organisations should enable citizens to participate in activities and projects that truly interest and motivate them, instead of channelling their participation to other projects [ 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 42 ]. The community centre evaluated by Hamamoto et al. [ 11 ], for example, enabled citizens to solely provide input into those projects, which truly interested them, which meant that citizens remained engaged for the entire length of their specific project. As Van Eijk & Steen [ 38 ] argued, citizens cannot pay attention to every topic and are often engaged in an ad hoc manner, contingent on specific problems. For example, their study of a mental healthcare provider’s Client Council showed that citizens’ motivations for joining the Council were mostly personal—e.g. because they were a service-user or the carer of a service-user and wanted more social interactions with others in a similar situation. The implication was that as soon as that personal connection disappeared, their commitment to the Council decreased. In Lewis’ [ 17 ] study concerning a policy and planning committee operating within a hierarchical organisation (context) , service-users’ own negative mental health service-usage experiences motivated them to take part in the committee with the aim of improving mental health services and to find solidarity with others (mechanism). However, because the committee was ineffective in addressing the poor quality standards which were the cause of service-users’ negative experiences, the citizens felt they would be better off forming their own forms of active citizenship relating to mental health services (mechanism) . Eventually the service-users did split off from the committee and set up, for example, a mental health charity and a mental health social firm (outcome) [ 17 ]. Such examples show that organisations should be transparent about the problems the organisation is facing and about their own motivations, especially if it is their intention to make cost-savings, and listen openly to citizens’ negative experiences. Aligning motivations can enhance personal citizens’ personal connections with services and can enable longer-term collaboration between citizens and organisations.

The panel recognised the importance of aligning CE interventions with citizens’ own interests and motivations. In their experience, for example, citizens are less interested in CE initiatives focusing on an entire municipality; while initiatives centred on their local neighbourhood, attract more input from citizens.

As far as the authors are aware, this is the first review to develop guiding principles for the successful implementation of community engagement interventions. Using the realist methodology, the rapid review identified eight guiding principles and highlighted the different enabling and constraining contextual factors and mechanisms, which influence the effectiveness of CE interventions. The literature findings, which resonated with the Dutch local reference panel, provide policymakers and practice leaders with an understanding of the key principles, which promote the engagement of citizens in the health and care setting. The aim of this information is to enable professionals to implement their own effective CE interventions.

While this review has not examined the interactions between the eight guiding principles, they appear interrelated. For example, those in leadership positions play an important role in ensuring CE interventions are enacted in a safe and trusting environment for citizens, which in turn seems tied into the power imbalances between citizens and organisations. Future studies could examine the nature and extent of the principles’ interactions and how these can be used to reach more ‘meaningful participation’—for example by investigating ‘ripple effect mechanisms’ [ 43 ].

Even without the examination of principles’ interrelatedness, it is clear that the existence of power imbalances and organisations’ willingness, or not, to address such imbalances, is an especially important thread throughout the principles. The literature suggests that ‘meaningful participation’ of citizens can only be achieved if organisational processes are adapted to ensure they are inclusive, accessible and supportive of citizens, for example by placing citizens in decision-making and leadership positions and providing relevant learning opportunities [ 16 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. This holds especially true for interventions seeking to engage communities with lower levels of capacity and higher levels of deprivation. In such cases, organisations should first invest significant time and resources in developing positive and trusting relationships with communities [ 10 , 16 , 40 , 42 ]. However, the literature contains more examples of how failing to build more equal organisational structures results in worsening relationships and the deterioration of citizens’ empowerment. Studies like Carlisle (2010), Lewis [ 17 ] and Renedo & Marston [ 18 ] have shown that even though organisations implement CE interventions, ostensibly with the aim of involving citizens more deeply in their organisation, professionals continue to maintain their ‘business as usual’ approach.

Future studies will be needed to continue broadening our understanding of CE. Firstly, it remains unclear why professionals and organisations implement CE interventions, but then ‘maintain their business as usual’ approach. Renedo & Marston [ 18 ] suggest part of the problem lies in the professional discourse around citizen engagement, but new evaluations could question wider aspects of this problem by investigating other underlying mechanisms and contextual factors, which prevent organisations from fully adapting their processes and structures. As CE is expected to bring a wider range of services together specifically around citizens’ views and needs, new studies could investigate, for example, how service fragmentation and funding competition hamper professionals’ willingness to truly take on board citizens’ more holistic and potentially remit-transcending views. Some of the studies included in this review indicate that service fragmentation and a lack of funding aggravate uncollaborative citizen-professional relationships, especially if professionals place an emphasis on the self-sustainability of (marginalised) communities [ 31 , 9 , 33 ]. Secondly, while there have been some studies highlighting how CE interventions which address power imbalances can tailor specific health and care services or local neighbourhoods to citizens’ needs [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 39 ]; little is known about whether CE actually enables the implementation of new collaborative models of care centred on citizens’ preferences. Finally, too few evaluations have investigated interventions involving low-income or ethnically diverse communities. There are even fewer studies focusing on other vulnerable or disadvantaged groups like the frail elderly, LGBTQ citizens, or less abled citizens [ 13 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. This could partly be because not many CE interventions with such target groups have been implemented, in which case new studies could examine why that is the case—perhaps the reason lies partly in the context of the disadvantage and marginalisation such groups face. Because contexts of power imbalances, marginalisation and discrimination are hugely influential, such studies will be key to ensuring our understanding of CE is more inclusive and complete and can be tailored more closely to different citizens’ needs. As the local reference panel pointed out, citizens are not one homogenous group with the same needs, priorities and preferences.

Studies using a wider-range of quantitative methodologies and those reporting on the more negative results or aspects of the studied CE interventions would help close such gaps. To date, most CE evaluations have been qualitative and based on case studies and have not explicitly discussed the studies’ negative results. These case studies have provided rich anecdotal evidence, but to further develop our understanding of which CE interventions work or not, for whom, how, in which contexts and to what extent, new studies should use mixed-methods in order to quantify findings, thus providing a richer evidence-base. The authors will attempt to address such remaining gaps in the multiple-case study going forward, using the principles and the underlying CMOs as the initial programme theories.

On a separate note, though the focus of this paper was not the application of the realist methodology, important questions arose during the review’s data analysis stage. The first issue relates to theory development using CMO configurations. While most realist papers clearly highlight that CMO configurations were key to the development of the theories under discussion, most do not actually describe how the CMO configurations then led to those theories [ 47 ]. Within the papers that do describe this analytical process, there seems to be no consistency as to whether the theories are centred on the contexts, mechanisms, or outcomes of the configurations. For example, previous evaluators have put interventions as related to outcomes central [ 21 , 23 ], others have placed only outcomes in the limelight (e.g. [ 48 ]) or outcomes and contexts [ 49 ], and similarly to Kane et al. [ 50 ], we saw mechanisms as critical for our guiding principles. The methodology’s inherent flexibility brings many, creative, benefits, however, it also raises important questions regarding the generation of results. For example, it is currently not clear whether we would have drawn the same conclusions if we had chosen context or outcomes as the core of this review’s analysis. For example, due to the review’s focus on mechanisms—i.e. what makes citizens or communities want to participate or not—and our aim of providing policymakers and professionals with the evidence to implement their own effective CE strategies—the outcomes within our individual CMO configurations often relate to citizens’ or communities’ behavioural changes and the impact on organisational processes, rather than say the impact on citizens’ health and wellbeing. However, the local reference panel’s valuable input indicates that our results have face validity.

