Microsoft Word - mbrector,+150+final.docx VOL. 10, NO. 2 FALL 2021 EDITORIAL Universities as Arts and Cultural Anchors Moving Beyond Bricks and Mortar to Entrepreneurship, Workforce, and Community Development Approaches Amanda Ashley Boise State University Leslie Durham Boise State University ABSTRACT: Economic developers refer to universities as anchor institutions because they are rooted regional economic drivers that are sites for development, incubation, entrepreneurship, workforce training, and knowledge transfer. Most anchor research speaks generally about the university or focuses on STEM. Our study asks: to what extent are public universities arts and cultural anchors? Through a comparative case analysis supplemented with interviews of field innovators and a translation of transdisciplinary literature, we deepen the anchor concept, and we propose a conceptual assessment tool. Our applied research helps universities move from being an arts patron to an arts entrepreneur, investor, innovator, and catalyst. KEYWORDS: arts economic development, anchor institutions, artist workforce development, university arts entrepreneurship, university arts innovation. DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.10.2.150 Introduction Policymakers, economic developers, and university leaders label and position higher education institutions (HEIs) as “anchor institutions” in our cities and regions. Civic, private, and public actors champion these deeply rooted and entrenched organizations as invaluable sources of regional economic activity because HEIs have the political influence, financial resources, and institutional infrastructure to grow, sustain, and revitalize metropolitan regions in a time of ARTIVATE 10.2 2 footloose industrial location and global corporate consolidation (Birch, ). Researchers attempt to sharpen this blunt concept and refine understanding of HEIs’ regional economic contribution and “stickiness” through analysis of workforce chains (Nelson & Wolf-Powers, ), technology transfer roles (Allen & O’Shea, ), and property development (Gaffikin, ; Ehlenz, ), entrepreneurship (Dodgson & Gann, ), and innovation (Chea & Yu, ) among other areas of impact and contribution in economic, social, and community development. While scholars have made significant progress in unpacking the anchor concept and connecting theory to practice, they have yet to thoroughly identify and explain how HEIs perform as arts and cultural anchors in local and regional arts economic and community development (AED), which includes a more nuanced understanding of how they anchor economic and social innovation, entrepreneurship training, workforce development, and knowledge transfer. Powerful and important conversations in the academy and in popular media tout universities in the US as great patrons of the arts largely due to their investments in bricks-and- mortar projects and their academic programs that train emerging artists in traditional and discrete artistic disciplines. There’s often a particular focus on star-architect projects and how these iconic facilities remake university identities and create cultural gateways as part of civic boosterism (Russell ; Hannon, ). As Tepper and Arthurs () broadly note, universities are likely the “greatest arts patrons” in the United States, with an estimated investment of more than  billion dollars due to their wide-ranging budgets that support such investments as capital projects, arts department funding, artist commissions, and public art installations. This perspective overlooks the ways that universities anchor arts and cultural activity as part of the regional creative ecology, and it bypasses the ways that universities are sites of arts and cultural innovation, entrepreneurship, and development in ways that resonate with economic developers, policymakers, and employers. While important, this traditional focus with the anchor as patron overlooks new and alternative connections, opportunities, and imperatives that universities have in other arenas, including the broad umbrella of artistic workforce development (AWD) that covers entrepreneurship, knowledge transfer, and innovation in economic, community, and social frameworks. This evolving concept of the university twenty-first-century arts and cultural anchor recognizes the durable, intrinsic power of the arts in a new way while also being driven by the growing realization that the arts are more than just an amenity but a vital part of economic development—in the same way that the university is not a patron of science and technology but a partner and collaborator in the regional development of related industries (Tepper & Kuh, ), occupations (Markusen, ), and communities (Grodach, ). Simultaneously, solely positioning the university as a patron suggests that while the arts may be a jewel in a university’s crown and a sign of its beneficence, they are rarely central to its primary role as an intellectual innovator or a vital entrepreneur in economic and social frameworks. This makes investing in arts and culture difficult since they are not regarded as essential university assets that are crucial for driving institutional advancement and distinction. This oversight or misunderstanding is due in part to ARTIVATE 10.2 3 the anchor concept’s relative “fuzziness,” both from a scholarly standpoint, since it’s a relatively new concept (Ruthesier, n.d.), and from the practical vantage of those actually working in and leading institutions. Studying the arts in the universities also necessitates a broader understanding of how local and global forces shape the behavior of universities (Harris & Holley, ) when it comes to arts and culture activity. There is an increasingly robust literature that studies the ways new arts curriculum approaches are moving from traditional to more integrated and interdisciplinary programs that focus on practical skills that prepare artists for jobs in arts industries, for self-occupation, or for using their artistic skills in non-arts industries (Essig & Guevara, ; Essig, ; Essig, ), and that also recognize that artists have often taken a variety of paid work and volunteer positions in the quest for a creative career (Thomson & Jacque, ; Ashley & Durham, ). This research is often left out of the anchor conversations, and the lapse is particularly problematic in a time when liberal arts education (which includes the visual and performing arts) is under increased scrutiny due to dwindling public investment in higher education (Seltzer, ; Selingto ), a sharp prioritization of STEM (Axelrod, ), and an eagerness to respond to workforce readiness calls-to-action (Pimentel, ; Busteed, ). The COVID-  pandemic and its short and long-term impacts are also adding pressure (Denon, ). Additionally, while scholars have done impressive work aimed toward understanding different players in the creative ecology (Becker, ) and the regional arts and cultural network, they have yet to contextualize where the university or “higher education institutions” (HEIs) sit in these “sticky” conceptualizations, with the exception of scholarship (Beckman, ; Beckman and Essig, ; Essig, ) on a handful of new curriculum streams to enhance artist workforce readiness. This is starting to change as university leaders are calling for this change in positioning. Senior Fellow of the Association of American Universities, John Vaughn, predicts that universities will follow the example of American cities when it comes to recognizing the arts as a key asset for economic development: Ten years ago, mayors across the country viewed arts institutions and artists as amenities and symbols of achievement and status. . . . Today, mayors see the arts as essential for economic development, strengthening schools, improving quality of life, addressing issues of sustainability and attracting and retaining talented creative class workers” (Tepper & Arthurs, ). However, it’s unclear if university leaders know how to operationalize or optimize their role as arts and cultural anchors. In part, this is because there is a significant lack of applied research that might provide universities with access to a framework or tool for making and articulating these connections, which means that theory and practice are often disconnected (Ehlenz, ). While this is a general problem across all anchor literature (Rutheiser, n.d.), it is compounded by the lack of knowledge around the intersection between the anchor concept and AED. Little is known about how to realize these connections