the land-grant mission: distributed regional engagement

8/8/2019 The Land-Grant Mission: Distributed Regional Engagement

1/362

THE LAND-GRANT MISSION 2.0:

DISTRIBUTED REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT

Nancy Elizabeth Franklin

A DISSERTATION

in

Higher Education Management

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degreeof Doctor of Education

2008

_____________________________Dissertation Supervisor

_____________________________Dean, Graduate School of Education


2/362

ii

COPYRIGHT


2008


3/362

iii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my husband, Tim,and children, Maddi, Torrey, and Trevor

whose love and support provided time and spaceto accomplish this daunting task as well as

the confidence to persevere to the end.


4/362

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am tremendously indebted to my dissertation advisor, Matt Hartley,whose wise counsel and gentle encouragement challenged me to thinkbroadly and focus deeply; to my second reader, Hilton Hallock, whoseencouragement and advice at critical periods bolstered my resolve andincreased my capacity; and to my third reader, John Bardo, whose passionfor regional engagement has inspired and enlightened me. The quality andquantity of their investment has been immeasurable.

The research associated with this dissertation would not have beenpossible without the willingness of many university, regional, state, andnational engagement leaders to share their experiences and thoughts withme. I am particularly thankful to the chief engagement officers and regionalengagement program directors from Michigan State University, Purdue

University, the University of Georgia, the University of Minnesota, theUniversity of Missouri, and Virginia Tech who spoke with me and painted thelandscape of regional engagement from their institutions perspectives.

I extend a special acknowledgment to Steve Dempsey, his colleaguesat the University of Georgia, and the people of Moultrie and Colquitt County,Georgia for trusting me with their stories, allowing me to deepen myknowledge of university-regional partnerships and gain new perspectives onmy own engagement experiences.

My colleagues and friends at the Institute for Advanced Learning and

Research, Virginia Tech, and in Southside taught me much aboutengagement, not only by their creativity and perseverance, but through theirdriving passion to make a difference. To them I will be eternally indebted.

I want to acknowledge the support of several colleagues and familymembers Julie Brown, Ted Settle, Lorilee Sandmann, Rose Baker, PaulaFranklin, Betty Norton, and Tim Franklin - who graciously agreed to readvarious sections of my manuscript and offered invaluable advice andsuggestions.

Although moving a family and changing jobs in the middle of adissertation is not something I would recommend, I am enormously grateful

to Craig Weidemann and Daney Jackson at Penn State University, my newhome, for their support and patience while I worked through the mostgrueling phase of my dissertation.


5/362


6/362

vi

ABSTRACT

THE LAND-GRANT MISSION 2.0:

DISTRIBUTED REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT


Matthew Hartley

Dramatic shifts in the economy associated with the rise of globalism

call into question the traditional ways in which land-grant institutions have

defined their roles in contributing to economic and social well-being. Since

the assets most needed for global economic viability a base of innovation,

talented people, and ubiquitous connectivity are core strengths of

universities, it is fair to ask how these institutions can more holistically

engage with economically distressed regions to build critical innovation

economy competencies. Evidence suggests that although linking 21

st

century

regional economic competitiveness to university contributions is a concept

gaining momentum in policy circles, few models exist, particularly in regions

not proximate to university campuses.

This qualitative study took a three-tier approach to exploring models

of distributed land-grant regional engagement and associated implications

for state policy development. It began by identifying six land-grant

institutions partnering with non-local regions: Michigan State University,

Purdue University, the University of Georgia, the University of Minnesota, the


7/362

vii

University of Missouri, and Virginia Tech. From these six institutional models,

two cases of distributed regional engagement were selected and studied:

University of Georgia Moultrie/Colquitt (southwest Georgia), and Virginia

Tech Southside (south central Virginia). Finally, state policy perspectives

on university-led economic development in Georgia and Virginia were

examined.

A conceptual model was developed to portray the relationships

between the conditions that create the potential for engagement, the

catalytic factors in regions and universities that spark a partnering

relationship, and the policy elements that constitute the framework for

engagement. It demonstrates the opportunity to accelerate the velocity of

investment, adoption, and partnership between universities and regions.

Key findings suggest that university commitment to holistic

engagement is dependent on partnerships that provide substantial

institutional benefits. A critical ingredient of successful university-regional

partnerships is a core group of regional leaders who embrace the potential to

partner with a university and who keep their regions focused on the

partnership. Shaping state policy to incentivize university-regional

partnerships should consider how to align regional and university goals, the

scale of funding needed, appropriate short- and long-term measures of

success, and the involvement of public and private leaders in governance

structures.


8/362

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS....iv

ABSTRACT..vi

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION..1

Context...2 Research Agenda.4 The Innovation Economy..6 The Importance of Regions.7 Growing Economic Disparity..8 Engagement.10

Why Distributed Engagement......................................................12Importance of the Study...14

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.17

Regional Competency..18 Higher Education Assets...23 University-Community Partnerships...30 Higher Education and the Public Good..33Policy Considerations for Higher Education Engagement..39

Summary.46

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY.49

Rationale for Qualitative Case Study Approach..49Conceptual Model...51 Study Design..53 Site Selection..55 Interviewee Selection..57 Interviews..61 Interview Questions..63

Documents...63 Data Analysis..63 Trustworthiness and Researcher Bias.65


9/362

ix

Chapter 4: SIX LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY APPROACHES TO..69REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT

Michigan State University.70

Purdue University...72 University of Georgia.75 University of Minnesota..77 University of Missouri..80 Virginia Tech.83

Institutional Perspectives on Distributed Engagement...85Institutional Motivations...85

Alignment of Mission with Public Needs.89Forms of Engagement..90University Roles in Engagement..93Structuring Win-Win Partnerships....94Tactical Strategies for Structuring Partnerships...97

Relationship Development...100Internal University Considerations...102Challenges..107

Chapter 5: TWO DISTRIBUTED ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS...110

The University of Georgia (UGA) Moultrie/Colquitt Partnership...110Beginnings..110

Regional Profile..112Regional Leadership..113

University Leadership...114Focus of the Partnership...115Funding...117

Structure and Governance...118Major Accomplishments..120

The Virginia Tech (VT) Southside Virginia Partnership...123Beginnings....123Regional Profile..124Regional Leadership..126University Leadership...127Focus of the Partnership...128

Funding...130Structure and Governance...135Major Accomplishments..137


10/362

x

The Findings....140 Potential for Engagement141

Moultrie/Colquitt Regional Needs...143Moultrie/Colquitt Regional Assets..144

University of Georgia Needs.....147University of Georgia Assets..150Southside Regional Needs...152Southside Regional Assets.....153Virginia Tech Needs...156Virginia Tech Assets..159

Facilitating Engagement....161The Role of Regional Leadership in Moultrie/Colquitt.162The Culture of Regional Engagement in...165

Moultrie/ColquittThe Role of University Leadership at UGA..169Engagement as Defined by the University of Georgia..172

The Role of Regional Leadership in Southside..178The Culture of Regional Engagement in Southside..181The Role of University Leadership at Virginia Tech..185Engagement as Defined by Virginia Tech.187

Structuring Engagement...193Goal-Setting in the UGAMoultrie/Colquitt.194

PartnershipGoal-Setting in the VTSouthside Partnership...198Resourcing the UGAMoultrie/Colquitt..204

Partnership

Resourcing the VTSouthside Partnership..208Accountability in the UGAMoultrie/Colquitt..213Partnership

Accountability in the VTSouthside Partnership.217Governance in the UGAMoultrie/Colquitt..221

PartnershipGovernance in the VTSouthside Partnership..228


11/362

xi

Chapter 6: UNIVERSITY-REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT ...235THROUGH A STATE POLICY LENS

Georgia: Background on State Investments in University/.235Economic Development Engagement Strategies

Virginia: Background on State Investments in University/....237Economic Development Engagement Strategies

Current State Perspectives on University-Regional Engagement...239in Georgia and Virginia

What can and should universities contribute to the state?.....240Where should the money come from?................................240How should university contributions be linked to the..242

states economic development plan?What roles should various entities play?.............................244What policies in GA and VA directly incentivize university245

engagement in economically distressed regions?What investments should state dollars fund and where....246

should the investments be made?