Relatedly, the methodology’s flexibility and dynamic nature is again one of its key strengths as it provides rich and detailed information, partly because of its recognition that interventions and their contexts are complex and varying. However, there is a tension between the recognition that all contexts are in a way unique, and the generalisability of the results. This tension is only partly addressed by searching for the same mechanisms and outcomes in different contexts. Ultimately, if the methodology is to continue to evolve and improve, realist evaluators should not only be transparent about how they constructed CMOs and generated theories, but also why they choose that specific approach and endeavour to show that the results are indeed generalisable across different contexts and care settings.

Study limitations

This study has two main limitations. Firstly, though this rapid review’s literature search was systematic, it was by no means exhaustive in a conscious effort to speed up the process and to share the findings as quickly as possible with stakeholders. This limitation has been mitigated by collaborating with the local reference panel to confirm and supplement the findings. Secondly, while the realist methodology is helpful in uncovering multifaceted and complex issues like power imbalances in CE, the methodology is still developing, which means that key concepts are not always understood or applied in the same manner. Other researchers may therefore find it difficult to build on this review’s findings, however, the authors have attempted to address this limitation by clearly stipulating the applied understandings of key concepts and describing, in detail, how and why the CMOs and principles were developed.

By highlighting the contextual factors and mechanisms, which can influence the outcome of CE interventions, the eight guiding principles can hopefully guide professionals to develop their own successful interventions. While the principles are based on a wide range of contextual factors, professionals are encouraged to interpret and adapt the findings to the contexts of their own local settings and explore which activities and mechanisms would lead to the most inclusive and diverse CE interventions. Organisations should pay specific attention to sources of contextual power imbalances and find the most appropriate ways to empower, motivate and upskill citizens so they may take shared control of initiatives.

Abbreviations

• Community engagement

Context-mechanism-outcome configurations

Action-oriented guiding principles

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Fiscal Sustainability of Health Systems: bridging health and finance perspectives. http://www.oecd.org/publications/fiscal-sustainability-of-health-systems-9789264233386-en.htm . Accessed 16 Feb 2017.

Drewes HW, Heijmnk R, Struijs JN, et al. Samen werken aan duurzame zorg: Landelijke monitor proeftuinen:. http://www.rivm.nl/Documenten_en_publicaties/Wetenschappelijk/Rapporten/2015/juli/Samen_werken_aan_duurzame_zorg_Landelijke_monitor_proeftuinen. . Accessed 16 Feb 2017.

Iacobucci G. NHS plan calls for new models of care and greater emphasis on prevention. BMJ Open. 2015; www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6430

Shortell SM, Wu FM, Lewis VA, et al. A taxonomy of accountable care organizations for policy and practice. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(6):1883–99.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Drewes HW, Struijs JN, Baan C.A. How the Netherlands is Integrating Health and Community Services. https://catalyst.nejm.org/netherlandsintegrating-health-community-services/ . Accessed 16 Feb 2017.

Iroz-Elardo N. Health impact assessment as community participation. Community Development Journal. 2015;50(2):280–95.

Article   Google Scholar  

O’Neill K, Williams KJ, Reznik V. Engaging Latino residents to build a healthier community in mid-City san Diego. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):S36–41.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Milton B, Attree P, French B, et al. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Development Journal. 2011;47(3):316–34.

Carlisle S. Tackling health inequalities and social exclusion through partnership and community engagement? A reality check for policy and practice aspirations from a social inclusion Partnership in Scotland. Critical Public Health. 2008;20(1):117–27.

Crondahl K, Eklund KL. Roma empowerment and social inclusion through work-integrated learning. Sage Open. 2015:1–10. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015572275 .

Hamamoto MH, Deraug DD, Yoshimura BS. Building the base: two active living projects that inspired community participation. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(6S2):S345–51.

Lang R, Roessl D, Weismeier-Sammer D. Co-operative Governance of Public–Citizen Partnerships: Two Diametrical Participation Modes. In: Gnan L, Hinna A, Monteduro F, editors. Conceptualizing and Researching Governance in Public and Non-Profit Organizations (Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance, Volume 1). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. p. 227-46. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S2051-6630%282013%290000001013 .

Cyril S, Smith BJ, Possamai-Inesedy A. Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review. Glob Health Action. 2015;8(1):29842.

Dalton J, Chambers D, Harden M. Service user engagement and health service reconfiguration: a rapid evidence synthesis. Health Serv Delivery Res. 2015;21(3):195–205.

Kenny A, Hyett N, Sawtell J, et al. Community participation in rural health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:64.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De Freitas C, Martin G. Inclusive public participation in health: policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare. Soc Sci Med. 2015;135:31–9.

Lewis L. User involvement in mental health services: a case of power over discourse. Sociol Res Online. 2014;19:1.

Renedo A, Marston C. Healthcare professionals’ representations of ‘patient and public involvement’ and creation of ‘public participant’ identities: implications for the development of inclusive and bottom-up community participation initiatives. J Community Applied Psychol. 2011;21(3):268–80.

Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.

Google Scholar  

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.

Saul JE, Willis CD, Bitz J, et al. A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implement Sci. 2013;8:103.

Stolee P, Elliott J, McNeil H. Choosing healthcare options by involving Canada’s elderly: a protocol for the CHOICE realist synthesis project on engaging older persons in healthcare decision making. BMJ Open. 2015;5:11.

Willis CD, Saul J, Bevan H, et al. Sustaining organizational culture change in health systems. J Health Organ Manag. 2014;30(1):2–30.

O’Mara-Eves A, Brunton G, McDaid D. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Public Health Res. 2013;1:4.

Pluye P., Robert E., Cargo M., et al. Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com . Accessed 24 Jan 2017, 2015.

Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2005;30(2):251–90.

Lacouture A, Brenton E, Guichard A, et al. The concept of mechanisms from a realist approach: a scoping review to facilitate its operationalization in public health program evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:153.

Jagosh J, Pluye P, Macaulay C, et al. Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:24.

MacFarlane F, Greenhalgh T, Hughes HC, et al. A new workforce in the making? A case study of strategic human resource management in a whole-system change effort in healthcare. J Health Organ Manag. 2011;25(1):55–72.

Chan YE, Benecki LA. Evaluating the success of a Hospital’s community engagement process. Health Care Management Forum. 2013;26(1):20–5.

Clark N, Lachance L, Doctor LJ, et al. Policy and system change and community coalitions: outcomes from allies against asthma. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(5):904–12.

Durey A, McEnvoy S, Swift-Otero V. Improving healthcare for Aboriginal Australians through effective engagement between community and health services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:224.

Kelaher M, Sabanovic H, La Brooy C, et al. Does more equitable governance lead to more equitable health care? A case study based on the implementation of health reform in aboriginal health Australia. Soc Sci Med. 2014;123:278–86.

Luluquisen M, Pettis L. Community engagement for policy and systems change. Community Development. 2014;45(3):252–62.

Montesanti SR, Abelson J, Lavis JN, et al. The value of frameworks as knowledge translation mechanisms to guide community participation practice in Ontario CHCs. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:223–31.

Pennel CL, McLeroy KR, Burdine JN, et al. A mixed-methods approach to understanding community participation in community health needs assessments. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;23(2):112.

Tenbensel T, Cummings J, Ashton T, et al. Where there’s a will, is there a way? Is New Zealand’s publicly funded health sector able to steer towards population health? Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(7):1143–52.

Van Eijk C, Steen T. Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. Int Rev Adm Sci. 2016;82(1):28–46.