explicitly or how universities are marshalling financial, structural, and faculty resources to be a potent anchor that is aware of its role in the local and regional arts and cultural ecology. ARTIVATE 10.2 4 There is some movement on the notion of “integration” that calls for a “creative turn” in higher education (Penn State, ). Barbara Korner, Dean of the Penn State College of Arts and Architecture, spoke to members of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities on June , , to argue for greater, substantive collaboration across the arts and sciences to “maximize the impact that the university research can have on people’s lives,” and she noted: Too often the arts are considered useful methods of communication and we’re brought in at the end of the research project to visualize the data, or to translate that data. However, I’ve been hammering away at the notion that if science researchers bring artists and designers to the table at the beginning, they will find that these creatives will ask new questions, will explode those questions and explode that research wide open, and will lead to new directions and new discoveries (Penn State ). This reflects a savvy movement underway by a small number of research universities organized under the umbrella Alliance for Arts in Research Universities (ARU) to study and promote the integration that is happening across universities with a substantive focus on curriculum. This general dearth of knowledge regarding arts and anchor institutions combined with these specialized movements in research and curriculum integration comes at a crucial moment given general trends in higher education. Decreasing investment in HEI coupled with university reliance on the extramural funds provided by federal and corporate research funding is placing strong pressure on public universities to prioritize science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (Axelrod, ). The broad and dogged emphasis on a “workforce ready labor force” has contributed to the devaluing of liberal arts education (Dutt-Ballerstadt, ), with “generalists” and “careerists” (Jones, –) debating whether the liberal arts will “survive” the twenty-first century (Haris, ). At the same time, news stories abound about the value of liberal arts (Johnson, ; Olejarz, ), with headlines proclaiming, “Don’t Ditch that Liberal Arts Degree (Chriss, ),” “The Fuzzy and the Techie: Why the Liberal Arts Will Rule the Digital Rule (Hartley, )”, “Google Finds STEM skills aren’t the most important Skills” (Glazer, ), a “Liberal Arts Degree is More Important than Ever” (Dix, ), and “The Arts and Humanities Deliver Untapped Value for the Future of Work” (Wolff, ). While many voices debate whether the liberal arts is “dead” (Harris, ; White, ) or if it is part of a larger historical arc of “continuous death and resurrection” (Jones, ); policymakers, civic leaders, parents, and students are asking the university to communicate and articulate the value of higher education in new ways (Paul, ; Lederman, ). The “arts” fall under the liberal arts umbrella, and they face those same pressures, if not greater ones, thanks to a lack of public appreciation for the broad applicability of artistic skills in a contemporary marketplace (Tepper & Kuh, ). We share the public’s interest in how universities are responding and adapting to these external forces given that universities are a site of existing cultural activity and perform as an arts organization. We see the potential for their important role as an arts and cultural anchor as a crucial avenue for reform in higher education with an emphasis on entrepreneurship, innovation, and knowledge transfers across economic, community, and ARTIVATE 10.2 5 social avenues. Our transdisciplinary research helps universities in the region turn instinct into data- informed practice so that we can broaden, deepen, and apply the university anchor concept. Our overarching question is: To what extent are public universities arts and cultural anchors? To address this broader topic, we are interested in the following supportive questions: How do public universities act as arts and cultural anchors? How have these anchor features changed over time? How do universities see and articulate their role in the regional arts and cultural ecosystem? How do universities support students, faculty, and regional artists as they create and sustain artist career trajectories as professional creative workers? How does the location, particularly public universities in the Intermountain West, influence the ways that universities act as arts and cultural anchors? We study these questions by looking at existing literatures and practices in AED, urban studies, and university reform in the early twenty-first century while we look specifically at public HEIs in the fast-growing Intermountain West with concomitant increasing student enrollment numbers. This is an understudied geographic area in the contemporary AED field that typically favors older, larger cities or smaller niche communities. Our comparative case study research highlights HEIs in Boise (ID), Fort Collins (CO), Reno (NV), and Salt Lake City (UT). These highly desirable, livable cities share more than a place on the map in the Intermountain West and similar population sizes: they are all home to growing, public, metropolitan universities and booming, buzz-generating cultural scenes despite limited resources, a short history of philanthropic wealth, and smaller markets on which to draw. These sites also provide a different set of supposed opportunities and challenges due to their physical and geographic isolation combined with the fact that they are newer cities that do not have the deep tradition of arts and cultural investment from large scale private and corporate philanthropy that bigger, older cities have as part of their DNA. Subsequently, beyond what these cases can tell us generally about anchors, we were also interested in whether the anchor concept looks different in places with those particular traits or if it presents new opportunities and challenges from a theoretical and practical perspective. As university leaders begin to turn their attention to maximizing the economic and cultural impact of their artistic assets, including the ways they are training artists for their careers in and beyond the arts, they need to understand the specific conditions affecting the regional artistic labor force and the potential role that universities have as intentional, potent arts and cultural anchors. Our study provides guidance on how to conceptualize and communicate about the university as an arts and cultural anchor so that universities can make (and defend) evidence- based decisions and investments. Based on the research, we also include a pilot assessment tool that university leaders can use to consider different ways of approaching their role as a contemporary cultural anchor. Our next steps focus on testing the tool with a handful of public universities so we can determine how to make it more useful and adaptable. ARTIVATE 10.2 6 Literature Review There’s a significant body of scholarly literature in urban studies and urban planning around the idea, importance, and evolution of the “anchor institution,” which Ehlenz () notes is a concept that the Aspen Institute coined in the early s to denote an institution with significant assets that is unlikely to move. Universities, hospitals, and some large nonprofit institutions (foundations, churches, cultural institutions, and sport teams) became anchors either consciously or unconsciously in regional economic development due to corporate consolidation and the globalization of industries that created footloose companies and organizations that were no longer so heavily tied to place (Community-wealth, n.d.; Ehlenz, ; Birch et al., ). In response, scholars began to identify the traits and characteristics that university anchors and their “sticky capital” possess: they are major employers and support career ladders; they have sizable landholdings and invest in infrastructure; and they are centers of knowledge and innovation (Maurrasse, ). In some cases, they also anchor intraurban collaboration and competition creating “wider city-regional networks” (Addie, , p. ). A handful of scholars suggest that there is an additional “social purpose” credo in the US, including Taylor and Luter (, p.) who argue that “to be an authentic anchor, an institution must be more than a large place-based organization in the region. It must have