Rethinking the Land-Grant Research University for the Digital Age

Parker, Laurence; Greenbaum, David; Pister, Karl S.

doi:10.1080/00091380109601773

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This focus on research rankings and the financial and social costs they exact has been extensively documented (Alpert, 1993;Anderson, 1992;Boyte and Hollander, 1999;Hacker and Dreifus, 2010;Kamenetz, 2010a;Parker et al, 2001;Rhode, 2006;Schrecker, 2010;Smith, 1990;Sperber, 2000;Tuchman, 2009, and many others). Research that addresses interesting and significant questions, although perhaps without immediate practical application, is well worth supporting in any university that can afford to engage in it.…”

Section: The Addiction To Research Prestige Contributes To the Increamentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing Public Higher Education

Stocum¹

2013

Killing Public Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Addiction To Research Prestige Contributes To the Increamentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing Public Higher Education

Stocum¹

2013

Killing Public Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In general, extension agents as faculty in the field provide a link between the expertise of the campus and the needs of the community. Extension provides a local resource with statewide connections to meet the needs of communities in areas ranging from agricultural concerns to economic development to youth programs (Parker, Greenbaum, and Pister, 2001).…”

Section: Extensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

2003

ASHE‐ERIC High. Edu. Rept.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary Contexts for Service: The Engaged Campus The Many Meanings of Service Forces Shaping Contemporary Calls for Engagement Engagement as a Response to these Challenges and Trends The Role of Service in Engagement The Legacy of Service in Higher Education The Colonial College (1636–1770) The Denominational College (1770–1860) The Research University (1860–1945) Mass Education (1945–1975) The Contemporary Era (1975–present) Conclusion Internal Service: Faculty at Work as Institutional and Disciplinary Citizens Service to the Campus Service to the Discipline Service to Students The Difference That Difference Makes Conclusion External Service: Faculty at Work Meeting Societal Needs A Word About Nomenclature Extension Consulting Service‐Learning Community‐Based Action Research Community and Civic Service The Difference That Difference Makes Linking Service to Scholarship Definitions of Scholarship Scholarship of Engagement Assessment and the Scholarship of Engagement Faculty Motivation and the Scholarship of Engagement Scholarship of Engagement in Practice An Integrated View of Faculty Work Moving Toward Engagement: Policy Questions and Their Responses Recommendations for Research and Practice

show abstract

“…In 1999, public land grant universities faced a similar challenge. The 1999 Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities called these institutions to renew their commitment to the public, by demonstrating a return on the investment these institutions received in the form of land (Parker, Greenbaum, & Pister, 2001;Peters, Jordan, Adamek, & Alter, 2005). In response, a major movement of community engagement activity and research ensued within the public higher education sector.…”

Section: List Of Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A qualitative study of community engagement and for-profit colleges and universities

Magyar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this general inductive study was to describe community engagement of for-profit college and universities (FPCUs), capture employee ideas on what community engagement could look like in the future, and how their institutions could achieve such accomplishments. The role of community engagement in the represented FPCU institutions was investigated through the research question, "How do high-level administration and campus staff and/or faculty of forprofit colleges and universities describe the current and future community engagement roles of their respective institutions?" Literature on boundary spanning theory, community engagement at public and private not-for-profit (PPNFPs) colleges and universities, and Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs) supported the focus of this foundational study. Interviewees represented various roles within their FPCUs and provided rich descriptions of their community engagement experiences and ideas. The findings of the study indicated FPCUs (a) engage within their communities, (b) large-and online-adjunct model is a both challenge and opportunity, and (c) employees believed community engagement was important to their institutions' success. Based on the findings, the following recommendations were made: FPCUs should (a) adopt, adapt, or develop a community engagement framework, (b) increase dialogue about community engagement work, (c) make institutions accessible to community engagement (and other)research. The most significant challenge faced by for-profit colleges and universities was (and still is) to grow new roots, visible ones that reflected commitment to their communities and the tremendous public investment that they received in the form of Title IV (federal) financial aid and student tuition.

show abstract

Rethinking the Land-Grant Research University for the Digital Age

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Killing Public Higher Education

Killing Public Higher Education

Table of Contents

A qualitative study of community engagement and for-profit colleges and universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About