What leadership and governance structures should be...249considered?

Chapter 7: PROGRESS, POSSIBILITIES, AND....250RECOMMENDATIONS

Characterizing Distributed Regional Engagement at Six.251Institutions

Advancing Distributed Regional Engagement..269Potential for Engagement....270

Facilitating Engagement....273Structuring Engagement.....275State Policy Implications...279

A New Paradigm for Engagement..282 Public Policy as an Accelerator of Engagement..300Case Discussion.306 Conclusions.....313 Recommendations..326

Recommendations for Regions..326Recommendations for Universities.328Recommendations for States..331

Suggestions for Further Study..333

APPENDIX A..337

APPENDIX B....339

REFERENCES....340


12/362

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interviewee Distribution by Role...59

Table 2. State Leader Interviewees by Position.......60

Table 3. University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt ....142Needs and Assets

Table 4. Virginia Tech and Southside - Needs and Assets..152

Table 5. University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt ..163Partnership Facilitators

Table 6. Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Facilitators.177

Table 7. University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt.....194Partnership Goal-Setting

Table 8. Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Goal-Setting....197

Table 9. University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt..203Partnership Resourcing

Table 10. Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Resourcing....208

Table 11. University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt..212Partnership Accountability

Table 12. Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Accountability..216

Table 13. University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt..221Partnership Governance

Table 14. Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Governance...227

Table 15. University Leadership...252

Table 16. The Engagement Agenda254

Table 17. University Roles in Regional Partnerships.257

Table 18. Role of Regional Partners261


13/362

xiii

Table 19. Funding Models....264

Table 20. Strengths of Engagement Approach.266

Table 21. Regional Engagement Typology: Approach to Engagement.283

Table 22. Regional Engagement Typology: Roles and Relationships.287

Table 23. Regional Engagement Typology: Research Implications....290

Table 24. Regional Engagement Typology: Education Implications...293

Table 25. Regional Engagement Typology: Public Service....296Implications


14/362

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Model.52

Figure 2. Virtuous Engagement Circle.303


15/362

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

One challenge we face is growing public frustration with what is seen

to be our unresponsiveness. At the root of the criticism is a perception

that we are out of touch and out of date. Another part of the issue is

that although society has problems, our institutions have disciplines.

In the end, what these complaints add up to is a perception that,

despite the resources and expertise available on our campuses, our

institutions are not well organized to bring them to bear on local

problems in a coherent way. (Kellogg Commission on the Future ofState and Land-Grant Universities, 1999, p.9)

The notion that universities are critical ingredients in creating and

maintaining economic well-being is integral to Americans understanding of

higher educations role in society. Universities have long embraced the

mission to address the needs of citizenry at large and have been publicly

funded for this purpose. Yet, in recent years, public dissatisfaction with

universities lack of focus on serving the public good has increased and,

correspondingly, state support for higher education has declined

(Longanecker, 2005). Perhaps, as the Kellogg Commission on the Future of

State and Land-Grant Universities (1999) has surmised, we in higher

education have not engaged effectively with the complex challenges and

opportunities faced by citizens and communities. Among higher education

institutions, land-grant universities have not only an obligation to address

economic and social needs broadly, but have a particular responsibility to


16/362

2

interface with the needs of the citizens and communities throughout the

states in which they are situated.

This dissertation is a study of how land-grant institutions are engaging

with regions of their states distant from campus in ways that contribute to

the development and well-being of those regions. I was drawn to this topic

because of my own experience engaging a land-grant university with an

economically distressed region situated 120 miles from campus. There I

came to appreciate the tremendous benefits to both the region and the

university, but also the enormous challenges of what I have come to call

distributed regional engagement.

I believe the interest in linking research universities more closely to

state economic opportunities and needs is increasing in this age of

globalization. The time is right for policymakers, particularly at the state

level, to get serious about policy to incentivize such engagement. So,

information will be needed which sheds light on the variables associated with

successful distributed regional engagement models. This study offers a

starting point for understanding how and why these models work, and the

implications for shaping policy.

Context

The roots of engagement in the United States date back to the Colonial

Era, when colleges were established for the purpose of preparing citizens for

public service (Thelin, 2004). Subsequently through the Morrill Act of 1862,


17/362

3

federal government policy linked higher education to utilitarian concerns

associated with expanding the economy. This was followed by mid-western

progressivism in the early 20thcentury which led to the development of The

Wisconsin Idea, partnering higher education, through the land-grant

university, with state needs (Stark, 1995). Through a complex set of federal

and state policy coupled with historic expectations associated with higher

educations mission, land-grant institutions came to exemplify higher

educations commitment to the public good.

Today the U.S. finds itself, along with the rest of the world, in the

midst of a large-scale economic transformation. This economic sea change is

propelling some regions to new levels of prosperity but is leaving many

regions, particularly rural and semi-rural regions, far behind. What role can

and should higher education, and land-grant universities in particular, play in

assisting economically distressed regions? How might such regions,

particularly those that are not proximate to a research university, gain a

foothold in the new economic environment? How can partnerships with

economically distressed, geographically distant regions be structured such

that universities can meet their own needs while benefiting the regions?

Concurrently, as the wave of economic transition has begun to wash

over regions across the U.S., the higher education community has been

engaged in its own conversations about how to best serve the public good in

the emerging landscape. Ernest Boyer (1994) promoted the concept of The

New American College, which, among other defining characteristics,


18/362

4

challenged higher education to be more integrally connected with

communities outside of the ivory tower. Subsequent calls by the National

Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and the American

Association of State Colleges and Universities promoted a commitment to

engagement (Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant

Universities [Kellogg Commission], 1999) and stewardship of place

(American Association of State Colleges and Universities [AASCU], 2002),

respectively.

Yet, robust engagement to date has been mostly elusive (Jones,

2005). Jones places much of the blame for this situation on the failure of

state higher education policy. In spite of the potential power of state policy

to affect the extent to which institutions direct their attention to state and

regional priorities, this power is seldom wielded effectively. State policy has

long been focused on building institutional capacity, not on ensuring that this

considerable capacity is utilized to achieve priority state purposes (p. 4). He

offers that appropriate policy levers at the state level might include: public

agenda definition, funding allocations, accountability mechanisms, and

governance structures.