a social-purpose mission enabling it to become a change agent and engine of socioeconomic development.” HEIs might articulate these “shared valued” approaches (Porter, ; ICIC, ) through curriculum innovations like service-learning (Friedman et al., n.d.) or more formal university- community partnerships (Regional Plan Association, ). More work is needed in this area from a university and arts perspective that follows Ehlenz’s () approach to create and assess the utility of a typology of how universities practice the anchoring of neighborhood urban development with its advantages and limitations. There is a sliver of anchor institution research connected to arts and cultural nonprofits that draws on in-depth qualitative case analysis. Johnson () studies the politics and implementation of arts and cultural districts as urban anchors in place-based economic development in Dallas, Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Seattle. Birch et al. () and Johnson () identify how nonprofit arts and cultural organizations perform as urban anchors through their involvement in arts education, arts public participation, neighborhood revitalization, as well as how they develop and navigate public/private partnerships to fulfill their missions. However, there is a gap in the branch of anchor research that looks at the intersection between universities and arts and culture. In sum, we increasingly recognize that universities act as urban anchors, but we know very little about how universities act in the realm of arts and culture. We may not immediately think of universities as arts organizations, but universities are likely the greatest arts patrons in the United States, as mentioned earlier. Universities house art museums, theatre companies, symphony orchestras, film studios, and publishing outlets, just to name a few arts organizations and brick-and-mortar investments that live under the higher education umbrella. But most crucially for our study, universities in the twenty-first century are ARTIVATE 10.2 7 more than just arts patrons of physical structures, they are potential collaborators and partners in the regional arts and cultural ecology through their work on entrepreneurship, innovation, and knowledge transfer in economic, social, and community development. They are the places where most emerging artists receive their artistic training and skills (Ashley & Durham, ; Davis, ; Chen, ). Universities support and invest in faculty and staff that oversee arts curricula, they fund scholarships, they pay faculty who are artists in their own right, and they provide the research support and infrastructure for arts economic development. They hire faculty who bring ideas of organizational change for arts and culture, and they consider how to fund and finance those ideas. The shift in perspective we are chronicling relates to a provocative area of work on higher education reform broadly conceived. Recent scholarship such as Joseph Aoun’s () Robot Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, David Staley’s () Alternative Universities: Speculative Design for Innovation in Higher Education, Robert Sternberg’s () What Universities Can Be: A New Model for Preparing Students for Active, Concerned Citizenship and Ethical Leadership, Mark William Roche’s () Realizing the Distinctive University: Vision and Values, Strategy and Culture, Ronald Barnett’s () Imagining the University, and Cathy Davidson’s () The New Education: How to Revolutionize the University to Prepare Students for a World in Flux are among the works charting innovative new paths for HEIs in response to the technological revolution of the late twentieth century and its subsequent impact on the ways people work, what and how they need to learn, and the economic and social pressures of the evolving knowledge economy. Staley writes: Like the crisis of the university that Chad Wellmon has identified [in Organizing Enlightenment: Information Overload and the Invention of the Modern University ()], ours is a moment fertile for news forms of the university. Like the German philosophers who imagined the research university as a response to that crisis, we have an opportunity to imagine what the university can be. If we are truly interested in innovation, we might simply ask, ‘What can the university become?’ (, p. ) Our research is particularly interested in what the university can become if it is activated as a cultural anchor in its community and how that community can become stronger economically, socially, and creatively as a result. Staley () argues that universities struggle to achieve “distinction” from each other, offering similar programs, celebrating similar achievements, and marketing themselves with similar images and slogans. We see awareness of anchor traits, particularly in a specific regional context, as a yet untapped resource for offering universities a chance to tell a powerful story of distinction to their multiple stakeholders. The role and potential of the university as an intentional, artistic, and cultural place maker in the urban ecology is beginning to attract international attention as well. Roodhouse () studies the role of universities in cultural quarters (CQs) (often referred to as art and cultural districts in the United States) and how these cultural concentrations influence creative innovation and workforce growth in English cities. He (, p. ) comments: ARTIVATE 10.2 8 Those institutions with an established interest in the creative industries which may have one or more faculties of art, design, performing arts, music, architecture, media, and animation are most likely to be involved not only in training individuals to enter the workforce, but also in developing the workforce and supporting business growth with their engagement in Cultural Quarters. It is in the interests of these universities to support creative businesses in the locality through mechanisms such as Cultural Quarters as a means of generating employment for graduates, have access to expertise to support teaching, and as a living research laboratory. What is missing in this scenario is the formalization of relationships between Cultural Quarters and the appropriate university. There are university science and technology parks, but, more importantly, Cultural Quarters in partnership with universities can be the new creativity parks. Roodhouse’s work not only deepens knowledge about the role of universities in localized spaces for arts and cultural innovation, but it underscores the ways that the anchor concept plays out. In generations past, emerging artists looked towards undergraduate and graduate arts education to hone the artistic skills that they’d been developing since early childhood, and then they learned how to put those skills to work strategically if and when their careers evolved. Many parents, politicians, and pundits have lost patience with the length of this process and the sometimes-lackluster results in the school-to-career transition. They have pressured universities to monetize the value of their arts programs and to consider new innovative curriculum models to improve student and university outcomes. Hoping to smooth their graduates’ transition to the workforce and spur economic development in their home cities, many universities are experimenting with curricular, extra- curricular, and structural models that complement or supplement traditional fine arts curricula (Essig & Guevara, ; Beckman, ). Transdisciplinary arts integration programs like arts entrepreneurship (Essig & Guevara, ); STEAM-initiatives that merge the arts with computer science, digital media, and other technologies (Maeda, ), and public policy and administration arts-related programs have grown across the country (Considine, ; Luberecki, ; Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, n.d.). As Korner () notes, there is still a challenge in ensuring that artists are part of the entire process rather than joining as sporadic assistance, particularly around STEM and STEAM integration. In tandem with these efforts, some universities are also situating the arts in their broader entrepreneurial ecosystems that may include maker spaces, incubators, and venture competitions (Essig, ; Allen, n.d.; Cummings, ). There is a growing body of research that seeks to understand different aspects of these integration ideas where, due to their prevalence, most of the convergence centers on arts entrepreneurship and management. This small but robust group of scholars unpacks this burgeoning