Veronesi G, Keasey K. Patient and public participation in the English NHS: an assessment of experimental implementation processes. Public Manag Rev. 2015;17:4.

Yoo S, Butler J, Elias TI. The 6-step model for community empowerment: revisited in public housing communities for low-income senior citizens. Health Promot Pract. 2008;10(2):262–75.

Kegler MC, Ellenberg PJ, Twiss JM. Evaluation findings on community participation in the California healthy cities and communities program. Health Promot Int. 2009;24(4):300–10.

Schoch-Spana M, Kirk ST, Morhard R. Local health department capacity for community engagement and its implications for disaster resilience. Biosecur Bioterror. 2013;1(2):118–29.

Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:725.

Holroyd-Leduc J, Resin J, Ashley L, et al. Giving voice to older adults living with frailty and their family caregivers: engagement of older adults living with frailty in research, health care decision making, and in health policy. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:223.

Nieder TO, Strauss BM. Transgender health care in Germany: participatory approaches and the development of a guideline. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(5):416–26.

Rifkin SB. Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: a review of the literature. Health Policy Plan. 2014;29(2):98–106.

Marchal B, van Belle S, Hoerée T, et al. Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of the published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation. 2012;18(2):192–212.

Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salberg J, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership, synergy, trust building and ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2012;15:725.

MacDonald M, Pauly B, Wong G, et al. Supporting successful implementation of public health interventions: protocol for a realist synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5:54.

Kane SS, Gerretsen B, Scherpbier R, et al. A realist synthesis of randomised controlled trials involving use of community health workers for delivering child health interventions in low and middle income countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:286.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the local reference panel for their valuable time, insight and guidance.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated and analysed during this study are included in the published article and supplementary information files. Templates used for data extraction and analysis are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Quality of Care and Health Economics, Centre for Nutrition, Prevent and Health Services, National Institute for Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands

E. De Weger, N. Van Vooren, C. A. Baan & H. W. Drewes

Tilburg University, Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands

E. De Weger, K. G. Luijkx & C. A. Baan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Research design was developed by EdW and reviewed and approved by HD, KgL and CB EdW and NvV acquired, analysed and interpreted data. EdW wrote the paper and HD, KgL and CB critically reviewed all drafts and the final copy. All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design and read and approved the final manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. De Weger .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was not required as data was retrieved through a literature review. The local reference panel was verbally informed of the fact that anonymous meeting notes (e.g. without any person-identifiable information, including initials) would be taken with the sole purpose of refining the literature review data. Each member of the local reference panel provided verbal consent. This is in compliance with Dutch national guidelines: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/ddc3ce11-1e82-4bf7-ac6d-e813999e5037_CODE%20OF%20ETHICS%20FOR%20RESEARCH%20IN%20THE%20SOCIAL%20AND%20BEHAVIOURAL%20SCIENCES%20DSW%20J%20%20%20.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89867/social-sciences-humanities_en.pdf .

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

Search strings. (DOCX 32 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

De Weger, E., Van Vooren, N., Luijkx, K.G. et al. Achieving successful community engagement: a rapid realist review. BMC Health Serv Res 18 , 285 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3090-1

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2017

Accepted : 03 April 2018

Published : 13 April 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3090-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Citizen engagement
• Community participation
• Rapid realist review
• Realist evaluation

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Literature review: Embedding community engagement in the curriculum: An example of university-public engagement

In setting the context, this review starts by defining 'public engagement‘ and then reflects on how 'community engagement‘ sits within it. The term 'public engagement‘ denotes the myriad ways in which universities engage the public with their work. This review aims to act as a resource to support institutions and academic staff in promoting and embedding public engagement within the curriculum in the UK. It explores a number of definitions which encompass this activity, and outlines the contexts in which it takes place. The main body of the review presents key forms of public engagement in the curriculum, and reflects on challenges related to teaching and learning to be considered to ensure it can be embedded. It concludes with a summary of key points arising from the review and makes recommendations for further research. It has found a wide range of activities that fall within this designation as well as overlaps and inconsistencies of terminology. This, together with the complexities surrounding the activities, implies researching and practising in the field is a challenge, albeit a stimulating one. Community engagement and civic responsibility is a key element in the mission of many universities as they express their desire to make a difference in their constituent communities. Some pursue this mission explicitly and support academics, students and communities in their endeavours. Community engagement through the curriculum requires a measure of institutional investment in order to support, recognise and reward students and staff, and to ensure optimal benefit to the institution and the community. As of writing, increasing numbers of institutions have become signatories to the NCCPE‘s Manifesto for Public Engagement. This growing commitment within the UK is supported by international agreements and declarations whereby universities across the world have pledged to advance and increase their partnerships with, relevance to, and positive impact on, local and global communities.

Related Papers

GLOBAL-UNIVERSITY-NETWORK-FOR-INNOVATION GUNI , Lorraine McIlrath

Universities are both apart from and a part of society. They are apart in the sense that they provide a critically important space for grasping the world as it is and – importantly – for re-imagining the world as it ought to be. The academic freedom to pursue the truth and let the chips fall where they may isn’t a luxury – in fact it is a vital necessity in any society that has the capability for self-renewal. But universities are also a part of our societies. What’s the point unless the accumulated knowledge, insight and vision are put at the service of the community? With the privilege to pursue knowledge comes the civic responsibility to engage and put that knowledge to work in the service of humanity. (Higgins, 2012).

Education, Citizenship and Social Justice

Eileen scheckle

This article seeks to address what it means to be an ‘engaged’ university and, in so doing, to contribute to current discourses – in a fast growing field – about how to collaborate with communities for meaningful social transformation. As a group of researchers from the faculty of education in a South African university, we share our thinking and the theoretical notions that underpinned our planning and executing of a 3-year engagement with a rural secondary school. In asking ‘How might dialogic engagement of the university community and the community the university serves, enable agency towards active citizenship in the context of education?’, a collaborative engagement project between and within a school-community and the university was initiated. In this conceptual article, we unpack and discuss a critical university and school-community engagement with, and interpretation of, three key concepts that underpinned it: dialogic engagement, community and active citizenship. We conclu...

Community engagement in higher education: trends, practices and policies

Thomas Farnell , NESET Network

Report prepared for the European Commission's Network of Experts on the Social Dimension of Education and Training. The report argues (based on a comprehensive review of the literature) that universities play a crucial role in responding to societal needs, and can further enhance their societal impact at local, national and international levels through community engagement.

carolyn kagan

International journal of African higher education

ivan govender

Jesus Granados Sanchez , Gemma Puig Latorre

Granados Sanchez, J., and Puig, G. (2014) Community University Engagement initiatives: trends and progress. In: Escrigas, C., Granados Sanchez, J., Hall, B.L., Tandon, R., Puig, G. and Forns, M. (eds.) Higher Education in the World 5. Knowledge, Engagement and Higher Education: Contributing to Social Change. Series: GUNi series on the social commitment of universities (5). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 113-126. ISBN 9780230535565

British Journal of Educational Studies

John Annette

Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

Reinout Kleinhans

Australasian journal of university community engagement

Laurie Stevenson , Robbie Collins

South African Journal of Higher Education

Salim Vally

Keywords: universities, community engagement, political economy, praxis epistemology, academic capitalism, ratings and rankings regimes, EdTech. The Second Higher Education Conference convened jointly by Universities South Africa (USAf) and the Council on Higher Education (CHE) provided the space to reflect, collectively and critically on the notion of “The Engaged University”. This article is based on a keynote address to this conference in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and the environmental and inequality crises confronting South Africa and the world. After an examination of the societal context of universities, the article discusses critical issues in relation to university-community engagement. It attempts to address these issues by firstly providing an overview of the long-standing debates in our country concerning the academy’s responsibilities and accountability to various constituencies beyond the universities gates and the imperative to rethink scholarship to engage communities meaningfully. Secondly, it will provide an appreciation of the overarching political economy of higher education and the corporatisation of universities before drawing conclusions about the processes that impede or allow the university to be responsive to community engagement. The article will provide a few historical and contemporaneous examples of the work of university-based researchers with various communities. It will highlight the research of those who have an orientation toward working class communities and aim to democratise knowledge production. The article argues that the latter’s “praxis epistemology” (Amini 2017) assists us in reimagining university-community relations.

