Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0:
A DISSERTATION
in
2008
_____________________________
Dissertation Supervisor
_____________________________
Dean, Graduate School of Education
COPYRIGHT
2008
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research associated with this dissertation would not have been
possible without the willingness of many university, regional, state, and
national engagement leaders to share their experiences and thoughts with
me. I am particularly thankful to the chief engagement officers and regional
engagement program directors from Michigan State University, Purdue
University, the University of Georgia, the University of Minnesota, the
University of Missouri, and Virginia Tech who spoke with me and painted the
landscape of regional engagement from their institutions‟ perspectives.
iv
To longtime friend and supporter John W. Moore I owe great thanks
for encouraging me to pursue my doctorate and for suggesting the Higher
Education Management program at the University of Pennsylvania to me. I
am thankful to Hilton and the Penn faculty associated with the program for
committing to me and for allowing me to learn from you.
My parents, Betty and Bill Norton, whose love, pride, dedication, and
willingness to drop everything at various points during the past two years to
come and help when my life was stretched to a near-breaking point meant all
the difference in my taking the next step.
My children, Maddi, Torrey, and Trevor who have borne the brunt of
my unavailability these past many months with considerable patience and
good humor, encouraged me at the start and cheered me on at milestones
along the way.
My husband, Tim, who has been my partner in all ways on this journey
- encouraging me to reach for this life goal, protecting my opportunity to
accomplish the work required, providing insights that expanded my
perspectives, nurturing me through the tough times, and living the
experience with me of charting new territory in university-regional
engagement.
v
ABSTRACT
Matthew Hartley
call into question the traditional ways in which land-grant institutions have
the assets most needed for global economic viability – a base of innovation,
vi
University of Missouri, and Virginia Tech. From these six institutional models,
examined.
between the conditions that create the potential for engagement, the
relationship, and the policy elements that constitute the framework for
partner with a university and who keep their regions focused on the
partnerships should consider how to align regional and university goals, the
structures.
vii
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......................................................12
Importance of the Study….…………………………………………………………………..14
Regional Competency…………………………………………………….…………………….18
Higher Education Assets……………………….……………………………………………..23
University-Community Partnerships…………….……………………………………..30
Higher Education and the Public Good………………………………………………..33
Policy Considerations for Higher Education Engagement…….…………….39
Summary……………….………………………………………………………………………………46
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY…….…………………………………………………49
viii
Chapter 4: SIX LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY APPROACHES TO………..69
REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT
ix
The Findings…………………………..…………………………….…………………………….140
Potential for Engagement…………………………………………………………141
Moultrie/Colquitt Regional Needs……..………………………….143
Moultrie/Colquitt Regional Assets………….…………………….144
University of Georgia Needs……….……………………….……...147
University of Georgia Assets…….………………………………….150
Southside Regional Needs……….…………………………………..152
Southside Regional Assets…………….……………..……………..153
Virginia Tech Needs………………………………………………….…..156
Virginia Tech Assets…………………………………………….……….159
Facilitating Engagement……………………..…………………………………..161
The Role of Regional Leadership in Moultrie/Colquitt….162
The Culture of Regional Engagement in….…………………..165
Moultrie/Colquitt
The Role of University Leadership at UGA…………………..169
Engagement as Defined by the University of Georgia..172
The Role of Regional Leadership in Southside…….……….178
The Culture of Regional Engagement in Southside.…….181
The Role of University Leadership at Virginia Tech.…….185
Engagement as Defined by Virginia Tech……………….……187
Structuring Engagement……………………………….………………………..193
Goal-Setting in the UGA–Moultrie/Colquitt….………………194
Partnership
Goal-Setting in the VT–Southside Partnership…….……..198
Resourcing the UGA–Moultrie/Colquitt……………….……….204
Partnership
Resourcing the VT–Southside Partnership……….….………208
Accountability in the UGA–Moultrie/Colquitt………….….…213
Partnership
Accountability in the VT–Southside Partnership.…………217
Governance in the UGA–Moultrie/Colquitt…………………..221
Partnership
Governance in the VT–Southside Partnership………….….228
x
Chapter 6: UNIVERSITY-REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT ………..………….235
THROUGH A STATE POLICY LENS
Georgia: Background on State Investments in University/…………….235
Economic Development Engagement Strategies
Virginia: Background on State Investments in University/…..………..237
Economic Development Engagement Strategies
Current State Perspectives on University-Regional Engagement…...239
in Georgia and Virginia
What can and should universities contribute to the state?.....240
Where should the money come from?................................240
How should university contributions be linked to the….……….242
state’s economic development plan?
What roles should various entities play?.............................244
What policies in GA and VA directly incentivize university……245
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…..…….249
considered?
APPENDIX A……………………..……………………………………………………337
APPENDIX B……………………………….………………………………………...339
REFERENCES…………………..……………………………………………………..340
xi
LIST OF TABLES
xii
Table 19. Funding Models………………………………………….………………………..….264
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
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,
education have not engaged effectively with the complex challenges and
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
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
information will be needed which sheds light on the variables associated with
starting point for understanding how and why these models work, and the
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,
2
federal government policy linked higher education to utilitarian concerns
progressivism in the early 20th century which led to the development of “The
university, with state needs (Stark, 1995). Through a complex set of federal
and state policy coupled with historic expectations associated with higher
Today the U.S. finds itself, along with the rest of the world, in the
regions, particularly rural and semi-rural regions, far behind. What role can
that universities can meet their own needs while benefiting the regions?
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
3
challenged higher education to be more integrally connected with
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and the American
respectively.
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
offers that appropriate policy levers at the state level might include: public
governance structures.
Research Agenda
4
engagement” associated with six land-grant institutions were investigated in
the first stage of the research. From those examples, two particularly robust
are engaging with non-local regions in their states and the ways in which
5
The Innovation Economy
develop better products and services faster than the competition. This
new discoveries emanating from the research activities (State Science and
depend on high quality post-secondary education for their own and their
Every state has key assets which are engines of innovation (research)
Every state has at least one land-grant university and many states have
6
physical infrastructure, the administrative knowledge and infrastructure to
support and sustain robust research. The challenge, however, is that the
Hasan, & Newbert, 2003). So, regions without research universities do not
attract and develop intellectual talent. To the extent that these institutions
culture, and economic conditions (Henton, Melville, & Walesh, 2002; Duke,
economy and suggests that two key characteristics define regions: a hub
7
city that creates agglomeration benefits, and a sufficient level of critical mass
regions to the devolution of political power from national to state and local
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
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
8
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-
$100,000” (p. 24). Income disparities between urban northern Virginia and
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
opportunity extends far beyond national borders and literally around the
9
assets in these regions. These innovation economy assets, which dovetail
for developing new innovations and converting them into commercial assets
Engagement
interest in crafting a new, more robust partnership between the academy and
1999). Universities can best serve when they understand the communities
with whom they are interfacing. Benefits in this new model accrue both to
10
redesign their “teaching, research, and extension and service functions to
the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, and the National Center for Higher
Association of State Colleges and Universities, & National Center for Higher
11
Why Distributed Engagement?
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
distant.
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.
12
the state geographically distant from campus is to better understand how to
attract new, external capital and investment to both the university and the
such a structure so that significant, tangible benefits to both parties can keep
13
motivations associated with broader purposes that could be transferable to
other situations.
and federal policy levers will tap the motivations not just of economically
regions.
The two primary audiences for this research are expected to be leaders
of higher education and policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels.
and services, promoting collaboration, and policies that will strengthen higher
14
institutions, and comprehensive state universities. Each of these types of
simultaneously.
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
ways that will maximize value. They are faced with the pressure to subsidize
also know that their state‟s economic competitiveness will depend on the
15
constituents they serve. If they understand that universities can provide
expertise that might help them solve this puzzle, they often don‟t 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
16
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
innovative capacity, the ingredients of which are the core of the higher
the first section, I address literature that describes and defines the critical
second section includes literature that discusses how higher education assets
can and are being applied beyond the university to develop innovation
17
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
Regional Competency
services consumption. These economic regions are not the result of political
strategy of banding together across local jurisdictions, which may even cross
18
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
new economic era. A decade later, increasing attention was focused on the
faster than others players in the market. The watchword to describe the new
processes, and services” (Porter & Stern, 1999, p. 12), has now been
circles, innovation has become the name of the game. The 2006-2007
(Atkinson & Correa, 2007). The 2006 Southern Growth Policies board report
19
Johnson & Pennock, 2006). The Council on Competitiveness has trumpeted
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
2001 report.
20
associated institutions in a particular field.” (Porter, Ketels, Miller, & Bryden,
2004, p. 44). Porter (2001) notes that successful regions leverage their
assets.
knowledge and human capital experience faster growth than those that do
not.
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 America‟s sustained economic growth” has come
21
from the five percent of the workforce comprised of engineers, scientists, and
[BEST], 2003, p. 1). Building on the work of BEST and others, the National
22
Internet connectivity is widely associated with the globalization phenomenon
higher education in the world, though challenges from within (Bok, 2006;
Thelin, 2004) and from abroad (Jackson, 2002) are increasing calling this
23
students have stayed in the United States after completing their studies and
expertise has been significantly leveraged beyond the campus, it has resulted
24
Carolina‟s Research Triangle Park, Boston‟s Route 128 Corridor, and Austin‟s
Silicon Gulch.
“Universities that are highly engaged with regional industry clusters have
diverse and complementary units that broadly address the needs of the
university must have a significant base of research aligned with the needs of
the United States, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom who studied
25
number one, contributor to economic growth and to a strong and competitive
competitive economy of the 21st century, state economies in large part will
thrive or decline based on how well they cultivate and retain „knowledge
(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
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
26
There is evidence that access to higher education offerings via distance
approaches, such as… distance learning via Internet, are needed to meet the
27
adequately qualified science and math teachers. Because it is difficult for K-
professionals, a more fruitful strategy has been to offer high quality STEM
federal Math and Science Partnership Program has funded, through the
between higher education and K-12 school systems that focus on STEM
programs.
28
There are a number of examples of engagement between research
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
provider networks” (DeAloia & Gonick, 2006, p. 1). Wake Forest University
29
around partnering universities with regions in ways that are beneficial to
community partnerships.
University-Community Partnerships
something in return (Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C., &
those which have a goal or vision that all partners embrace and to which all
When parties enter into a partnership, they may do so with the best of
the partnership will not have the same opportunity to realize its goals. Vidal
30
In university-community partnerships, experts suggest that success is
2000; Lester, 2005; Maurrasse, 2001; Wilson 2004). Such leadership may
breaking down social and cultural barriers between the partners, building
31
“institutionalization” of partnering, wherein partnering becomes part of the
The effort and extent to which a university commits its own human
32
mission. How does community partnering align with higher education‟s
mission? The next section explores the literature associated with the
higher education and the public good. This literature addresses the interest
education and the publics they serve. The dialogue in higher education about
that mission. In the early 1990s, highly influential Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching leader Ernest Boyer called for a “New American
1994).
Kellogg Commission, which focused on the role of the land grant university in
the 21st century. The higher education organization for public universities,
its own set of reports, designed to position its member institutions for the
leaders and practitioners from across the United States in 2004 at the
33
Wingspread conference center in Wisconsin to consider the challenge of
education to serve the public good can be traced to this country‟s beginnings.
Benson, Harkavy, and Hartley (2005) suggest that “fulfill(ing) the democratic
promise of America for all Americans…served as the central mission for the
Hirth (2005) the service mission of public higher education emanated from
that “have redesigned their teaching, research, and extension and service
with their communities” (p. 9). Embedded within this definition is the
incorporated into the fabric of the colleges and universities within NASULGC
34
for institutional engagement, and the development of faculty incentives
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
education (AASCU, 1998). It laid the groundwork for the signature 2002
2002).
answering the call to join with pubic and private partners in their
35
community and regional issues, and then engage our resources effectively to
“assess progress and look forward.” The focus of the conference was on
report called for significant institutional changes to better align the mission
and structure of the university with engagement. The need for “radical
36
classification was announced in December, 2006, along with 76 institutions
that had met the Carnegie benchmarks for engagement. Selection for the
alignment between values and practices. Even among the most compelling
applications, however, there were few that explicitly linked faculty rewards
synergistic with their assets and interests. “If, for example, an Ivy League
university and a community college each adds a particular value, they should
37
Ramaley (2007) points out that the complexities of the world in which
connect more effectively with the public good that has been integral to many
What is possible and what is practical often boils down to supportive policy.
38
Policy Considerations for Higher Education Engagement
institutions (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Zemsky, Wegner & Massy, 2005). A
education.
interests. This organized anarchy dynamic and the associated need to feed
“America‟s top research universities have evolved over the past fifty years to
39
hand with the pre-occupation on sponsored research funding is the
Ostriker & Kuh (2003), “Reputation is one part of the „reality‟ of higher
2005). In their book, Kuh and Ostriker (2003) outline the quantitative
factors which contribute to the ranking. These include, among others, net
awards bestowed, and books and journal articles published. (Redden, 2007).
Jones (2005) points out that the federal government has done a very
shadow of a doubt that mechanisms – both financial and those for ensuring
40
performance – can be created that will focus the attention of the intellectual
2005, p. ii). Some of the salient issues embedded in the policy discussion
associated with engagement (Jones, 2005; Melle, Isaak, & Mattoon, 2006;
(2007) note, “…Simply giving universities and colleges more money and
41
hoping for the best is not enough…Without strong leadership or strong state
and quality of life sought by policymakers for the citizens of their states
and they should not forget or abandon – is more public funding as opposed
197).
42
Then there is the question of where the money should be directed in
faculty and institutions (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra, 2000) and
associated with the region where the engagement is desired, then allowing
the universities to come to the money. Goddard further suggests that when
by “shift(ing) from being an arm of the national welfare state to a catalyst for
43
Administrative Operations Act, included a stipulation that universities desiring
economy of the region and the state” (Roundtable for the North Dakota
states have the opportunity to make them relevant to the clusters inside
44
their boundaries” (p.11). The question becomes, “Can states systematically
identify regional cluster strategies and then link their public higher education
state leaders can use bully pulpits to establish a vision and develop funding
expand federal funding and match it with state contributions for university-
and universities such that higher education-led projects fit into a larger whole
for locally led strategic development of the region, rather than a hit-and-miss
45
contributions in each engagement activity to the particular needs of the
seek to align their own contributions with what is actually happening in the
Summary
reviewed.
The first body of literature suggested that there are particular traits, or
46
expertise associated with broadband connectivity are core strengths of
universities.
resources, and identifying the motivators for partnering within the university
and the public good. This literature suggested that there is a rich history
associated with the service mission of higher education, but that mission has
assumed a more dominant role in the last decade as evidenced by the focus
education community.
47
Amidst the policy positions, little empirical study is directed to how
remote to their campuses, but where there is significant need. This points to
might be developed.
48
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
literature addresses this particular subject, there is a need to learn about the
critical variables in such partnerships from those who have been involved in
them.
learn how and why the various actors and agendas contributed to the
49
phenomenon of distributed engagement. This concept, of exploring how the
parts work together to create the whole, is consistent with the use of
indicates that case study methods can be used when the issue under study is
regions distant from their campuses and much need to understand how these
complex partnerships are structured. Since it was assumed that the context
50
research provides insights to multiple constructions of university-regional
Conceptual Model
these entities has, in the conceptual model, a set of assets as well as a set of
sought to learn how universities and regions identified and partnered around
universities and regions. Did individuals in the regions and at the universities
understand the connection between needs and assets and act on the
opportunity to partner with the other entity? In want ways were the
51
52
The third “partner” I wanted to include was the state, which also
presumably had assets and needs. I was interested in finding out how state
state, financial resources in the form of tax collections, and political capital
structures. This study considered how these policy levers were addressed in
Study Design
and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). The
53
focus at this stage of the research was on the universities‟ rationales for and
Southside Virginia in the south central Virginia Piedmont region. The focus at
this stage of the research was on the motivations, contributions, and benefits
associated with the university partners and the regional partners; the
catalytic elements in the universities and in the regions that ignited and
second stage of research were assembled from the data collected. Findings
The third stage of the study examined the state policy context associated
54
and sought insights from key state leaders about policymaking associated
with such engagement. The emphasis in this stage was less on the specific
partnerships included in the second stage of the study and more on the
how such partnerships can be established through state policy were explored.
