Today’s universities must operate in an era of significant polarisation – and for some, bridging those divides to tackle society’s most pressing challenges has become a central part of their mission.

The French university IMT Atlantique, for instance, has been generating conversations through its Forum for Ecological and Societal Transitions since 2013, when the “think and do tank” was established to facilitate research, innovation, training and discussion around the major environmental and socio-economic issues facing the Pays de la Loire region.

Samuel Aubin, a sociologist and director of the forum, said it operates with a “non-hierarchical approach” in order to bring together researchers, businesses, community organisations and other local stakeholders. “This egalitarian approach requires significant work to make scientific contributions accessible so that knowledge can genuinely be shared,” he said. “Researchers, in turn, accept relinquishing any monopoly on that knowledge.”

The forum employs several methods to ensure that it remains “a space of freedom and neutrality for all its actors,” Aubin said. Governance is shared equally among its 38 partners, with a “one organisation, one vote” approach, while working group discussions remain confidential, with “outputs shared only once everyone has agreed”. The forum coordination team also avoids participating in political party meetings.

̽����Ƶ

Polarisation itself is a subject of study for the Forum for Ecological and Societal Transitions, said Aubin, because it addresses potentially contentious local challenges such as water allocation. While “we feel this polarisation less within our own [forum] bodies,” he said, “we must remain alert”. A “constant requirement” when dealing with polarising issues, he said, is “full consideration of scientific knowledge to shed light on the considerable risks ahead”.

By enabling different stakeholders to freely consider pressing challenges, universities can contribute towards the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals – particularly SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). In the latest edition of the ̽����Ƶ��Impact Rankings��– recently relaunched as the��Sustainability Impact Ratings��– IMT Atlantique received top��scores��in the metric concerning the provision of neutral platforms to discuss ideas.

̽����Ƶ

Another high scorer was the University of Helsinki, which notably hosted a during the most recent Finnish parliamentary elections. Riina Koivuranta, head of responsibility and well-being, told THE��that hosting “open and critical discussions” is “at the core of what we do as universities”.

The university describes its as “the living room of science”, with scientific events and discussions, organised both by the university and external actors, taking place almost every day. Recent panels have covered subjects including human trafficking, research transparency and Finland’s membership of the European Union.

“These discussions are at the core of what we can provide,” said Koivuranta. “We’re making sure that we have multidisciplinary points of view, different actors coming together and always research at the table.”

A university’s responsibility cannot end with providing a platform for conversation, Koivuranta said. While “it’s important that different actors in society ask questions [about research], institutions must be prepared to support researchers if they face “targeting or harassment”, citing climate science as an area where scholars have recently encountered abuse.

̽����Ƶ

“The first [priority] is that everyone knows that we have help available,” she said. “We have to make sure that we have systems, procedures and thorough guidelines for our researchers, so that when they are taking part in these difficult discussions, they are not left alone.”

To Koivuranta, a major indicator that what Helsinki is doing is working is the culture of “openness and critical thinking” that she sees, not only at its panels and events but “in the inner discussions that we have at the university”.

“I’m always happy when our community raises questions about decisions – for example, ‘Is this in line with our values?’” she said. “Because then I know that those values really are active in our everyday life, and people are not afraid of raising hard questions about our own community too.” ��

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com