CONCEPT OF UNIVERSITY SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE TEACHERS.

This study presents the first results obtained from a research that was carried out with university professors of an undergraduate degree program (undergraduate) in a public university of the State of Puebla, Mexico, with the purpose of investigating what concept they have about University Social Responsibility (USR) and what practices identify that have been carried out with students to promote it. In order to achieve this objective, a theoretical framework was created that would allow to have some references to identify which can be considered good practices in USR. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with professors and several of them reported having promoted class projects linked to social needs; others talked about strategies implemented through the Mexican Social Service (mandatory), professional practices, volunteering, among others.

The methodology for this project is qualitative, allowing an analysis of the conceptions of the teachers about the USR and of the practices that they identify that are carried out as part of the training that is taught in the selected study program.

Theoretical framework
For Vallaeys (2008) it is important to establish a distinction between what is and what is not Social Responsibility; he mentions that it is not synonymous with social help, since this term has come to be understood as completely philanthropic acts where a paternalistic and assistentialist sense emerges and it is believed that a role of rescuer is assumed before the community that is in some vulnerable situation. The purpose of Social Responsibility is to promote social change.
... is a new way of managing organizations that is based on internationally recognized ethical standards for the promotion of "good practices", both in the internal management of the organization (labor and environmental management) and in its link with society (management of the social relation). The "goodness" of these organizational practices is related to the search for a more humane and sustainable development, as defined by the United Nations (Vallaeys, 2008, p.204).
In the same way it raises that the SR is that management that in addition to being based on the ethical standards, manages the impacts and collateral effects generated by the organization.
It is about diagnosing, caring for and preventing possible negative impacts, and maximizing positive ones, so that the organization can be considered as socially relevant (useful and beneficial for society in all its operations). This fundamental notion of impact management is what allows us to go from a personal ethic limited to good intentions to a systemic ethic that takes into account the Principle of the ecology of the action of E. Morin. By studying and caring for its collateral effects in the environment, an organization avoids "social autism", internalizes its "externalities", begins to understand how it is part of the problem it denounces and also how it can be part of the solution (Vallaeys, 2008 p 205) University social responsibility is defined as: ... an ethical quality management policy of the university that seeks to align its four processes (management, teaching, research, extension) with the university mission, its values and social commitment, through the achievement of institutional coherence, transparency and participation dialogical of the entire university community (authorities, students, teachers and administrators) with the multiple social actors interested in the good university performance and in need of it, for the effective transformation of society towards the solution of their problems of exclusion, inequality and sustainability . (Vallaeys, 2008 p.209) Now, the University Social Responsibility for Núñez (2012a p.412), must respond to an ethical and intelligent management of the impacts that will later be explained in detail, proposes that: ... the development of this new perspective represents for the universities, the overcoming of the inadequate practices, characterized by an egocentric, instrumental and reducing approach, and the conquest of an ethical dimension more adjusted to what he calls a true ethos.
According to the current role played by the University in society, this has had to find a way to go beyond the university pillars such as teaching, research, extension and management, as it should contribute to the solution of social problems, beyond their involvement in society and contributing to the training of professionals under an ethical approach, in order to have moral and professional tools that establish a commitment to culture, environment and society. To achieve this, it is necessary that universities seek to create spaces for dialogue, in which through the exchange of ideas, the reflection of the environment and the critical readings themselves, alternative solutions to social needs are created and the commitment is strengthened of participation with society from its internal and external context.
... putting all this into practice will result in the training of a subject who has graduated with ethical aims, who links his actions from a perspective of satisfaction of the needs of the environment to which he belongs as an ethical subject and this as the primary task of the responsible universities (Nuñez, et alt, 2012 p.558). Vallaeys (2008, p.209) states that the USR seeks to align the four basic university processes of Management, Training, Research and Extension with the scientific, professional and educational demands that seek a fairer and more sustainable local and global development. For what defines it as: a policy of continuous improvement of the University towards the effective fulfillment of its social mission through 4 processes: Ethical and environmental management of the institution; Training of responsible and supportive citizens; Production and dissemination of socially relevant knowledge; Social participation in promoting a more humane and sustainable development.
It also proposes strategies that allow achieving the improvement proposed, which are: 1. The integrated participation of internal and external interest groups in the work of the University; 2. The articulation of curricula, research, extension and teaching methods with the solution of society's problems; 3. Regular self-diagnosis of the institution with appropriate measurement tools for accountability to stakeholders.