Research Agenda

This study investigated how land-grant universities are partnering with

non-local economically distressed regions to build economic and community

capacity. The motivations and challenges of distributed regional


19/362

5

engagement associated with six land-grant institutions were investigated in

the first stage of the research. From those examples, two particularly robust

examples of university-regional partnering were selected for in-depth study.

These included a partnership initiated in 2005 between the University of

Georgia and a two-jurisdiction region in southwest Georgia centered in the

city of Moultrie and Colquitt County, and a partnership initiated in 2000

between Virginia Tech and an eight-jurisdiction region in south central

Virginia centered in the city of Danville and Pittsylvania County. A third

stage of research focused on state policy perspectives related to university-

regional engagement, with a focus on Georgia and Virginia.

The research questions considered why and how land-grant institutions

are engaging with non-local regions in their states and the ways in which

regional engagement was focused on innovation economy capacity

development. Critical ingredients for engagement, roles and responsibilities

of partners, and structures for sustaining effective relationships were

investigated. Four policy issues were investigated to shed light on how

existing university-regional partnerships are addressing critical engagement

components with an eye toward broader implications for policymakers.

These policy questions centered on the development of engagement agendas

between universities and their regional partners, the resourcing mechanisms

employed by the university-regional partnerships, the accountability

expectations associated with demonstrating short and long term progress

toward goals, and the governance structures utilized to sustain engagement.


20/362

6

The Innovation Economy

The new economy is built on innovative capacity (Council on

Competitiveness, 2005b). Economic viability is driven by the ability to

develop better products and services faster than the competition. This

means that research and development are critical building blocks in

establishing a strong economic base. Highly innovative places are

characterized by high tech companies choosing to locate near research and

development expertise as well as by start-up companies which capitalize on

new discoveries emanating from the research activities (State Science and

Technology Institute [SSTI], 2006).

Arguably the most critical asset in the emerging economy is the

intellectual capital that drives innovation (Business Roundtable, 2005).

Cutting edge research is highly dependent on scientists and engineers, who

depend on high quality post-secondary education for their own and their

employees baccalaureate and graduate credentialing. Indeed, the most

frequently cited measure of a regions economic prosperity is its per capita

income, which is a surrogate for its college educated workforce (Milken

Institute, 2002, as cited by Waits, 2003).

Every state has key assets which are engines of innovation (research)

and intellectual capital development (education) its public universities.

Every state has at least one land-grant university and many states have

additional public research and comprehensive universities. Land-grant and

research universities have the research expertise, the laboratories and


21/362

7

physical infrastructure, the administrative knowledge and infrastructure to

support and sustain robust research. The challenge, however, is that the

economic impact of research and development is only felt within a

commuting distance of where the money is spent (Kirchhoff, Arrington,

Hasan, & Newbert, 2003). So, regions without research universities do not

directly benefit from these engines of innovation.

Similarly, every state has public institutions of higher education which

offer baccalaureate and graduate programs of study. These programs both

attract and develop intellectual talent. To the extent that these institutions

prepare scientists, engineers, and technologists, they are wellsprings of the

most highly prized intellectual capital in the knowledge-based economy

(National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). The trick is to

create enough stickiness so that this human capital chooses to remain in

place once their formal education period is complete. Regions without

institutions of higher education are particularly challenged to attract this

talent and have it stay put.

The Importance of Regions

Economic development in an innovation economy extends beyond

cities and counties to regions that are bounded by a common geography,

culture, and economic conditions (Henton, Melville, & Walesh, 2002; Duke,

2005). Drabenstott (2005) chronicles the rise of regions in the innovation

economy and suggests that two key characteristics define regions: a hub


22/362

8

city that creates agglomeration benefits, and a sufficient level of critical mass

to compete effectively in the global marketplace. Therefore, a region might

be defined by the employment base and associated workforce commuting

pattern of a geographic area. Experts attribute the increasing importance of

regions to the devolution of political power from national to state and local

government (Drabenstott; Henton et al.).

In the innovation economy, regions grow when they create

competitive advantage in the global marketplace (Drabenstott, 2005).

Effective economic development strategies are driven by a regions unique

assets and its intellectual capital. Thus, successful regions work to identify

and exploit their assets (Drabenstott) and compete for innovation and talent

(Arbo & Benneworth, 2007). States and nations are beginning to understand

the relationship between maximizing the success of their regions and global

competitive position. According to Drabenstott More experts now conclude

that vibrant regional economies boost macroeconomic growth (p. 4).

Therefore, the prosperity of a state or nation is linked directly to the sum of

the economic health of its regions.

Growing Economic Disparity

Virginia is not unlike most states in the United States, so serves as an

example of a national phenomenon. It is, with apologies to Charles Dickens,

a tale of two states. One state includes the urban corridor or golden

crescent that extends from the outskirts of Washington, D.C., south through


23/362

9

Richmond, and east to Hampton Roads. The other Virginia encompasses the

majority of the land mass of the state and is dominated by rural and semi-

rural regions. Income disparities in Virginia demonstrate the gulf between

the haves and the have-nots.

According to Cai and Murray-Krezan (2006), Virginias household

income had a pronounced bimodal distribution, with 24 percent of workers

earning between $25,000 and $49,999, and 22 percent earning at least

$100,000 (p. 24). Income disparities between urban northern Virginia and

rural southern Virginia demonstrate the tremendous regional prosperity gap.

Virginias government reporting website indicates, The Northern Region had

the highest per capita personal income in 2005 ($48,888)At the other end

of the spectrum, the Southside and Southwest regions had the lowest per

capita personal income at just over $21,000 (Virginia Performs, 2007, p. 1).

The net result of this differential is that the wealthier areas of the state

essentially subsidize the less prosperous areas. This is true in Virginia as it is

in many states. Governors and state leaders invested in economic

competitiveness know that subsidization suppresses a states economic

growth potential. Creating a rising economic tide across an entire state

becomes a paramount concern in an era when competition for economic

opportunity extends far beyond national borders and literally around the

globe (National Governors Association, 2002a).

Moving distressed regions to economic self-sufficiency and ultimately

to economic prosperity entails the development of innovation economy


24/362

10

assets in these regions. These innovation economy assets, which dovetail

with the expertise of American higher education, include a research cauldron

for developing new innovations and converting them into commercial assets

and a well-educated workforce with particular strengths in science,

technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Thus it is no surprise that the

question increasingly being asked is how to effectively partner higher

education institutions with economically distressed regions to create

innovation capacity (Johnson, 2007; Mattoon, 2007).

Engagement

The concepts of engagement and stewardship of place focus on the

academys interest in redefining higher educations service mission within the

context of the 21stcentury. This nomenclature addresses higher educations

interest in crafting a new, more robust partnership between the academy and

the publics it serves. Rather than perpetuate the historical notion of

extension wherein universities push knowledge out from campus uni-

directionally, the new focus is rooted in mutuality (Kellogg Commission,

1999). Universities can best serve when they understand the communities

with whom they are interfacing. Benefits in this new model accrue both to

the community and to the university.

The Kellogg Commission, convened in 1996 by the National Association

of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, popularized the notion of

engagement. It suggested that institutions of higher education should


25/362

11

redesign their teaching, research, and extension and service functions to

become even more sympathetically and productively involved with their

communities (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p. 9). This new model envisioned

two-way partnerships that would include sharing, reciprocity, and mutual

respect. Engagement would be inextricably tied to putting universities

critical resources (knowledge and expertise) to work on the problems the

communities it serves faces (Kellogg Commission, p. 10).