RELATED PAPERS

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Thomas Farnell

Springer eBooks

Adult learning

Seamus O Tuama

International Journal of Progressive Education

Lizane Wilson

Higher Education Quarterly

Maria Gabriela Heredia Avila

Juliet Millican

Mapping Civic Engagement within Higher Education in …

Lorraine McIlrath

Karen Duggan

Erik Eklund , ann hardy

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

flavius lilly

Australian Association for …

Ann Gervasoni

Timothy J Shaffer

Jesus Granados Sanchez , Cristina Escrigas

Socially Responsible Higher Education

Bruce Muirhead , Richard Parsons , Duncan Holtom

Research Evaluation

Eleanor MACKILLOP

Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice

Katie Fraser

Jesus Granados Sanchez

Naomi Sunderland

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Reported community engagement in health equity research published in high-impact medical journals: a scoping review

Affiliations.

• 1 Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 2 Faculty of Science, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 3 Health Sciences Library, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 4 Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 5 Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 6 Division of Paediatric Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 7 Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• 8 Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [email protected].
• 9 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• PMID: 39134436
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084952

Objective: To assess reported community engagement in the design and conduct of health equity-focused articles published in high-impact journals.

Design: Scoping review follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

Data sources: We selected the three highest-ranked journals from the 'Medicine-General and Internal' category including the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) along with all journals under their family of subspecialty journals (JAMA Network, The Lancet Group and the NEJM Group). Ovid MEDLINE was searched between 1 January 2021 to 22 September 2022.

Eligibility criteria: We included health equity-focused articles and assessed for the reporting of community engagement at each stage of the research process.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data from articles that met the inclusionary criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa to measure the agreement between two independent reviewers. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third independent reviewer.

Results: 7616 articles were screened, 626 (8.2%) met our inclusion criteria: 457 (3.8%) were published by the JAMA Network; 167 (2.4%) by The Lancet Group; and 2 (0.2%) by the NEJM group. Most articles were from USA (68.4%) and focused on adult populations (57.7%). The majority of the articles focused on the topic of race/ethnicity (n=176, 28.1%), socioeconomic status (n=114, 18.2%) or multiple equity topics (n=111, 17.7%). The use of community engagement approaches was reported in 97 (15.5%) articles, of which 13 articles (13.4%) reported engagement at all stages. The most common form of reported engagement was in the acknowledgement or additional contribution section (n=86, 88.7%).

Conclusions: Community engagement is infrequently reported in health equity-focused research published in high-impact medical journals.

Keywords: Health Equity; PUBLIC HEALTH; Review.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Similar articles

• Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia. Osborne SR, Alston LV, Bolton KA, Whelan J, Reeve E, Wong Shee A, Browne J, Walker T, Versace VL, Allender S, Nichols M, Backholer K, Goodwin N, Lewis S, Dalton H, Prael G, Curtin M, Brooks R, Verdon S, Crockett J, Hodgins G, Walsh S, Lyle DM, Thompson SC, Browne LJ, Knight S, Pit SW, Jones M, Gillam MH, Leach MJ, Gonzalez-Chica DA, Muyambi K, Eshetie T, Tran K, May E, Lieschke G, Parker V, Smith A, Hayes C, Dunlop AJ, Rajappa H, White R, Oakley P, Holliday S. Osborne SR, et al. Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
• Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
• Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis. Hays M, Andrews M, Wilson R, Callender D, O'Malley PG, Douglas K. Hays M, et al. BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 28;6(7):e011082. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011082. BMJ Open. 2016. PMID: 27470506 Free PMC article.
• Reporting of data on participant ethnicity and socioeconomic status in high-impact medical journals: a targeted literature review. Buttery SC, Philip KEJ, Alghamdi SM, Williams PJ, Quint JK, Hopkinson NS. Buttery SC, et al. BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 17;12(8):e064276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064276. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 35977760 Free PMC article. Review.
• The Promise of Equity: A Review of Health Equity Research in High-Impact Quality Improvement Journals. Scott M, Rawal S. Scott M, et al. Am J Med Qual. 2018 May/Jun;33(3):269-273. doi: 10.1177/1062860617726854. Epub 2017 Aug 19. Am J Med Qual. 2018. PMID: 28823187 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, miscellaneous.

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Educational research spotlight: Writing the literature review

Date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 Time: 12:00 – 1:00 PM Location : Online only

Faculty members often find the process of writing a literature review daunting and are unsure of how to start or what makes a review stand out. Common questions include: “What are the essential elements of a literature review?” or “How do I identify key sources and gaps in the literature?” This session will demystify the literature review process, providing practical tips and strategies to help you write a compelling review for your academic journal submissions.

Primary Audience : Med-Ed Researchers with a basic skill set CME: This event is certified for 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Systematic literature review of gender equity and social inclusion in primary education for teachers in Tanzania: assessing status and future directions

• Open access
• Published: 13 August 2024
• Volume 3 , article number  122 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Henry Nkya 1 &
• Isack Kibona 2  

Gender equity and social inclusion (GESI) are crucial for creating inclusive and equitable educational environments in primary schools. This systematic literature review aimed to interpret and synthesize the findings of previous studies on GESI interventions and programs in primary schools in Tanzania, identified gaps in the knowledge, and provided recommendations for policy and practice. A systematic literature review search identified 22 relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria. The studies conducted between 2010 and 2021, and the sample sizes of participants were above 50. More than 50% of the studies were conducted in rural areas and used a quasi-experimental design. The interventions evaluation included teacher training, community engagement, and curriculum reform. The systematic literature review employed statistical methods to measure effect sizes and employed traditional univariate systematic literature review to synthesize the results. A table summarizing the literature that met the inclusion criteria was created to ensure transparency and clarity in the data coding process. The systematic literature review found a positive effect of GESI interventions on various outcomes, including improved academic performance, reduced gender-based violence, and increased social inclusion. However, variations in effect sizes and study designs across the studies were noted. Several gaps were identified, such as the lack of long-term follow-up and the need for more rigorous study designs. The implications of the findings for policy and practice in promoting GESI in primary schools in Tanzania were discussed, and recommendations for future research were provided. This systematic literature review highlighted the importance of addressing GESI in primary school education in Tanzania and underscored the critical role of teachers in promoting these values. It calls for targeted interventions, policy enhancements, and further research to bridge the gaps identified in the literature.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

GESI are critical components of education that ensure equitable access to education for all individuals, regardless of their gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or other backgrounds. In Tanzania, GESI has become a significant concern, particularly in primary schools, where gender and social inequalities often lead to disparities in educational outcomes.

Research has shown that girls are more likely to face barriers in education than boys, including poverty, early marriages, and cultural bias that prioritize boys’ education over girls [ 28 ]. Furthermore, children from marginalized groups, such as children with disabilities, children from ethnic minority groups, and children from low-income families, often experience unequal access to quality education [ 38 ].

