Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies: Comparing Theory to Practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Since the 1990s, some urban universities have served as neighborhood anchors with an interest in revitalization. Current theory suggests anchors adopt ‘shared value’ approaches, leveraging resources for mutually beneficial improvement in the community. This study explores assumptions in contemporary anchor frameworks and uses a survey to examine how 22 U.S. universities approach their roles as anchor institutions. The study finds that the universities tend to prioritize place-based initiatives, while contemporary frameworks are more normative and highlight socioeconomic practices. Based on reported strategies, the author proposes an alternate typology that accounts for the ways universities most commonly describe anchor approaches, complementing contemporary theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-19
Number of pages19
JournalPlanning Theory and Practice
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Dec 7 2017

Fingerprint

anchor
university
typology
resources
community
Values
resource

Keywords

  • anchor institution
  • theory-practice gap
  • university anchor revitalization
  • University-community engagement
  • urban revitalization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development

Cite this

Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies : Comparing Theory to Practice. / Ehlenz, Meagan.

In: Planning Theory and Practice, 07.12.2017, p. 1-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f4429cc58ddf44c3a3be87ea67ea4f21,
title = "Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies: Comparing Theory to Practice",
abstract = "Since the 1990s, some urban universities have served as neighborhood anchors with an interest in revitalization. Current theory suggests anchors adopt ‘shared value’ approaches, leveraging resources for mutually beneficial improvement in the community. This study explores assumptions in contemporary anchor frameworks and uses a survey to examine how 22 U.S. universities approach their roles as anchor institutions. The study finds that the universities tend to prioritize place-based initiatives, while contemporary frameworks are more normative and highlight socioeconomic practices. Based on reported strategies, the author proposes an alternate typology that accounts for the ways universities most commonly describe anchor approaches, complementing contemporary theory.",
keywords = "anchor institution, theory-practice gap, university anchor revitalization, University-community engagement, urban revitalization",
author = "Meagan Ehlenz",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/14649357.2017.1406980",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--19",
journal = "Planning Theory and Practice",
issn = "1464-9357",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining University Anchor Institution Strategies

T2 - Comparing Theory to Practice

AU - Ehlenz, Meagan

PY - 2017/12/7

Y1 - 2017/12/7

N2 - Since the 1990s, some urban universities have served as neighborhood anchors with an interest in revitalization. Current theory suggests anchors adopt ‘shared value’ approaches, leveraging resources for mutually beneficial improvement in the community. This study explores assumptions in contemporary anchor frameworks and uses a survey to examine how 22 U.S. universities approach their roles as anchor institutions. The study finds that the universities tend to prioritize place-based initiatives, while contemporary frameworks are more normative and highlight socioeconomic practices. Based on reported strategies, the author proposes an alternate typology that accounts for the ways universities most commonly describe anchor approaches, complementing contemporary theory.

AB - Since the 1990s, some urban universities have served as neighborhood anchors with an interest in revitalization. Current theory suggests anchors adopt ‘shared value’ approaches, leveraging resources for mutually beneficial improvement in the community. This study explores assumptions in contemporary anchor frameworks and uses a survey to examine how 22 U.S. universities approach their roles as anchor institutions. The study finds that the universities tend to prioritize place-based initiatives, while contemporary frameworks are more normative and highlight socioeconomic practices. Based on reported strategies, the author proposes an alternate typology that accounts for the ways universities most commonly describe anchor approaches, complementing contemporary theory.

KW - anchor institution

KW - theory-practice gap

KW - university anchor revitalization

KW - University-community engagement

KW - urban revitalization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85037989873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85037989873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/14649357.2017.1406980

DO - 10.1080/14649357.2017.1406980

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85037989873

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Planning Theory and Practice

JF - Planning Theory and Practice

SN - 1464-9357

ER -