Subsequently, the American Association of State Colleges and

Universities (AASCU) challenged institutions of higher education to serve as

stewards of place, to function as learners as well as teachers in tackling the

myriad of opportunities and issues facing our communities and regions

(AASCU, 2002, p. 5). Development of a regional stewardship agenda for

higher education has continued with a Kellogg Foundation grant to AASCU,

the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, and the National Center for Higher

Education Management Systems. These three entities have engaged in a

project titled Making Place Matter which proposes a new three-pillar

definition of the university mission learning, innovation, and shared

leadership. A commitment to shared leadership, rather than service, signals

a sustained commitment to regional partnering and a focus on place by

learning from local partners (Alliance for Regional Stewardship, American

Association of State Colleges and Universities, & National Center for Higher

Education Management Systems, 2006).


26/362

12

Why Distributed Engagement?

With all of the dialogue around engagement and stewardship of place,

an increasing number of universities are reaching out to partner with the

communities of which they are a part. In many cases, one could speculate

that the motivation stems as much from enlightened self interest as it does

from a sense of higher calling to serve the public good. What has not been

particularly prevalent in the literature are discussions of engagement and

stewardship of place between universities and regions that are geographically

distant.

Areas where universities are located, although perhaps rural, benefit

from the economic and intellectual capital contributions of those institutions.

These are, in a sense, the easy or easier forms of engagement. A few of

the studies and policy papers related to university engagement in innovation

economy capacity development refer to examples of engagement that have

occurred beyond the community or region in which a university is located.

However, there appears to be no concerted focus to identify the various

program model components of successful distributed engagement that are

occurring in economically distressed regions. Nor is there evidence that a

holistic policy framework has been developed that can be implemented at the

local, state, and federal levels to engage higher education with economically

distressed regions.

I believe there are three compelling reasons to study distributed

engagement. One reason to study engagement that is occurring in parts of


27/362

13

the state geographically distant from campus is to better understand how to

address the pressure to enhance regional economic competitiveness. Many

regions do not house a research university and are desperately trying to

develop innovation economy competitiveness. If we can clarify how and why

universities have chosen to engage with distant regions, we will be better

positioned to develop appropriate policies to encourage much more

distributed regional engagement.

A second reason for studying distributed engagement is to better

articulate the ways in which such partnerships can be conceptualized to

attract new, external capital and investment to both the university and the

region. Arbo and Benneworth (2007) discuss the opportunities to attract

external funds by partnering universities with regions. If new money can

flow to both the region and to the university in a properly structured

engagement relationship, it may be possible to understand how to create

such a structure so that significant, tangible benefits to both parties can keep

partners at the table.

The third reason to study examples of land-grant universities that are

involved in significant capacity-building in regions distant from campus is to

understand motivations for engagement that extend beyond enhancing town-

gown relationships. Studying engagement that is occurring in the region

where the university is located makes it difficult to separate university

motivations associated with enhancing its local relationships from


28/362

14

motivations associated with broader purposes that could be transferable to

other situations.

If land-grant universities are to be engaged in robust, sustainable

partnerships with communities outside their geographic regions, it will be

important to identify substantial benefits for the universities. Effective state

and federal policy levers will tap the motivations not just of economically

distressed regions, but particularly the motivations of higher education. The

key is identifying the deep-seated higher education triggers and establishing

a policy environment that creates a win-win situation for universities and

regions.

Importance of the Study

The two primary audiences for this research are expected to be leaders

of higher education and policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Leaders of higher education systems, as a primary interface in most states

between policymakers and higher education institutions, appreciate the need

to maintain the relevancy and public support for higher education by

addressing state interests to the extent possible. In addition, state higher

education system officers are concerned with the distribution of resources

and services, promoting collaboration, and policies that will strengthen higher

education over the long term.

Higher education institution leaders most likely to be interested are

those associated with research universities, particularly land-grant


29/362

15

institutions, and comprehensive state universities. Each of these types of

institutions is sensitive to both market pressures as well as to public mission,

so should be interested to know how both of these agendas can be met

simultaneously.

Federal policymakers are becoming increasingly concerned about the

nations competitiveness in a global marketplace dominated by scientific and

technological innovation. U.S. production of scientists and technologists,

once unparalleled, is now under siege (Council on Competitiveness, 2005a;

The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, 2005). Rural,

economically depressed regions require a disproportionate share of tax

dollars to address basic needs and become an increasing drain on the nation

at large. Too often, natural economic regions span across state lines and are

captive to the differing policies of their respective states.

State policymakers have the responsibility to distribute resources in

ways that will maximize value. They are faced with the pressure to subsidize

distressed regions with the disproportionate tax dollars generated by the

wealthier areas of the state, through redistributive economic policy. They

also know that their states economic competitiveness will depend on the

care and feeding of highly innovative and financially successful ventures.

State-funded higher education is another part of the funding landscape that

these policymakers must address.

Local policymakers in economically distressed regions are under

tremendous pressure to find a way to reverse the declining fortunes of the


30/362

16

constituents they serve. If they understand that universities can provide

expertise that might help them solve this puzzle, they often dont know how

to find the front door of these complex entities or even know what to ask

once they do. Compounding this issue is the high likelihood that local

policymakers have a poor understanding of the universitys priorities and

motivations as it wrestles with market forces.


31/362

17

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

It might be argued that there was never a time in the history of the

United States when it was more critical to link the intellectual assets of

higher education with the economic needs of regions. The forces of

globalization, spurred by pervasive Internet connectivity, are providing

opportunities for restructuring work on an unprecedented scale. The

economic health and well-being of communities is increasingly dependent on

innovative capacity, the ingredients of which are the core of the higher

education enterprise. What do we know about the changing economic

landscape and about the feasibility of engaging higher education effectively

to create innovation capacity?

In the following literature review I focus on five broad topic areas. In

the first section, I address literature that describes and defines the critical

elements of competitiveness in an innovation economy. Bardo and Evans

(2006) call these elements of competitiveness regional competencies. The

second section includes literature that discusses how higher education assets

can and are being applied beyond the university to develop innovation

capacity. In the third section I include literature that addresses elements of

successful university-community partnerships.

A fourth body of literature, emanating primarily from the academy,

examines concepts of engagement and stewardship of place. These


32/362

18

terms have become part of the rhetoric associated with how higher education

can and should serve the public good in the 21st century. The final section

focuses on policy frameworks that might be used to engage higher education

with innovation economy capacity building. It includes references to higher

education faculty and institutional motivations. Each of these is discussed

briefly in the pages that follow.

Regional Competency

As noted in the introduction, geographic regions have become the

predominant organizing concept for understanding local economies. Regions

are typically multi-jurisdictional areas that share a common economic

structure. Commuting patterns in a geographic area demonstrate the

existence of common catchment areas for workforce participants and retail

services consumption. These economic regions are not the result of political

definition, but rather the result of natural human behavior patterns

associated with land-use and spatial organization. Sociologists term this

human ecology and describe its characteristics as human interdependence,

competition for scarce resources, changing equilibriums within communities,

and cooperative alliances to create competitive advantage (Bardo & Hartman,

1982). It is this last characteristic which is particularly relevant to

understanding the importance of regionalism in a global economy the

strategy of banding together across local jurisdictions, which may even cross


33/362

19

state lines, in order to create a viable presence in a worldwide competition

for resources.