Site Selection
that had been in place for at least two years. And finally, I sought out
55
Multiple strategies were used to identify qualifying institutions
including:
Personal network
pressed to identify any examples. The institutions I selected were those that
met the selection criteria referenced above and were willing to participate in
there was a wide range in terms of scope and scale of engagement. Since
56
regional partnerships in places not proximate to campus, direct apples-to-
apples comparisons of those that were included in the study were difficult.
Stage Two cases were selected from among the Stage One
universities. I knew I wanted to limit the number of Stage Two cases to two
and used five criteria to select Stage Two sites. I looked for engagement
that was centered in a strong regional relationship and where there were
Interviewee Selection
In Stage One of the study, two informants from each institution (with
one exception) were interviewed. The first interview was conducted with
57
Formal interviews were conducted with the chief engagement officer at
each of the six institutions, except the University of Minnesota, which was in
the midst of a search process for a chief engagement officer during the
In Stage Two of the study, key informants in the region and at the
included:
University Informants:
58
Community Informants:
of the partnership.
Table 1.
Interviewee Distribution by Role
Campus-Based 5 3
University Administrator
Campus-Based Faculty 2 6
Region-Based University 1 1
Administrator
Region-Based Faculty 0 2
Region-Based Extension 3 0
59
The total number of interviewees associated with the University of
two states where the Stage Two partnerships studied were located. One
leader in each state was intimately familiar with the pressures and policies
associated with the state‟s higher education system. The other was charged
Table 2.
State Leader Interviewees by Position
State Position
60
Interviews
without recording devices. All but one of these six interviews was conducted
notes (Creswell, 2005) were kept for each informal interview. The
(Creswell, 2005). Formal interviews lasted approximately one hour. All but
one of these five interviews was conducted by phone; the fifth was conducted
both the region and on the campus during September, October, and
November, 2007 over approximately a three-day period per case. All were
61
invitation to participate in the interview and provided interview consent forms
by me.
interview consent forms by me. All state leader interviews were conducted
December, 2007.
as have the researcher‟s interview notes. Quotes from the interviews that
are included in the findings are attributed to specific individuals if the nature
None of the institutions included in the study, nor any of the individuals
interviewee request that a comment be “off the record.” In those cases, the
62
Interview Questions
provided in Appendix A.
Documents
through web sites associated with the universities, the regions, and the
Data Analysis
63
Creswell (2005), to “make sense of the data, divide it into segments, label
the segments with codes, examine the codes for overlap and redundancy,
and collapse the codes into broad themes” (p. 237). Documents were
coding them. More than forty categories emerged from this initial coding. A
cross-case analysis was conducted on the coded data from the Stage One
formed the basis of the Stage One findings narrative. Documents pertaining
to the themes were obtained through each university‟s web portal and
consulted to “flesh out” and triangulate the interview data. From this
Stage One was developed and a cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2003) of findings
above into the conceptual model categories. The Stage Two interview data
themes provided the basis for the State Two narrative. Documents provided
by individuals associated with the two cases in Stage Two, as well as public
64
triangulate aspects of the interview data. From this analysis, a narrative
about each of the two partnerships studied was developed and a synthesis of
forty-plus categories that pertained to state policy issues: state needs, state
assets, and state policy levers. Interview data coded into these categories
was analyzed to identify themes. These themes provided the basis of the
information was used to provide background detail and add context to the
Stage Three interview data. From this analysis, a brief narrative about each
the cross-case synthesis relied most heavily on the interview data from
Georgia and Virginia state leaders, it also included relevant information from
all interviewees.
65
Descriptive, interpretive, and theoretical validity was addressed
exploration that would otherwise have been quite difficult to achieve. At the
time the research process was initiated, I was in a leadership role in the
initial and primary “on the ground” leadership presence in the region. We
worked extensively with policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels to
66
I relocated to Danville in Spring 2001, providing leadership for a wide
range of activities associated with Virginia Tech and the Institute for
Advanced Learning and Research, until Fall 2007. These activities included:
have come from the University Economic Development Association, the U.S.
67
Through my research, I have learned much about how other land-
great deal from the Georgia partnership included in this study about
partnering strategies that were quite different in many respects than the
68
Chapter 4
The Garrison Keillor quote above speaks to the ideal of the land-grant
bear in the everyday lives of citizens and communities? This study identified
six land-grant universities engaged with the issues and challenges faced by
citizens and communities within their states, but distant from their
campuses.
69
In each of the land-grant universities, a majority of the engagement
university‟s work with external entities has been guided by a 1993 report
recognize the two-way nature of outreach work. The university‟s web site
scholarship is applied directly for the public good and when the relationship
70
of psychology and was himself highly engaged with external communities, in
reports to the Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The
the MSU outreach and extension organizations are separate, principals with
oriented,” meaning that they exist to meet the needs of the population
served.
Communities with whom MSU has been working include Jackson, Flint,
Detroit, and locally, Lansing. Some of these partnerships have been in place
for as many as thirteen years; others are relatively new relationships. Much
Agriculture, the arts, and information technology projects have also been
71
community and economic development in Jackson, which is approximately
thirty miles from the MSU campus in East Lansing. There, a relationship
At numerous steps along the transformation path, the community has invited
MSU to partner with them, resulting in relationships with faculty across many
one scholarly area of inquiry are, to the extent possible, leveraged into a
relationship between the university and community that will open a multitude
Purdue University
engagement under the presidency of Martin Jischke, who served in that role
from 2000 until 2007. Dr. Jischke was honored by the National Association
72
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) in 2006 with its
include: What does your community need from a major research university?
Provost for Engagement. This position was held initially by Don Gentry, then
Agriculture.
including Maryville (Chicago area), Fort Wayne, New Albany, Anderson, and
73
goals and range from establishing business incubators to offering courses to
several colleges.
throughout Indiana, and has worked with the state‟s Office for Rural Affairs
has been invited into K-12 education discussions by the Central Indiana
74
Purdue‟s approach to engagement is driven by the sense that its
engagement agenda.
University of Georgia
75
Primary responsibility for leading UGA‟s engagement mission falls to
the Office of the Vice President for Public Service and Outreach. The Vice
President‟s position has been occupied since 2000 by Art Dunning, who came
to the university after nine years with the Board of Regents of the University
System of Georgia. Dunning also served as the chief executive officer of the
who is responsible to the Dean and Director of the College of Agricultural and
agricultural and natural resources, 4-H youth, and family and consumer
sciences.
Georgia northwest Georgia, southwest Georgia, and the metro Atlanta area.
associated with language skills, health care, education, day care, housing,
and transportation.
76
The Archway Partnership Program is a relatively new experiment in the
partners Cooperative Extension with Public Service and Outreach, along with
departments. Based upon the early success of the Colquitt pilot site, the
approach to problem-solving.
University of Minnesota
base state funding will provide the institution with greater leverage capacity
in seeking sponsored research funding. To this end, taking care of the state
77
of Minnesota through public engagement is an important priority. A system-
work.
that had been started by the Council on Public Engagement, by housing the
home. The first Associate Vice President for Public Engagement appointed
Committee on Engagement.
78
activities that are housed in various places throughout the university system.
Learning Center; the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs; the Children,
Extension programs and experiment stations are led by the Dean and
areas of UMN extension and other extension organizations that are more
partnerships exist in various parts of the state, with the expectation of more
79
in the future. Over a ten-year period the regional partnerships have secured
approximately eleven and a half million dollars in support of more than 180
projects.
knowledge and have access to the University for the innovation, experience,
priorities and make decisions about whether and how much resource to
invest in various projects. Modest funding for the partnerships flows from
University of Missouri
their trust and the public resources. During a university strategic planning
focused on reaching out from the university through increased basic and
80
applied research that is designed to stimulate economic growth, as well as
of strategic councils and committees that shape the interface between the
Provost and Director of Extension, Michael Ouart. Ouart came into the
system.
strategic plan that lists economic viability as its top priority program area. A
81
program in this priority area which has risen to prominence in the Provost‟s
recently come under the direction of Sharon Gulick, who had previously
spent twenty years in the state‟s economic development office. The initiative
application process. The initial round of funding was in the form of cash
concept from the university with matching contributions from the regions.
82
Virginia Tech
Virginia, the United States, and across the globe through strategic
Office of Outreach and International Affairs, which is led by Vice Provost John
Affairs position in 2003, coming into the role from a career with Virginia
83
Northern Virginia, Roanoke, and more recently, Lynchburg. Each of the three
education complements the research and addresses other needs of the local
than $80 million dollar committed to date to the IALR, an influx of scientists,
mission, and ability to secure resources has been the basis of the university‟s
84
successful regional partnerships. Each partnership has been established
within the unique context of the environment and people associated with it.
This section outlines the major findings from the Stage One set of
Institutional Motivations
Weerts (2005) has indicated that one of the factors associated with
regions of their states that are distant from campus? The underlying
partnerships in other parts of their states. Most also noted their personal
sense of responsibility to, and passion for, the land-grant mission with
respect to serving the public good. The mix of underlying motivations for
understand that base funding levels from the state are dependent upon
securing and maintaining the favor and confidence of elected state officials,
spoke about the need to demonstrate public return on the state‟s investment
in the institution:
to the university, major donors often are well connected politically within the
state to elected officials. Major donors also are often connected to the board
of trustees for the university, if they are not actually board members
86
themselves. So, another rationale stated by interviewees for engaging in
partnerships with other regions of the state is the opportunity to advance the
world” into new research agendas and lessons for the classroom. In addition
avenues for scholarship and open new opportunities for sponsored funding.
Many cited examples of faculty who were able to advance their scholarly
study… We are able to get those companies to listen in part because we‟ve
87
a particular portion of the state who are able to secure special federal or
state funds. They may be tied to particular resources that are designated to
benefit citizens in a particular region. Or, they may be linked to issues that
are present in a part of the state removed from the university‟s campus. By
institution may be able to grow its sponsored research revenue stream thus
benefitting both the region and the university. According to John Dooley at
Virginia Tech,
universities to engage with communities beyond the campus. This may occur
as a result of a faculty member who is able to inject real world stories into
constituency outside of the campus. “It made my work with the students
very, very relevant. They get that much more enthused about the course,”
The students are developing their portfolios. They are able to point to
practical things that they‟ve done so when they enter the workforce
they can say, „Not only do we have book knowledge and a great GPA
and went to a fine institution, but we were able to actually do practical
work.‟
88
Alignment of Mission with Public Needs
upon…to make sure that our research, our learning, our engagement
resolving of societal problems and issues beyond those that are directly tied
“There‟s not an issue in this state that does not have a discipline on this
89
campus that can help address some of the public policy and decision-making
needs.”
some were clearly quite focused on aligning themselves with state officials
indicated that they participate in regular meetings with key state economic
assets and expertise with state development strategies. In some cases the
driver.
Forms of Engagement
actors” and identifying knowledge that is useful to entities in regions (p. 50).
90
to them. In Arbo and Benneworth‟s “second wave” models, universities bring
create a “local buzz” which is “far more transformatory in its effects than the
distant from campus in ways that resemble “first wave” approaches as well
institutions studied are typically led by a university entity that has a vertical
entrepreneurship programs.
focused on issue areas. The issues cited included those that were driven by
either case, the focus of the engagement was topical and involved university
91
particular place. Examples of issue areas of focus cited were: land use
was envisioned to be larger than the sum of its parts. Thematic approaches
92
Moultrie, Georgia; and Virginia Tech‟s work in Southside, Virginia. Each of
the role played by the university partner. In some cases, the university
2001; Wilson, 2004). While no partnership failures were cited by the chief
community with the right set of characteristics to meet the needs of the
93
external partner through a fee-for-service model; in others it was available
play a facilitator role by following the lead of the community or region and
university and the community. This finding was consistent with the Vidal et
94
al. (2002) conclusion that the benefit an organization receives from a
institutions: “The whole notion of being involved and engaged with the
do, and I think it makes what we do on campus better. So, it‟s a win-win
situation.”
scenario,
Joint wins also played out into larger opportunities that elevated the
increase its cachet beyond the region. Both the Virginia Tech – Southside
across the state clearly have had a positive impact on the university‟s
95
political standing in the state and have helped to position regions of Indiana
relocate.
partnerships was in identifying up front what one vice president called the
“rules of engagement.” Both Purdue and Virginia Tech indicated that they
did not expect the institutions to carve money out of their operating budgets
We can bring resources, but people who come looking for funds – this
is not the place to do that. That‟s not our role. I think Purdue is very
entrepreneurial when it comes to funding these kinds of things with
the one sort of rule being (that) we are not the funding agency. It‟s
not something we‟re positioned to do as a state university.
university does not work on a geo-political basis. Purdue clearly sees itself
pit one political jurisdiction against another. The university favors regional
96
Provost‟s Office so we represent an academic arm of the institution and so
was identifying at the outset whether or not the fit is right between
universities “be careful to define who owns the problems,” cautioning against
terms of where we fit and where we don‟t…(It‟s) the whole notion of not
communities consider whether particular issues are a good fit for expertise at
their institution, and if not, look to involve other institutions that may be
partners are at the table from the inception of the planning process.
97
According to Corrigan (2000), the most successful university-community
with implementing as well as creating the plan. This point was reinforced by
I think the most successful programs that we‟ve been involved in have
been partnerships at the most inclusive level. We have been partners
from the beginning, there early in the process… Somebody is not just
bringing us in at the last minute to give us some little piece and expect
us to go do things.
dealing with deep economic and social issues which take considerable time
and effort to mitigate, and which require the community to invest itself in
sufficiency through empowerment, and not doing for people what they can
Georgia:
It was really helping people to solve their own problems… (by) helping
them figure out the cause of issues and problems and letting them
98
determine their values, and then figuring out the solutions themselves,
of course with the help of other folks. But they get to determine their
path, they get to determine their direction, and they are empowered
to actually implement and make things happen.
means ensuring that community partners don‟t expect the university to play
the knight on a white horse, riding in with the solution to the community‟s
cultural setting in which they will operate.” Minnesota, Missouri, and Georgia
99
of engaging around a community-driven agenda. According to Michael Ouart
One of the most important and critical and positive things about the
eXCEED Program is that it‟s a local community-driven process…that
helps communities understand themselves better, that accommodates
the fact that every community is different and each community has its
own set of strengths and resources and needs. Then it really allows for
us to bring the integrated capacity of the university to help them with
those needs as they identify them.
with each partner. This supports the contention of Corrigan (2000) that
Relationship Development
(Goddard, 2007).
and the University of Georgia, was the importance of placing the right
“Hir(ing) strong, competent leadership to begin with that can help guide us
and direct us through the difficult times of start-up,” was cited by John
Dooley as a critical factor for success. The perspective from the University of
(OECD, 1999).
to develop trust within the partnership. Corrigan (2000), Weerts (2005), and
Alter (2005) suggest that cultural barriers can impede the development of
that would allow various faculty to come and go over time. The core of this
committed to each other? Are we going to stick around when times get
tough?”
helped to achieve the goals of the local community and the university.”
Purdue‟s Jay Akridge said that talking about results of the partnership to date
Making sure that people understand what we‟re doing, how it‟s helping
so that there‟s continued support I think is a pretty big deal… I think
we have to be good at quantifying impact in telling the story so that
we find new opportunities and that the people that are partnering with
us understand where we‟re contributing.
(Schneider, 2005). Far less pervasive but also part of the faculty motivation
publication opportunities. The key to this strategy was in finding ways for
fields, which lend themselves well to the application of pervasive social and
cultural issues.
