Abstract
As campuses embrace their role as anchor institutions, considerations should be given to the role of infrastructure, structure, and strategy. This article differentiates between infrastructure and organizational structure then identifies implications for determining who should be involved based upon the institutional and community goals. Resources and infrastructure—a center or office that supports and coordinates community engagement—has been noted as a key component to the institutionalization of community engagement (Welch & Saltmarsh, 2013). How might the infrastructure used to support community engagement differ from the anchor institution mission? This article will illustrate potential differences and similarities while offering recommendations and considerations that would be useful as campuses develop their anchor institution plans.
Highlights
This essay examines three bodies of literature
We offer the reader a metaphor connecting “athletics in higher education” to illustrate the potential for following the adage “structure follows strategy” (Chandler, 1962) when it comes to vertically organizing the community engagement and anchor mission work
If we understand community engagement and our anchor work to include a broad scope of activities, how does that influence infrastructure, organizational structure, and our strategy? how we allocate work, coordinate roles and responsibilities, and create and implement a comprehensive vertical strategy for success? We think that examining the various aspects generally included in ‘nationally recognized athletics program’ offers an opportunity to reflect, and consider the organizational structure(s) necessary to achieve and normalize our anchor missions and sustain the work of community engagement
Summary
This essay examines three bodies of literature. First, it reviews organizational structure, with particular focus on higher education organizations. We begin by defining community engagement and anchor mission work noting their similarities and differences. The similarities and differences between an anchor mission and community engagement are worth noting for the purposes of discussing infrastructure and organizational structure to support institutionalization. Both embrace the role that institutions play in thriving communities and have expressed commitments to their responsibilities through rhetoric, staffing and resources They value this work because it is good for the community, and improves scholarship and education (Cantor & Englot, 2014). The essay begins with literature on the organizational structure of institutions of higher education and how they incorporate change and innovation This sets up our introduction of a metaphor that may be useful for campuses, as they think about how to structure themselves in order to institutionalize anchor work. We identify the implications as well as limitations of this metaphor and make recommendations for leadership, fundraising, and developing metrics or goals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