Experts have noted the shifting economic tide that replaced natural

resources and physical capital with ubiquitous electronic connectivity and

intellectual capital (Florida, 2002; Friedman, 2006; Reich, 2006). At the

beginning of the economic change wave, increased computerization led to

the emergence of a service industry economy and automation of growing

numbers of production processes. With the advent of Internet adoption,

accelerated dramatically by a browser interface, the world wide web in the

mid-1990s, peoplebegan to use terminology such as the new economy,

the networked economy, and the knowledge-driven economy, to define a

new economic era. A decade later, increasing attention was focused on the

impact of globalization as it affected the race to develop new capabilities

faster than others players in the market. The watchword to describe the new

economic era became the innovation economy.

Innovative capacity, the ability to be faster, cheaper, better (Reich,

2006. p. 31), and the transformation of knowledge into new products,

processes, and services (Porter & Stern, 1999, p. 12), has now been

recognized as the defining characteristic of the new economic era. In policy

circles, innovation has become the name of the game. The 2006-2007

National Governors Association Chairs Initiative is titled, Innovate America

(Atkinson & Correa, 2007). The 2006 Southern Growth Policies board report

was titled, Innovation with a Southern Accent (Clinton, Doron, Hoke,


34/362

20

Johnson & Pennock, 2006). The Council on Competitiveness has trumpeted

its National Innovation Initiative (Council on Competitiveness, 2005a).

Drabenstott (2005) catalogs three eras of economic development:

industrial recruiting, cost competition, and innovation (p. 21). He points out

that in the first two eras, the focus driving economic development was on

external factors. In contrast, he asserts that the current innovation era puts

the focus on the region itself. This regional focus requires the identification

of economic assets and the creation of critical mass across jurisdictional

boundaries to compete effectively in a global marketplace. The Council on

Competitivenesss February, 2006 report, Regional Innovation National

Prosperity speaks to this as does Harvard economist Michael Porters,

Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of U.S. Competitiveness

2001 report.

Embedded in the literature associated with competitiveness in an

innovation economy are discussions of the innovation-capacity development

competencies (Bardo & Evans, 2006) necessary in geographic regions.

These regional competencies are the elements consistently present in

thriving innovation economies. In the following section, regional

competencies pervasive in the literature on innovation economy

competitiveness are identified.

Michael Porter is widely credited with the concept of clusters, a

prominent term in economic development since 1990. Clusters are defined

as geographically concentrated groups of interconnected companies and


35/362

21

associated institutions in a particular field. (Porter, Ketels, Miller, & Bryden,

2004, p. 44). Porter (2001) notes that successful regions leverage their

unique assets to develop specialized economic sectors, forming clusters.

Thus, one regional competency required is a focus onsector strategies

defining industry clusters around which to build an economy. Sector

strategies should be selected through the identification of unique regional

assets.

Human capital developmentis a second regional competency. The

Council on Competitiveness (2005) report, Measuring Regional Innovation,

discusses the need to focus on intellectual-capital drivers for growth rather

than on tax incentives and access to inexpensive labor. Richard Florida

(2002) documents a correlation between places that are thriving

economically and those with high concentrations of creative human capital.

Drabenstott (2005) notes that economies which accumulate a lot of technical

knowledge and human capital experience faster growth than those that do

not.

Beyond highly talented human capital is the need to focus particular

attention on scientific and technical capacity building. A critical determinant

of the underlying innovative capacity of an economy is the overall supply of

scientific and technically trained individuals available (Porter & Stern, 1999,

p. 26). In its report, The Talent Imperative, the Building Engineering and

Science Talent (BEST) public-private partnership stated that in the last 50

years, more than half of Americas sustained economic growth has come


36/362

22

from the five percent of the workforce comprised of engineers, scientists, and

advanced-degree technologists (Building Engineering and Science Talent

[BEST], 2003, p. 1). Building on the work of BEST and others, the National

Academies addressed science, technology, engineering, and math(STEM)

capacityas a critical innovation economy competency in the seminal report,

Rising Above the Gathering Storm (Committee on Prospering in the Global

Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and

Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,

and Institute of Medicine [National Academies], 2007).

Another essential regional competency is innovation-creation capacity.

Innovation creation is associated with scientific and technical research and

development. According to the National Academies (2007), Since the

Industrial Revolution, the growth of economies throughout the world has

been driven largely by the pursuit of scientific understanding, the application

of engineering solutions, and continual technological innovation (p.41). This

view is supported by the Council on Competitiveness (2005b), Research and

development (R&D) adds to the knowledge base of a region and is essential

to long-term economic growth (p. 15). Research is associated with

inventions, patents, and science. Development is focused on the value

created by the research investments, including new firm creation and

existing firm improvement (Clinton et al., 2006).

Finally, a regional competency implicit and explicit in the literature is

high-speed telecommunications infrastructure. The necessity of robust


37/362

23

Internet connectivity is widely associated with the globalization phenomenon

discussed earlier in this literature review. The increasingly universal

availability of production technology along with the global

telecommunications infrastructure has resulted in an intense level of

competition in nearly every business sector (Reich, 2006). Findings from

Gillett, Lehr, Osorio, and Sirbu (2006) demonstrate a correlation between

communities with broadband and employment growth, business in IT-

intensive sectors, and higher property values.

In sum, the core competencies needed by regions to compete

effectively in the innovation economy are: a focus on sector strategies,

human capital development, STEM capacity, innovation-creation capacity,

and high-speed telecommunications infrastructure. How do these regional

competencies match up with higher educations competencies? The next

section provides an overview of literature that addresses the strengths of

higher education as it relates to these regional competencies.

Higher Education Assets

Higher education has perhaps never been as valued as it is today. The

United States is widely recognized as having had the pre-eminent system of

higher education in the world, though challenges from within (Bok, 2006;

Thelin, 2004) and from abroad (Jackson, 2002) are increasing calling this

pre-eminence into question. The nations colleges and universities have

attracted thousands of students from around the globe to study. Many


38/362

24

students have stayed in the United States after completing their studies and

made tremendous contributions to the intellectual and economic well-being

of the country. Harnessing intellectual capital is a critical challenge

associated with economic competitiveness. Wooldridge (2006) points out

that there is an intensifying international competition for brainpower and

notes that, Many countries regard universities as ideal talent-catching

machines (p. 7).

Beyond being a magnet for talent, the work of universities is centered

on activities and expertise that speak directly to the kinds of competencies

that are most valued in an innovation economy, as outlined in the preceding

section. The core focus of universities is education and research.

Increasingly, to accomplish this work, universities must rely on high speed

telecommunications networks, so have developed among the nations

foremost expertise in advanced networking. In these three areas - research,

education, and advanced networking universities offer tremendous

expertise and assets.

The fuel of innovation is research. Universities are among the nations

most significant research assets. One of the most critical elements in a

technology-based economy is the strength of its research and development

institutions. Research and development drives technological progress and,

therefore, economic growth (SSTI, 2006, p. 11). Where this research

expertise has been significantly leveraged beyond the campus, it has resulted

in world-renowned economic engines such as Californias Silicon Valley, North


39/362

25

Carolinas Research Triangle Park, Bostons Route 128 Corridor, and Austins

Silicon Gulch.