research arena as a hybrid field and practice (Beckman, ; Beckman & Essig, ; Essig, ). Beckman and Essig’s seminal works have both identified and distinguished trends and the broader landscape of the arts while also specifically looking at different more targeted manifestations and investments in direct and indirect curricula, including labs and maker spaces. ARTIVATE 10.2 9 As these leading scholars note, a fair amount of debate exists about how to define and conceptualize “arts entrepreneurship” as a stand-alone curricular concept or in contrast to “cultural” or “creative” entrepreneurship in the US and internationally (Essig, ). Beckman’s early work treats arts entrepreneurship as a catch-all phrase, and in one of his earliest foundational studies, Beckman (, p. ) argues that arts entrepreneurship embodies two curriculum avenues: ) “new venture creation” that aligns with typical economic development activity around innovation and new products; and ) a fuzzier concept noted as the “transitional” approach that gives students skills that they may need as professional artists. As the field and practice began to grow and specialize, Essig and Guevara () have documented its prevalence and growth—both scholars and academic leaders are beginning to dismantle and differentiate this all-encompassing concept (i.e., traditional arts education plus any kind of additional training in non-arts arenas) to include a more refined set of avenues, purposes, and intentions. Goldberg-Miller and Wyszomirksi () suggest that the naming of approaches within arts entrepreneurship needs to be more narrowly defined: where entrepreneurship focuses on the individual artists that start their own businesses and arts management centers on how artists work within and across organizations in the public, private, and community sector. As we found in our work, and as we explain later, arts management and arts entrepreneurship are the most common approaches, but they are not the only ways to think about integration or how the university anchors workforce development of arts or the innovation of arts and artists. Our research contributes to a greater understanding of the depth of different practices and approaches. Beyond naming or articulating the foundational qualities of these approaches, Beckman’s (, p. ) rich work on “adventuring” HEI curriculum points out that there is little agreement about the most effective techniques for arts entrepreneurship because most of this education exists outside of established degree plans, and the degrees that do exist are non- accredited, and there is little commonality from one university to another. His work focuses solely on how this plays out for traditional arts programs in music, arts, and theatre where department and college curriculum committees tend to append general business courses—as opposed to creating specialized business arts offerings—due to financial and structural imperatives and an instinct to support an interdisciplinary approach. Overall, Beckman () critiques approaches where students learn skill sets but not the ability to contextualize or apply those skills for their particular fields or career paths, which is why he argues for a new model that prioritizes experiential learning. In that same conversation, Sternal (, p. ) reinforces Beckman’s critique by pointing out that, from a curriculum perspective, there isn’t enough “basic data” to know what works and what doesn’t, but he also argues that even if these programs deliver on providing an array of skills and talents, they will be weakened without external policy or programmatic measures in the region. What we don’t know is whether these arts integration connections, through curricular and programmatic endeavors, are cultivating sector resilience or new opportunities for students that they couldn’t get in traditional arts programs. To do so, scholars and university leaders would not only need to evaluate the effectiveness of learning outcomes at the end of a university career, ARTIVATE 10.2 10 but they also need to evaluate when students are participating in the workforce, whether as self- employed entrepreneurs or in supporting an organization. As Beckman (, p. ) notes, there is little consensus on the most effective techniques to differentiate the primary end goal of these programs as professional development or a “discrete educational directory”. Career trajectories and success have changed over time, and work life today is evolving into a chaotic pattern of short-term, project-based employment: A  study by the US Department of Labor finds that, on average, Americans between the ages of  and  will work – different jobs in their lifetimes (Bureau of Labor Statistics, ). Today’s graduates (arts and non-arts) will change jobs frequently (/ of American workers expect to be in a different job within  years), hold several jobs at any one time, work across sectors, be self-employed, and start more enterprises. About  percent of all college graduates — including STEM fields — will not be working in fields closely related to their majors within five years (United States Census Bureau, ). These general trends are amplified by what we know about the career trajectory and profiles of artists as a workforce practice. In-depth examinations and surveys show that artists are more likely to be “multiple jobholding” or “moonlighting” compared to other professions (Alper & Wassall, ) that work across public, private, and civic sectors (Markusen et al., ). Studying how universities help artists cope with uncertainty and the factors that influence their resilience should be relevant for understanding these broader social and economic trends facing today and tomorrow’s workforce. Over the past decade, researchers have established creative labor as a fundamental force driving the entire economy, not merely as animating an attractive but discrete sector. Stuart Cunningham and Jason Potts (, p. –) argue that “the creative industries provide the capabilities that incline us, both individually and socially, toward the origination, adoption, and retention of novel ideas.” But despite such eloquent championing of the power of artists to propel ideas and products through the “innovation trajectory,” artists’ economic and civic potential remains, at best, partially tapped. It’s unclear what drives this un-tapping, but it is likely not just individual traits but the way artists are (or are not) trained. Artists have long been part of the “precariat” because creative work tends to “individualize risk” (Bain & McLean, , p. –). It is likely to be highly competitive despite its modest or intermittent financial rewards; it may place great demands on the worker intellectually, physically, and emotionally; and it frequently requires workers to self-finance necessities like insurance, benefits, professional development, marketing, and workspace. Such conditions compel working artists to develop multi-dimensional strategies of resilience across economic sectors in order to thrive. This sector agility is a key trait of artistic career resilience, and it represents ways that artistic competencies can be translated from conventional arts contexts to the civic and corporate spheres in the form of “innovation services'' (Cunningham & Higgs , p. –). Far from just making products “pretty,” when artists leave the arts as traditionally defined or organized, they take with them their unique skill competencies in need identification, problem definition, iterative thinking and action, sensitivity to issues of social justice and equity, and facility in building human connection to audiences, markets, and communities (Maeda, ; UNESCO & UNDEP, ). The question becomes how the ARTIVATE 10.2 11 university, as an arts and cultural anchor, can help their students with this risk and cultivate their resilience, which is central to entrepreneurship, workforce development, and innovation career paths. In addition, it’s also important for the university to help communicate the ways that arts and artists contribute to the health and well-being of their community and regional economy since, as noted in the literature section, these contributions are hidden both in terms of the intrinsic and instrumental values of art and culture (McCarthy et al., ). While the AWD is a central concept to deepening the anchor concept, it is just one part. Our transdisciplinary research seeks to broaden and give depth to the ways that universities act as arts and cultural anchors and to understand how they see their role