Addressing GESI issues in primary schools is crucial for ensuring that all children have access to quality education, which is essential for their personal development and future success. GESI initiatives can promote equity and inclusion in schools and create an environment where all children feel valued and supported [ 13 ].

Addressing gender stereotypes in teacher education programs can play a vital role in promoting GESI in primary schools [ 32 ]. Similarly, Okkolin et al. [ 27 ] suggest that interventions that address GESI can improve educational outcomes for girls and marginalized groups.

Overall, promoting GESI in primary schools is essential for creating a more equitable and inclusive education system that benefits all children [ 2 ]. It requires a concerted effort from policymakers, educators, parents, and communities to work together to create a learning environment that is supportive, respectful, and inclusive for all children.

1.1 Theoretical framework

This study is guided by the Social Justice Theory, which emphasizes the need for equitable treatment, opportunities, and outcomes for all individuals, particularly those from marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds [ 10 ]. This framework is crucial in understanding the components of GESI and their impact on educational outcomes. The Social Justice Theory aligns with the goals of GESI by promoting fairness and the elimination of disparities in education [ 1 ].

1.1.1 Components of GESI

The key components of GESI in this study include [ 24 ]:

Gender equity: ensuring that girls and boys have equal access to education and opportunities.

Social inclusion: creating an inclusive environment where all students, regardless of their backgrounds, can participate and succeed.

Teacher training: educating teachers on gender-sensitive and inclusive teaching practices.

Community engagement: involving communities in promoting GESI.

Curricula reform: developing and implementing curricula that address GESI issues.

1.2 Justification for focusing on Tanzania

Tanzania provides a unique context for examining GESI due to its diverse population and the significant challenges it faces in achieving GESI in education [ 18 ]. Despite efforts to promote GESI, disparities persist, making it an important area of study to identify effective interventions and inform policy and practice.

1.3 Rationale for conducting a systematic literature review

A Systematic literature review is an essential tool for synthesizing research findings from different studies and summarizing the overall effect size of an intervention or variable of interest [ 34 ]. Conducting a systematic literature review on GESI in primary school education is critical for providing an overview of the existing research and identifying gaps that need to be addressed in future research. It also helps establish the overall effect of interventions aimed at promoting GESI in primary schools in Tanzania [ 9 ]. The results of the Systematic literature review can inform policies and practices aimed at promoting GESI in primary school education, thereby improving learning outcomes for all children, regardless of their gender, social, and economic backgrounds.

By addressing the GESI issues and synthesizing the existing literature, this systematic literature review aims to contribute to a more equitable and inclusive educational environment in Tanzania [ 22 ].

1.4 Research objectives

To identify the state of GESI in primary schools. This objective aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how GESI issues manifest in primary schools, considering various social and educational contexts.

To number factors that contribute to gender GESI in primary schools. This shall allow informed decisions on the effort to contain the issues of GESI.

To synthesize the findings of previous studies on GESI in primary schools. This objective focuses on aggregating and interpreting the results of existing research to offer a clear and cohesive picture of what is known about GESI interventions and their effectiveness.

To identify gaps in the knowledge of GESI in primary schools. By evaluating the existing literature, this objective seeks to highlight areas where further research is needed, identifying shortcomings in study designs, populations, or intervention strategies.

To provide recommendations for improving GESI in primary schools. Based on the synthesis of previous studies and identified gaps, this objective aims to propose actionable strategies and policies to enhance GESI in primary education.

2 Methodology

Having set the study objectives, the search-strategy for the study involved conducting a comprehensive literature review of studies on GESI in primary schools. The search was conducted using electronic databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, and EBSCOhost. The search terms used were “gender equity,” “social inclusion,” “primary schools,” “Tanzania,” and “teachers.” Additionally, hand searching was conducted by reviewing the reference lists of identified studies to identify any relevant studies that may have been missed during the initial search.

Inclusion criteria:

The study must be conducted in primary schools.

The study must focus on gender equity and/or social inclusion in education.

The study must involve teachers as the primary participants or focus on the teacher’s role in promoting GESI.

The study must be published in English between 2010 and 2022.

Exclusion criteria:

Studies conducted outside Tanzania.

Studies not related to gender equity and/or social inclusion in education.

Studies not involving teachers or not focusing on the teacher’s role in promoting GESI.

Studies published before 2010 or after 2022.

The search process was conducted by two independent reviewers to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the search results. The reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies for relevance and then reviewed the full text of potentially relevant studies. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus. Reviewers made necessary steps to ensure a justified systematic review. Overall, the Authors reviewed 22 papers considered to have met the set criteria.

2.1 Choice of the effect size measure and analytical methods

The effect size measure used in this study was generated by statistical tools, making it suitable for systematics review that synthesize findings across multiple studies. For similar research questions, the study employed traditional univariate meta-analysis. This method was chosen because it is suitable for synthesizing the results of multiple studies that investigate similar research questions. Traditional univariate meta-analysis allows for the calculation of an overall effect size, providing a comprehensive summary of the impact of GESI interventions across different studies.

2.2 Choice of software

We used R software, specifically the ‘metafor’ package, for our analysis. This software was selected due to its robustness and versatility in conducting analytical procedures. The ‘metafor’ package supports a wide range of meta-analytic models and methods, making it a comprehensive tool for this type of analysis.

2.3 Coding of effect sizes

Table 1 summarizes the literature included that meets the inclusion criteria. This table includes information such as study design, sample size, effect sizes, and any other relevant variables. This step ensures transparency and clarity in the data coding process.

3 Results and analysis

The layout of the manuscript has been organized accordingly, so that headings and subheadings clearly demarcates each step of the systematic literature review process.

3.1 Status of GESI in primary schools in Tanzania

3.1.1 persistent gender disparities.

One of the major findings in this study was that gender disparities in primary education persist in Tanzania. This was evident in the lower enrollment and completion rates for girls in primary schools compared to boys [ 36 ]. Girls are less likely to attend school than boys, with enrollment rates lower for girls at both the primary and secondary levels. Additionally, girls are more likely to drop out of school due to various reasons, including early marriage, household responsibilities, and financial constraints [ 5 ]. These disparities highlight the ongoing challenges faced by girls in accessing and completing primary education.

3.1.2 Cultural and societal beliefs

Several studies have identified cultural and societal beliefs as a major factor contributing to gender disparities in primary education. In many Tanzanian communities, girls are expected to prioritize domestic responsibilities over their education, which can lead to low enrollment rates and high drop-out rates [ 39 ]. Furthermore, gender-based violence and sexual harassment are prevalent in schools, with girls facing discrimination and harassment from both male students and teachers [ 4 ]. These issues underscore the need for targeted interventions to create a safer and more supportive educational environment for girls.

Furthermore, Losioki and Mdee [ 12 ] found that gender stereotypes perpetuated in teacher education programs in Tanzania, which can affect the ability of teachers to create a gender-equitable and socially inclusive classroom environment. Teachers may unconsciously reinforce gender stereotypes in the classroom, leading to further marginalization of girls and other vulnerable groups.

3.1.3 Underrepresented minorities

In addition, limited access to education for children with disabilities or those from low-income families and marginalized communities can perpetuate social inequalities in primary schools [ 30 ]. These students often face significant barriers, including inadequate school facilities, lack of appropriate learning materials, and insufficient support services, which hinder their educational progress.