Many efforts are underway to replicate the successes of these

university research-based regional economies. In numerous places, regions

are working to develop industry clusters that center on university expertise.

Universities that are highly engaged with regional industry clusters have

diverse and complementary units that broadly address the needs of the

clusterIn order to have an impact on a regional industry cluster, the

university must have a significant base of research aligned with the needs of

that cluster (Paytas, Gradeck, & Andrews, p. i).

Several other studies demonstrate that university-led research and

commercialization activities are frequently linked with fast-growing,

technology-oriented economies. One significant study in terms of scope and

longevity was conducted by faculty associated with multiple universities in

the United States, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom who studied

innovation-enabled change across 22 locations in six countries between 2002

and 2005. The report presents evidence that universities indeed do

contribute to innovation-based business development in a variety of ways

(Lester, 2005). Similarly, a pair of researchers examining studies that

focused on the relationship between research universities and economic

development concluded, Overall, we find that the literaturedocument(s)

the presence of a research university program as an important, often the


40/362

26

number one, contributor to economic growth and to a strong and competitive

private business sector (Purcell & Mundy, 2003, Executive Summary).

The seed of human capital development is education. In the globally

competitive economy of the 21st century, state economies in large part will

thrive or decline based on how well they cultivate and retain knowledge

workers: individuals who possess postsecondary educational credentials

(Mazzeo, Roberts, Spence, & Strawn, 2006, p. 1). If the U.S. and its regions

are going to compete at the high end of the innovation economy value chain,

they will need to put a significant emphasis on education at all levels and will

particularly need to develop STEM capacity. Higher education institutions are

squarely in the education business and generally have significant STEM

expertise. The key is employing this expertise off-campus to exponentially

increase educational opportunities and STEM capacity nationally.

One form of education opportunity expansion is access to degree

programs off-campus, generally via technology-mediated means. Distributed

education emanating from institutions of higher education is a concept that

gained new-found popularity in the early to mid-1990s with the advent of the

modern Internet and which continues to flourish and grow today. The

expansion of educational opportunities has included access to degree

programs including baccalaureate degree completion programs, such as Old

Dominion Universitys Teletechnet and Indiana State Universitys DegreeLink.

Many examples of technology-mediated masters degrees abound.


41/362

27

There is evidence that access to higher education offerings via distance

education is seen as an important ingredient in economic development. In

order for the U.S. economy to remain competitive in a worldwide knowledge

economy, however, colleges and universities need to provide more

innovative approaches to providing education and trainingInnovative

approaches, such as distance learning via Internet, are needed to meet the

needs of today's students and the U.S. economy(National Alliance of

Business, 2002, Abstract). However, what is not as clear is the extent to

which these distributed degree program offerings are linked to regions

strategic economic development plans, particularly in STEM fields.

Growing interest in increasing STEM capacity has led to hundreds of

university-led STEM outreach programs. One of the more significant funders

of STEM outreach programs is the National Science Foundation (NSF). In

addition to generally targeting STEM capacity development, NSF has

particularly focused its interest on increasing STEM engagement among

underserved populations. The Model Institutes for Excellence program has

provided funding to universities such as Oglala Lakota College and Xavier

University in New Orleans to develop and refine models for increasing

graduates from underrepresented groups in STEM disciplines.

An area of significant STEM capacity development need that higher

education is particularly well-positioned to address is K-12 faculty

development in STEM fields. Many regions are hampered in their ability to

develop students enthusiasm for STEM occupations due to a dearth of


42/362

28

adequately qualified science and math teachers. Because it is difficult for K-

12 schools to compete effectively for highly qualified science and math

professionals, a more fruitful strategy has been to offer high quality STEM

faculty development opportunities to already committed teachers. The

federal Math and Science Partnership Program has funded, through the

National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Education, partnerships

between higher education and K-12 school systems that focus on STEM

teacher preparation. Some state departments of education, such as the

Virginia Department of Education, offer similar math and science partnership

programs.

The roadbed for the global economy is broadband connectivity.

Without high speed telecommunications capability, regions cannot hope to

compete in the global economy, much less connect effectively with

institutions of higher education that are not located in their communities.

Higher education has been and continues to be on the forefront of designing

and developing next generation telecommunications infrastructure.

Research universities realized early on that they would need to

connect to the electronic infrastructure used by the federal government if

they were to effectively compete for federal research contracts. As the

Internet became commoditized, research universities developed Internet 2 as

a next-generation, higher speed network primarily to support research

activities. Today, the National Lambda Rail all-optical network is being

deployed nationally as a follow-on to Internet 2.


43/362

29

There are a number of examples of engagement between research

universities and communities to develop high-speed network capacity.

Virginia Tech has worked with leaders and funders in rural Virginia to

implement over 1000 miles of fiber optic network. Case Western Reserve

has been extensively involved in the greater Cleveland region to develop high

speed network infrastructure. The goal of the project was to address

crosscutting community priorities by leveraging technology from City Hall to

the coalition of education/research facilities and our world-class health care

provider networks (DeAloia & Gonick, 2006, p. 1). Wake Forest University

has partnered with Winston-Salem to develop a community-owned

broadband network, WinstonNet, to serve the community at large.

Virginia Tech has created an office, dubbed eCorridors, within its

Information Technology organization to track policy and technical

developments relevant to regions interested in deploying broadband

infrastructure. In addition to this research function, the eCorridors team

assists communities in planning for the deployment of cutting-edge network

technologies that fit their circumstances.

In sum, core strengths of universities that align with regional

competencies include: being a talent magnet, conducting research, providing

formal and informal educational opportunities particularly in STEM disciplines,

and high-speed telecommunications infrastructure planning and

development. Given the congruity of innovation economy regional

competencies with universities core strengths, key considerations revolve


44/362

30

around partnering universities with regions in ways that are beneficial to

both. The next section addresses literature associated with university-

community partnerships.

University-Community Partnerships

Partnerships involve two or more parties who are prepared to make

investments to achieve a common goal. Each partner puts something at risk,

such as resources, assets, reputation, expertise, or time, and expects

something in return (Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C., &

Romanik, C., 2002). By inference, the most successful partnerships are

those which have a goal or vision that all partners embrace and to which all

partners contribute in proportion to the benefits they receive.

When parties enter into a partnership, they may do so with the best of

intentions; but if a party is unable to fully deliver on the commitments made,

the partnership will not have the same opportunity to realize its goals. Vidal

et al. (2002) suggest that successful partnerships depend on the ability of

organizations to contribute as well as to benefit from the shared endeavor.

The ability to deliver on commitments is linked to organizational capacity to

bring needed resources, such as money or expertise, to the partnership, as

well as to solve problems together. The benefit an organization receives

from a partnership is related to the consistency between the goals of the

partnership and an organizations core mission (Vidal et al., 2002).


45/362

31

In university-community partnerships, experts suggest that success is

more common when leadership emanates from the community (Corrigan,

2000; Lester, 2005; Maurrasse, 2001; Wilson 2004). Such leadership may

be grounded in a community-based entity that takes the responsibility for

managing the partnership (Corrigan, 2000), which plays into governance

considerations about structuring university-community partnerships. Faculty

members need to be particularly cautious about imposing a research agenda

on communities without sensitivity to the communitys needs and desires.

