The civic university agenda has a geography problem

The civic university agenda has become one of the dominant narratives in UK higher education.

Universities are increasingly expected to demonstrate how they contribute to the places they serve, whether through economic development, community engagement, cultural activity or partnerships with local organisations. This renewed focus universities’ engagement with place is welcome. Yet much of the discussion rests on an assumption that often goes unexamined: that universities have a single place, a single community and a single set of local partners.

For many institutions, that assumption simply does not hold. Universities have campuses, centres and teaching locations distributed across multiple towns, cities and regions. While civic debates tend to focus on universities’ home cities, many institutions are already operating in very different places, each with their own needs, opportunities and expectations.

These campuses come in a wide variety of forms. Some, like the University of Glasgow’s campus in Dumfries, are relatively small sites located at some distance from the institution’s main base. Others, such as the University of Cumbria, have a more explicitly regional structure, distributing activity across multiple campuses. What they share is that they are rarely at the centre of discussions about civic engagement.

Anchors in cold spots

Outside the UK’s major cities, these campuses often play an important role in places that have limited higher education provision.

Many rural, coastal, and post-industrial places rely on satellite campuses as their only local university presence. As a result, these campuses do much more than provide access to higher education in what might otherwise be “cold spots”. They have a wider role in supporting these places that are often among those “left behind” in the UK’s highly unequal patterns of development.

They can be significant employers, support local skills development, provide knowledge and expertise to businesses and public services, contribute to community life, and help bring local actors together around shared ambitions for the future.

Yet satellite campuses also occupy a distinctive position that is often overlooked. They frequently experience a form of double peripherality.

Geographically, they are located in places that sit outside the main centres of economic and political power. Institutionally, they may also be distant from where decisions are made within their own universities. Leadership, resources and strategic attention are often concentrated elsewhere. This dual position and tension create challenges for the delivery of a civic mission.

Satellite engagement

The dominant models of civic engagement have emerged from large metropolitan universities.

But civic engagement in peripheral regions often looks very different. Rural economies may be characterised by small businesses, and potential partners can be geographically dispersed. Public services and community organisations may be stretched thin and have limited capacity.

Building effective partnerships and sustaining collaboration in these contexts requires universities to invest time and resources in relationship-building. Yet many satellite campuses are themselves relatively small, with limited staff capacity and a narrow academic portfolio, and can have little control over budgets and priorities that are set elsewhere.

Expectations of what a university can contribute locally are often high, while the resources available to respond are comparatively modest.

At the same time, local autonomy alone is not enough. Without institutional support, campuses may struggle to secure resources, maintain visibility, or sustain long-term initiatives. The challenge is therefore not simply giving campuses more freedom, but ensuring that their civic role is recognised and supported within wider university strategies.

This is particularly important because much civic activity depends on individual commitment. Staff working in satellite campuses frequently have strong personal motivation and connections to their regions, leading to a genuine desire to contribute to local development. But where institutional support is weak, engagement can become dependent on individual enthusiasm rather than embedded organisational practice. Valuable work takes place, but it remains fragmented, vulnerable, and often invisible.

The future of the civic agenda

Being a civic university across multiple locations also means engaging with multiple communities.

While many universities have formal civic university agreements, these tend to be limited to the university’s primary location. There are important exceptions. The University of Exeter’s Civic University Agreement in Cornwall demonstrates how civic engagement can be developed around the specific circumstances and priorities of locations beyond a university’s main campus. However, extending this approach across multiple sites requires sustained commitment, coordination and investment.

These questions are becoming increasingly urgent. As UK universities face financial pressures, activities associated with civic engagement risk being viewed as desirable but non-essential. At the same time, smaller and more geographically distant campuses may be particularly vulnerable when institutions seek to reduce costs.

Recent campus closures highlight the fragility of some of these locations. But the loss of a satellite campus is rarely just an institutional issue. In many small towns and peripheral regions these campuses are important anchor institutions, not just providing educational opportunities but spending money in the local economy, supporting local employers, creating networks, and helping connect regions to wider flows of knowledge, investment and expertise. Their closure can have consequences that extend far beyond the university itself.

This also raises a broader question about the future of the civic university agenda. If universities are increasingly being asked to demonstrate their social value, then their contributions cannot be assessed only through what happens in their largest and most visible locations.

The impact universities have in smaller towns, rural areas and peripheral regions matters too. If national and devolved governments are serious about addressing spatial inequalities, it would be a mistake to allow these valuable local assets to be lost or degraded. For universities themselves, demonstrating meaningful impact beyond their major urban centres offers an opportunity to show how higher education contributes to national prosperity and social cohesion. At a time when the value of universities is increasingly scrutinised, visible commitments to places that might otherwise be left behind can strengthen the case for public investment in higher education.

The civic university agenda has rightly encouraged institutions to think more carefully about their relationship with place. The next step is recognising that many universities are institutions of multiple places.

If policymakers want universities to help tackle spatial inequalities, and if universities want to demonstrate their value to society, satellite campuses cannot remain an afterthought. In many parts of the UK, they are the primary expression of the civic university, and need to be supported to fulfil their potential.