3.2 Strategies addressing the challenge

Despite these challenges, there have been government efforts to improve GESI in primary schools. The government of Tanzania has committed to providing equal access to education for all children, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. The government has implemented policies such as free primary education and affirmative action programs to promote equal access to education for all children, regardless of gender or social status [ 15 , 26 ]. These initiatives aim to reduce financial barriers to education and encourage the enrollment and retention of girls and children from marginalized groups. This includes initiatives such as the Tanzania Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP) and the Primary Education Development Program (PEDP) [ 6 , 16 ]. These programs aim to address systemic barriers in education and promote inclusive practices in schools. The government also is open to collaborate with external forces like international interventions, community development agencies and NGO to work toward enhancing GESI. Some Strategies Addressing GESI Challenges. For instance, projects that focus on community engagement and parental involvement have shown positive impacts in changing attitudes towards girls’ education and promoting inclusive practices [ 17 ].

3.2.1 International and community-based programs

In recent years, there have been an increase in programs and initiatives aimed at promoting GESI in primary education. For example, the “Let Girls Learn” program, launched by the US government in partnership with the Tanzanian government, aimed to increase access to education for girls and reduce gender disparities in education [ 7 ]. Similarly, the Tanzania Gender Networking Programme (TGNP) has been working to promote GESI in education through community mobilization, advocacy, and capacity building [ 14 ].

3.2.2 Interventions with recorded impact

Previous studies identified several approaches that have been successful in improving GESI in primary schools. Among others, at least two are discussed. One such approach is the use of gender-responsive pedagogy, which involves incorporating gender-sensitive teaching practices and materials into the classroom [ 17 ]. This method helps create a more inclusive learning environment that acknowledges and addresses the different needs of boys and girls. Another effective intervention is the provision of sanitary pads and menstrual hygiene education to girls, which has been shown to improve school attendance and reduce drop-out rates [ 35 ]. By addressing menstrual hygiene needs, schools can help ensure that girls do not miss out on education due to a lack of resources or stigma associated with menstruation.

3.2.3 Intervention recommendations

GESI are essential components of a quality education system, and there is a need to address the persistent gender disparities in primary education. While cultural and societal beliefs continue to be major barriers, efforts to improve GESI through government policies and initiatives, as well as community-based programs, showed promise. The use of gender-responsive pedagogy and the provision of menstrual hygiene education and supplies were promising approaches that showed positive results [ 21 ]. However, more research and investment are needed to ensure that all children have access to primary education. Continued collaboration between the government, NGOs, and communities is essential to sustain and expand these efforts, ensuring that all students can benefit from a supportive and equitable educational environment [ 29 ].

Overall, there is still much work to be done to ensure GESI in primary schools [ 33 ]. It will require continued efforts and collaboration from the government, educators, and communities to address cultural and traditional beliefs, promote teacher education that challenges gender stereotypes, and provide equal access to education for all children. Policymakers must prioritize the allocation of resources to support GESI initiatives and ensure that schools are equipped to meet the diverse needs of all students [ 3 ].

By addressing these systemic issues, Tanzania can make significant strides towards achieving an inclusive and equitable education system that benefits all children, irrespective of their gender or socioeconomic background. Continued research and monitoring are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of existing interventions and identify new strategies to overcome persistent challenges in promoting GESI in primary education [ 31 ].

3.2.4 Gaps in the knowledge about GESI in primary schools

While the literature have provided valuable insights into the state of GESI in primary schools in Tanzania, several gaps in the knowledge still need to be addressed.

One major gap is the lack of research on the experiences of marginalized groups, including children with disabilities and those from low-income households. Studies have shown that these groups face significant barriers to accessing education and are often excluded from educational opportunities. For example, a study by Mwaijande [ 20 ] found that children with disabilities faced challenges such as lack of access to assistive devices and negative attitudes from teachers and other students. Similarly, research by Pak et al. [ 30 ] and Thomas and Rugambwa [ 36 ] revealed that children from poor families often struggle to pay school fees and may not have access to basic learning materials.

Another gap in the Tanzanian knowledge is the lack of research on the experiences of female teachers in primary schools. While studies have examined gender stereotypes and biases among teacher education programs, Thomas and Rugambwa [ 36 ] stressed that there is limited research on the experiences of female teachers in the classroom. Research on female teachers could shed light on the ways in which gender intersects with other forms of marginalization, such as age and socioeconomic status.

Furthermore, there is a need for more research on effective interventions and strategies for promoting GESI in primary schools. While some studies have evaluated the impact of interventions such as teacher training programs [ 19 , 25 ] , more rigorous evaluations of these interventions are needed to determine their effectiveness and sustainability.

Additionally, there is a lack of longitudinal studies that follow the long-term impact of GESI interventions. Many studies focus on short-term outcomes, but understanding the lasting effects of interventions is crucial for developing sustainable policies and practices.

In summary, while previous research has provided valuable insights into GESI in primary schools, several gaps in the knowledge need to be addressed. Future research should focus on the experiences of marginalized groups, including children with disabilities and those from low-income households, as well as female teachers. Additionally, the study showed more need for more rigorous evaluations of interventions and strategies aimed at promoting GESI in primary schools. Longitudinal studies that assess the long-term impact of these interventions would also be beneficial.

3.3 Patterns observed across the studies

As observed in the study, there were some patterns and trends identified across the studies. Firstly, there was a consistent finding that gender disparities persist in primary schools, particularly in terms of access to education and academic achievement. Despite efforts to promote GESI, girls and marginalized groups continue to face significant barriers that hinder their educational progress.

Secondly, there was a growing recognition of the importance of addressing GESI in primary education, as evidenced by the increasing number of interventions and programs aimed at promoting these values. This trend indicates a positive shift towards acknowledging and addressing GESI issues within the education system.

Thirdly, the systematic literature review revealed that the role of teachers is critical in promoting GESI in primary schools. Teacher training and support are essential for equipping educators with the skills and knowledge needed to foster an inclusive and equitable learning environment. Studies consistently highlighted the need for gender-sensitive pedagogy and teacher professional development programs.

Finally, there were some gaps in the current knowledge base, particularly with regard to the long-term impact of interventions and the effectiveness of different approaches to promoting GESI in primary education. While some interventions showed promising results, more research was needed to determine their sustainability and broader applicability.

By addressing these gaps and building on the patterns observed across studies, future research could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of GESI in primary schools and inform the development of policies and practices to promote equity and inclusion for all students.

To sum up, analysis revealed that GESI interventions have a positive effect on various outcomes such as academic performance, reduced gender-based violence, and increased social inclusion. However, variations in effect sizes and study designs were observed across the studies. The studies included in the systematic literature review used various designs, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs, which contributed to the diversity in effect sizes.

4 Discussion

GESI is a critical components of a better-quality education system over otherwise. In Tanzania, primary education is the foundation for future academic and professional success [ 23 ], making it essential to ensure that all students, regardless of gender or social status, have access to an inclusive and equitable education. Previous studies explored the state of GESI in primary schools and identified areas for improvement.

The findings of the study highlighted the state of GESI in primary schools. The analysis of some 10 included studies revealed that significant disparities in access to education and academic performance among genders persist, with girls being more disadvantaged. Additionally, children from marginalized backgrounds, such as those from low-income families or those with disabilities, face substantial barriers to education.

To sum up, the study suggests a holistic approach involving teachers, schools, communities, and policymakers. Thus, multifaceted approach is necessary to create a more inclusive and equitable education system. Therefore, Recommendations include:

Providing comprehensive teacher training on gender-sensitive teaching methods.

Implementing community-based initiatives to address social and cultural barriers.

