Universities may be on the back foot but the concept of social value gives them the opportunity to seize the initiative.

Loughborough University Library

Anyone interested in the future of higher education would do well to read the NCCPE’s recent report on the social value of universities. Paul Manners, the NCCPE’s Director, sets the context for the report when he quotes research for Universities UK in 2010 which suggested that less than one in five people in the UK recognise the wider impacts that universities have on society. This alarming statistic goes some way to explaining the relative ease with which the government has introduced its controversial reforms. Where the public has shown concern it has been focused almost exclusively on the level of fees rather than on the implications for the sector and its contribution to the life and health of the nation.

The contrast with the NHS or the BBC could not be greater. These two institutions are hardly without their critics but, such is the public’s basic regard for them, politicians tread carefully when proposing their reform. Against this backdrop, there is an urgent need for universities both collectively and individually to find a way of talking about their value that engages effectively with the public and thence politicians.

The report is valuable not least for its clear and balanced assessment of the different approaches to assessing and measuring social value. There is an extensive literature here and the authors provide a useful guide to anyone wishing to understand this concept better. The main point of their report is to set out the case for their chosen method of assessing and reporting social value, the “SMEV” or “socially modified economic valuation” which aims to put a hard, numeric value on the contribution that universities make to society. We endorse this attempt at finding a rigorous and quantitative approach to assessing social value and find the authors’ arguments for doing so compelling. However,  our experience at the BBC, where we developed and applied the Public Value Test, suggests that caution is in order and that the SMEV, as described, may not be as workable as the authors believe.

We also endorse their view that valuable though the SMEV approach is it needs to be located within a broader debate about how the sector creates social value. From this a framework can be created which sets out the sector’s purposes and what can be expected of it.

The SMEV model involves the following steps:
* Identifying all university outputs
* Quantifying the outputs
* Economic pricing of the outputs
* Finally, adding “social weights” to the results of the economic valuation to produce the SMEV

So, for instance, take the hypothetical example of an open university lecture which was free to those attending. The authors estimate, through a technique known as “shadow pricing”, that the economic value of the lecture would be some £357. To assess the social value of the lecture the authors turn to HM Treasury’s Green Book for guidance. The Green Book provides guideline “weights” for economic analysis which reflect what the government deems to be socially useful. In this hypothetical example the lecture succeeded in attracting a disproportionately high number of students from less advantaged backgrounds which, in so far as it is in line with government policy, produces an upweighting of the value of the lecture to between £405 and £442.

While we think the SMEV is an interesting and potentially worthwhile approach we question whether it is as workable as described in the report. The authors point to a pilot study at Strathclyde University which succeeded in identifying 220 separate outputs. However, this marks only the beginning of what is potentially a highly complex process, not least because of the difficulty of identifying the intentions behind each output. For instance, in the hypothetical example of the open lecture, it is quite conceivable such a lecture would be designed and delivered with more than one socially desirable output in mind.

We encountered precisely this problem at the BBC when trying to assess the impact of the BBC’s programming and concluded that, much as we would have liked to demonstrate its delivery of socially valuable goals, the sheer complexity of identifying the range of intentions at the point of commissioning and then assessing their impact at the point of delivery was just too great. While it might be possible to manage the complexity of identifying outputs at the level of individual institutions it would be a challenge of a different order at the sectoral level.

These reservations aside, we think the SMEV could in principle help support better informed decision-making by university administrators and civil servants. As the report’s authors say, though, the sector needs rather more than this. They refer to the need for a “narrative of value” as well as a hard, quantitative valuation precisely because numbers alone cannot “‘catch the imagination’ or give insight into the richness and diversity of higher education.” We strongly agree with this and their contention that the SMEV would need to work within a wider context that would see agreement as to what value society expects the sector to create.

To do this would mean engaging with the question of outcomes and it is here that the sector has an opportunity to seize the initiative and begin to set the terms on which its effectiveness is judged.

The report’s authors rightly point out that outcomes – e.g. a healthier, better educated society – are the products of variables that are outwith the control of any one institution or grouping of them. For this reason they limit the SMEV to a consideration of outputs. While we can understand this from a methodological point of view, we nonetheless believe they lose sight of outcomes rather too easily. The SMEV might reasonably look for evidence of how outputs are supportive of outcomes, albeit not at the expense of the hardness of the data provided by outputs.

An understanding of desired outcomes is critical to securing legitimacy in the eyes of the wider public and those with the power to grant or withhold funds. Very few will be interested in the number of research papers or open lectures a university produces – however “weighted”. But a discussion about the socially beneficial outcomes that an institution or sector is trying to promote through its various activities has the potential to engage and to do so in effective ways.

This was our experience at the BBC. In developing the Public Value Test and the attendant Public Value performance framework, we deliberately eschewed a focus on any single metric as indicative of success or otherwise and instead emphasised the need for judgment, albeit based on careful and rigorously researched evidence.

The focus of our work was on the BBC’s six public purposes and an engagement with the public about how far the BBC was meeting them in its existing or proposed services. What struck us forcibly was the ease with which the public engaged with the idea of there being products and services which had high social value and were therefore worthy of public funding but in which most individuals had little personal interest. One of the best examples of this is current affairs programming which, relatively speaking, attracts few viewers and listeners but which rates very highly as something which the BBC should continue to provide in the interests of a well-functioning democracy.