Impacts of University Social Responsibility
As previously stated, when talking about Social Responsibility, the positive and negative impacts of the actions that both people and organizations develop should be considered. It is necessary to prevent the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts that are generated, so the impacts of the USR were defined according to Francois Vallaeys, which are: 1. Organizational impacts: labor, environmental, daily life habits on campus, which derive in values lived and promoted intentionally or not, which affect people and their families (What are the values we live daily? How should we live in our university in a responsible and citizen way, in attention to the nature, to the dignity and well-being of the members of the university community?). (Vallaeys, 2008 p.209). 2. Educational impacts: everything related to the teaching-learning processes and the curricular construction that derive in the profile of the graduate that is being formed (¿What type of professionals and people are we training? How should we structure our training to train citizens? ¿responsible for sustainable human development in the country?). (Vallaeys, 2008(Vallaeys, p.2009 To analyze educational impacts, the following indicators can be cited (Valarezo, 2012  5. Evidence of university evaluation and accreditation processes, under local and international standards. 6. Mechanisms and evidence of incorporation of research results, case studies and methodologies in the syllabus of academic programs. 7. Existence of interdisciplinary training mechanisms for teachers and researchers. 8. Number of Open Educational Resources REA, available and number of accesses to them. 9. Existence of inclusion mechanisms for higher education for minority and marginalized groups; percentage of them in relation to the total number of students enrolled. 10. Mechanisms for university teachers to know and be motivated to incorporate into their academic components activities that integrate theory with practice in projects that promote sustainable development. 11. Percentage of students who have passed a specific course on sustainable development throughout their academic education. 12. Number of continuing education programs that address priority local needs. 13. Number of educational programs with virtual support or under the modality of open and distance studies that promote access to education without limitations of time or place. 14. Evidence of mechanisms for the strengthening of specific leadership competencies and coordination of interdisciplinary teams. 15. Evidence of communication channels and feedback from the university with its graduates to obtain from them strategic information on needs, competences, employment and social situation of the country. 16. Evidence of follow-up to former students: percentage of students in management positions. 3. Quantity; type of publication; coverage; relevance of informative production. 4. Number of channels and interaction mechanisms to know the expectations, needs and interests of the university publics and external actors in general. 5. Evidence of the mechanisms of consultation and processing of the expectations, interests and needs of the public and social actors and their inclusion in the priority agenda of academic management, research and extension. 6. Existence of editorial lines (publications, books, collections) that address issues of social and / or environmental development. 7. Existence of consultation channels for the most affected of the internal and external environment, before making a decision. 8. Existence of a strategic communication plan to introduce, create and / or promote public opinion trends in favor of the culture of social responsibility in society in general. 9. Number and quality of environmental education and awareness campaigns aimed at family members of employees and certain surrounding communities. 10. Existence and quality of specific means of dissemination and transfer of knowledge to citizens. 11. Existence and quality of means for the dissemination of knowledge to traditionally marginalized audiences. 12. Number of academic events organized by the university with topics of interest and accessibility to the general public. 13. Evidence of the implementation or socialization of research results of social responsibility inside and outside the university institution Through this theoretical foundation it can be observed that the USR is reflected in a set of actions carried out by different actors of the university community, with the purpose of getting involved in the solution of various problems. The USR is not only a reflection of the commitment of the university to its environment, but also to the university itself, with its collaborators, students and, in general, with all its stakeholders, considering that it touches on aspects such as social, environmental, educational and even, aspects that in this work they are not addressed in a specific way, such as working conditions, health of employees, work-family balance, among others.

Methodology:-
A qualitative study was carried out (Creswell, 2012) with a phenomenological perspective, in order to deepen the knowledge and understanding of the conceptions about USR that the teachers who teach the courses of a university program have. An approach was proposed from the experience of university professors, in order to gather their experience in the subject; that is, they could share what programs or projects they have promoted or participated in as part of the actions that are carried out from the courses of the curriculum or even as extracurricular actions.
First, a bibliographical review was made that led to the identification of indicators of USR. Based on these, the instrument was designed to identify and define good social responsibility practices. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted, in which he sought to identify if they know the concept of University Social Responsibility, what they know about the subject and if they consider that it is taught in the university. On the other hand, the actions carried out, related to the USR, were investigated in order to identify if they contribute to the training of the students.
The application of this instrument consisted in a semi-structured interview based on the following questions: 1. What does the University Social Responsibility mean? 2. Do you think that you have developed USR projects, even though you may not have called them that at the time? 3. Do you think the USRis interesting for students?
The total of instruments applied to teachers was 11 interviews and after that, the transcription was made to perform a qualitative analysis. Finally, an analysis was made starting from the classification considering the concepts proposed by Francois Vallaeys.