Developing policies and programs prioritizing marginalized students’ needs.

4.1 Implications of the study

Overall, the systematic literature review provided important insights into the state of GESI in primary schools. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain. Continued efforts and investments are necessary to promote a more equitable and inclusive education system. Future research should address the identified gaps and build on the promising interventions highlighted in this study. Based on the evidence synthesized, it is clear that targeted interventions are necessary to address the barriers that girls and other marginalized groups face in accessing and completing primary education. The study has the following recommendations on policy and practice and the areas for future research.

4.1.1 Addressing school issues related to GESI

Teacher training: policies should mandate comprehensive training for teachers on gender-sensitive teaching practices. Educators need to be equipped with the skills and knowledge to foster an inclusive classroom environment that supports both boys and girls. This includes understanding how to address and counteract gender stereotypes and biases.

Providing resources: schools should be equipped with resources to support girls’ education. This includes the provision of sanitary pads, access to clean and safe gender-segregated toilets, and gender-sensitive teaching materials. These resources are essential in reducing barriers to attendance and participation for girls.

Reviewing curricula: the school curriculum should be reviewed and revised to promote GESI. Curricula should reflect the diversity of Tanzanian society and challenge existing gender stereotypes. Including content that promotes GESI will help inculcate these values in students from a young age.

4.1.2 Addressing structural and socio-economic barriers

Financial support: there should be policies to provide financial support to families who cannot afford school fees. This can include scholarships, free school meals, and other financial incentives that alleviate the economic burden on families and keep girls in school.

Cultural norms and attitudes: interventions must focus on changing cultural norms and attitudes that limit girls’ access to education. Community engagement and awareness campaigns are crucial in shifting perceptions and promoting the value of girls’ education. Programs should aim to involve parents and community leaders in promoting gender equity.

Reducing gender-based violence: schools should implement strict policies against gender-based violence and harassment. Providing a safe and supportive environment is crucial for retaining girls in school. Support services for victims of violence and harassment should be readily available.

4.1.3 Promoting girls’ participation and leadership

Extracurricular activities: schools should create opportunities for girls to engage in extracurricular activities. Programs such as sports, arts, and clubs can enhance girls’ skills and confidence, providing a platform for them to express themselves and develop leadership qualities.

Leadership training: providing leadership training for girls to support their involvement in decision-making processes within schools and communities is essential. This training can empower girls to take active roles in their schools and communities, fostering a sense of agency and leadership.

4.1.4 Comprehensive and integrated approach

Involving multiple stakeholders: a comprehensive approach to promoting GESI should involve multiple stakeholders, including the government, civil society, and communities. Collaboration among these groups is essential for creating a supportive environment for GESI.

Evidence-based interventions: policies and practices should be guided by evidence-based interventions tailored to the specific needs and contexts of different regions and populations. Utilizing data and research to inform practices ensures that efforts are effective and impactful.

Monitoring and evaluation: continuous monitoring and evaluation of interventions are necessary to assess their effectiveness and make necessary adjustments. This helps in ensuring the sustainability and scalability of successful initiatives.

The study highlights the importance of a comprehensive and integrated approach to promoting GESI in primary schools. It underscores the need for targeted interventions, policy enhancements, and continued efforts to address the persistent barriers that girls and marginalized groups face. By implementing these recommendations, Tanzania can make significant strides towards achieving a more inclusive and equitable education system for all children.

4.2 Areas for future research

Future research and policy efforts should focus on sustaining and scaling successful interventions, ensuring that all children, regardless of gender or socio-economic background, have access to quality education. Future research should address these gaps:

Experiences of marginalized groups: more high-quality research is needed on the experiences of marginalized groups, including children with disabilities and those from low-income households.

Female teachers: investigate the experiences of female teachers in primary schools to understand how gender intersects with other forms of marginalization, such as age and socioeconomic status.

Effectiveness of interventions: conduct more rigorous evaluations of specific interventions and strategies for promoting GESI, including long-term impact studies.

Intersectionality: explore the intersectionality of factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity to provide a more comprehensive

5 Conclusion

GESI is crucial for improving access to education, ensuring equal opportunities, and promoting positive social outcomes. Teachers play a critical role in promoting these values and must receive appropriate training and support to create inclusive learning environments. Policymakers and education leaders must prioritize efforts to address GESI in primary schools, including investing in research to understand the factors contributing to gender and social equality and identifying effective strategies for promoting GESI.

The systematic literature review examined the state of GESI in primary schools and revealed significant challenges, particularly in terms of teacher training and the implementation of policies and programs. The review highlighted persistent gender disparities and the barriers faced by marginalized groups, such as children with disabilities and those from low-income families.

The findings suggest that targeted interventions are needed to address these barriers, recommended interventions include:

Increasing access to education: efforts to increase access to education for marginalized groups, such as scholarships and school feeding programs.

Policy development: implementing policies that address gender-based violence and discrimination.

Community engagement: involving multiple stakeholders, including government, civil society, and communities, in promoting GESI.

Develop and implement teacher training programs: focus on GESI principles, awareness of gender biases, strategies for promoting inclusivity, and the use of gender-sensitive teaching materials.

Develop and implement gender-sensitive curricula: address gender biases and stereotypes across all subject areas.

Strengthen policies and regulations: enforce policies that promote GESI in school governance, teacher recruitment, and student enrollment.

Increase participation of girls: provide incentives for girls to attend school, such as scholarships and school feeding programs, and improve school infrastructure.

The study provides crucial insights into the state of GESI in primary schools and underscores the need for coordinated and sustained efforts to address these challenges. By implementing the recommended strategies and involving all stakeholders, Tanzania can ensure that all children have access to quality primary education that promotes GESI.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Adipat S, Chotikapanich R. Sustainable development goal 4: an education goal to achieve equitable quality education. Acad J Interdiscip Stud. 2022;11(6):174–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cavicchioni V, Motivans A. Monitoring educational disparities in less developed countries. In: In pursuit of equity in education: using international indicators to compare equity policies. New York: Springer; 2001. p. 217–40.

Google Scholar  

Clancy J, Barnett A, Cecelski E, Pachauri S, Dutta S, Oparaocha S, Kooijman A. Gender in the transition to sustainable energy for all: from evidence to inclusive policies. 2019.

Colclough C, Rose P, Tembon M. Gender inequalities in primary schooling: the roles of poverty and adverse cultural practice. Int J Educ Dev. 2000;20(1):5–27.

Esteves M. Gender equality in education: a challenge for policy makers. Int J Soc Sci. 2018;4(2):893–905.

Fenech M, Skattebol J. Supporting the inclusion of low-income families in early childhood education: an exploration of approaches through a social justice lens. Int J Incl Educ. 2021;25(9):1042–60.

Frank A. Understanding the “success” of an all girls’ boarding school in rural Tanzania: perspectives of graduates, teachers, and administrators, PhD thesis. The Florida State University; 2019.

Group WB. Malawi systematic country diagnostic: breaking the cycle of low growth and slow poverty reduction. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Guthridge M, Kirkman M, Penovic T, Giummarra MJ. Promoting gender equality: a systematic review of interventions. Soc Justice Res. 2022;35(3):318–43.

Kaur B. Equity and social justice in teaching and teacher education. Teach Teach Educ. 2012;28(4):485–92.

Lokina RB, Nyoni J, Kahyarara G. Social policy, gender and labour in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF); 2016.

Losioki BE, Mdee HK. The contribution of the hidden curriculum to gender inequality in teaching and learning materials: experiences from Tanzania. Asian J Educ Train. 2023;9(2):54–8.