in our attempt to align theory and practice in this specific topical area. We position our work at the intersection of arts economic development, higher education reform, and anchor institutions (figure ). For this study, our questions are: How do public universities support arts and culture in the twenty-first century? What are the features of a university arts and cultural anchor? How do universities see and articulate their role in the regional arts and cultural ecosystem? How do universities support students, faculty, and regional artists to create and sustain artist career trajectories as professional creative workers? Research Design: Data and Methodology Our qualitative study focuses on concept building through the translation and adaptation of the university as anchor institution to the university as arts and cultural anchor by drawing on a variety of data sources and analytic elements (Berge & Lune, , p. ) that are necessary to building conceptual “thickness” (Geertz, ). We collected information through a comparative case analysis, targeted interviews with university leaders, and a synthesis of public media and peer reviewed scholarship, which we discuss in greater depth below. First, we explore this concept through a comparative case study where our institutional approach breaks down the university’s monolithic structure into different “actors” (Markusen, ) and components to explore how HEIs anchor artistic economic development across different occupations, sectors, and career stages. We follow Yin’s () suggestion of a “cross- case synthesis”, an analytical technique where “each case is treated as a separate study,” and then the findings are aggregated across all cases to look for trends and patterns (Yin, , p.). We employ this strategy by treating the four different cities/universities as separate cases, and we consider each individual case by examining our qualitative data collected from interviews Figure 1. Literature intersections of our research. From Ashley & Durham, 2019. ARTIVATE 10.2 12 with university stakeholders. The objective is not to provide a descriptive comparative case analysis but to use these observations and analyses to help frame our concept building. For the comparative case study, we scanned Intermountain West public universities, and we selected three primary institutions because of their location, the size of their university, and the presence of some kind of arts integration or new ways of thinking about arts education (table ). These institutions include University of Reno-Nevada, Colorado State University, and the University of Utah. We also added a secondary case study, Boise State University, since it is our home institution and acted as point of comparison in the analysis and development of our work. We collected different types of case data that help create necessary “thickness” for our comparative structure (Creswell, , p. ). We visited each site, and we interviewed – people at each location, and in total we interviewed  subjects. These targeted “elite” interviews focused on university leadership (deans, department / program chairpersons, center/institute directors, research directors), relevant faculty, and community partners so that we could begin to uncover “fantasies and realities” of university investment and partnership (Baum, ) as well as opportunities for the alternative university (Staley, ). This method is optimally suited for our work because we can compare university investment, broadly defined, across similar metropolitan HEIs in similar sized cities as well as artist perceptions and experiences with university investment. Targeted subjects focus on those who control funding and set university policy. Our interview protocols are designed to unearth ) how these different “actors” perceive of the cultural assets on campus and in their city, and ) how they view the university’s role in artistic economic development, and ) the ways that they support artistic workforce development. Interviews lasted between  and  minutes, and we employed four different semi-structure formats. Table 1. Contextual Factors for Comparative Cases Boise State University University of Nevada, Reno Colorado State University University of Utah City/ Population Boise , Reno , Fort Collins , Salt Lake , Region Population Boise-Nampa , Reno- Spark , Fort Collins- Loveland , Salt Lake ,, Student enrollment (undergraduate/ graduate) , ,/ , , ,/ , , ,/ , , ,/ , ARTIVATE 10.2 13 Integrated Departments, Centers, Institutes School of the Arts School of the Arts LEAP Institute for the Arts College of Fine Arts Sample of Integrated Degrees or Value- added products (degrees, certificates, specializations, badges) Arts Entrepreneurship Minor; Gaming, Interactive Mobile, and Media n/a Minor in Arts Leadership and Administration; Master of Art Leadership and Cultural Management Entertainment, Arts & Engineering Artist workforce development initiatives n/a n/a n/a ArtsForce Source: University and public sector websites. For dean or upper administration interviews, subjects we asked: . What is the history of your degree program/center/department/college? . How does your university and your university’s culture support the arts and, conversely, make it difficult to be an artist or educate artists? . Do the narratives and realities about an arts and humanities or liberal arts crisis affect the way you develop and run your programs and/or do your work? . How/when do you connect to other arts programs or non-arts programs at the university? . How do you promote the unique skill sets of arts graduates to community partners, the corporate sector, etc.? . Have you had to react to new budget or new assessment models in the university? How? What do you consider your greatest success and/or how do you measure success? What have been your major sticky points or challenges? . When do social justice or equity issues connect to the university’s work in arts and culture? . How do you make the work you do visible to the university, the community locally, your community at large? . How does the community and local culture support or affect your work? . What impact do you hope the program/your work will have on your city/community? How will you measure impact? . How does the university support people and place-based innovation and artistic workforce development? . If someone gave you  million to advance the university’s work on art and culture, how would you spend the money? ARTIVATE 10.2 14 For Chairperson or Program Lead interview subjects, we asked: . What’s your research background, and what have been your program/department/ initiative priorities? . How does the university support the arts, and how do they support artists? . How does your specific program or department support arts and culture and artist workforce development? . How did you become familiar with the new arts programs and initiatives on campus? . What is your role with these programs and initiatives? . What is the structure of the program or initiative? . What are the strengths and weaknesses of the program or initiative? . How well are the programs integrated into the broader academic units? . When do social justice or equity issues connect to the university’s work in arts and culture? . Do the narratives around the crisis of the humanities and liberal arts affect these programs? . If someone gave you  million, how would you advise the university to use that money to invest in arts and culture? For Faculty interview subjects, we asked: . Why did you become an artist? What is your training and background? . How do you and your department/program talk to your students about their unique skill sets? . When and how did you become connected to the new arts program or initiative? . What’s the history and evolution of the new program or initiative? . How do these programs connect to other arts programs or non-arts programs on campus? . How do you promote the unique skill sets of arts graduates to the public, private, and community sector? . What do you consider the integrated program’s greatest success, and/or how do you measure success? What are your major sticky points or challenges with these integrated programs? . How do you make the work that the integrated program does visible to the university, the community locally, your community at large? . What impact do you hope that your work has on your city/community? What impact do you hope that the integrated program work will have on your city/community? How will you measure impact? For Community partner