Results:-
When inquiring with teachers about their concept of USR, they answered that it can be defined in some of these ways: 1. Term that is related to the ultimate function of the universities ... to return what is being invested in the training of professionals at the service of society, or of the community. 2. A management approach, commitment to society. 3. Posture of universities, which are due to society, projects that directly impact society, training of professionals attentive to their society and with the ability to detect problems according to their context, ability to propose solutions and actions. 4. A look at how to improve living conditions, lifestyles, how to care for the planet, how teachers can participate, collaborate, guide their own life and action of students based on this new educational paradigm (USR). 5. Be aware of the needs of others, not only the most disadvantaged, but also the university community, teachers, teachers, and those who are part of what impacts the community. That is, society in general. 6. Take charge of a commitment established with the collective or with the community with which one works and, in particular, from the university where a link with that group is established; generate links between the university and society. 7. Every act that takes place in the university context has an impact and this can be negative; That would be a lack of responsibility. If it is positive, it has to do with the experience of values. 8. In how the university assumes itself as responsible for social development and to what extent it contributes or not, preferably contributes because then we take charge of what we do not. 9. Responsibility with the rest of the members of society; retribution towards society. 10. Awareness that the university's task must respond, among other things, to the context and their needs. These responses must be based on a relevant and ethical performance acting for the good of society.
When asked if they think that they have developed USR projects, even though at the time they may not have been named, the majority answered yes; some mentioned that they have done research work explicitly on the subject, which in principle has cognitive and epistemological impacts; a teacher does not clearly identify the contribution she makes, however, mentions that her projects are focused on academic work, training of researchers and teachers; so the impact is also cognitive and epistemological. Most talk about projects that they have developed in connection with the needs of the surrounding community, which is why social impacts stand out.
When asked about the contribution made to students, they describe several educational impacts, such as: 1. The training of professionals who are ethical, socially responsible, who have the tools to solve the problems of their context specifically. 2. They are programs that develop a lot of social awareness. 3. Work had to be done from a disability perspective. 4. Subjects, projects and tutoring are being trained to students and the entire community to be socially responsible. 5. They learn a whole set of skills, knowledge and values that lead to social responsibility. 6. Projects are oriented towards solutions that the students themselves observe. 7. The students (who belong to the program that has been selected for this study) have managed to have a very developed observation of their context and the desire to solve the problems that are arising within their societies. 8. The community projects promoted here are projects with learning: service learning. 9. All of our students are committed to their community; the process of formation in our own career we must extend it so that it becomes culture; There is a lot to do ... but our students are going that way.

Conclusions:-
From the theoretical analysis in which it was possible to identify criteria of USR and the interviews with teachers of the selected program, it can be affirmed that projects have been developed and can be defined as good practices of Social Responsibility, but when teachers designed and implemented them did not considered themselves as such. Certainly, this concept has been defined, but it is not yet known by all teachers. In the same way, it is pending to listen to the voice of the students, since it is likely that when developing this type of actions there is not a total clarity about the term or even, the purpose of these kind of projects.
In the interviews with teachers it was observed that the majority has a concept of USR strongly related to the social impacts; that is, for many it means giving back to society or contributing to the solution of problems of different groups, particularly vulnerable. It is true that the USR is related with this aspect, but from the perspective of Vallaeys it is only an impact of four that are considered.
The objectives that have been established within the educational programs offered by the study program, facilitate the implementation of USR projects, so that all the projects that have been applied, have very relevant contributions that have permeated the link between the university and social problems.
There were no comments from teachers about organizational impacts; it is likely that there are many actions in the university that generate these impacts, but that are not sufficiently explicit or that teachers do not identify them as a substantial part of the USR.
It remains pending, therefore, the strengthening of organizational impacts, which are common to all organizations, but in the case of universities must be aligned with their institutional philosophy and in general, the strategies that are undertaken from the university in general, which should permeate each of their areas and each educational program. Or to put it another way, it remains to make explicit enough the organizational impacts and even other impacts.
In this sense, teacher training in USR issues is fundamental, not only to have a common conceptual framework, but to be trained in methodologies that allow designing and implementing projects that lead to the formation of students and also to the generation of knowledge socially useful through research or cooperative work groups. In the same way, to have the capacity to identify the actions that generate impacts related to the USR.