Residents of communities are no longer receptive to academicians as lone

rangers who come into communities and prescribe solutions to social,

economic, and educational needs and conditions without involving the

communities in the solutions (Wilson, 2004, p. 22).

Some preparatory steps may be needed to structure successful

university-community partnerships. Weerts (2005) postulates that effective

two-way relationships between universities and communities focus on

breaking down social and cultural barriers between the partners, building

organizational capacity on each side of the partnership, and identifying

motivators for engagement within the institution and the community. If

these issues are addressed in the formative stages of a partnership, a solid

foundation for the relationship will have been established.

The opportunity to generate significant impacts from university-

community relationships may be associated with the establishment of a long-

term commitment to partnering. Long-term commitments can lead to the


46/362

32

institutionalization of partnering, wherein partnering becomes part of the

culture of the respective entities. In an examination of factors that lead to

the institutionalization of community outreach within universities, Vidal et al.

(2002) identified four principal factors associated with self-sustaining

partnerships: mobilizing a steady stream of resources; changing academic

traditions; expanding the capacity of the university to be a responsive and

responsible partner; and addressing any limits on the capacity of the

community partner(s) (p. vi).

The effort and extent to which a university commits its own human

resources to a community partnership is linked directly to the

institutionalization of the engagement. If the university envisions a

commitment to strategic community revitalization, it will be more likely to

devote substantial resources to ensuring the success of the partnership

(Vidal et al., 2002). As the university applies resources to the partnership, it

contributes to the definition of the program model employed and is able to

ground the work of the partnership in research. Excellent community

outreach is not episodic; it is programmatic, research-based, and often long-

term (Wilson, 2004, p. 21).

In sum, several considerations are important in establishing and

maintaining university-community partnerships, including: identifying

common goals, delivering on commitments, community-based leadership,

breaking down cultural barriers, building organizational capacity for

partnering, mobilizing a steady stream of resources, and alignment with


47/362

33

mission. How does community partnering align with higher educations

mission? The next section explores the literature associated with the

academys internal conversations about responsibility to the public good.

Higher Education and the Public Good

A fourth area of literature related to my research agenda is focused on

higher education and the public good. This literature addresses the interest

in crafting a new, more robust partnership between institutions of higher

education and the publics they serve. The dialogue in higher education about

appropriate 21st century public service has revolved around a reshaping of

that mission. In the early 1990s, highly influential Carnegie Foundation for

the Advancement of Teaching leader Ernest Boyer called for a New American

College distinguished by a largerengagement in the nations life (Boyer,

1994).

Concurrently, the National Association of State Universities and Land-

Grant Colleges (NASULGC) commissioned a set of reports through the

Kellogg Commission, which focused on the role of the land grant university in

the 21st century. The higher education organization for public universities,

the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) issued

its own set of reports, designed to position its member institutions for the

challenges of a new era. And the University of Cincinnati in partnership with

The Milwaukee Idea of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee assembled

leaders and practitioners from across the United States in 2004 at the


48/362

34

Wingspread conference center in Wisconsin to consider the challenge of

institutionalizing university engagement.

Institutions of higher education have long recognized that they have

an incumbent service mission. The notion of creating institutions of higher

education to serve the public good can be traced to this countrys beginnings.

Benson, Harkavy, and Hartley (2005) suggest that fulfill(ing) the democratic

promise of America for all Americansserved as the central mission for the

development of the American research university, including both land-grant

institutions andurban universities (pp. 191-193). According to Roper and

Hirth (2005) the service mission of public higher education emanated from

university gratitude for public support. In more recent decades, according to

the authors, universities have more deliberately partnered with business to

advance economic development agendas.

The Kellogg Commission (1999) defined engaged institutions as those

that have redesigned their teaching, research, and extension and service

functions to become even more sympathetically and productively involved

with their communities (p. 9). Embedded within this definition is the

expectation that engagement means two-way partnerships, rather than one-

way knowledge transfers out of the university. A follow-up report issued in

2006 catalogued several indicators of engagement that had been

incorporated into the fabric of the colleges and universities within NASULGC

institutions. These encompassed the inclusion of engagement in institutional

mission statements and strategic plans, the creation of leadership positions


49/362

35

for institutional engagement, and the development of faculty incentives

associated with engagement (Byrne, 2006).

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities paralleled

the Kellogg Commission reports with a set of its own, focused on the role of

public universities in assuming responsibility for the public welfare. The first

of this set was published in 1998 and was focused on the public good, tracing

the history of public higher education and sounding an alarm about the need

to more seriously address the public responsibility mission of higher

education (AASCU, 1998). It laid the groundwork for the signature 2002

report, Stepping Forward as Stewards of Place. The Stewards of Place

report was issued as a practical guidebook, intended to assist institutions and

policymakers with translating the engagement concept into action (AASCU,

2002).

The report opens with a call to higher education institutions to see

themselves as stewards ofplace: From their earliest days, state colleges

and universities have diligently served in their role as stewards of place,

answering the call to join with pubic and private partners in their

communities and regions to take advantage of opportunities and confront

challenges (AASCU, 2002, p. 7). It notes, however, that while many

universities espouse the importance of engagement, few have truly aligned

their institutions to support it in a robust manner. This raises the question,

How do we in higher education truly understand the complexities of


50/362

36

community and regional issues, and then engage our resources effectively to

serve as stewards of place?

In 2004, 41 leaders and practitioners from engaged institutions

throughout the U.S. assembled at the Wingspread conference center to

assess progress and look forward. The focus of the conference was on

institutionalizing university engagement. The post-conference Wingspread

report called for significant institutional changes to better align the mission

and structure of the university with engagement. The need for radical

change was trumpeted in the report, including making interdisciplinary

relationships a priority, altering faculty reward systems, and providing

financial incentives from the institution to match contributions from outside

funders (Brukardt, Holland, Percy & Zimpher, 2004). Wingspread

participants suggested that a clear understanding of the kinds of rewards and

incentives that are required to invest faculty members and institutions of

higher education in institutionalized engagement was needed.

Subsequently, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education

developed a new higher education elective classification category

Community Engagement: Community Engagement describes the

collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger

communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually

beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership

and reciprocity (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,

Community Engagement Description webpage). This new, elective


51/362

37

classification was announced in December, 2006, along with 76 institutions

that had met the Carnegie benchmarks for engagement. Selection for the

community engagement designation required institutions to demonstrate an

alignment between values and practices. Even among the most compelling

applications, however, there were few that explicitly linked faculty rewards

with engagement, according to project director, Amy Driscoll.

An important concept in structuring effective higher education

partnerships with communities is creating a situation that will benefit all of

the partners. institutions of higher educationare all searching for the

win/win situation, in which the mission of their institution is being met

through the process of partnering with local communities (Maurrasse, 2001,

p. 182). Different institutions have different strengths as well, so it is

important to find effective ways to engage institutions in ways that are

synergistic with their assets and interests. If, for example, an Ivy League

university and a community college each adds a particular value, they should

work together on issues facing a common area. How do we leverage the

unique advantages of each different type of institution of higher education on

behalf of communities? (Maurrasse, p. 190). Implications of this

institutional matching notion include playing to the specific research,

education, and technology expertise strengths needed in a particular

community or region, rather than relying on a single institution to bring a full

complement of expertise and resources to a single place.