interview subjects, we asked: . How did your community organization connect with the university? What is your relationship to the university? . How does the university support art and culture in the community and region? ARTIVATE 10.2 15 . How are you connected to the new integrated arts program/initiative? . What do you think are the strengths/weaknesses of the integrated initiative? . How would you like the university to support arts and culture in the community? With these interviews we moved from a single case analysis to conduct a cross-comparative analysis across cities to identify any themes that transcend all case experiences. Thus, our research analysis is not a description of individual cases but of how these cases help us further develop our grounded theory to understand the role of the university as part of the arts and cultural ecology of the region and how these cases better contextualize and deepen the general concept of the university as an anchor and an anchor of arts and culture. Part of this process involved returning to “prior expert knowledge” (Yin , p. ) generated by academic scholars and practitioners to consider variables and practitioners that universities and/or artists may not have considered or referred to in our data collection, which allows us an additional dimension to analyze. In that vein, our second data source set came from interviewing an additional five US university leaders outside of our cases who had developed a variety of interdisciplinary artist workforce curriculum approaches or who explored different university structures to support these arts interdisciplinary activities so that we could “see which is not ordinarily on view and examine that which is often looked at but seldom seen” (Rubin & Rubin, , p. xv). These interview subjects encompassed a diverse set of approaches and structures, including arts entrepreneurship, gaming, arts management, creative placemaking, and STEAM. We asked questions about motivations, implementation, and evaluation around these different approaches, and we learned about the effort, resources, and strategic decisions that shape these projects. Finally, we supplemented these cases with a literature analysis to look at the intersection of research on artist workforce development, anchor institutions, and higher education institution reform. We also scanned university activity in arts and culture nationally to look for integrated initiatives to help us better understand the evolution and broadening of university efforts. This was a central part of our work in considering ways that we could adapt the anchor concept to arts and culture. Through this qualitative approach that is exploratory in nature, our data sets allow us to identify the ways that the universities support, hamper, or overlook their connections to artist- driven economic development in their role as contemporary urban anchors. The unearthing and adaptation of these “data sources and analytic elements” (Berg & Lune, , p. ) give us the information to build our concept of the university arts and cultural anchor, and it allows us to see some broader trends and patterns (Ashley, ). This approach shares similarities with grounded theory (Silverman, ) in the early stages where this concept is a “symbolic or abstract element representing . . . [a] phenomenon” that lays the groundwork for theory construction and development (Berg & Lune, , p. ). Extending this concept building, we are also able to design and produce an impact assessment tool for universities to employ when attempting to explain, narrate, or critique their ARTIVATE 10.2 16 role as an art and cultural anchor. We hope this tool can help universities consider the ways in which they support economic and community development. In many ways, this assessment tool is part of a broader movement by communities and institutions to quickly and efficiently evaluate the state of their city, region, organization, or institution from a particular perspective. These assessment mechanisms are used heavily in the health industry, and they fall under the diverse rubric of health impact assessment (Forsyth et al., ). They are also slowly beginning to develop in the arts economic development and arts community development fields through such labeling as “cultural vitality indicators” (Jackson et al., ). We believe that, beyond a region-wide snapshot, it would also be useful for public universities to evaluate the perceptions and realities of artist-driven investment in order to create awareness of the multiple and comprehensive ways to anchor AED. With this pilot concept and pilot tool, we then hope to move to the testing phase of “practical research” (Essig & Guevara, ) so that we can move from a conceptual to theoretical phase to transition to a more robust framework. Analysis and Findings We collected, synthesized, and analyzed our primary and secondary data to address our overarching question: To what extent are public universities arts and cultural anchors? To address this broader topic, we are interested in the following supportive questions: How do public universities act as arts and cultural anchors? How have these anchor features changed over time? How do universities see and articulate their role in the regional arts and cultural ecosystem? How do universities support students, faculty, and regional artists as they create and sustain artist career trajectories as professional creative workers? How does the location, particularly of public universities in the Intermountain west, influence the ways that universities act as arts and cultural anchors? Our goal was not to focus on comparative case analysis of each university but to compare and contrast how these university experiences can be employed to answer these questions in a way to broadly deepen the anchor concept. From our analysis, we identified seven major findings that are nested within these broader questions. Finding : The University is an Arts and Cultural Anchor The university is an important and diverse arts and cultural anchor—as a knowledge center, landowner and real estate developer, major employer and facilitator, and as an agent for social practice and community engagement. Our research is designed not only to apply general anchor attributes to arts and cultural frameworks, but also to see how an arts and cultural perspective may change how we view the anchor concept. Our observations underscore recent research that calls for an unpacking and differentiating of the anchor conceptualization. Our work, while it has a different focus, agrees with Ehlenz’ () argument that the anchor concept, while new, has undergone a series of evolutions. We find the same in our research in differentiating between the traditional and contemporary anchor, as noted below. ARTIVATE 10.2 17 These shifts in identity and usage are catalyzed by external forces (the utility and vitality of the liberal arts debates, decreased government funding, civic emphasis on workforce readiness, enrollment declines, political divides) as well as internal culture (e.g., faculty who are inspiring these changes through their own research and administrative interests and administrative leaders with or without a background in the arts). We also suggest that there be a deepening of what knowledge creation means from an anchor perspective: that it goes beyond just offering degrees but has a workforce readiness component as well as a clearer articulation of what integration means for curriculum and beyond. The university is not an ivory tower, and the anchor position allows it to be a convener of different ideas, interests, expertise, and motivations. The current anchor conceptualization does not consider how the university’s art and cultural assets support regional economic development beyond the arts. So much focus from economic developers is to create attractive environments to draw clusters of high knowledge workers and related industries. The arts, as Ashley () notes, are part of this amenity package and profile, and the university not only houses infrastructure but nurtures these artists who act as a particular draw. For the arts community, the universities may also create new consumers as they develop arts and cultural preferences. There were some typical anchor attributes that we could not align or did not have evidence to connect to the arts and cultural anchor. For example, we could not uncover how university research offices respond to the creation of artistic intellectual property and products, but we saw