Lovell E. Gender equality, social inclusion and resilience in Malawi. In: Building resilience and adapting to climate change. 2021.

Makulilo AB, Bakari M. Building a transformative feminist movement for women empowerment in Tanzania: the role of the Tanzania gender networking programme (TGNP-Mtandao). Afr Rev. 2021;13(2):155–74.

Malelu AM. Institutional factors influencing career advancement of women faculty: a case of, PhD thesis. Kenyatta University; 2015.

Mashala YL. The impact of the implementation of free education policy on secondary education in Tanzania. Int J Acad Multidiscip Res. 2019;3(1):6–14.

Mhewa, M. M., Bhalalusesa, E. P., & Kafanabo, E. (2021). Secondary school teachers’ understanding of gender-responsive pedagogy in bridging inequalities of students’ learning in tanzania. Papers in Education and Development, 38(2).

Mohun R, Biswas S, Jacobson J, Sajjad F. Infrastructure: a game changer for women’s economic empowerment. Background paper. UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment; 2016.

Mondal S, Joe W, Akhauri S, Sinha I, Thakur P, Kumar V, Kumar T, Pradhan N, Kumar A. Delivering PACE++ curriculum in community settings: impact of TARA intervention on gender attitudes and dietary practices among adolescent girls in Bihar, India. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(11): e0293941.

Mwaijande VT. Access to education and assistive devices for children with physical disabilities in Tanzania, Master’s thesis. Oslo and Akershus University College; 2014.

Mwakabenga RJ, Komba SC. Gender inequalities in pedagogical classroom practice: what influence do teachers make? J Educ Humanit Sci. 2021;10(3):66–82.

Nazneen S, Cole N. Literature review on socially inclusive budgeting. 2018.

Ndijuye LG, Mligo IR, Machumu MAM. Early childhood education in Tanzania: views and beliefs of stakeholders on its status and development. Global Educ Rev. 2020;7(3):22–39.

Nelly S. Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) in village development. Legal Brief. 2021;10(2):245–52.

Nkya HE, Bimbiga I. Unlocking potential: the positive impact of in-service training on science and mathematics teachers teaching strategies. Res Humanit Soc Sci. 2023. https://doi.org/10.7176/RHSS/13-16-04 .

Nyoni WP, He C, Yusuph ML. Sustainable interventions in enhancing gender parity in senior leadership positions in higher education in Tanzania. J Educ Pract. 2017;8(13):44–54.

Okkolin M-A, Lehtomäki E, Bhalalusesa E. The successful education sector development in Tanzania—comment on gender balance and inclusive education. Gend Educ. 2010;22(1):63–71.

Omari CK, Mbilinyi DA. Born to be less equal: the predicament of the girl child in Tanzania. In: Gender, family and work in Tanzania. London: Routledge; 2018. p. 292–314.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Opini B, Onditi H. Education for all and students with disabilities in Tanzanian primary schools: challenges and successes. Int J Educ Stud. 2016;3(2):65–76.

Pak K, Desimone LM, Parsons A. An integrative approach to professional development to support college-and career-readiness standards. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2020;28(111): n111.

Palmary I. Back2School gender mainstreaming guidelines. 2024.

Prasetyo P, Azwardi A, Kistanti N. Gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) and institutions as key drivers of green entrepreneurship. Int J Data Netw Sci. 2023;7(1):391–8.

Shelley J. Identifying and overcoming barriers to gender equality in Tanzanian schools: educators’ reflections. Int J Pedagog Innov New Technol. 2019;6(1):9–27.

Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019;70(1):747–70.

Stoilova D, Cai R, Aguilar-Gomez S, Batzer NH, Nyanza EC, Benshaul-Tolonen A. Biological, material and socio-cultural constraints to effective menstrual hygiene management among secondary school students in Tanzania. PLOS Global Public Health. 2022;2(3): e0000110.

Thomas MA, Rugambwa A. Equity, power, and capabilities: constructions of gender in a Tanzanian secondary school. Fem Form. 2011;23(3):153–75.

Tieng’o EWB. Community perception on public primary schools: implications for sustainable fee free basic education in Rorya district, Tanzania. East Afr J Educ Soc Sci. 2019;1(1):32–47.

Wapling L. Inclusive education and children with disabilities: quality education for all in low and middle income countries. 2016. https://eajess.ac.tz/2020/05/26/community-perception-on-public-primary-schools-implications-for-sustainable-fee-free-basic-education-in-rorya-district-tanzania/ .

Zacharia L. Factors causing gender inequality in education in Tanzania: a case of Korogwe district secondary schools, PhD thesis. The Open University of Tanzania; 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tanzania Institute of Accountancy, Mwanza, Tanzania

Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Tanzania

Isack Kibona

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

H.E was collecting the literatures and read and write major parts I.K was good on drafting conclusion and analysis part. But we work hand on hand together.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Nkya .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nkya, H., Kibona, I. Systematic literature review of gender equity and social inclusion in primary education for teachers in Tanzania: assessing status and future directions. Discov Educ 3 , 122 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00221-8

Download citation

Received : 26 March 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 13 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00221-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Equitable education
• Inclusive education
• Targeted intervention
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

This page uses technologies your browser does not support.

Many of our new website's features will not function and basic layout will appear broken.

Visit browsehappy.com to learn how to upgrade your browser.

• university of new orleans
• campus news
• one book one new orleans announces partnership with the university

CAMPUS NEWS: AUGUST 12, 2024

Citywide read, one book one new orleans announces partnership with the university.

Share this article

Former Louisiana Poet Laureate Mona Lisa Saloy’s “Black Creole Chronicles” is the One Book One New Orleans selection for 2024.

One Book One New Orleans (OBONO) and University of New Orleans have created a new partnership to connect students to the larger New Orleans community through a shared reading experience.   For the past 20 years, OBONO has selected one book each year as the focus of its citywide reading and literacy initiatives. Its 2024 selection is “Black Creole Chronicles,” a collection by former Louisiana Poet Laureate Mona Lisa Saloy. OBONO works to get the selected book into the hands of adults experiencing incarceration, low literacy, poverty, visual impairment and other obstacles that could prevent them from accessing the book.  

For this first time, OBONO's selected book will also be the common reader for UNO's College of Liberal Arts, Education and Human Development. Faculty from various schools and departments—including anthropology & sociology, language & literature, the School of the Arts, and the School of Education—will incorporate Saloy's work into the curriculum for their fall semester classes.  

“We are excited to launch our partnership with One Book One New Orleans as we help to establish a culture of active readers,” said Samuel Gladden, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Education and Human Development. “Students, faculty and staff will be reading the same book and sharing ideas in class, over lunch, or in other encounters on or off campus. We are especially thrilled that this year’s selection, ‘Black Creole Chronicles,’ was published by UNO Press, making this a perfect fit for the inaugural year of our project.” 

In addition to sharing the book in the classroom, UNO will host programming focused on “Black Creole Chronicles” during the upcoming academic year. Students will also have opportunities to attend off-campus events hosted by OBONO, enabling them to become part of a community of readers throughout the city.  

“I have wanted for years to bring the One Book experience to a college campus,” said Megan Holt, OBONO executive director. “Opportunities for engagement between students and the community have the potential to create connections that help us all build a stronger New Orleans.”

In Memoriam: Civil Engineering Faculty Member Engin Egeseli

International Studies Major Selected for U.S. State Department Critical Language Scholarship Program

UNO Math Chair Wins Distinguished Alumni Award from Alma Mater