52/362

38

Ramaley (2007) points out that the complexities of the world in which

we live necessarily focus on the development and long-term maintenance of

partnerships and collaborations. Such long-term partnering is consistent

with the Wingspread concept of institutionalized engagement and AASCUs

stewardship of place. She suggests that these partnerships should be rooted

in creating regions of innovation as coined in the National Governors

Association Innovation America prospectus. To create regions of innovation,

we need to link our educational systems (both K-12 and postsecondary) to

resources in the community to address both workforce development and

economic and community development (Ramaley, 2007, p. 17).

Clearly, there is a growing dialogue in higher education about how to

connect more effectively with the public good that has been integral to many

universities missions. This dialogue, coupled with an understanding of

regional competencies for innovation economy competitiveness, higher

education assets pertinent to those competencies, and considerations for

structuring effective university-community partnerships suggests possibilities

for engagement that advances regional economic and social development.

What is possible and what is practical often boils down to supportive policy.

The final section of the literature review examines various policy

considerations associated with higher education engagement.


53/362

39

Policy Considerations for Higher Education Engagement

A logical starting point for examining policies that shape higher

educations engagement in addressing the public good is the current

environment in which higher education exists. Many have charted the

growing role of the market in shaping the focus of higher education

institutions (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Zemsky, Wegner & Massy, 2005). A

focus on institutional rankings has entered the public mainstream, thanks to

the mass media. In this emerging environment of Academic Capitalism

(Arbo & Benneworth) there is tremendous competition for bright students,

high quality faculty, and research funding among institutions of higher

education.

Land-grant institutions, as research universities, are characterized by

organized anarchy (Birnbaum, 1988). As such, they are not grounded in a

coherent set of institutional goals, but rather in a fluid mix of individual

interests. This organized anarchy dynamic and the associated need to feed

individual agendas have contributed to growing entrepreneurialism in higher

education. Competition for resources, according to Zemsky et al. (2005),

dominates the facultys attention.

In research universities, resource competition is intensely focused on

acquiring sponsored funding for research. Votruba (2005) notes that

Americas top research universities have evolved over the past fifty years to

a point where all elements of the campusreinforce the importance of

externally funded research as a core institutional mission (p. 264). Hand-in-


54/362

40

hand with the pre-occupation on sponsored research funding is the

importance of institutional and departmental reputation. According to

Ostriker & Kuh (2003), Reputation is one part of the reality of higher

education that affects a tremendous number of decisions where graduate

students choose to study, where faculty choose to locate, and where

resources may flow (p. 38).

The National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy

of Sciences, worked under the leadership of Kuh and Ostriker to develop a

new rating methodology to assess research doctorate programs (Lederman,

2005). In their book, Kuh and Ostriker (2003) outline the quantitative

factors which contribute to the ranking. These include, among others, net

assignable square feet of research space, quality of faculty, quality of

graduate students, and external funding. A companion ranking developed by

the company Academic Analytics, ranks research universities on the basis of

per-capita faculty productivity. Their rating tool, the Faculty Scholarly

Productivity Index, includes measures associated with grants received,

awards bestowed, and books and journal articles published. (Redden, 2007).

Jones (2005) points out that the federal government has done a very

effective job of engaging higher education in issues of importance to the

nation at large by playing to the interests of research university faculty to

access sponsored funds. The federal government has proven beyond a

shadow of a doubt that mechanisms both financial and those for ensuring


55/362

41

performance can be created that will focus the attention of the intellectual

assets of a university on issues that governments deem important (p. 5).

The question that policymakers and higher education leaders face is

how to create effective incentives for connecting universities to innovation

economy capacity development. Specifically, (building regional advantage)

requires public investment in the ingredients of innovation educated people

and new knowledgeit requires public purpose, policy, and investment to

create a knowledge society competitive in a global economy (Duderstadt,

2005, p. ii). Some of the salient issues embedded in the policy discussion

include such questions as positive incentives vs. negative consequences

(carrots vs. sticks approaches), money flowing directly to university

campuses vs. flowing to universities through regions, explicit links between

regional economic strategies and targeted university engagement vs. a

generalized approach to matching needs and assets, and how to tap

enlightened self-interests of regions and universities to achieve desired

outcomes. These issues are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Although members of the higher education community are sympathetic

to and, in some cases, attracted to engagement opportunities, the reality is

that financial incentives will need to be strategically and systematically

associated with engagement (Jones, 2005; Melle, Isaak, & Mattoon, 2006;

National Governors Association, 2002b). Targeted funding is important to

ensuring that efforts are directed to engagement. Atkinson and Correa

(2007) note, Simply giving universities and colleges more money and


56/362

42

hoping for the best is not enoughWithout strong leadership or strong state

incentives, or both, most universities will do what comes naturally: focus on

research and teaching of interest to faculty.

The role of state policy in providing financial incentives for

engagement is critical. According to Jones, Stewardship of place is an idea

whose time has come. Much of the improvement in economic opportunity

and quality of life sought by policymakers for the citizens of their states

depends on the acceptance by universitiesof a leadership role in their

communities. But university leadership cannot marshal the forces within

their institutions without a supportive state policy environment (p. 29).

Zemsky et al. argue, Fundamentally, what colleges and universities need

and they should not forget or abandon is more public funding as opposed

to more market funding We believe an effective public policy requires

greater public underwriting of institutions in pursuit of public purposes (p.

197).

Savvy policy-makers will ensure that funds for university engagement

are linked to accountability standards (Atkinson & Correa, 2007; Jones,

2005; Melle et al., 2006; National Governors Association, 2002b). Jones

suggests that stewardship of place funding be linked to performance

measures that are both activity-oriented as well as outcomes-driven, since

economic and community development is complex and there is a need to

measure incremental progress toward objectives.


57/362

43

Then there is the question of where the money should be directed in

order to realize much more extensive university engagement in regional

economic development. Duderstadt (2005) advocates directing increased

funding to (in his case, Michigan) universities to cause economic

revitalization across the state. He specifically suggests that dramatically

increased funding should flow to campuses to support the expansion of

educational opportunities, the strengthening of research capacity, and the

development of 21st century physical and cyber infrastructure.

Alternatively, two internationally authored papers suggest that

stewardship of place funding should play to the entrepreneurial interests of

faculty and institutions (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra, 2000) and

regions (Goddard, 1997). In this model, financial incentives should be

associated with the region where the engagement is desired, then allowing

the universities to come to the money. Goddard further suggests that when

money is directed to regions, the regions themselves become entrepreneurial

by shift(ing) from being an arm of the national welfare state to a catalyst for

local co-operation and policy innovation(p. 4).

Another policy consideration is whether universities should be

encouraged generally to participate in economic development or guided to

specifically targeted forms of engagement. Both Virginia and North Dakota

are actively seeking and implementing policy mechanisms to encourage

engagement that is focused on advancing the states economic development.

Virginia, in its 2005 Restructured Higher Education Financial and


58/362

44

Administrative Operations Act, included a stipulation that universities desiring

increased autonomy should actively contribute to efforts to stimulate the

economic development of the Commonwea