the emergence of a clearer sense of the variety of artistic products on the parts of some research administrators as well as interest in supporting them (Participant , spring , fall ). We neither could see a deep commitment to helping artists incubate creative businesses and products in the region, although we know this is happening elsewhere to different degrees of success. We hypothesize that universities broadly are not yet actively cultivating artistic economies in the way they are fostering development in the biomedical and technology sectors. Universities, we suspect, have not translated technology transfer and intellectual property into applications that might be applied to the arts. Rising to and overcoming this challenge may lead to an expanded and sustainable model of arts investment. This is an area of future research. Finding : A Shift from a Traditional to Contemporary Anchor Each of the five creative economy reports makes claims about the assets and needs of the city, supporting their claims with evidence in narrative form and/or with data about their city. At times they refer to other cities’ creative assets through narration and comparative quantitative data as a strategy for telling their own story. Both the story and the data are aimed at identifying policy recommendations and promoting the promise of the city’s creative economy. Just as a good story relies on narrative tools to construct the story, so too do these reports. While our coding suggests that some rely primarily on narrative elements to point to the policy recommendations and the moral of the story, coding also reveals that other reports rely more heavily on data to serve as the signpost toward the moral and recommended outcomes. While ARTIVATE 10.2 18 we do not address the value, either positive or negative, of using narrative rhetoric or data- driven evidence in reports, we show that these two types of evidence are each mobilized toward describing and making arguments about the creative economy, allowing for comparison between cities’ strategic use of each type of evidence in their reports. There has been a shift in how the university acts as an art and cultural anchor: from the traditional patronage approach to a contemporary model in which the university is an investor, innovator, facilitator, and catalyst. We see an evolution underway that marks a transition from a traditional arts and cultural anchor to a contemporary st-century model (table ). The traditional activities are still important, vital anchor contributions, but they have evolved to include additional elements that supplement these practices and to catalyze some reflection on how to refresh traditional practices. In the contemporary manifestation, the university moves from a more passive role as a patron to an intentional innovator and entrepreneur in creative investments. From our analysis, we created a map to articulate how general anchor attributes (knowledge transfer, innovation capital facilities and landholdings, regional employer, social practice) could be relayed or conveyed into art and cultural functions. We then were able to see patterns emerge between a traditional and contemporary framework where there is a transition from a patron to an investor perspective. We argue that this shift happens on a much more comprehensive scale than academic programs alone. The different categories are to be treated fluidly, as one example can illustrate more than one attribute where intentionality and motivation matter. For example, a university can finance maker space, which can speak to priorities in both landholdings and real estate as well as artist workforce readiness and innovation. Table 2. Traditional and Contemporary Attributes of Universities as Arts and Cultural Anchors Traditional Anchors of Arts & Culture Contemporary Anchors of Arts & Culture Knowledge Transfer Artist patronage Human capital investment in workforce training and new signifiers of training mastery Traditional training in arts programs with specific but separate and distinct degrees in music, visual art, theatre, and dance New interdisciplinary degrees that integrate the arts but are for students interested in creative or more commercial focused arts (e.g., arts and engineering, gaming and design) and aren’t aligned with traditional arts and are usually not in the same administrative unit New interdisciplinary degrees for traditional arts students (majors, minors) New non-degree credentials for art students to opt-in and skills focused to supplement traditional degrees (certificates, badges, one-off skills courses, and workshops) New learning outcomes and courses supplement traditional arts degrees that are geared toward workforce training or a broader contextualization of the arts in society ARTIVATE 10.2 19 Internal apprenticeships and graduate research opportunities (e.g., college radio stations, printmaking assistantships, lab assistants) Focus on experiential learning, including internships, service learning, and studios connected with external partners Connecting with local and regional workforce providers in both arts and non-arts fields to work on job placement but alignment with training and job needs Landholdings, Facilities, and Infrastructure Artist patronage Bricks and mortar investments enhanced Build and subsidize facilities where material is delivered by experts who manage, produce, and present the material to visitors or passive observers (e.g., proscenium theatres, museums, exhibition spaces, black box theatres, roadhouses) Build and subsidize new physical spaces (maker spaces, arts labs, other) where work is self-directed and democratic, and may involve collaborating with external partners Provide access to equipment, materials, audiences through traditional facility investments to members of the community Opens doors to community members and organizations to provide access to equipment, materials, and audiences for subsidized rates and supports arts faculty and students who collaborate with community members and organizations to design, produce, and share work Use large scale arts and cultural facilities as part of Urban Renewal histories and legacies Use arts and cultural facilities and infrastructure for targeted neighborhood revitalization and redevelopment (e.g., Baltimore’s Station North; MICA; Johns Hopkins) Works with regional economic partners to use public art facilities as part of an amenity profile or attraction for high knowledge workers Major Regional Employer Artist patronage Human capital investment in attraction and retention Hire artists as faculty where salary supports artist work and also gives these faculty access to equipment, networks, and performance/exhibition spaces Recognize and support arts faculty and students as creative forces and drivers shaping the regional creative sector in economic development Hire artists (community artists, student artists) to staff arts and cultural programming on and off-site Focus on art degrees and programs where an artist is (re)trained as an innovator and problem solver that will lead to greater economic benefits for the region City and regional economic developers market arts and cultural facilities as part of a region’s amenities profile to attract and retain knowledge workers Innovation and Transfer of Ideas Creating traditional arts programming that is delivered to internal and external audiences Build and subsidize new physical spaces (maker spaces, arts labs, other) that are designed to help students learn how to create products not just for traditional nonprofit sectors but also civic and for-profit ends ARTIVATE 10.2 20 Focus on new integration degrees geared towards the for- profit creative sector and economy to support STEM clusters and high knowledge workers New integration initiatives, generally called STEAM or design thinking, that are housed outside of traditional arts programs that draw on art approaches and processes to solve problems more effectively and efficiently; may not involve traditional arts faculty or programs Grow and spin off arts and cultural organizations that initiate from student/faculty collaborations Grow and spin off arts and cultural organizations that test an idea or product then helps these groups launch it strategically and with resources Social Practice Focus and Community Engagement Artist patronage Investment in community or community development Train students to be art educators, establishing future gatekeepers of arts and culture Collaborate and partner with community groups