In the Conclusion, we revisit some of the key issues raised in the Introduction and developed throughout the book. In Part One, we outlined how changes within higher education had problematised the idea of the university as a public good, while noting how, at the same time, there are mounting pressures for universities to be more accountable to their putative publics. Public engagement, sifted through a variety of managerialist and top-down approaches, is now a central part of the university's contemporary mission. Social Science in the City™ pre-dated these developments and developed from a commitment to providing critical spaces for reflection, initially in the context of drastic cuts to public spending as part of austerity politics. In the light of an acceleration of demands on universities to produce impact-relevant research as proof of their economic value to society, we must balance a number of sometimes conflicting demands and priorities. And yet, as we have discussed, and as various chapters in this book convey, there are multiple ways in which universities can be engaged, depending upon people's values, skills and concerns. We have argued at different points in the book for the importance of encouraging critical reflection about pressing social, political and economic matters, wherever we can. That includes those people occupying strategic management positions as much as those from the most hard-pressed estates.

While the origins of Social Science in the City resonate with the classic emancipatory role of public sociology, as outlined by Burawoy – one which includes ‘publics beyond the academy in dialogue about matters of political and moral concern’ (Burawoy, 2004, p 1607) – we must also respond pragmatically to the neoliberal-inflected agendas within higher education that emphasise impact. The reason we believe that this is important is because we believe in the dynamic quality of social life and the creativity and sometimes counter-hegemonic imaginaries of those who bring their own questions, experiences and issues into publically engaged events.

Public engagement itself reflects conflicting demands, interests and agendas, both for the increased dissemination of scientific innovation to publics based upon processes of dialogue and empowerment, on the one hand, but also towards methods of control and increased surveillance, on the other.