• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Kraemer, Simone (2019) Public policy making, fundraisers and philanthropic giving in UK higher education in the 21st century: the examples of two policy incentives. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/73691/ Document Version UNSPECIFIED Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html ‘Public policy making, fundraisers and philanthropic giving in UK higher education in the 21st century; the examples of two policy incentives.’ Simone Kraemer Supervisors: Dr Kate Bradley Dr Beth Breeze Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Policy School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research University of Kent April 2019 Abstract Philanthropy in the provision of UK higher education remains a relatively underexplored field despite its long history in higher education. Since the early 2000s, when the question of financing higher education was high on the policy agenda, philanthropy in higher education has received notable policy attention, with two specific policy incentives to foster giving: a capacity-building scheme and a match-funding scheme. The rise in philanthropic income in recent years is often attributed to these policies; however, the aim of this thesis is to examine this notable change and commitment to philanthropy and fundraising in the wider context of the changing UK higher education sector and what role those who deliver these policies, the fundraisers, played. Philanthropy’s appearance on the policy agenda and its role has so far been unexplained; this thesis explores philanthropy and fundraising's role and investigates the drivers of the policy interventions from 2002 onward. Secondary data analysis from the annual Ross-CASE survey was employed to examine philanthropic income trends across 73 Higher Education Institutions over the past 9 years. Archival data was then analysed to understand the historic and contemporary role of philanthropy at different institutions. Finally, interviews were conducted with 15 senior fundraising professionals to elicit their views on the state of policymaking and philanthropy and fundraising’s role in the process. Kingdon’s (2003; [1995], [1984]) theoretical lens of the Multiple Streams Approach was a conceptual tool used to examine why a policy window opened. This research uncovers a complex, ongoing shift of funding in higher education from private to public to private again that suggests a more consistent role for philanthropic funding and fundraisers than is often anticipated. It also identifies a scale of responses to policy by fundraisers that helps illuminate variations in policy application and fundraisers’ roles in complex institutional bureaucracies and also indicates a precarious position that they take on. This research argues for a crucial yet hidden role for fundraisers as Campus-Level Bureaucrats, developed from the widely applied Street-Level Bureaucrat theory by Lipsky (2010; [1980]) in which fundraisers have a limited and at times precarious role as stakeholders in the policy and institutional process. The findings contribute to an understanding of philanthropy’s complex and multifaceted role in a heterogeneous higher education sector, where fundraising results vary considerably so short-term policies cannot address all of the variations and inequalities in the sector. They also suggest that the increased success of philanthropic funding is not just attributable to policy, but more so to the wider trends of development and professionalisation of fundraising and the compliance of fundraisers with policy and institutional philanthropic goals. Current policymaking in this area cannot be fully understood without incorporating historic knowledge and current understanding of philanthropy’s role and value, which can impact the development of future policies and practice. 2 Acknowledgements This has been a long, exhausting, yet very fruitful journey; I’ve learned a lot about myself and learned how important a support network is. I therefore would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone involved for what they did to support me. I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr Beth Breeze and Dr Kate Bradley, who have kept me on track, were patient and most supportive, thank you to you both. I would also like to thank all participants in this study; without the fundraisers’ eagerness to help producing a piece of research that can be applied in academia and practice, this would not have come into existence. Equally, I would like to thank all the helpful and enthusiastic archivists that I had the pleasure to meet and work with and who my requests and inquisitiveness for detailed records was never too much trouble. I also thank CASE for providing me with access to their data sets. I would also like to thank everyone who has supported me throughout the last few years; colleagues, peers, friends and family in the UK, Germany and across the world. Thank you for listening, showing an interest in my work and just being there. Thank you also to Jo for her proof reading, conversations and patience. My parents and sister deserve a special thank you- ohne Euch und Eure Unterstützung hätte ich das nicht geschafft. A final and the biggest thank you has to go to Tom, who has unconditionally supported me throughout these past years- thank you for being there for me and I am looking forward to spending more time together again. I dedicate this thesis to my parents who have supported me unconditionally throughout and have always believed in the importance and positive influence of continued education and learning - Thank you. Ich widme diese Arbeit meinen Eltern, die mich immer bedingunglos unterstuetzt haben und an den positiven Einfluss der Weiterbildung geglaubt haben - Vielen Dank. 3 Table of Contents Abstract................................................................................................................................. 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 9 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 11 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 1.2 The study of philanthropy and its definitions .................................................................. 17 1.2.1 Studying philanthropy in academia ......................................................................... 17 1.2.2 Philanthropy and fundraising in the grey literature .................................................. 18 1.2.3 Definitions of philanthropy in the academic literature .............................................. 19 1.2.4 Philanthropy as a contested concept ...................................................................... 22 1.3 Role of philanthropy, social class, elitism and inequalities in higher education .............. 24 1.4 Higher education policies .............................................................................................. 27 1.4.1 Policy context since the 1960s ................................................................................ 27 1.4.2 Policymaking and philanthropy in the 2000s ........................................................... 31 1.5 Aim and contribution of this study .................................................................................. 35 1.6 Structure of this thesis ................................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 41 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 41 2.2 Overview of the relationship between the state and HEIs/higher education as a field .... 41 2.2.1 The idea of a university sustained ........................................................................... 42 2.2.2 Shifting ideas of the public and private good ........................................................... 44 2.3 Overview of social policy theory and philanthropy

Load more

  299

Copy Link