University, society and the praxis of engagement: the making of a university anchor institution in a contested terrain

• In Event: Roundtable Session 6
  In Refereed Roundtable Session: Policies and practices: constructing institutional and professional capacities

Proposal

One of the ways in which universities are increasingly responding to the challenges of society is their place-making function. While universities may be viewed as somehow mired in places from which they cannot escape, Perry (2011) sees the role of universities as change agents for the transformation of their local and extended places. This argument is aptly captured in the anchor institution discourse. Defined as place-based entities, rooted in their local community by a mission, invested capital, or relationships, anchor institutions have the ability to engage in long-term planning that aligns their institutional interest with that of their local communities (Dragicevic, 2015). While this anchor institution discourse has been widely accepted and promoted within the USA context (Garton 2021; Cantor 2016; AITF, 2009) its application in other regions seems to be contested on a number of accounts.
Hodges and Dubb (2012) observe that through serving as anchor institutions universities can leverage their resources for local development. They further note that the operationalization of universities as anchor institutions has not been fully developed as a theoretical approach for engagement. However, Garton, (2021) has developed a typology of four categories of anchor institution approaches universities are using to contribute to their place. Another contestation relates to the conceptual tension between anchoring and community engagement initiatives. Another tension in response to Hodges’ and Dubb’s (2012) The Road Half Travelled, which refers in part to the lack of systematic assessment of university anchor strategies is Rutheiser’s question “are anchor institution initiatives appropriate strategies for democratizing economies”. These suggest the one-sided approach anchor institutions could operate which does not always enhance place-based development.
In the South African context, these contestations can take a life of their own considering the history of inequality, poverty, and injustice for the majority, and the university that in many ways served in entrenching these undemocratic and unjust values. While most universities are located in secondary cities and some in rural areas, the anchoring role of the university has only begun to be recognized in the last decade. The recognition of an anchoring potential for universities has also uncovered tension inherent in the very conceptualization of the community engagement discourse and praxis.
This paper explores the positionality of most South African universities within three possible contestations. These include the contestation of the engagement function of the university; the contestation of place-making; and last but not least the contestations of the transformation of the university and transformation through the university. The long-standing debate on the functions of the university has been observed in the literature (Johnson, 2020; Pinherio, 2015). Starting from the Homboltian notion to the Newmann university various ideological positions have attempted to position the university between two main functions: the purists who see the university as a place for Mode 1 scholarship knowledge for its own sake. Almost parallel to this has been the call for more societal relevance public good function accountable to the public funding of higher education. These positions have argued for or against a third mission of the university which is to enhance the social relevance of teaching, learning, and knowledge production (Cloete et al., 2015). Even among proponents of this third mission, there are even more contestations as to what constitutes an engaging activity, engaged scholarship, or forms of engagement. A second contestation links to the place-making function of the university. As interrogated by Pinherio (2012) are universities in the region for the region and of the region? To answer this question I propose an anchoring role for universities as agents for the physical, economic, and social transformation of their immediate and extended communities in achieving their transformative mandate. The analysis captures some of the internal and external tensions faced by universities as they attempt their transformation aspirations as well as mandates. Universities face tensions of internal transformations to enable them effectively become agents of transformations of their own internal constituents such as staff, students, and the broader society (Bawa, 2018). How these contestations play out within the university determines how much the university can position itself as an anchor institution.

Author

• Samuel N Fongwa, Human Sciences Research Council