103
Purdue‟s vice provost of engagement shared that his institution planned a
Fall workshop retreat with deans, department heads, and senior center
Michigan State is home to the National Center for the Study of University
Virginia Tech did this by working with regional leaders to connect politically
with federal legislators and state trustees of the state‟s tobacco settlement
and seed initial research projects, faculty then leveraged these investments
and biological sciences with a goal of seeding a high tech economic base in
the region.
based projects and problems that are linked to curricular objectives, ideally
104
student engagement was structured around involving small student groups in
consultant. Not only did students have an opportunity to study a real issue,
but they were able to do so in the context of a community setting that was
quite different than many had previously experienced. So, student learning
members are coupled with a network of field agents or educators, who are
tied into needs and issues at the local level. According to Missouri‟s Michael
Ouart,
done this by creating point people in regions who are jointly funded by Public
with community leaders, with local Extension experts, campus faculty across
105
the university, and experts outside the university. Purdue has created a
particularly important at the vice president level. This was true of incumbent
vice presidents at Virginia Tech, Georgia, and Purdue, and likely led to the
Purdue, where the leadership of the president with regard to engagement set
106
Challenges
pressure, and sustained support were cited as the greatest barriers to more
play to the interests of one party at the expense of the other. As Alter
issues that affect multiple interests or publics, each with differing, sometimes
engine, but they are not necessarily always sure that the things we are
and time are always issues,” according to one interviewee. Identifying what
107
a challenge. Even where a university was not directly funding engagement,
instead relying on third party sources of funds, significant indirect costs were
of the state challenge even the most efficient outreach organization. The
Georgia and Virginia Tech referenced the onslaught of demand they‟d had
from regions across their states once word began to spread about their
region over a period of years was cited as a need. Integrating the activities
108
change” presented another set of challenges and spoke to the need to define
state level, was also cited as a challenge that must be continually addressed.
109
Chapter 5
Beginnings
Outreach (PSO) began to consider how the university might address the
land-grant engagement mission. A small group was charged by the PSO vice
president to consider how the university could improve its ability to address
Interviews with more than seventy people, internal and external to the
position itself to interface with the university on a broader basis and thus
looked at Extension models across the country and made site visits to several
program at North Carolina State University and thought that, with some
110
modifications, it could serve as the basis for a new model of interfacing with
Georgia‟s communities.
All of this was occurring at a time when the university had seen a
– had been denied admission. Citizens and legislators from many parts of
the state were questioning the value of supporting the university with public
off the university‟s arch moniker, it was suggested that this new model be
dubbed the “Archway” county program. The notion proposed was that the
county where the Archway program was established would provide office
from the surrounding counties in the region and from the university.
could occur.
implement this new Archway partnership model and decided that the most
prudent course of action would be to pilot the concept in one place. It was
determined that the city of Moultrie and its surrounding Colquitt County
111
would offer the best opportunity for a pilot. The area was experiencing
array of university resources, and its needs were a good match for the
Regional Profile
community of 15,000, is the county seat for Colquitt County, which has a
the largest and most diverse agricultural county in the state. Its economy is
has been growing steadily in the last three decades, but faces significant
The dominant issue facing the county at the initiation of the UGA
operation which promised to bring 1500 new jobs to the region. Community
leaders saw the need to plan for increased housing and associated utilities
strategy for managing these and associated issues extended beyond the
Regional Leadership
local government, and the non-profit sector who had a history of service to
One was the publisher of the local newspaper. Several had children who
113
advisory board. Their social circles included members of the UGA Board of
Once the Sanderson Farms deal was signed, community leaders felt as
though they had a “tiger by the tail” and needed to figure out how to ensure
that the region was able to deliver the services and amenities that would be
given all of its assets. One leader, who had an opportunity to share a box
conversations with the president the region‟s interest in partnering with the
university.
University Leadership
Moultrie/Colquitt emanated from the offices of the vice president for public
service and outreach and the associate dean for extension. Operationalizing
the concept involved the special projects director with public service and
earlier in the decade, which had cited increased pressure on the university to
114
There are enormous increases in the expectations by state leaders of
universities to contribute directly to economic development initiatives
designed to improve the economic well-being of the state, and
substantial rewards available for institutions that do so… UGA's ability
to position itself to help shape and take advantage of this role needs
strengthening and is vital to its future. (The Planning Environment,
2000)
The PSO vice president, associate dean of CE, and special projects
and assemble a basic framework for collaboration. By July 1, 2005 they had
increasing Latino population including healthcare, child care, and food safety.
115
Subsequently, experts from across several academic departments and
service units on campus were called together and presented with the list of
papers that had been developed by various faculty and staff at UGA were
issues raised by the community. The net result of the meeting was a shared
let the community drive the engagement agenda through the identification
party facilitator of community dialogue and to offer its own expertise as well
remained responsible for addressing issues with possible solutions and made
decisions about what advice to act on and what not to act on. The
the community and the university. The partnership was established with the
116
communication channels between the region and the university. Each entity
learner. “In Archway we treat the community as knowers, not just subjects
Funding
The immediate funding need for the partnership between UGA and
Moultrie/Colquitt was associated with the creation of a new UGA position, the
UGA‟s public service office, UGA‟s continuing education organization, and the
meeting its obligation through $10,000 contributions each from the city of
Moultrie, Colquitt county, the public K-12 school system, and the community
faculty and staff and the grants subsequently administered by the university.
faculty-driven research.
117
Recommendations and actions pursued by the community were funded
dissertation study, it was noted that the region is served by two U.S.
With the success of this pilot project have come requests and
Although the money came to the Office of Public Service and Outreach, it was
Each pledged their shares to the Archway Partnership Project and deposited
the funds in a single account designed to pay expenses associated with the
initiative.
the citizen leaders were those who had originally met with the university‟s
118
Committee meets once a month and serves as a clearing house for issues to
Once the region and university had decided to enter into a partnership
associated with them which spell out the scope of work and responsibilities of
particular issue.
119
Major Accomplishments
glass with rocks to help the community prioritize their issues. He suggested
that they determine what the “big rock” issues were and put those in the
glass first (address those first). Subsequently, they should select the next
biggest rocks/issues and in so doing, work their way down the list. Two of
the big rock issues that emerged were land use planning and wastewater
capacity development.
agricultural community, many times over a fifteen year period for a land use
brought by work groups to the larger group, a workable land-use plan was
adopted.
data provided by UGA outreach faculty and professional staff, local leaders
120
of local leaders and UGA representatives presented the plan to the state‟s
the director‟s acknowledgement that her confidence in the plan was high
because of the collaborative planning between the region and UGA experts.
Subsequent to approval, a local tax was proposed to finance the plan and
was approved in November 2006 with 88% of the voters supporting it.
To assist community leaders and citizens grapple with the needs of the
poverty.
121
capacity. A Latino Housing Fair was organized by County extension agents in
the city of Moultrie in November 2004. A previous application for funds from
this grant was denied, but after the high profile of the Archway partnership,
opportunities for students have expanded. The university has been able to
units to a slice of the state‟s economic and community needs. The work of
cooperative extension has been integrated into a larger whole in the region
and has received much more attention as a result of being linked to the
Archway program. UGA has been better able to fulfill its land-grant mission
across the state. The university has received requests from leaders in
expansion.
Beginnings
the Master Settlement Agreement from the four largest U.S. tobacco
Virginia, to President Steger was essentially, “What have you done for me
123
The south central part of the state, historically dependent on tobacco
growing and textile manufacturing, had seen the rapid erosion of its
dubbed locally as the Dan River Region. Located approximately 120 miles
from Virginia Tech‟s campus, the Dan River Region is located along the south
and thought that the avenue they should pursue to revitalize the Dan River
substantial sums of money would soon be available to the region from the
Regional Profile
During the middle part of the 20th century, the Dan River Region‟s
primary economic advantages were affordable land and low cost labor.
124
down. These losses had a ripple effect through the local economy, reducing
the goods and services purchased locally by farmers and factory workers.
educational and financial gap between this rural region and its metropolitan
poorly prepared to be employed in, much less invent, jobs that would be
associated with the innovation economy of the 21st century. Social inequities
and health issues plagued the region. Statistics from the U.S. Census
67.9% of the region‟s adults 25 years and older were high school
graduates, as compared with 81.5% of Virginians in 2000
16.2% of Dan River Region residents were below the poverty level
as compared with 9.6% statewide in 1999
Regional Leadership
Tech, the FOTP leveraged its connections to the university, to local private
the Piedmont Foundation included the chief executives of the major local
news media in the Dan River Region, the former mayor, and the president of
Early in their work together, the FOTP traveled to places that had
to present the brutal facts of the situation and make recommendations for
126
widely circulated in the community and provided a starting focal point for
action.
University Leadership
university could best partner with the Dan River Region. The informal group
included the university‟s chief executive officer, vice provost of outreach, vice
outreach, who served as “team captain,” had spent a majority of his career in
technologies both hailed from rural, southern Virginia and had a personal
interest in seeing that region get back on its feet through the engagement of
might be leveraged in the region, both thought that a critical part of the
127
strategy was engaging the people of the region in developing competence
The chief operating officer embraced the notion that Virginia Tech‟s
engagement with the region should include a research component. This idea
had been presented by the local leaders and offered an opportunity to link
the proposed new bioinformatics research center to the Dan River Region.
The government relations officer had his finger on the pulse of the
Later that year, a decision was made to hire two Virginia Tech
worked for Virginia Tech in the past, though were coming into the Southside
roles from a public institution in another state. One was to report to the vice
provost for outreach and the other to the vice president for information
By the latter part of the year 2000, several elements of a plan to move
the region forward had been proposed. Virginia Tech authored a white paper
128
outlining areas of synergy between university expertise and regional need.
region to house Virginia Tech‟s presence and link the university with a local
community college and small private college. In the end, three high priority
learning.
bubble period and in part because Virginia Tech had a high level of expertise
Tech authored grant proposals for the fiber optic infrastructure and faculty
for Advanced Learning and Research. The expectation was that the two
129
administrators would continue to pull university expertise into the region in
ways that were synergistic with the early visioning work. What became
They took the many ideas that had been proposed prior to their arrival
in the region and created a strategic plan with a set of operational tactics
educational pathways that dovetailed with the research and technology foci
center operation.
Funding
partnership between the university and the region that would enable the
creation of a high tech economy. Virginia Tech was very clear from the
outset that it was not prepared to divert funds from campus to the
and highly unlikely to vote for any tax increases to fund the venture.
130
However, it was not without assets and connections to money. There was a
trusts and small foundations, and some in the “old money” families. The
formula devised for the Master Tobacco Settlement funds by the Virginia
sought to formally recognize the umbrella entity for the partnership, the
the state. This designation meant that the partnership, through the IALR,
was eligible to receive funds directly from the state as well as from other
funding sources.
The business leaders who approached Virginia Tech about helping the
region had good relationships with both of Virginia‟s senators and their local
One senator subsequently came into the chairmanship of the Armed Services
Committee; the other had solid connections to his party‟s leadership and
Commission was from the Dan River Region. Danville‟s representative to the
131
Virginia General Assembly was named Secretary of Transportation by
power and money was tapped to advance the activities of the partnership.
From 2001 to 2007, a mix of revenue sources was utilized to fund the
Learning and Research building, and for the $1.2 million fiber optic regional
was raised from private sources in the community to pay for technology and
of regional events.
132
tech economic base, was just the tip of the iceberg. It was clear that the
Subsequently, base funding from the state in the form of a line item
appropriation to the Institute was sought. The case for base state funding
was made on the premise that Virginia was essentially helping a region that
had become over-dependent on the state for public dollars to become, over
time, a net contributor to the state‟s revenue base. Essentially, this was an
argument for redistributive funding based on the idea that public seed
money from the state. The credibility of Virginia Tech as an engine for
funding.
The third leg of the funding stool for the partnership was the financing
Commission grants, with the expectation that the scientists and engineers
133
hired on base state funds would generate sponsored funding at a return rate
equipment was contracted out to private sector and government entities who
Seed funding for on-site faculty and transformation of campus courses for
expectation that the state would follow with sustained funding to supplement
base state funding for a core of outreach programs and supplement that with
services and a percentage cut of food and beverage revenues associated with
Institute-hosted events.
134
The primary responsibility for fundraising was assumed by the IALR
staff, which doubled every year during the first six years of the partnership.
building strong relationships with state and federal policymakers and raising
private funds from the local community. Virginia Tech, for the most part,
major Internet hubs in northern Virginia, the Research Triangle, and Atlanta.
leaders.
majority of the partnering work flows through the Institute for Advanced
135
Learning and Research. For a variety of reasons, Virginia Tech did not want
ongoing fiscal responsibility for the IALR. Instead, the university proposed a
division of the state in the spring of 2002. This legislation called for the
The initial IALR staff included the two-person team hired by Virginia
appointments to Virginia Tech and the IALR, they reported to the IALR board
and to a Virginia Tech vice president or vice provost. Staff members added
work in the IALR‟s research labs were given the option of a Virginia Tech or
136
After the first couple of years of engagement work, it became apparent
that the IALR would need to serve and be supported by a broader regional
coalition. Ultimately, it was determined that the IALR‟s official service area
would consist of a six-county region nestled along the North Carolina border
between the Blue Ridge mountains and Interstate 85. To reflect the interests
Because of the links to local governments, IALR staff also worked actively to
with K-12 school systems, higher education entities, selected businesses, and
Major Accomplishments
and staff of more than 70 IALR and Virginia Tech employees. Over $80
137
million of funds from diverse sources had been committed to the IALR
between fiscal year 2001 and 2008. The IALR had been recognized with
the IALR from around the world. In addition, new investments in research
and engineers. The IALR‟s commercial testing and technical services had
competitive edge or new market niche. They also had brought to the region
entities with a national presence, such as Dodge Motorsports and the U.S.
138
opportunities, particularly in the science content and technology integration
children in the region had participated in summer science camps, science and
technology field trips, math tutorials, and college internship programs that
139
The Findings
Findings from the Stage Two data were organized into three tiers.
These tiers build on each other, such that the first is a precondition for the
second, which is a precondition for the third. I have labeled these tiers
engagement.”
The first tier, potential for engagement, recognizes that certain “raw
set the stage for a potential partnership. These raw materials are needs and
assets, which provide the initial motivation and resources for a university or
a region to come to the partnering table. Each partner must have both the
partnership.
Once a university and a region determine that they have needs which can be
be spark that lights a fire between the two. This spark is a combination of
in the institutions are able to “connect the dots” between their own needs
and assets as well as the other entity‟s needs and assets, and take critical
steps to initiate partnership discussions. Key leaders, alone, are not enough
actors from the university and the region, respectively, must embrace the
140
opportunity. This willingness of a much larger set of people to engage in
enables partnerships to take root and blossom. The secret sauce is the
policy framework that the partners establish for setting goals, resourcing the
the satisfaction of the partners and the greater the chance that the
contribute to and benefit from interaction with the other. According to Vidal
et al. (2002),
141
So, potential partners each come to the partnering table with a set of needs
they hope can be addressed through the relationship and a set of assets that
they can offer to the partnership. The more clearly both partners understand
from the partnership, the better chance the partnership has of success.
In the following section, the assets and needs of the partners in the
– Southside relationship are presented. What did the regions need? What
enticements could the regions offer to engage the universities? How could
the universities meet their own needs by partnering with the regions? What
Table 3.