There is no doubt that the BBC has benefited greatly from adopting a public value framework. It was developed on the basis of both audience research and staff engagement and government was closely consulted in the process. The result is a framework that forms an agreed basis for engagement with government and stakeholders. It is one that is owned and understood by staff and provides the means for a continuing dialogue with the public as to how well the Corporation is meeting its purposes and where it needs to improve. The Public Value Test has also done much to address what were acute commercial concerns about the BBC’s development of new services, particularly in nascent markets.

Unlike the BBC, our universities are in the unenviable position of creating value both economic and social of which the public seems heedless. There is no simple solution to this problem, no magic bullet that can illustrate their value. But the sector as a whole and the institutions within it can change this situation if they begin to engage seriously with the question of fundamental purposes and use this as the basis for a dialogue with the public. There is much to be said for a rigorous, evidence-based approach such as that proposed in the NCCPE paper but only as part of a deeper, more far-reaching discussion about what our universities think they are for.

Image courtesy Loughborough University Library.

We’ve recently completed a project with the National Portrait Gallery, who engaged us to develop a draft social value model. We spoke to people at all levels of the National Portrait Gallery’s staff as well as external stakeholders such as corporate sponsors.

We found this a striking instance of the specifity of making a social value case. It’s tempting to think in generic terms about the social value of any given sector. But each institution is different. The National Portrait Gallery has unique characteristics which differentiate it from other galleries and museums. These are rooted in its founding purpose, which was to tell the story of Britain through portraits of men and women of achievement. Unusually for an art gallery, this means that the subject of the artworks is of greater importance than their artistic merit. Is the National Portrait Gallery, therefore, most similar to other galleries in their role as custodians of arts or to museums which curate artifacts of historic interest? To what extent should it stay true to its Victorian mission to tell a canonical story of Britain versus a contemporary, post-modern one to foster critique of hegemonic narratives and encourage a more inclusive portrayal of Britain?

The answer to these question are determined in part by the view one takes of the social value that the Gallery should deliver under different scenarios of how the economic crisis will play out.

In the boom years, prior to the financial crash, the cultural sector enjoyed growing financial support – the case for which was made largely in terms of the arts’ contribution to the economy. In times of austerity, one might expect the focus to become narrower still – as declining financial support may encourage institutions to worry purely about inputs and hang the outcomes. From this perspective, consideration of social value is a luxury that can wait for more buoyant economic conditions.

But it is interesting to note that some aspects of the National Portrait Gallery’s social value come to the fore most clearly in times of uncertainty and social distress. The potential for a gallery of portraiture and achievement to promote social cohesion and moral example was part of its attraction to the Victorian founders and remains relevant today. This potential was fufilled in 2005, when the Gallery saw a significant growth in visitor numbers in the weeks and months following the 7/7 tube and bus bombings in London.

The reasons for this are unclear but it’s an echo of the role the neighbouring National Gallery played during the Second World War. Bombed and with its entire collection removed to safety in North Wales, the National Gallery nonetheless became a much-loved beacon of hope and civilisation as it maintained a programme of daily concerts and a changing monthly display of a single picture. The director, Kenneth Clarke – inundated with requests – programmed for a public he regarded as “anxious to contemplate a nobler order of humanity” as noted by the art critic, Andrew Graham-Dixon:

“The first “Picture of the Month” selected was … the Noli me Tangere, Titian’s profoundly moving depiction of the Magdalen reaching out towards Christ, who has appeared to her after his resurrection, and who gently reproves her with the words “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my father.” It is not hard to see why this image of the unattainable Christ, of a salvation that can be sensed but not touched, would have spoken so directly to people during the darkest days of war.”

Attendances outstripped normal peacetime attendance to the full gallery. Andrew Graham-Dixon discerns a lasting impact today on the National Gallery’s sense of purpose:

“The legacy of the “Picture of the Month” is impossible to quantify but perhaps the Observer’s reporter came closest to the truth when he remarked that as a result of it “The National Gallery is far more genuinely a national possession than ever before”. Its Trustees, true to the moral example set by their wartime predecessors, have made sure that it remains just that. Unlike virtually any other national museum of equivalent status – the Louvre, say, or the Prado – it remains free of charge. This is reflected in patterns of visitor attendance, so that whereas the typical French visitor to the Louvre attends once a year, if that, the majority of British visitors to the National Gallery will go there around ten or twelve times in the same period. They may go to see a special exhibition, but as often as not they will go during a lunch hour, or even just for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, to see a particular, favourite work of art. The pleasure of looking at art is often greatest when the object of attention is just one picture and it seems that this lesson, learned all those years ago, during wartime, has somehow embedded itself in the national consciousness.”

This aspect of value is also evident at the National Portrait Gallery. It seems that, in the wake of 7/7, people gravitated towards both the vision the Gallery offers of Britain as a conducive and inclusive society and the ease of enjoyment and uplift that wandering its galleries provides.

While we were working there in the months after the London riots and with the prospect, still with us, of financial collapse in Europe, we could see how this aspect of the Gallery’s social value could be especially pertinent in the current climate. Not only does it provide an antidote to the sense of social division that the riots exemplified, it also provides a cost-effective and accessible way of fostering well-being at a time when more material compensations are contracting.

Arts institutions are accustomed to thinking about these aspects of their value in relation to their outreach work in local communities. They are less assertive in articulating these benefits in relation to their core purpose. We find that people who work in organisations often find it difficult to describe the intrinsic value of what they do – partly because it is self-evident to them, partly because the culture of the last thirty years has been more interested in the instrumental value of institutions. Is it possible that the era of austerity will make it more propitious to justify the intrinsic value of the arts?

Image courtesy Roberto Trm.