Abstract
The concept of the anchor institution, and its subsequent mission, was first considered in the mid-1990s, a time during which the dominant academic culture of higher education was driven by the “public good regime.” The decades since have seen the emergence of the public-engagement knowledge regime, and the academic capitalist regime. This article views the anchor mission strategy through the shifting and competing “regimes” of higher education and considers questions that might arise due to these shifts. Anticipating and understanding these questions increase the self-awareness critical to authentic engagement, lower the risk of reifying historical dynamics of power, privilege, and oppression, and elevate the potential for success in advancing the anchor strategy.
Highlights
The concept of the anchor institution, and its subsequent mission, was first considered in the mid-1990s, a time during which the dominant academic culture of higher education was driven by the “public good regime.” The decades since have seen the emergence of the publicengagement knowledge regime, and the academic capitalist regime
To teaching, to local investments, and hiring, the advancement of community engagement has elevated institutional interest in the roles universities and colleges can play in their communities
Research clearly demonstrates that “colleges and universities have been called to collaborate with their broader communities to address societal issues and needs (Boyer, 1990; Campus Compact, n.d.; Carnegie, 2006; Weerts & Sandman, 2010) and, at the same time, to participate more fully in the free-market economy (Nussbaum, 2010; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004)” (Giles, 2012)
Summary
Saltmarsh and Hartley state, “the language of ‘regimes’ is significant; it is a language of power, privilege, and politics It constructs an understanding of knowledge generation and of teaching and learning that is inherently political—with consequences for equity and justice in a democracy”. Within this context, it is helpful to define the competing regimes, prior to considering how they might inform our approach to the anchor mission strategy. [...] The university is part of an ecosystem of knowledge production addressing public problem-solving, with the purpose of advancing an inclusive, collaborative, and deliberative democracy” (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2016) Each of these regimes is advancing competing values, and norms, some of which will likely be prioritized in ongoing decision-making by senior-level leaders. Recognizing the innate tensions among the regimes, and the descriptive frameworks they are advancing as we consider our anchor mission strategies, will allow us to develop more meaningful and thoughtful questions, and subsequently pursue more aligned and intentional outcomes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