University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt - Needs and Assets
142
Moultrie/Colquitt Regional Needs
challenges associated with the need to plan for substantial growth, resulting
Issues that had lurked just below the surface in recent years now would have
development. Some thought had been given to the mix of economic drivers
diversify the economic base. One community leader said, “You don‟t want to
have all your eggs in one basket, if you will. So, there‟s a recognition that
some diversity (is needed), and I think the community is wrestling somewhat
143
Other needs of the region that were posed to the partnership were
bank. The local governments had a solid track record of securing state and
144
county had contributed building space and some operating funding for the
Local leaders not only have relationships with these elected federal
145
service-learning. People in Moultrie have been thrilled to host UGA student
class projects and believe they are providing valuable learning opportunities
valuable, and I think beneficial, to the university as well because they believe
through their educational process are not necessarily whole. They‟ve got to
many of the students call home, since a majority is from the Atlanta – Athens
corridor area. Southwest Georgia is located in the same state as those more
ivory tower” in the eyes of locals. One leader pointed out that UGA business
students developing a sustainable business plan for the arts center had an
organizations and speculated that many of the students would, at some point
together, and solid core institutions provided confidence and incentive for a
146
There are opportunities that these communities of the Archway
Projects have that they (faculty) don‟t have access to. They
(communities) can bring in more money and can give them (faculty)
new ideas, and they (communities) can introduce them (faculty) to
people who can be deal makers for things they (faculty) want to do.
state was a widespread concern about the declining level of state support
coming to the university from the legislature. Part of the equation was the
saw the public value of the university, so were not as inclined to fund it as
robustly as in the past. The declining sense of public good being served by
UGA in the view of state policymakers is not unlike the views of many state
across the state, leadership in the Public Service and Cooperative Extension
public needs. Out of these separate efforts was borne the concept for the
expressed,
I think it‟s good for the whole university, if nothing more than building
political constituencies. People vote for football here. They vote if they
like (your team). They‟ll vote for increasing your budget when their
niece gets in the University of Georgia. They‟ll vote against your
budget when their niece doesn‟t get into the University of Georgia.
But this gives them another reason to be a supporter of the University
of Georgia and to follow up either directly through the legislative
process or private giving and donations.
So, the thinking was that Public Service and Cooperative Extension, through
public relations with state stakeholders, which in turn might lead to increased
Beyond that interest, Public Service and Extension also saw the
support that we have enjoyed for this aspect of our land-grant mission is
eroding. And support at the federal level for cooperative extension has, in
real terms, been declining for many, many years.” In UGA‟s Extension there
was concern about declining knowledge of, and appreciation for, Extension in
part because of the narrowness of its reach within the university. According
to a UGA administrator, “We started talking about how Extension could get
better visibility across the state if we served as the front door to the entire
148
university system, not just to the colleges that were involved in Cooperative
Extension.”
problem-solving:
The city, county, local group would say, “We have this issue, this
problem. Can you come help us?” We would go, we would design
something that would meet their needs…and then pretty much leave
and move onto the next place. What we felt was, there‟s got to be a
way to continue to work through implementation directly with the local
community, local government, whatever.
other thing I think a lot of folks are very much interested in is service
learning and opportunities for professors and students to be part of this work
service function, which serves as that college‟s interface for both service
generating its own revenue stream through grants and contracts. So there
149
students to developing revenue-bearing relationships with external
Beyond the basic community relationships that Extension had to offer was
UGA was able to draw upon a number of its public service units in
These units included entities affiliated with the Office of Public Service and
Outreach, such as the Carl Vinson Institute of Government and the Fanning
units associated with academic colleges, such as the Center for Community
150
Design and Preservation, Engineering Outreach Services, and the Housing
Demographics Research Center were tapped. Beyond these units, UGA drew
upon its connections with other entities, including expertise from Georgia
Another asset which UGA was able to offer in the partnership with
community design student project said, “I think that our dish for the banquet
feasible options for the center to pay for itself. The faculty member advising
That program has become kind of an opportunity for the Terry College
to really contribute in a lot of ways and also quite frankly be proud of
some of the accomplishments of its best students. I think most people
who interact with students in the program come away impressed with
them. But we also try to communicate to them that, one thing we say
in the program quite frequently is, „To whom much is given, much is
demanded.‟ So, this is a part of it.
151
Table 4.
Virginia Tech and Southside - Needs and Assets
VT Needs VT Assets
base. The job base in textiles and tobacco was rapidly eroding and
community leaders believed that attracting high tech companies was critical
to the region‟s future. A failed bid to land a large America On-Line (AOL)
specific needs identified through the experience with AOL, leaders of the
with the brand of a major university was clearly seen as a need. As one
name university, a franchise that people would recognize that would have
with universities:
153
Tech. Southside had a solid base of private wealth in the community,
managed by officers at the local bank, whose president and board members
Virginia Tech. Through past experiences with fundraising for various civic
leaders had a solid understanding of where the money in the community was
located.
stronger position with regard to the ability to raise funds in conjunction with
prospective partnering activities. Community leaders did not just have social
relationships with federal and state legislators, but had been actively
anything in return. With Senator John Warner chairing the Armed Services
Within the state, the community‟s leadership group again found itself
154
because of local leaders‟ backing of Warner, a Democrat, in a Southside
source of significant new money for the region, was led by a senior Virginia
of the Board. Another was named to lead the oversight board for the Virginia
was chaired by a Future of the Piedmont member. These and many other
A final group of assets set the stage for Virginia Tech‟s interest in
were assets of the region that offered unique research opportunities and
I think the university and the locality need to jointly identify local
regional assets that make projects make sense. We have done that
here in mechanical engineering, taking primary advantage of the local
presence of a local road track, raceway, which gives us very unique
competitive advantages. We have taken advantage of the agricultural
base and the land availability and the fairly well-developed agricultural
economy to feed and provide places for outcomes from horticultural
research to go, and we had in place a fairly significant polymer
155
industry so our research efforts are tied to local assets. I think it
would be very difficult to do something like this and develop a
research effort that doesn‟t show prima fascia fit with the locality.
driving ambition in the current decade has been to increase the university‟s
choose to locate, and where resources may flow” (p. 38). The beginnings of
university had in securing start-up funds for a new strategic research center.
available directly to Virginia Tech, the university saw partnering with the
region as an avenue to those funds. So, prestige, money, and political favor
research was limited in part by the number of faculty writing grants and
156
lines. Perhaps most importantly, sources of funding for research needed to
be expanded.
campus. There was interest and pressure to attract more students of color.
to Blacksburg.”
mostly senior Virginia Tech faculty, including some department chairs, who
graduate student capacity (“I got a basic marching order from my dean at
did not have access to.”), increasing research space and accessing highly
157
assets down in Southside that we simply didn‟t have and they had a lot of
synergy with the kind of research that we were already doing on campus.”),
are not always aimed at what I‟ll call the practical side…and this was a
opportunities…around the state and this opportunity in particular with you all
scholarship opportunities (“(A colleague and) I had done some scholarly work
grant responsibilities associated with meeting state needs (“It seemed like
the right thing to do for our land-grant university…We felt like that‟s a part of
our state that really could use and needed our assistance so how can we
department which was inward looking and had a lot of conflicts. So this was
with the kind of appointments they accepted. One view expressed was an
interest in being involved in cutting edge science that would have practical
applications:
158
I knew I didn‟t want to be a straight academic…I knew I wanted to do
some interesting science, but I wanted to be able to take that science
and apply it for something (practical) and use the research, rather
than just publish papers.
Another view expressed was a concern that tenure track expectations would
Virginia Tech has offered a wide range of assets to its partnership with
to the public service aspect of the land grant mission and because it was an
159
Mine was…a little bit naïve and also out-of-date perspective…I
remember the days when I was a student here…when they really
treasured and valued the fact that Virginia Tech was really connected
to all parts of the state. They saw that as really powerful. They
referred to it as an army in terms of the political strength of that
engagement across the state.
was that the faculty could and would bring an enormous shot of intellectual
160
Virginia Tech–led research centers in Southside. Students in companion
Southside. These activities had the dual effect of bringing intellectual capital
Facilitating Engagement
understanding of their assets and needs, they need catalytic ingredients that
will not be led by the faint of heart” (p. 11). The catalytic ingredients in the
161
partnerships studied are linked to the personalities and culture of the
individuals and institutions within the region and at the university. On each
side of the partnership there are individuals who initiate the relationship and
sustained by cultures in the region and university that support and embrace
role of leadership in the region, the role of leadership at the university, the
for the current and subsequent generation (p. 10). By this definition,
162
Table 5.
University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt – Partnership Facilitators
private leaders, and non-profit leaders. Several were natives of the region;
community above self. In the words of one community leader, “One thing
that separates (Moultrie) from many other communities is that the people
who are in (positions of) responsibility and who are in authority put Moultrie
before they put their own personal interest.” Beyond the visible, formally
recognized leaders, Moultrie has successful business people who “are very
163
community-oriented, very politically-connected, very interested in Moultrie,
There was also a sense that having committed, capable leaders was
The thing you‟ve got to find are those key players and it may not be
today. They may have to be groomed. This may have to be a five-
year plan that if they are interested in doing it, there‟re some steps
you‟ve got to go through before you can bring everybody to the table.
That, I think in large part, is a local determination.
Moultrie/Colquitt as the pilot site: “We sensed they had good leadership,
which we felt was another important element and that‟s very, very true.”
homogeneity of the core leadership group, which was white, male. As one
One of the things that the students said – this was a study
observation, and I‟ll confirm that – is that we were exposed to a very
white, male audience in Colquitt. And what I explained to them is that
that is the leadership framework that…this is the beginning of the
partnership and in rural Georgia you‟re more likely to see white male
leadership structures.
the need to have strong public and private institutional leadership throughout
164
the community supporting a community development agenda, in addition to
decision to engage with the University of Georgia? How did those dynamics
the outset of the Archway concept was to have the partnership be guided by
the needs and interests expressed by the community. This meant that the
the day, this participation meant a willingness to invest a lot of time and
165
energy in the partnership as well as to accept responsibility for the
outcomes. From the university‟s perspective, this approach would serve the
community well in the long run: “It is community-driven and that‟s what
You asked what does the community bring, and I think the main thing
they bring is a willingness to openly examine themselves and identify
issues, and then be active participants in the solution…We feel like we
want communities that want us to be there and have the vision to see
what the university can bring to the table, but I think the community
needs to be a willing participant. If they are not, then we‟re not going
to accomplish much.
According to one community leader, “Archway came very clearly stating that,
„We have resources, we have interest, we want to help you. But you‟ve got
to define your own destiny.‟” Those who were skeptical at first, or even put
off, about having outsiders come in and offer expertise and solutions came to
166
suggestions to accept and which to throw away. As described by one
community member,
What we found is those who are coming are not trying to tell us how to
do our business. They are trying to help us understand what our
business is and try to facilitate ways to find solutions to those things.
involving the citizens was part of the community‟s standard practice when
whether we are talking about special projects, we always try to involve the
public. The public doesn‟t always accept an invitation, but they‟re always
obtaining community buy-in: “We try to do things with small groups of the
public to start validating what we‟re doing and trying to make that buy-in
more than just words. And that just grows as the process continues.”
work to proactively connect with all the neighborhoods of Moultrie “to try to
make sure that connection wasn‟t just casual or academic,” the deliberate
“who was very, very interested in building from the grassroots up as opposed
167
to top-down,” the diversity of the city council, the proactive work through the
that their issues had visibility to the expertise of the university: “The city
and the county and hospital and schools…came up to match the funds. So
there was more than just casual commitment, there was financial
circle, because they became human and their issues became real to faculty
back on the University of Georgia campus in Athens. The needs and the case
for applying university expertise became very compelling. The UGA faculty
Moultrie said,
168
In the eyes of the people of Moultrie/Colquitt, the success of the
desire to engage with the university. Without the right mix of people on both
In terms of Moultrie,…the timing was right and the chemistry was right
and it happened, but there‟re some things that‟ve got to be in place
before it‟s a done deal…You‟ve got to want it and they are there to
help you if you do want to do it…You gotta have to want to. That‟s the
bottom line. You‟ve gotta want to.
too there were key leaders at the University of Georgia who provided the
impetus and fuel for the partnership. As documented earlier in this chapter,
these key leaders at UGA emanated from the Public Service and Outreach
office and from the Cooperative Extension organization. Leaders in the two
organizations saw the need for a way to more effectively interface with
What did these university leaders do behind the scenes to facilitate the
let the engagement be driven more from the ground up than from the top
169
down. So they did not go to the president or the deans and solicit their
approval. As one recounted, “Did we start by going to the deans and saying,
„We‟ve got this neat program and you really need to get your faculty
through contacts they had within and outside the university to identify
gauge interest among these individuals for engaging that expertise with
Moultrie/Colquitt:
We try really hard to find – we have a need from the community and
we try to find somebody who has a common interest and if those
match up, then life is generally easier. So, it‟s a pull, rather than a
push.
faculty and staff with expertise in various areas related to the issues surfaced
Moultrie “to see first-hand” and “develop some of that desire to help, like we
entice faculty and students to seriously consider engaging with the region.
One strategy they employed was to “grease the wheels” by paying for faculty
170
Someone said early in the process, „You‟ll never get them (faculty) to
do that because they want you to serve it to them on a silver platter.‟
I heard that and I said, „You know, that‟s what we‟re about. Serving it
up on a silver platter.‟ And so that‟s what I told the provost when we
took him down to Moultrie. I said, „If we make it easy for faculty to be
involved, more will be involved.‟
and Outreach, kept the university vice presidents informed on the status of
the project, and through that interface were invited as a team to give a
was the decision to designate someone as the official point person from the
university in the community, and the ability to find someone who was
“(Dennis) became part of that community. They felt like he was one of
171
Engagement As Defined by the University of Georgia
Roots (1999) call for state and land-grant universities to engage with the
The university determined the best way to re-define their land grant
full university. They learned in the first meeting how powerful that concept
was to a community:
I‟ll tell you what sold (the region) though, and this is really powerful. I
told Dr. Dunning this after the first meeting. What really lit up the
eyes was when we sat down and said, „What we‟re going to do is we‟re
going to - you know Extension, and you know some of the public
service units – do is we‟re going to come together…to give you access
to all the rest of the university (beyond the two colleges you‟re
currently accessing through Extension)‟. The eyes lit up and people
could develop a vision of what could happen and that really helped get
it going.
The point of the Archway model was to provide a simple, single point
of interface from the community into the university, and to provide faculty
172
and students an easy avenue for interface externally. As described by a UGA
It‟s really a very simple model. We want to make it easy for the
community to figure out what their needs are and access higher ed,
and we want to make it easy for faculty and students, especially those
that don‟t have an Extension or Outreach-type appointment, to
become engaged in those communities.
universities are familiar with their institutions‟ historic ties to a public service
communities in a way that they haven‟t been pulled together before and gets
make sense to address the community‟s issues, whether or not those all
173
We don‟t make any claim that we can solve all problems. We do make
the claim that we are going to put a resource in place to facilitate the
discussion and to bring resources. But it‟s not just University of
Georgia resources and not even just higher ed.
“So, this can get us to a place where we can have disciplines partner in a
Moultrie community has helped faculty shape their work in a more relevant
way: “Our solutions tend to be fairly academic and so sometimes they work
and sometimes they don‟t. By combining these two groups (faculty and
doable and what‟s not.” There is also a sense that all community
faculty member, is providing the community with information they need, not
just information they want. It means entering into dialogue with the
community about solutions and rationales for those solutions, rather than
autocratically telling the community they need to take a certain path to solve
174
a problem. As described by one faculty member involved in
Moultrie/Colquitt,
In my piece of the pie…we had to make some pretty tough calls and
tell them some pretty not-anticipated recommendations….I think
having a forum for discussion rather than just the big university
coming in and telling them, this was much more of a dialogue
situation. It was one that if we had told them something that they
could not live with at all, we would have had a chance to discuss that
at length. But we told them a lot of things they had questions about
and by the end, with explanation, they saw the benefit of our
recommendation.
itself out there - going out on a limb to say to a community that the
university will be open to helping with whatever issues the community puts
on the table:
concept is defining the “end game” and the appropriate role of the university
in a region over time. The focus of the university‟s work has been very
175
neutrality? Should the university limit its engagement to a pre-determined
region at the end of that timeframe? All of this is weighed against the
used” by universities to obtain grants that benefit the researcher much more
than the community. When the grants were over, the community never saw
The payoffs to the university from the Archway model extend beyond
found that it was drawn into the center of critical issues, in ways that had not
them right here. That‟s a change.” Far beyond Extension, evidence of a big
political payoff to the university was cited by one UGA administrator who told
a story about Moultrie/Colquitt hosting one of the top UGA leaders. Toward
the end of the visit, the university leader, in a conversation with local
leaders, indicated that he‟d like to share some of the story of the partnership
with the governor. One of the community partners responded by saying that
he‟d be with the governor in the next week and would be happy to take care
of that for the university leader. From the university‟s perspective, having a
prominent regional leader across the state from the university comment to
176
the governor about how much value the university was bringing to the region
was invaluable.
