1,721,000 research outputs found
Why universities can’t take all the credit for graduate employment rates
No full textAs many students have come to recognise, the degree qualifications can make weak currency in a labour market flooded with graduates. And, as a result, many students are turning to extracurricular activities to try and get a competitive advantage in the battle for those graduate jobs
Confidence in social impact claims 'shockingly low'
No full textLaura Fedorciow has made a persuasive case for social impact measurement, and many of her points are well founded.What is more debatable is the assertion that "demonstrating impact opens new doors to the £1.235tn assets under management in the UK". The first point would be that not all of that finance is available to social enterprises. The second is that claiming social impact does not always influence social investors. Our research and experience of working with social enterprises in the UK, Europe and India certainly suggests this, and is reinforced by the findings of the recent Big Lottery Investment Readiness in the UK report.Why is demonstrable social impact sometimes overlooked by social investors? We assume that social investors are looking for profitable businesses with a social impact they can evidence, so those who can demonstrate social impact have an advantage over those who cannot. The reality is that the paramount draw for social investors is the financial sustainability of an organisation. Those which have a tight business model and can generate financial returns will always be favoured, whether or not they claim astounding social impact.Over and above this primary financial criterion, the credibility of existing social impact measurement tools is a major issue. Our research reveals shockingly low levels of confidence in the social impact claims of social enterprises. On one hand, these claims are treated with scepticism because of suspicions that the impact measurement process is engineered to hit a benchmark figure — a social return on investment of £6, for example.On the other, it is widely acknowledged that at present there are several flaws and technical inconsistencies in the application of social impact measurement. This includes the application of discount rates, estimations of project lifetimes (and thus how long benefits accrue) and calculations of attribution (isolating the impact of a project, which is notoriously difficult to do). It is more than possible for the same project to be analysed using the same method by two analysts and for each to reach a different figure. We also sometimes forget that most social impact measurement tools are not designed for comparison – many explicitly warn against doing so – but the demands of the social investment market has meant that these disclaimers have been largely ignored.While the investment market's discomfort with current social impact measurement is evident, this is not the only challenge. More broadly, there is a need to develop social impact assessment tools which can meet social enterprises' other strategic objectives. This means focussing on the things that any form of organisational assessment should aspire to: measuring performance, enhancing learning and reinforcing mission. These other strategic objectives seem to have been lost in the race to attract social investment but are vital to the process of making the sector more effective and investable.To date, social impact assessment methods have been largely imposed on the social enterprise sector from those outside it, and the result has been an emphasis on pseudo-accounting frameworks which culminate in the grand declaration of quantified social impact. Because the emphasis has been on generating this headline ratio, other stages of social impact assessment have been relatively neglected. SROI, for example, is comprised of six stages. The first three are often the most important. These involve engaging stakeholders and defining organisational boundaries to draw an "impact map" which translates outputs (deliverables) into outcomes (causes effected). These qualitative processes can help all organisations, including smaller and early stage social enterprises, to improve understandings of their routes to impact. They can also, with adequate training, be conducted in-house without the need for consultants who can charge anywhere between £5-7,000 per impact evaluation. A number of tools are currently being developed (including our own collaboration with Unltd India), which offer a stripped down social impact map focussing on engaging stakeholders (including beneficiaries) and matching performance against sector-specific outcomes. We hope that over time these tools will help to widen access to credible and meaningful social impact assessment.No-one denies the benefits of social impact assessment or of maintaining the momentum of reporting practices. It is a growing, evolving field which has a long way to go to maturity but equally where the scramble for finance should not be allowed to limit the potential of social impact assessment
The future of multicultural Britain: confronting the progressive dilemma
No full textGlobal politics are deeply affected by issues surrounding cultural identity. Profound cultural diversity has made national majorities increasingly anxious and democratic governments are under pressure to address those anxieties. Multiculturalism - once heralded as the insignia of a tolerant society - is now blamed for encouraging segregation and harbouring extremism.Pathik Pathak makes a convincing case for a new progressive politics that confronts these concerns. Drawing on fascinating comparisons between Britain and India, he shows how the global Left has been hamstrung by a compulsion for insular identity politics and a stubborn attachment to cultural indifference. He argues that to combat this, cultural identity must be placed at the centre of the political syste
Prefiguring the anti-racist university: a systems change approach to the Race Equality Charter
No full textIn this paper, I will set out three methodological approaches to enable the conduct of the Race Equality Charter (REC) to prefigure the systems change that will make the process of racial equity meaningful. Systems change has been a lens which has gained popularity as a principle of social change in recent years but has yet to be applied to institutional racial equality. My argument here is that how the REC is done is as important as the work involved itself; it can either prefigure systems change or it can reproduce existing patterns of domination and disadvantage. Adopting a “prefigurative” methodological approach will enable the transformative transfer of resources and knowledge to people of colour in higher education, and catalyse a mindset shift to sustain the process of racial equity in the long term
The borderless problem-solver
No full textThe 21st century requires a leader who is operationally agile, technologically literate, and network-fluent, says Pathik Pathak
The trouble with David Goodhart's Britain
No full textThis article argues that David Goodhart's manifesto for ‘progressive nationalism’ is gravely misconceived, indicative of the entire cohesion and integration agenda. What he talks about as the making of a common culture involves dusting off tired traditions, scaling back individual rights to protect the ‘common good’, and ultimately retreating onto safe ground for Middle England. Since such measures to strengthen national solidarity are responsive only to the anxieties of the demographic majority, those who are deemed to be most prone to social marginalisation continue to be so. Goodhart, like many in New Labour's orbit, chooses to ignore that belonging is reciprocal.The article advocates an alternative culture of citizenship - one that widens democratisation, brings individuals them into the political process and thereby engages the ‘reciprocity of belonging’ that the post-7/7 consensus neglects. To build a cohesive Britain, the first step - but not necessarily the last - is to conceive sustainable routes towards social and political inclusion for al
- …
