Considering the Anchor Mission Strategy within the Competing “Regimes” of Higher Education Community Engagement
The concept of the anchor institution, and its subsequent mission, was first considered in the mid-1990s, a time during which the dominant academic culture of higher education was driven by the “public good regime.” The decades since have seen the emergence of the public-engagement knowledge regime, and the academic capitalist regime. This article views the anchor mission strategy through the shifting and competing “regimes” of higher education and considers questions that might arise due to these shifts. Anticipating and understanding these questions increase the self-awareness critical to authentic engagement, lower the risk of reifying historical dynamics of power, privilege, and oppression, and elevate the potential for success in advancing the anchor strategy.
Alperin, J.P., Muñoz Nieves, C., Schimanski, L., Fischman, G.E., Niles, M.T. & McKiernan, E.C. (2018, October 16). How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion, and tenure documents? Humanities Commons [preprint]. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6W950N35
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Puckett, J., Hartley, M., Hodges, R.A., Johnston, F.E., & Weeks, J. (2017). Knowledge for social change: Bacon, Dewey, and the revolutionary transformation of research universities in the twenty-first century. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Butin, D. (2012). When engagement is not enough: Building the next generation of the engaged campus. In D.W. Butin, & S, Seider (Eds.) The engaged campus: Certificates, minors, and majors as the new community engagement. (pp. 1-11). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Cisneros, H.G., Harkavy, I., & Foote, J. (1995, January 11). The university and the urban challenge. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from https://www.nettercenter.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/1995_Cisneros-The%20University%20and%20the%20Urban%20Challenge.pdf.
Dostilio, L.D., Janke, E., Miller, A., Post, M., & Ward, E. (2016). Disrupting role dichotomies. In M.A. Post, E. Ward, N.V. Longo, & John Saltmarsh (Eds). Publicly engaged scholars: Next-generation engagement and the future of higher education, (pp. 117-129). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Giles, H. (2012). Negotiating the boundary between the academy and the community. In D.W. Butin & S. Seifer (Eds). The engaged campus: Certificates, minors, and majors as the new community engagement (pp. 49-67). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137113283_4
Hodges, R. & Dubb, S. (2012.). The Road Half Traveled: University Engagement at a Crossroads. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, the state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2016). The inheritance of next generation engaged scholars. In M.A. Post, E. Ward, N.V. Longo, & John Saltmarsh (Eds). Publicly engaged scholars: Next-generation engagement and the future of higher education, (pp. 15-33). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Copyright to works published in Metropolitan Universities is retained by the author(s).