Table 6.
Virginia Tech and Southside – Partnership Facilitators
Advocate Risk-Taking
177
The Role of Regional Leadership in Southside
beyond the bachelor‟s level. Most were the presidents or leaders of their
respective businesses. By the year 2000, they were discouraged by the lack
several studies that had been shared with the community. Rather than
term constituent expectations, these leaders decided that they would work as
a very small core group to begin to move the region in a new direction.
178
late 1990s, seemed to have more potential for the kind of holistic partnership
that the university later entered into with Southside. He indicated that the
other community had a larger resource base and a group of people who
“but the leadership never really emerged there locally to partner with the
and simply was leadership from the community.” Another Virginia Tech
administrator said,
The critical factor is, you know, Virginia Tech can make itself available,
but the critical factor in terms of whether or not this is going to play I
think is…whether or not they‟ve got a critical mass of several really
strong, committed leaders that are just going to do everything in their
power to make this thing successful. And I think that‟s what we‟ve
had in Southside.
Piedmont group was the sense that they should constrain membership to
private sector leaders only. The rationale for this was a concern about public
member, “I think it goes a lot easier because (if) the private sector does it
then you avoid a lot of the impediments to slow movement, and we have
been very careful to stay non-political.” Another said, “I think one of the
shortcomings of having the public drive it rather than the private is that it
took staying power even in the face of difficult times… Public officials – they
have got to play the political game.” And a third added, “They lack staying
179
power. They‟re short-term, relatively speaking...They‟re elected for finite
periods of time.”
the Virginia Tech partnership, the City of Danville and Pittsylvania County,
was the bitter history between the city and county. In Virginia, cities and
did in this region – to annexation battles with winners and losers. The Future
of the Piedmont knew that it would take support and resources from both the
city and county to change the economic tide, so believed that it would be
best to serve in the role of regional brokers, to bring the government leaders
together: “The fact that we have had the private sector commitment here, I
think, has tended to bring along the public sector. The public sector,
particularly those who are elected, recognize that they are elected by the
private sector.”
both sides to anticipate and solve problems. The role of regional stewards in
regional leaders: “I don‟t think the partnership will sustain itself without
(regional leaders). I think that just like you need the regional leadership to
get started, they have got to be there providing the sustained support and
staying power.”
180
Part of the responsibility of the regional leaders, as they articulated,
was to keep both the local governments focused on the partnership as well
as the university. Southside regional leaders saw part of their role as holding
whatever was necessary to keep the partnership on track: “I think (the role
when necessary.”
began to think about partnering with a major university in the 1990‟s, after
from the Master Tobacco Settlement materialized in the year 2000. With this
181
Astutely, the regional FOTP leaders organized themselves and
various grant funds. They also commissioned a study and strategic action
plan for the Danville/Pittsylvania county region, to spell out the challenges
the region faced and to recommend a set of actions to set the region on a
more positive economic course. Such a strategic action plan dovetails with
Goddard‟s (2007) report that some regions have been successful in coming
from the region, Virginia Tech was invited into the planning conversations.
What was clear by 2001 was that the regional leaders wanted two things
leadership role in crafting a “game plan” to move the region to a higher tech
economic base.
The details of how the university would propose to assist the region in
felt that securing the agreement of Virginia Tech to partner was the major
182
victory; what would happen beyond that was something that needed to be
We really didn‟t have a choice. What Tech was bringing I was not
sure, but I knew we needed them. So my thought process was to let
it work its course and see where it goes…I just felt, and I think (City)
Council did, too, that it would work. We were really going on blind
faith.
Virginia Tech had a few conditions for partnering with the region. One
was that the leadership needed to commit to pulling the community together.
deliver commitment both from the public sector and the private sector at the
local level, and we were successful in accomplishing that goal.” Second, the
work of the partnership needed to be carried on new money that the region
would take primary responsibility for securing. Again, the region delivered:
essentially financed the operation of the Institute with funds derived locally.”
population about the partnership with Virginia Tech, the Future of the
Piedmont leaders who had been frustrated time and time again at the lack of
action on a change agenda finally had wind in their sails. They had enlisted a
183
major partner with a lot of cachet regionally and statewide. Money was
Virginia Tech. The train had left the station at last and passion was running
became believers that the region really could turn the corner. A sense of
engagement was beginning feed on itself. Local leaders who had stuck their
necks out and put their reputations on the line by voting to funnel millions of
tobacco dollars to the partnership were proud to be associated with the effort
Well, when this got started and the wave started coming with this, (a
prominent citizen) got re-energized again, and I think a lot of people
have taken that same route. They‟ve been re-energized and they‟ve
started now to believe that we will benefit from this and we will be
unique. We started something that a lot of other communities could
look at as a model and pull things that would fit their time and locality
from what we‟ve done here. That‟s your pride.
future and they knew they didn‟t have the expertise and answers to set their
ship on the right course. So, they decided to take a leap of faith and hope
that the relationship with Virginia Tech would produce changes that would
benefit their region over the long haul. They learned that it wasn‟t always
smooth sailing, but began to believe that their ship was on a better course.
184
Look, I‟m going to tell you…it had its bumps in it, curves, and its
difficult situations. But without (Virginia Tech) this would have been a
difficult thing to pull off. We needed that – we needed those eyes and
those thoughts from the outside coming in that kept telling us, „Stay
with it. It‟ll work. Have faith in it.‟ And we did.
community and can articulate the benefits to critical internal faculty and
significantly by the passion and vision of a small leadership team from the
outreach: “We‟ve all come to know that universities are kind of profound
economic drivers, but the question is, „Does that have to be concentrated in
one spot as has been the tendency, at least at Virginia Tech?‟” They were
interested in how the university might bring a much broader set of assets
According to Virginia Tech‟s vice provost for outreach at the time the
185
I think Erv and I were particularly interested in trying to help the
university perhaps reframe what it thought it could be in locations
external to the campus…I was more than lightly anxious to try to see if
we couldn‟t bring broader elements of the university into that linkage
out in the state.
Part of their agenda was not only to understand how the university
could have a more significant impact on a region, but also how, by engaging
more robustly, the university might change and benefit as a result of the
partnership.
made to drive the university‟s interface to the region from within the region,
not from campus. The approach agreed to by the community leaders and
Virginia Tech was to place two university people on the ground in Danville, to
implement the vision for the partnership. The people who were recruited into
the roles in Danville in 2001 were familiar with the Kellogg Commission‟s
1999 report on the future of the land grant university, Returning to Our
opportunity for the university to put into practice the “engagement” concept.
The regional leaders indicated that what they thought was needed in the
early days from Virginia Tech‟s local interface was “vision” and “flexibility”
and that they had benefited from these qualities in their first pair of leaders.
186
“We were very fortunate to have a pair that came in that, in fact,
member of the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors, was the support of the
president of the university. The breadth and depth of the partnership with
Southside was far beyond any that the university had previously
pushed on many structures, policies, and processes that could not have been
187
meant to be a land-grant university in the context of 21st century challenges
and pressures:
From the perspective of those involved in the early stages of the partnership,
One defining criteria for the partnership was the holistic scope,
efforts that involve many people across the institution and are supported as
university‟s partnership with Southside: “It‟s not just education, it‟s not just
188
research, it‟s not just outreach. It truly is integrated and it attacks both the
far beyond the traditional Extension model. In the re-telling of a story about
Tech administrator relayed the president‟s response that the university had a
that they needed “some other level of engagement.” What was required,
region.”
The harsh reality of the situation was that the Southside region was
the region would get worse before it had a chance to get better. Engagement
in this context forced the university into a different approach than they had
context, the risks were greater, but rewards are greater.” Accepting
for addressing not only a host of issues but also designing a strategy to move
189
“distributed research” activity engaged the expertise of NASA, Research
upon far more than narrow research expertise; instead it involved them in a
pioneering spirit in all of us.” Virginia Tech brought a huge dose of expertise
administrator said, “I think that the University has brought expertise, the
in people, that the biggest problem was that the people down there needed
the in-migration of research faculty and graduate students to the region, the
core of the focus was on developing the people of the region. As one faculty
member said, “In the long run the real measure is will we make the lives of
190
the people of Southside better? Are we really going to be a positive force in
making their lives better?” Another Virginia Tech faculty member said,
people.”
philosophy was centered on the belief that they should leverage their
There are these emerging new technologies and technologies that are
viewed as potentially disruptive… and part of the university‟s role and
IT organization‟s role can be to figure out how to get regions and
communities into the game just a little bit ahead of someone else in
the same way that we got Blacksburg into the network world a little bit
ahead of some other communities.
would need to revisit many assumptions about its policies, processes, and
positive.” Others, particularly faculty members, point out that there is still
much work to do to align the campus in ways that are more synergistic with
activities.
developing people, and the relatively long timetable associated with creating
The local citizens and politicians feel the daily pressure of a failing
economy and want quick fixes and tangible activities. But quick fixes and
new buildings are not going to build the most critical assets needed for long-
You can show the building but it‟s very difficult to get the body politic
around the idea that the really important and long-term payback is
192
investment in programs. It‟s investment in people, and you know, you
don‟t necessarily have something to show from that two years later.
Southside that has focused on putting the building blocks in place for building
established the base for long-term very positive activity down there, and I
Structuring Engagement
In particular, the partners need to determine how they will set goals, how
they will secure the needed human and financial resources, how they will
consideration from the university was that the partnership be open to goal
According to one UGA administrator, “The only way to really position yourself
194
Another important consideration from the university‟s perspective was
the university as teacher and the region as learner. The region agreed to
administrator,
They (the community) were not just the recipient of knowledge, but
they were the teachers…We made it clear (that), „When we bring
students down they are not down here just so you get the benefit of
the faculty expertise and the benefit of the students‟ efforts. But they
are there to meet you and to learn from your wisdom and experience.
All of you are accomplished people. You know this community, you
know these issues. We want you to see yourself as a teacher.‟
associated with some of the most sought-after federal grants, that research
consideration mentioned by the university was the need to go into the goal-
setting process with an openness and flexibility that would allow the
understood.
195
interested in a UGA-facilitated community dialogue to bring people together
who ordinarily might not talk with each other about important community
issues. They were also interested in engaging the expertise of the broader
I think it was the community‟s hope that adding them (UGA) to the
team might do a couple of things. It might stimulate discussion that
might not as readily take place among local units of influence and the
other was just to bring resources of the university to the community.
regional leaders were asked to talk about the major challenges they were
members, public service units, and service-learning projects that would lend
ensuring that there was a way to meet needs of faculty being asked to
196
new issues arose or new priorities were developed. According to a UGA
administrator,
Table 8.
Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Goal-Setting
197
Goal-Setting in the Virginia Tech – Southside Partnership
the needs, the ideal solutions, and the practical possibilities. At the outset,
determined that they wanted to put a priority on three activities that would
leader indicated,
Community leaders did not want to run the risk of slowing down the
if they‟d been down that road before and had come up empty-handed. After
were convinced that neither the public at large nor the local government
leaders would know how to think adequately about how to leverage the
One leader said, “We need to deliver a message, but we certainly don‟t need
to let them ever set our agenda.” Another added, “I think we run the risk of
198
shooting too low with input from constituencies who are not innately
visionary.”
and iconic building – that the region was prepared to seek funding to
construct. At “the end of the day,” which was preferably sooner rather than
risk-taking, with the belief that that was the shortest path to high rewards.
As one regional leader said, “A lot of this was built on a game plan that, at
any given point, could have fallen apart totally. But it was a nervy game
plan.”
Regional leaders also understood that the only way they could secure
benefit in the partnership for the university. Two of the regional leaders
You‟ve got to find out why it‟s in the university‟s interest to be in the
partnership other than just asking them to be in it and them saying
yes. It‟s got to be a tangible value. Because otherwise, when you get
to all of the difficulties, it‟s not going to be a strong enough
relationship to make it work.
From the university side of the partnership, the original focus was to
generate a reasonable starting set of ideas, write some grant proposals for
for a handful of years to implement the starting set of ideas, then depart with
199
the expectation that the community would keep the momentum moving
engage citizens of the region in taking charge of their own destiny through
the region.
capital” had arrived and assessed the situation, the determination was made
from a short-term regional relationship with Virginia Tech. The only hope –
and it was a long shot at that – for dramatic economic change would be
dependent on replicating the parts of the university that were most likely to
200
As this phase of goal-setting materialized, it became critically
Virginia Tech faculty. The prospect of new money for sponsored research
that the university and the locality need to jointly identify local regional
researchers:
Pick out some significant areas that you are going to emphasize and
go for them because you are going to be better off perhaps having
three or four people in one area than having three or four people in
four different areas – in terms of their just being satisfied and having
the kind of an intellectual atmosphere that you want to create at a
remote location like the Institute.
Virginia Tech faculty members also felt it was important to consider how the
201
In a third phase of goal-setting, it became apparent that significant
research would not help the region turn its economy around. Applied
businesses, attract high tech operations from other places into the region,
seven years of partnering under their belts, those at the core of the
partnership offered lessons learned about goal setting and what they would
do differently another time. Virginia Tech offered that the broader population
should be included by “engag(ing) very actively the various voices within the
community beyond just the political voices.” They also advised that the
roles of all partners at the outset, particularly the other academic partners.
which were not among the original nominal partners became excited about
202
the opportunities to contribute their assets and expertise and benefit from
the partnership. It was not always clear to all parties at Virginia Tech or in
the Southside region what the appropriate partnering expectations should be.
region and do what universities do, which is not economic development per
presence through the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research would in
I think that (the goals) have been poorly defined in this partnership.
The expectations of the region, the community, I may be overstating
it, but essentially in a very short period of time want to go from having
one of the worst economies in the United States to having one of the
best economies in the United States. That may not be a realistic
expectation.
Table 9.
University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt Partnership Resourcing
203
Resourcing the University of Georgia – Moultrie/Colquitt Partnership
decision was made to create a new position with new resources to serve as
the point of interface between the community and the university. According
to an Extension administrator,
I think the number one concern our agents raised was that they were
already fully employed. They didn‟t need another job. They didn‟t
have time to take on additional responsibilities. I think if you look
back at those early documents one of the points that was made was if
we do this, it‟ll have to be with new resources – that we will not
piggyback on our existing resources and put additional responsibilities
on agents who are already overloaded.
decided that it would be important for the partnering region to have some
“skin in the game” so decided upon a funding model that would split
responsibility for base program expenses between the university and region.
“We didn‟t ask for a lot of money, but the fact they put something in…makes
them feel like they have some ownership of the project.” UGA decided, for
and the region with each of the three contributing $40,000. The region
system, the city, the county, and the hospital. “They are all putting in
204
The base program funding pays the Archway professional‟s salary,
buys out time of a key campus academic partner, and covers travel expenses
support for the Archway professional are provided through the Moultrie
Extension office. The concept of the funding model is to have the partnership
leverage the base funds by seeking other sources of money for projects
issues, funding from other sources was identified to address particular needs
partner(s) most invested in the project typically came up with the money
needed. Grants were pursued and secured by regional entities for several of
On each side of the partnership, grant funds were obtained that could
not have been secured by one party without the collaboration the partnership
205
funding increased as a result of their in-depth knowledge of the community
gives you a tremendous advantage in grant writing because you can explain
the project in such detail with such clarity it really increases your odds.” The
close partnership of the university with the region has also stimulated other
Probably the most interesting thing and probably the most wonderful
day of my (time in the partnership) was the day I had a call from a
college wanting to do a project in our community…they‟ll call and say,
„You know so many people in these communities. Do you have a good
place for me to do X?‟
The plan from the outset with the Moultire/Colquitt pilot Archway
program was to fund it for two years, then assess the viability of the model
and resourcing needs going forward. As the two-year period began to draw
parts of the state resulting in requests from other communities in Georgia for
Georgia System Chancellor. “The chancellor liked it and funded the project
for half a million dollars.” This money has been split between the PSO and
decision was made to continue funding that Archway program and to begin to
206
look at expanding its footprint to serve the broader region. Other localities in
funds to support the added demand on the local Archway resource. The
team from PSO and Extension responsible for overseeing the Archway
regions, UGA also plans to fund a specialist in each region focused on the
issue area deemed the highest priority by the region. For example, a second
Archway region has indicated that its rural community hospital is severely
stressed due to the health demographics in that region, and it is vital to the
professional for two years to work with the community on social health
issues. This professional will be tied to the College of Public Health on the
Athens campus. Archway does not want to “own” the specialists that will be
be responsible for them, including making decisions about how and if to fund
207
Table 10.
Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Resourcing
Competitive Grants
over time, so too did the resource concept. The early community interest
million for construction of an iconic building and $2 million for a regional fiber
208
that would build community capacity, so university administrators focused on
recurring annual operating dollars for the Institute building and staff and
developing a program concept that would maximize the building features and
relations. Each year for the first 6 years, the staffing level doubled. To
space.
the state budget. By the 2007-08 academic year, the annual appropriation
was $6.3 million directly to the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research
(IALR). The argument presented to the state was that these dollars
represented a very modest investment that would allow the Southside region
to regain its economic footing and become a net contributor to the state
209
and equipment were funded by Tobacco Commission and federal grants.
support services were funded largely through grants from the federal
It had become clear that the greatest hope for the region to migrate
has been its reputation and its positioning as a major research university in
the nation, that has enabled this venture to get funding.” An administrator
associated with the project cautioned that Virginia Tech would only be
funding at “a level that the campus feels like they can deliver the programs
program activities and resource needs because they held the greatest
promise for developing new economic capacity. The ability of Virginia Tech
was the base state funding for faculty. According to a Virginia Tech
210
administrator, “There‟s got to be base funding. I don‟t think these situations
The state was willing to fund the engineering and science research
program activity with the understanding that the researchers would match
the base funding on somewhere between a 1:1 and a 5:1 return on those
dollars. One challenge faced by the scientists was the basic research nature
of large federal grants, the products of which were not likely to offer much
The opportunity for applied research grants was much smaller and seldom
additional justification for base state dollars. One research lab director in
has someone working on their projects in the lab while (the PI‟s) are doing
grant proposals.”
The program concept and associated resource model for the IALR in
Southside grew over time to be much greater in breadth and depth than the
Tech administrator,
As the faculty committed more, the funders were that much more
enthusiastic about the model and its potential to benefit not only the
Southside region, but also the state by attracting more research investments.
Table 11.
University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt Partnership
Accountability
212
Accountability in the University of Georgia – Moultrie/Colquitt Partnership
university‟s perspective, the state‟s perspective, and the ripple effect. Since
articulate the value they see and documenting that is how we‟ve (quantified
biggest issues, land use and wastewater capacity expansion, progress was
quite tangible. Land use decisions that had been avoided for years were
made. Local citizens voted to approve a $30 million special sales tax to fund
provided to the community and the extent to which the reports “provide a
road map that the community can follow” to achieve their project goals.
Typically, the entity for whom the project was intended was the group to
were the source of some of the project reports back to the community, the
faculty member supervising one student project relayed his conversation with
community members:
213
„These are very talented young people, very bright, very motivated,
but they are twenty-two years old, okay? So they don‟t have the life
experience that you guys have who have been involved with this, and
so bear in mind what you‟re getting. It‟s not costing you anything,
you are not hiring McKinsey to do this.‟ But you know, I think they
have been tremendous – the community – in the way they‟ve reacted
to this.
occurred through anecdotes and stories. People in the region and at the
the partnership, but there was not a sense that broad measures of economic
Perhaps since the expectation was set at the beginning that the engagement
would last for two years, expectations for larger, longer-term improvements
were not associated with it. In the end, the key measure of success was the
stage. “The bottom line is, will they refund us?...The ultimate measure is,
you take four community partners,…none of them with a lot of wealth. Did
they see enough tangible, measurable, objective value to put cash back in?”
offered. Extension saw its stock rise dramatically, even though its field
214
Now that the community has a greater understanding of what the
Extension office was traditionally doing, a better appreciation for what
we could do…our own agents watch(ed) what was happening and
realiz(ed) the potential for the project and what it could do for
extension. (It) has been phenomenal.
A second indicator of success within the university was getting the attention
and support of top administrators, who came to understand the value coming
At the state level, it was felt that success could be measured through
the eyes of the state higher education system as well as through the eyes of
the state‟s political leaders. Since the chancellor of the system office had
awarded the Archway program special new money, there was a sense that
the program was seen as valuable through the higher education system lens.
effects.” One ripple effect previously mentioned has been the interest
215
Another ripple effect has been the heightened visibility of the region
throughout the state and the benefits that flow from it. One example offered
was related to the work that had occurred in the community related to
historic preservation:
I know I heard in the office the other day that a non-profit that does
training in the state is thinking about doing training in Moultrie for all
the preservation commissions in Georgia, and I think those kinds of
things never get included in the success list of the partnership, but I
really think they are a result of a focus that the partnership places on
a particular community.
Table 12.
Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Accountability
216
Accountability in the Virginia Tech – Southside Partnership
side and community side of the partnership felt that the partnership was a
I couldn‟t tell you what this place (Institute) was going to do. I can
tell you what we dreamed for it to do, and I think we passed that. Oh
sure, there‟s more to come, but I think we very quickly, once the
doors to this facility opened, we took a quantum leap…Very seldom do
you go around the state of Virginia that people don‟t envy a little about
what has happened here.
particular program area impacts; others looked for broad economic and
The community may have certain goals and the university may have
certain goals. They may not necessarily have the same goals all the
time. They also should have some common goals, and so there is
probably a need for each of the partners to look at the combined
(needs of) the partnership.
217
Partners also expressed that it had been important in this partnership to be
open to possibilities and not establish expectations on the front side that
Virginia Tech was most interested in the research program at the IALR
and indicated that the university would measure success by “new research
grant university.” There was also a strong sense among university leaders
should be measured over the long-term, not the short term. Yet, there was
only through how many jobs were created in a twelve-month period. “And
narrower program goals. Tenure track faculty at the IALR were measuring
success by the number of graduate students per semester they were able to
attract to Southside, citing the ideal number per faculty member as “six or
seven;” the level of sponsored research funding they were able to secure
and the hopefully not elusive tenure. Non-tenure track faculty in Southside
development: “Certainly to me the goal and the way we were engaged is are
we going to get products out there? Are we going to contribute new jobs in
218
the region?” Among this group there was a strong sense that the norms of
“No one downtown is going to give a hoot if you publish ten papers a year…If
There was considerable concern about losing “board rooms” in the region,
which had the effect of diminishing support to the arts, charities, and a host
219
was the change in the region being a net consumer of state tax dollars to
staff and faculty, and developing programs that filled the “gaps” in the
validation has come in many forms, including state and national awards.
One of the most valued external validations has been from the state, which
220
Table 13.
University of Georgia and Moultrie/Colquitt Partnership Governance
core elements and allow the rest to be shaped to the needs of the
You just have to be flexible and respond to the needs and let it evolve
to what makes sense. That‟s really the key….You‟ve got to let the box
evolve to whatever shape it needs to be…Let the structure revolve
around the needs.
221
the composition and membership of the committees. According to a UGA
spokesperson,
We have ensured that it‟s a grassroots effort. So, our structure in the
community is such that the community determines who sits on our
committees and they – it‟s not like we handpick who sits there so they
can tell us what we want to hear in terms of what we‟re to do.
committees who would be prepared to spend the time and effort needed:
We‟ve told communities, „As you identify the people to sit on (the
committees), don‟t put people on there as figureheads. Don‟t put
them on there as people who are nice to list on your letterhead. Put
people on there who can come to every meeting and who are engaged
enough with the community that they take this seriously enough that
they are going to be an active part of the project.‟
the priority list, discussing issues that the community is facing, and providing
strategic leadership for the future of the partnership. This group meets
monthly with the Archway Coordinator. They interface with faculty and
information.
222
The Executive Committee is complemented by a Steering Committee,
expertise, and UGA experts. Issue Work Groups tackle priority challenges,
Coordinator.
layers. One layer consists of a small set of players in PSO and Extension who
have direct responsibility for the Archway program. Day-to-day issues are
Vice President of Public Service and Outreach. The group interfaces with the
and all of the colleges. This new university-wide group meets monthly and
has become a major vehicle through which the Archway team interfaces with
the broader university. The other entity with whom the Archway team
223
has surfaced a number of possibilities for linking students to needs of the
community.
spends a projected eighty percent of his time away from Athens, interfacing
much thought has gone into the kind of traits needed in the Archway
Professional position, since this was a big key to the success the
special person in this role, particularly when you look at how they fit in the
have strong facilitation skills. “Certainly a person that has very strong
224
people skills and is passionate about getting involved in that community,” is
someone who can “facilitate discussion and draw people out”, on sometimes
modeled after the MOU that UGA Extension uses in its relationship with every
county in the state, since counties contribute financially and otherwise to the
UGA Extension presence in their counties. The MOU also provides opt out
addition to the blanket MOU, the partnership has relied on agreements with a
which specified the scope of work committed to by the students and their
advisor.
regarding the appropriate geographic footprint for the regional side of the
225
inextricably tied to the well-being of the larger region, since workforce and
Moultrie/Colquitt:
The bottom line, however, was to allow the region to self-define, not
make an abstract decision in Athens about what the region should be. One
of the UGA people involved with planning the Archway model said,
I‟ve watched these regional attempts and usually someone from the
state capitol identifies from on high what a region is…That‟s disastrous
because you pick counties and communities that are close to each
other but who may not work well together on all issues and then
you‟re going to force somebody from (Archway) to go down there and
try to bring these people together and make them work together.
a key consideration. The thinking is that each regional partnership will need
Committee post-pilot, nobody from the original group wanted to opt out but
they did want to add new members to increase the diversity of the group:
Out of their own work they decided they needed to be more diverse.
They needed more, they needed a young professional, not just the
older folks in town who had historically (constituted) the leadership
structure. And they reached out and identified more African
Americans and more females, and so it has come about without being
a major cataclysmic decision.
Table 14.
Virginia Tech and Southside Partnership Governance
227
Governance of the Virginia Tech – Southside Partnership
it was that form followed function. From the outset of the relationship, the
partners were more focused on defining what they would do together than
of the partners and responsibilities for funding, governed the early work of
recognize the IALR as a new state entity was passed by the Virginia General
IALR Board of Trustees was in place, the private citizens group, Future of the
direct interface flowed through one FOTP member, who was a Virginia Tech
alum.
228
The IALR Board, as specified in the legislative bill that created the
College, and three appointments by the Governor, the Senate, and the
House, respectively. As the programmatic activity of the IALR grew and the
need for sponsorship to receive state funds increased, it was decided that the
counties and two cities. Since the original nine IALR Board members were
drawn solely from Danville and Pittsylvania County, legislation was passed by
The additional six members were appointed, two each, by the Governor,
The IALR Board meets quarterly in meetings that are open to the
needed to become better versed on the strategic operations of the IALR, the
Board decided to create a committee structure and assign all board members
area. For example, the Academic Council included representatives from the
229
eight K-12 school systems in Southside, the three community colleges in the
IALR footprint, and the senior institutions with whom the IALR had academic
Averett University.
forty members, this group typically met to hear updates from the Virginia
activities. In the early years, this group hosted various groups and
as the nominal linking structure between the region and the university. Their
prior to their arrival, and to plan and implement a strategy to further engage
the university in ways that would assist the region to transform its economy.
230
university, they reported to different Virginia Tech people. One reported to
the Vice Provost for Outreach and International Affairs; the other to the Vice
After the formation of the IALR, the IALR Board formally recognized
the pair under its governance structure, as Executive Director and Senior
pay their salaries and support their operations. Virginia Tech‟s administrative
IALR in the early period. Because the partnership was so nascent at the
start, there was an unwritten assumption that if the partnership did not
succeed, if the money did not continue to flow, or if the partnership ran its
Blacksburg campus by the university. After the dot com crash, there was a
Virginia Tech‟s top administration that subsequent staff hired at the IALR in
Danville would not be Virginia Tech employees. At that juncture in late 2002,
the IALR faced into the daunting task of creating its own administrative and
financial infrastructure.
231
commercial contract services. Because the concept was very new, because
was needed to get top-notch scientists, and because the research entities
and some as IALR research faculty. In the past year, a research director was
hired at the IALR and came on board as a tenured Virginia Tech faculty
began to flow into the IALR for Virginia Tech-led research activities, pressure
agreement between Virginia Tech and the IALR was agreed upon and signed.
232
the structure of the IALR‟s governance, a community leader analyzed the
options:
reward structure being somewhat at odds with the economic and community
My gut feeling is that I think all of the faculty here should have been
IALR faculty as opposed to Virginia Tech faculty. I think that would
make it much more of a connection with the local community. We
would be able to do a lot more interaction with the community because
of that.
of the Future of the Piedmont with the IALR and Virginia Tech. Some
characterize the FOTP as a “shadow board” which has and exercises more
influence with Virginia Tech, with the Southside community, and with state
political leadership than the IALR Board. One Virginia Tech administrator
offered the opinion that there should be regular dialogue between the three
entities:
233
I‟m certainly prepared to support the notion that there should be
regular, ongoing dialogue amongst the leadership of the Institute, the
senior people at Virginia Tech who are involved in the project, and I
think because the Future of the Piedmont is such a key player in all of
this that those three groups ought to have ongoing dialogue in
perhaps a little different way than it‟s happening now.
leadership not only having dual reporting lines but reporting into different
line except to the president, everyone is not clear that the partnership has
I would like to see the university give this entire effort a little more
attention than I perceive there is right now. I guess when you get
something up and running and it‟s doing well - I wouldn‟t say
spectacularly well, but it‟s doing very well – it‟s easier to go on to the
next thing. And I‟m not sure that the university is anywhere near
finished there. So, I hope the university and its leadership realizes
that.
234
Chapter 6
UNIVERSITY-REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT
THROUGH A STATE POLICY LENS
money into a few programs, but not enough ultimately to have the desired
effects. So, in 1989 the same group of business executives pulled the
Zell Miller was elected governor in 1990 and “immediately saw the
profit agency that works with the state‟s top six research universities to
state's business community for access to the latest research and business
leadership. Each continues to play a valued role in assisting the state‟s office
To this asset base current governor Sonny Purdue has added Centers of
236
In addition to significant investments in university research and
initiatives designed to bring that research out into the state‟s business
community over the last seventeen years, Georgia also worked to expand
areas of the state. In the 1980s and 1990s, Georgia upgraded several of its
state higher education institutions in the southern parts of the state, notably
During the same period of time that business leaders in Georgia were
1985, the Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) was created to enhance
legislature.
and private leaders from across the Commonwealth, advises the governor on
term thinking” according to the council‟s website. Early work of the Council
education strategies.
In the last six or seven years, Virginia has begun to experiment with
238
economically distressed regions of the state. The initial model funded was
the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research (IALR) in Danville, Virginia
which houses research and development activities led by Virginia Tech, and
institutions are located. The question is, for what are they accountable?
funding been directed to a public good mission? Should the role of higher
engaged to “fuel innovation and change the course of the state‟s future” as
the lives of citizens, and “not just (conduct) research for research sake.”
239
What can and should universities contribute to the state?
Mike Cassidy, Executive Director of the Georgia Research Alliance, added the
rather than a public, good (Longanecker, 2005), funding for higher education
has been viewed as completely separate and apart from funding for economic
higher education institutions do; meanwhile, those with responsibility for the
state‟s economic development take their money and do a lot of what they‟ve
always done.
more than policy rhetoric; it will require financial mechanisms that are
240
directly linked to policy agendas (Jones, 2005). Given the many pressures
on state budgets, the question that arises is where the money should come
base adequacy support for higher education (which impacts faculty salaries),
legislated) level. That suggests that carving money out of higher education‟s
The real problem is that the federal and state economic development
cash flow is structured to build buildings. That‟s safe. You can show
the building, but it‟s very difficult to get the body politic around the
idea that the really important and long-term payback is investment in
programs, investment in people…and you don‟t necessarily have
something to show from that two years later.
Economic development strategies have not yet shifted from the old
economy to the new economy. As Jones and Kelly (2004) point out, “While
241
How should university contributions be linked to the state’s
economic development plan?
a state‟s economic development plan, what should that relationship be? Tom
Daniel suggested that the appropriate role for higher education was
developers set targets for growth and then work with universities to cultivate
human capital. As Mazzeo et al. (2006) state, “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‟:
242
LaVista pointed out the link between economic development and the
health and earnings between those with postsecondary education and those
without. He said,
I think unless we do a little bit more to bring in these students that are
in the lower (socioeconomic) sectors…(we‟re) only just going to
continue to provide a cleavage between those who have and those
who don‟t have… So, again, I think it‟s very hard to isolate economic
development and research in rural communities without, in my mind,
looking at these larger trends that I think are troubling.
Art Dunning, Vice President for Public Service and Outreach at the
University of Georgia, pointed out his state‟s challenges to develop “the best
and the brightest” when the fastest growing parts of the state‟s population
believes universities and the state must face together is how to develop more
243
What roles should various entities play?
economies, indicated that the starting point for such a discussion should be
for each region to assess the “economic niche where it stands the best
Aneesh Chopra, is for the governor and legislature to determine the industry
those clusters.
The question then turns to who should take responsibility for matching
entering into dialogue about regional growth and other issues: “So in a lot of
cases, universities can be drivers that get other parties to the table.” He
believed the higher education system office should provide resources and
be made locally.
244
An approach that the University of Georgia has taken with its Archway
consultation assistance.
submit their budget requests to the state, they must also report on how they
Restructuring Act.
What investments should state dollars fund and where should the
investments be made?
accelerated “brain drain” because better educated people will move to places
where employers are hiring and paying for professionals with advanced
Southside Virginia, “The research capacity allows the region to begin to have
regional assets that could affect the job structure especially if it is aligned
within a commuting distance of where the money was spent (Kirchhoff et al.,
2002). This regional spillover effect (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007) suggests
regions that are farther than a commuting distance from those campuses.
higher skilled jobs go to where the talent is, new firms develop where the
talent is (Armington & Acs, 2002), and wealth is created in those places.
Since more than half of the United States‟ sustained economic growth in the
last fifty years was attributable to the five percent of the population with
247
base of research and development activities in these regions, universities can
educational programs, locally. One mechanism for managing the funds and
248
What leadership and governance structures should be considered?
is the fact that most regions don‟t necessarily know what assets and
This suggests that universities may need to assume greater leadership roles
them (university presidents) together with top corporate and civic leadership
and you have a very powerful model. I think that can be done on a local
basis as well.”
needs dovetails with Davies‟ (2006) thoughts on where to begin when setting
But in the end, success depends on the vision and action of political
and education leaders within the state. Without the involvement and
skill of high-level leaders in initiating and sustaining change over
several years, progress is unlikely. For many states, the first step is to
find a policy entrepreneur or a leadership group that can focus
statewide attention upon the needs of state residents for higher
education and other related services, such as economic development.
(p. 20)
249
Chapter 7
Evidence points to the need and opportunity for much more significant
to guide them. Local, state, and federal policymakers have a strong interest
state policy to stimulate and support holistic engagement models have been
250
I finish the chapter with a set of conclusions, suggestions for leaders and
faculty, students, and outreach and cooperative extension personnel; the role
has visibility at the senior level of the institution. Top level institutional
visibility, however, does not equate with top-level leadership and ownership
(see Table 15). Based on the limited data gathered, it appears that the
251
higher the university leadership for distributed regional engagement, the
Table 15.
University Leadership
effort. Faculty and expertise from other parts of the university which could
be relevant, such as business and economics, are absent. Most of the work
252
Next on the continuum is the University of Minnesota‟s Rural
from the university is limited to the disciplines associated with the founding
leadership at the vice provost or vice president level and has been successful
the vice provosts or vice presidents has shaped the emphasis on engagement
253
engagement has meant that signals have been sent externally and internally
the state‟s needs. Purdue has partnered proactively and reactively with
regions and regional issues across the state. The breadth of its engagement,
however, appears to have limited the depth of its engagement in any one
Table 16.
The Engagement Agenda
across the six institutional approaches (see Table 16). In two models, the
region established a vision and the university led on strategy and tactic
254
engagement and the region defined its goals, strategies and tactics within
issues, and the university brought appropriate expertise to bear. And in the
defined issues then worked with the region over time to establish an
partnership and how they would work with the university to achieve these
ends.
255
with current community challenges. The universities assumed responsibility
community and university and allow various needs and players on both sides
of the partnership to enter and exit as their respective needs were met. The
(see Table 17). No single institution employed all role opportunities, and the
only particular university role that was employed by all institutions was
offering outreach programs and services in the region. Each role had a place
to learn about roles they didn‟t assume from other institutions who
successfully did.
universities. That is not to say that the partnerships are not valuable. The
value, however, likely leans determinedly toward the region and has little
256
Table 17.
University Roles in Regional Partnerships
257
Research that is conducted by visiting faculty and students (Michigan
intellectual infrastructure.
in the study, University of Georgia and Virginia Tech, chose to embed one or
258
more outreach personnel in the partnering regions to serve in an interface
capacity back to their respective universities. One might argue that this
Virginia Tech.
Missouri, and Virginia Tech were each attuned to the need to assist regional
259
and Virginia Tech focused attention on strengthening social services
infrastructure.
is shaped, how the right players are brought to the partnering table, and how
the necessary resources are secured are all critical questions that must be
addressed. The role of regional partners (Table 18) is shaped in large part
seed funds, and how to spend the money. In this model, community
partners were empowered to call upon the university for assistance, but only
260
Table 18.
Role of Regional Partners
261
In sharp contrast, Purdue and Virginia Tech decided that they were
their university partners to determine what they would contribute and how
that would be accomplished. This model runs the risk of creating unrealistic
that the decisions of leaders who work to bring the university into their
their acceptance doesn‟t matter – either of which are dangerous positions for
In-between the program model (UMN and MU) and the create-a-high-
model that was employed by Michigan State University. This model offered
where there was a match between regional need and faculty scholarship
either side of the partnership could initiate a partnering project. So, the role
262
together how to secure resources and assign responsibilities. Over time, a
trust relationship was built such that the partners began to work toward a
pushing the region to identify its top issues, to organize a leadership group,
that the issues and solutions selected by the region are more informed by
unlike the MSU model, faculty interests are not at the center of the
models, state money was appropriated for the specific purpose of supporting
expertise. This approach put money in the regions and had the effect of
263
Table 19.
Funding Models
264
with their university partners for research, programs, services, and other
pulling the universities into those regions to spend the money. Where the
transformative impacts.
higher education system, and went to the university. It might be argued that
investment would pull the university into the region in more significant ways
The states of Michigan and Missouri have not made direct investments
and their willingness to carve seed funds out of their own budgets to
stimulate relationship development. Again, one might ask how much more
265
was required to commit to matching university-provided funds before the
shape the work of the partnership at the outset and to remain committed to
Table 20.
Strengths of Engagement Approach
Institution Strengths
the heart of the academic enterprise. The work that MSU has done in
region.
happen, he or she can set a tone and position the institution to put a high
that are not easy to do, Purdue has proactively asked communities across
Indiana about their challenges and how the university can help. Between its
relationships with key state government and business leaders, as well as with
determining courses of action. UGA has considered how students can help
267
communities address particular issues and has effectively employed service-
appropriate expertise to the region even if that expertise exists outside the
university.
model for regional engagement in large part because of its focus on local
empowerment. Because the state sends special funds to the regions so they
can partner with the university, core resources are available for regions to
Citizen boards practice what the university calls “in-reach” by reaching into
issue of rural economic viability. The university has cleverly offered seed
268
conduct applied research linked to local needs and opportunities, and builds
In this way, the seeds of a new employment base in the region are sewn
capital is built.
concept. Each of the six pioneers included in this study offers important
aspects of their work. To the extent that this analysis is helpful to others
& Benneworth, 2007.; Drabenstott, 2005; Henton et al., 2002; Porter, et al.,
seems clear that little attention has been focused by the academy on holistic
(Bardo & Evans, 2006; Duderstadt, 2005; Jackson, 2002) have noted the
270
clear understanding of the competencies (Bardo & Evans, 2006) they will
with non-local needy regions has the possibility of conferring great benefit to
universities for help, but fail to look for or find university needs that they can
heartedly out of a sense of obligation, and fail to identify ways in which the
partnership can meet their own needs. Such imbalance flies in the face of
literature about the basis of sound partnerships, which indicates that each
physical assets, political capital, sources of funds) that can tapped to benefit
the university.
opportunity to align the goals of the university faculty and staff capable of
delivering these programs and services with the needs of a region rather
than just pursuing a scattershot approach. The University of Georgia did this
271
through its Archway Partnership Program. Keys to the success of their
strong linking structure to match those needs with university interests. This
approach supports Lester‟s (2005) advice that universities should “align their
own contributions with what is actually happening in the local community” (p.
3).
and desirable to align the goals of faculty with regional economic strategies
to build new economic capacity. The key in this model is to identify regional
assets that not only become a springboard for economic development but
has come to dominate the focus of large U.S. universities (Votruba, 2005),
the best strategy for regions to pursue to engage universities is to target the
272
Facilitating Engagement
leaders who understand the value of partnering with the other entity
between assets they can contribute and needs they can meet through the
universities.
was a central consideration and a point of pride associated with the success
necessarily know exactly what they need, so there is a need for university
273
According to Weerts (2005), effective two-way relationships between
the partners and build organizational capacity for partnering. The University
shape its approaches to the university and the university to shape its
interface with the community so that the needs of all could be met
AASCU (2002), they need to consider the holistic ramification of that label by
274
beyond responding to regionally identified needs by assisting regions to
expected to know what they don‟t know. Universities serious about regional
with increasing globalization and to work with their regional partners on ways
principle points to the need for universities to consider how they can and are
Structuring Engagement
that it was important to outline the basic framework for the work of the
partnership and let the detail be defined with all partners at the table as the
275
Hand-in-hand with goal-setting is the need to identify viable measures
success, and when unrealistic expectations about the timetable for long-term
success are held by partners. Both of these difficulties plagued the Virginia
Tech–Southside partnership.
early in the partnerships. These simple agreements spell out basic roles and
allowing partners to set an initial course, then take corrective action or make
a decision to end the partnership at the end of the time frame. Without
276
An important element of the Virginia Tech and University of Georgia
became paramount. In the Virginia Tech model, because the focus of the
critical.
keep all stakeholders on the same page with regard to setting priorities for
277
occurred in the Virginia Tech engagement model which created a new
regional entity to serve as a focal point for the receipt of funds for the
extension, the regional entity also came to be responsible, in the eyes of the
original partners, for the progress and success of the partnership. This
structure may have worked well if all partners had committed to the regional
examples of Moultrie (GA), Danville (VA), and Detroit (MI) in this research
278
A final consideration for universities related to structuring engagement
The Virginia Tech engagement experience in Southside points to the need for
only tenured or research faculty for roles associated with significant regional
promotion and tenure will have wider latitude of choices about who and how
faculty and graduate students (Ostriker & Kuh), ranking criteria that
279
assets and create competitive advantage (Drabenstott, 2005), as Southside
If, as Drabenstott (2005) suggests, the health of the nation is the sum
of the health of its regions, it is not enough for state policy to focus on the
regions of the state. A key to this is aligning state economic strategies with
To the extent that state economic strategies include elements that recognize
regional strengths, policies can be developed that build the capacity of the
regions.
280
capacity development (BEST, 2004; National Governors Association, 2002a;
interventions.
(Purcell & Mundy, 2003; SSTI, 2006) and that the impact of research
(Kirchoff, 2003). This would suggest that states should look to invest their
research and education in regional centers throughout the state. The Virginia
has a much shorter pay-back than investing in basic research and can be
281
used to stimulate regional research activities that are linked to economic
development strategies.
Tech were able to find the win-win on their own, but the question of how
considering the qualitative data gathered in this research process I offer a set
between first and second wave engagements that create such transformatory
282
implications, and public service implications. The attributes listed are
Table 21.
Regional Engagement Typology: Approach to Engagement
distinctions between first wave and second wave forms of partnering. First
regional economy and social structure. The focus is on addressing “what is”
toward helping a region “catch up” with state or national norms. Specific
284
engagement, involving many departments and leaders, and impacting
and duration. Often, a grant funds a partnering activity and when the grant
value generated by the partnership from the initial intellectual capital and
community to fish.”
members or service units at the university who have been the primary
285
benefit not only the particular faculty members and service units involved,
the university and community, wherein each values and benefits from the
whereas in second wave partnerships each partner – the university and the
partnership is established.
286
Table 22.
Regional Engagement Typology: Roles and Relationships
engagements, universities are most often in the driver role, defining the
terms and content of the engagement while community actors are facilitating
decisions. In all likelihood, both partners will both lead and facilitate in an
287
engagement, but the predominant roles assumed by each are different in the
two waves.
The scope of engagement differs between first wave and second wave
efforts and activities are prevalent. This contrasts with the generally silo-
288
interests. Critical to second wave engagement is the presence and
the region. On the university side of the equation, the principal actors in first
integrate many parts of the university in partnership with the region and
led research in first wave versus second wave engagement (Table 23). In
the former, faculty research interests typically drive the regional research
External funding that is secured for research in first wave engagement flows
289
Table 23.
Regional Engagement Typology: Research Implications
Engagement
Faculty
Publications
campus-based faculty who travel to the region to gather data and interact
formal and informal interactions with many community entities. They may
290
serve on local non-profit boards, speak to civic organizations, participate in
children, and perhaps even parents – who add to the intellectual capital base
of the region.
welfare issues are typically the focus of first wave university-based research
research agenda.
second wave engagement know they need to create new regional assets with
add value to the region‟s economic base. This distinction certainly has an
291
Many university-led research agendas include significant roles for
back and forth between campus and the region to conduct their research.
region during the course of their research activities thus adding temporarily
to the intellectual capital base of the region. Smart regions engage resident
The regional entities most affected by first wave research are social
base of the region by seeding innovations that will stimulate private sector
based innovations are local businesses who can tap the university expertise
292
Table 24.
Regional Engagement Typology: Education Implications
the university‟s campus as well as for people living in the region and the
real issues and case studies in course curricula that stems from faculty
credentialing.
become an engineer, for example, learns not only engineering skills but also
294
As regions look to develop their human capital, the availability of
nursing, and business. The relative cost to provide these programs is small
and high demand ensures that adequate tuition dollars will be captured to
the provision of high need, low demand programs, such as engineering and
science, which also are generally more expensive to offer due to the need for
295
Table 25.
Regional Engagement Typology: Public Service Implications
offer their expertise to external entities. In this broad arena, public service
296
can take many forms. The above categorization (Table 25) attempts to
select some of the more critical aspects of regional development that would
providing these programs and services most often are Extension agents,
engagement include not only the entities involved in first wave public service
land-grant mission.
297
How public service engagement is shaped in each of these domains differs
298
research parks that lend themselves to application in regions interested in
university partners.
benefits of their own accord which enrich the partners will beyond the
299
build a foundation for partnering with one or more first wave engagements
Or are the dynamics of the two waves so different that it is best to go into
regional engagement with the end in mind and play to the relevant strategy
accordingly?
There is an adage which says that if you don‟t know where you‟re
going, any road will lead you there. This adage captures the essence of the
University faculty and staff are working within the systems and structures
that reward them, in many cases trying desperately to align these well-worn
systems with fairly amorphous and complex economic and social problems.
The net result too often, though, is widely disbursed and narrowly focused
issues. I believe that universities want their impacts to add up to more, that
address the public good. The problem is that we haven‟t defined what we
there.
Once we have a sense as to where we‟re going, we can figure out how
to take the essence of university strengths and shape them to the challenges
300
at hand. We can also provide guidance to citizens and communities about
dynamic ecosphere.
partner with another entity to meet that need. In universities, such needs
criteria. While the community partner may be happy to oblige and derive
some value from the university intervention, the focus of the work associated
with the grant activity may not be a priority need for the community.
generally happy to oblige and derives some value under the auspices of its
public service mission. The problem with the first wave model is that the
resources to fund partnering activities and the ability to maintain the interest
301
Alternatively, second wave engagement partnerships involve a set of
address complex economic and social systems. Further federal and state
government policy that fuels the development of new university assets in the
region will enable a sustained, virtuous engagement circle (Figure 2). These
is the existence of needs that have the possibility of being met by the
partner, as well as assets that can potentially benefit the partner. So, a first
needs and assets between a region and an institution of higher education. If,
wide range of needs, they may find value in partnering with several
302
303
Once a potentially cross-matching set of needs and assets is identified,
partnering and engagement. Thus through the leaders and the supporting
sustaining the interest of and benefits to the partners. Federal resources are
are housed in the region. These additions to the regional asset base increase
these university needs are met, the asset base of the university is increased,
resources are used to fund new faculty lines for regionally-based faculty
304
developing a locus of innovation in the region increase the opportunity to
meet regional needs, which in turn increase the region‟s assets and
the partnering loop with increased incentives for sustaining and expanding
the partnership.
but policies to govern the partnership are also critical. Identification of goals
structure are policy elements that need to be considered. Leaders from the
region and the university play central roles in developing the engagement
the interests of regions and universities with the state‟s interests. Thus,
305
governments or other large investors, and a policy structure that sustains the
scenario.
Case Discussion
In both the Georgia and Virginia cases, it was clear that each
governance structures of the two partnerships which can inform each other
The Virginia Tech – Southside partnership, the older and perhaps more
mature of the two case study partnerships, saw the investment of millions of
federal, state, and Virginia Tobacco Commission sources in the form of one-
from the Tobacco Commission created new assets (a building and core
306
federal investments (in laboratories and specialized equipment), which
established a rationale for recurring state funding for scientists. With each
with the Southside region, not the university‟s Blacksburg campus. Funding
that flows directly to campus, even in the face of the best of intentions to
research universities, needs for funding to increase campus assets, and the
assets benefiting them that are associated with money sent to universities.
research activity where the money went to campus. Four years later when
the money was gone, more than two dozen graduate students on campus
had had assistantships funded but never visited Southside, and a truckload of
specialized equipment that was purchased with the federal funds for the
Regents. New money from the Regents will allow a limited increase to the
asset base of the partnership through the addition of an issue specialist. The
307
rest of the money, however, will seed other UGA-regional partnerships. A
additional assets in the region and the attraction of external funds to do so.
Building the partnership asset base in the region will strengthen the
additional investments.
region, I would argue, are wise and appropriate uses of public dollars. Spend
308
employer incentives might be redirected to university engagement in regions.
Alternatively, states can raise taxes with the expectation that investments in
state. Targeted federal funding in the form of grants could strengthen the
capital development.
from other sources. A comment that has been made by several familiar with
because of the unique investment opportunity that was available through the
perspectives. First, every successful partnership does not have to start with
a $20 million building. The facility that houses the main operations of the
Institute for Advanced Learning and Research has certainly been a boon for
309
it seems highly likely that an increasing number of venture philanthropists
(Zinko, 2007) will emerge. This new breed of philanthropists may want to
invest in communities to which they have some connection in ways that will
stake. In this scenario, the real estate investor may build a facility that
houses the activities of the partnership with the expectation that elements of
back to the investor. Much more work could be done to understand the
the Georgia entities have built a solid base upon which to expand their
310
University of Georgia and the regional stewards of Moultrie/Colquitt appear to
have set realistic goals for their partnership, have assumed shared
ten-to-twenty year vision for the region that considers how to increase the
and increasing the educational levels of the population. Linking this vision to
strategy that should be considered. The state, in turn will want to consider
only taking responsibility for establishing the partnership with UGA but also
311
how to effectively involve leaders from adjacent counties as the partnership
own representation.
this writing, as the search for new leadership at the Institute for Advanced
be wise to come together with the new IALR leadership to outline short and
which is perhaps the most problematic element in the partnership. The array
of formal and informal links between the Southside and Virginia Tech is
overly complex and at times, highly dysfunctional. Virginia Tech has several
points of presence in the region which, at best, are loosely connected at the
university and not at all in the region. The region has yet to unite around a
development strategy and to clearly articulate the role of Virginia Tech (and
312
other universities) in that strategy. The IALR, while the most significant
partnering effort between Virginia Tech and Southside, does not have a
board structure that maximizes the engagement of local public and private
organizational leaders. Instead, the IALR finds itself too often in the
instead of working through the IALR Board, prefer to construct their own
Conclusions
Embedded in chapters four, five, and six are many thoughts, considerations,
313
Engagement as defined by the Kellogg Commission‟s Returning to our
increase their relevancy, focus their work, and open new opportunities.
partnership can meet needs of the university. Yet, too often these
not make the necessary commitments over time to partnerships with regions
faculty members and student groups may come and go over the course of a
partnership as their individual needs are met, but if larger institutional needs
314
are not factored into the partnership it is unlikely that the relationship will be
identifying what they might offer to universities that would return substantial
value. Most universities do not believe they have excess capacity that could
responsibility for the well-being of a region. The people who are most
invested in a region - those who live, work, raise their families, and hope to
leave a legacy for future generations – are best suited to the task of regional
leadership. They know the history, the politics and personalities, and have
the most to gain from ensuring the prosperous future of their communities.
Regions that do not have citizens who are ready to assume leadership in
315
collaborative and supportive relationships with university partners. In these
solution options.
support depend on constant advocacy, both within and beyond the region.
So, regional leaders must be willing to commit time and effort to relentlessly
that extend beyond the region about the value of the partnership. Regional
leaders will also take responsibility for working with university partners to
the economic niches that will be most viable for the region into the future.
This work involves the identification of regional assets that will support these
316
connections that could be tapped to fund various aspects of the engagement
partnership. Finally, effective regional leaders will ensure that options are
support is maximized and all parts of the community are prepared to assume
development.
ingredients needed for economic competitiveness and to help the regions set
are unlikely to result in the fundamental building blocks most needed by the
regions. Such strategies run the risk of tinkering at the margins and leaving
317
economy is in a downward spiral, the past and the present cannot be used to
plan for the future. Educational strategies that are based on surveys of
current employer needs whose employment sectors are in decline may help
to justify program offerings today but do little to position a region for future
services a region can offer to external consumers, to bring new money into
STEM-focused.
If regions cannot become a destination location for talent, they will not be
318
quickly than those that depend solely on developing talent from within.
universities are best positioned to assist a region in creating are research and
assist local small and medium sized firms create new product niches through
319
there is opportunity to develop and attract a myriad of digital-dependent
enterprises.
change the course of a region‟s future than partnerships that provide advice
on the front end and depend on the region to sustain research and
more graduate students. The great concern, however, is how to attract top-
came to work at the IALR was unbridled passion for the mission of the
institution. Many came because they were excited about being pioneers and
to address complex challenges. For faculty, it was an ideal place for those
driven, who wanted to see the results of their work in action, and who
wanted the chance to share their passion for science with kids, politicians,
320
and the “man on the street.” Some moved to Southside Virginia from other
places. Others who came already lived in the region because of family
distressed region if it does not have above average, and preferably excellent,
stewards and policymakers need to come together and assess the tradeoffs
capacity development, and not allow high political payoff, short-term actions
State policy that directs money for engagement to regions, rather than
321
achieving desired outcomes. The needs of rural areas to reinvent their
it. Such a policy structure has the opportunity to benefit regions through
poorer regions.
through tuition revenue alone, since demand for these programs in places
322
experiences with technology-mediated content coursework may offer the
mission of universities.
creation. A healthy region, in this view, not only offers jobs for everyone but
continues to increase the number of jobs in a region from one year to the
term economic capacity are not expected to deliver short-term job creation.
activities and to develop talent through education programs can have very
323
of Georgia Archway partnership in Moultrie/Colquitt. Or they might be the
the number of new company starts, and the number of private sector jobs.
Regional leaders and citizens should understand that they have critical
people. Engagement is not about a knight on a white horse (in the form of a
research university partner) riding into town and single-handedly saving the
day. It is about a team effort to bring internal and external expertise and
include not only representatives from each of the partnering entities, but also
324
must include people with the ability to direct the activities, players, and
are dependent on the long-term viability and health of the region. Regional
and non-profit leaders who have the authority to commit resources, set
priorities that their constituents will embrace, and shoulder responsibility for
partnership accountability.
governance structure have to have direct or delegated authority for the parts
focal point for managing the funds associated with the partnership and being
the forum through which partners interact to set priorities and implement
325
Recommendations
in an innovation-based economy.
5. Identify or develop leaders who value partnering and who are willing
capacity.
future.
the region.
10. Educate your university partner about the region‟s needs; be open to
programs.
12. Be prepared to identify broad goals for the region‟s partnership with
by all partners.
region that will attract a university partner and support the desired
327
14. Work with the university partner to develop long-term economic and
linking person and seek someone with characteristics that align with
17. Establish a forum for regular dialogue among all key stakeholders to
communities.
328
for research, opportunities for students to have structured “real
regional partnerships.
competencies.
value of partnering with regions and can connect the dots between
the university.
leaders.
329
9. Shape partnering goals to address the community and economic
projects.
11. Realize that disadvantaged and destitute regions need more than a
resources.
degree programs.
14. Be prepared to work with regional partners to outline the broad goals
330
15. Educate faculty about the benefits of regional engagement so they
16. Work with the regional partner to develop long-term economic and
linking person and seek someone with characteristics that align with
19. Establish a forum for regular dialogue among all key stakeholders to
331
2. Allow regions to self-define based on common interests and
challenges.
prosper.
regions.
development strategies.
sector strategies.
332
10. Set expectations for university–regional partnerships to establish
goals.
particularly those that are not in regions where university campuses are
partnering since the work of the Kellogg Commission in 1999, and related
districts) have defined for themselves regional boundaries that suit their
usually don‟t match between one agency and the next. The universities in
this study that were working with regions encompassing multiple jurisdictions
333
self-define. More research is needed to understand how to define regions
addressed beyond a minimal level. How regional leaders should think about
all of these domains, more research and practical tools are needed.
whom should they report? For what should they be accountable? The IALR
offers a starting point for investigating the roles and responsibilities of faculty
334
and staff since it includes a people with a wide-ranging mix of appointments
the context of the partnership and most satisfying to the individuals involved.
research that are best suited to advance the economic and social fortunes of
have an economic impact, must be not only much more applied than bench
research, but also linked with translational supports that connect it directly
with local business. Investigating the types of research and the translational
will find that internal changes are needed to adjust university policies,
335
processes, and structures. A sampling of the issues that will need to be
tuition dollars for courses that are regionally facilitated, the appropriate
issues, and the structures that will best facilitate interdisciplinary university
work in a region. Study is needed to map these issues and identify relative
federal or national policy approaches which offer jumping off points for state
336
Appendix A
INTERVIEW TOPICS
337
Stage Two Interview Topics
Lessons learned
Defining and serving the state‟s “public good” through the state‟s
higher education institutions
338
Appendix B
DOCUMENTS
Types of Documentation
Memorandums of Understanding
Organization charts
339
REFERENCES
Atkinson, R. D., & Correa, D. (2007). The 2007 state new economy index:
Benchmarking economic transformation in the states. Available from
the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation Web site,
http://www.itif.org
Bardo, J. W., & Evans, P. (2006). Toward a policy framework for higher
education in the knowledge economy. Retrieved from Western Carolina
University, Institute for the Economy and the Future Web site,
http://ief.wcu.edu/pdf/BardoEvansBook-DRAFT.pdf
340
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2005). Integrating a commitment to
the public good into the institutional fabric. In A. J. Kezar, T. C.
Chambers, & J. C. Burkhardt, and Associates (Eds.), Higher education
for the public good (pp. 185-216). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. L. (1994, March 9). Creating the new American college. Retrieved
April 16, 2007 from The Chronicle of Higher Education electronic
archives, http://chronicle.com/che-data/articles.dir/articles-
40.dir/issue-27.dir/27a04801.htm
Brukardt, M. J., Holland, B., Percy, S. L., & Zimpher, N. (2004). Calling the
question: Is higher education ready to commit to community
engagement? Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee Idea Office.
Byrne, J. V. (2006). Public higher education reform five years after the
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant
Universities. Retrieved from
http://www.nasulgc.org/Kellogg/KCFiveYearReport.pdf
341
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007).
Community engagement elective classification. Available from the
Author‟s Web site, http://carnegiefoundation.org
Clinton, J., Doron, S., Hoke, L., Johnson, S., & Pennock, C. (2006).
Innovation with a southern accent. Cary, NC: Southern Growth
Policies Board.
DeAloia, M. & Gonick, L. (2006, July 1). Come together: How a broadband
network is changing Cleveland, Ohio. Retrieved from
http://www.onecleveland.org/news/newsdetail.aspx?id=226
342
Drabenstott, M. (2005). A review of the federal role in regional economic
development. Retrieved from
http://www.kansascityfed.org/RegionalAffairs/Regionalstudies/Federal
Review_RegDev_605.pdf
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. (2000). The future of
the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory
tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29, 313-330.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming
work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Gillett, S., Lehr. W., Osorio, C., & Sirbu, M. (2006). Measuring broadband’s
economic impact. (National Technical Assistance, Training, Research,
and Evaluation Project #99-07-13829). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
343
Goddard, J. (1997). Universities and regional development: An overview.
Background paper to OECD Project on the response of Higher
Education to regional needs.
Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (2002). Collaboration and innovation:
The state of American regions. Industry and Higher Education, 16(1),
9-17.
Huffman, D. & Quigley, J. (2002) The role of the university in attracting
high tech entrepreneurship: A Silicon Valley tale. The Annals of
Regional Science, 36, 403-419.
Mazzeo, C., Roberts, B., Spence, C., & Strawn, J. (2006). Working together:
Aligning state systems and policies for individual and regional
prosperity. Available from the Workforce Strategy Center Web site,
http://www.workforcestrategy.org
Melle, L., Isaak, L., & Mattoon, R. (2006). A new social compact: How
university engagement can fuel innovation. (Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago, WP 2006-08). Available from http://www.chicagofed.org
345
Morse, S. W. (2004). Smart communities: How citizens and local leaders
can use strategic thinking to build a brighter future. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Paytas, J., Gradeck, R., & Andrews, L. (2004). Universities and the
development of industry clusters. Retrieved from the Carnegie Mellon
Center for Economic Development Web site,
http://www.smartpolicy.org/urole/ucluster2004.pdf
346
Porter, M. E., Ketels, C., Miller, K., & Bryden, R. (2004) Competitiveness in
rural U.S. regions: Learning and research agenda. Retrieved from the
Harvard Business School Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness
Web site, http://www.isc.hbs.edu/econ-rural.htm
Redden, E. (2007, March 14). Are public universities losing ground? Inside
Higher Ed. Retrieved March 14, 2007, from
http://highered.com/news/2007/03/14/analytics
Stark, J. (1995). The Wisconsin idea: The university’s service to the state.
Retrieved from
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/feature/wisidea.pdf
347
State Science and Technology Institute. (2006). A resource guide for
technology-based economic development: Positioning universities as
drivers, fostering entrepreneurship, increasing access to capital.
Available at the Author‟s Web site, http://www.ssti.org
U. S. Census Bureau. State & county quickfacts. Available from the Author‟s
Web site, http://www.census.gov
Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C., & Romanik, C. (2002). Lessons
from the community outreach partnership center program. Retrieved
from http://www.oup.org/files/pubs/lessons_learned.pdf
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). Remaking the American
university: Market-smart and mission-centered. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Zinko, C. (2007, January 14). Class acts: A new breed of young Bay Area
philanthropists redefines the meaning – and methods – of giving. San
Francisco Chronicle, pp. C1-C7.
349