and stakeholders on equitable development and neighborhood revitalization Offer subsidized tickets to low income or resourced groups for university performances and exhibitions Different academic units (colleges, schools, centers, departments, programs) incorporate a social purpose into their mission Subsidize university space for arts and cultural events for low resourced groups Offer new academic programs that use or leverage arts for social practice and community engagement (e.g., creative placemaking) Collaborate with other regional anchors to address issues of inequality and oversight Source: Synthesis of literature, interviews, and case study research. Note: This is not an exhaustive list but an illustration of the shift from a traditional to contemporary anchor institutions. In its earlier form, and beyond its essential educational mission, the university had three primary functions in ) knowledge creation and transfer, ) capital projects and real estate activities, and ) major employment generators. First, it primarily focused on bricks-and- mortar investments through landholding, facilities, and infrastructure. Performance and exhibition facilities provided space and equipment for student training, for faculty use in their own artistic practices, and for the university to use as a source of revenue through touring companies and events. These facilities also supported the university’s role as a site of knowledge transfer with its emphasis on offering traditional arts degrees and experiences where students learn and develop a particular craft and discipline in traditional arenas, including music, theater, visual arts, and dance. As a major regional employer, the university hires artists as faculty (tenure-track, lecturers, clinical, adjuncts); it provides financial stability to the artist and gives them opportunities to train and mentor students in their particular disciplines. Depending upon the position and other factors, the artist as a faculty member is also given access to equipment, ARTIVATE 10.2 21 networks, and performance/exhibition spaces. While some scholars debate whether universities anchor through social practice in general, we saw illustrations of this in the traditional realm, too, namely through the university’s ability to subsidize space and event experiences and to supplement arts education in public schools. One study subject commented on the number of ways that faculty artists participate in the community and the importance of that engagement, “There are so many universities right along this [Intermountain West] corridor. If all of us went away, it would be devastating” (Participant , personal communication, fall ). In the contemporary form, the university arts and cultural anchor not only takes on greater variation in its activities, but there is also an emerging shift towards a more active and intentional approach to its role. There is a movement from pure artistic training in a singular practice to a workforce readiness approach that features skill development and cross-sector training. There has been a well-documented increase in curriculum experiments around arts entrepreneurship and arts management products or value-added signifiers (singular courses, minors, certificates, badges, specializations) that art students may couple with their traditional degrees. There are also several other integration curriculum experiments that bring art and artists into other student experiences across campus in non-arts academic units. For example, there is an increase in STEAM (science-technology-engineering-arts-math) initiatives that observe how arts-related inputs (be it students, faculty, materials, or scholarship) can change the way a problem is conceptualized, solved, and communicated, which makes for a better end product or solution. There are also new, more commercial-focused degrees in gaming and design that meld different components of computer science, engineering, and graphic design along with storytelling, music composition, and editing. There is also a small and slow-growing cluster of courses and certificates that integrate the arts in urban studies or in community and environmental health to champion creative place-making and public health benefits in place- based communities. Beyond these individual curriculum innovations, the university is also investing in new structural operations, including new centers about creative enterprise, creative placemaking, arts and entertainment, and arts entrepreneurship. The university anchor has adapted in response to these new integration avenues. The university has also made a substantial shift in how it marshals its capital facilities and infrastructure investments. Maker lab spaces, art incubators, creativity labs, and more facility- based innovations are supporting student training and undergraduate/graduate research as well as faculty research development. These are smaller, fine-grained spaces that have an array of motivations and intentions that vary across universities and can be, but do not have to be, connected to academic units and programs. We increasingly see universities collaborating with regional economic partners to use the public art facilities as part of a broader marketing package to attract and retain highly coveted knowledge workers (people with college degrees) to the region, which shows closer connections to growth coalitions than in the past where the university was often isolated from conversations about how to grow the region. As arts and cultural anchors, universities are also increasing and broadening their role in social practice and in other forms of community engagement. There are a growing number of academic units, degrees, academic centers, and extension services that incorporate “social ARTIVATE 10.2 22 practice” (Carrigan, ; Grant, ) or that center community engagement into their mission, values, and principles. In part, this is driven by a focus on experiential learning (Eyler, ; Seymour & Lopez, ) and the growth of art forms (Grant, ). One of our subjects commented, “The biggest impact you can have is to go in and listen to a community. When a community is heard, they will often take action themselves” (Participant , personal communication, spring ). This can happen in traditional art programs that support social practice of the arts as well as integrated efforts elsewhere in the university through such examples as STEAM initiatives (Rhode Island Steam Center, ; McClanahan, ), art-related social work (Huss & Sela- Amit, ), art physical therapy (Tiret, ), creative placemaking certificates (New Jersey Institute of Technology, n.d.), and experiential learning in arts management programs (University of Buffalo, ). There are academic experiences, both credit and non-credit bearing, where students—through curated service-learning projects, externships, university- community partnerships, and other experiential opportunities—use their traditional training and any valued-added training to solve a community problem or celebrate a community’s assets. Students have long shared their artistic skills with communities to enliven and enrich them: they've created public art, developed after school and other extracurricular programming, presented impromptu and planned performances, and incorporated arts into therapeutic settings, but today we're also seeing interdisciplinary collaborations between artists, art students, and others in the university and community; for example, artists and/or urban studies students use pop-up art to start a civic conversation about sustainability in neighborhoods (Ashley, ). Some universities partner with local arts organizations on neighborhood revitalization and equitable development as did Baltimore Station North Inc. with Maryland Institution of Contemporary Art and Johns Hopkins University to help revitalize the Baltimore Station North Arts and Entertainment District through funding, internal and external space, faculty/student time, and marketing support (Ashley, ). Finding : The Anchor Role is Hidden and Isolated University leaders, both in the arts and in general leadership positions, are largely unaware of how they might explain and communicate the ways that universities can act as anchors and how their specific institution performs in that role. As we have shown, a substantial body of literature exists around anchor institutions, but university and arts administrators, unless they happen to have a background in urban studies, planning, and economic development are unlikely to have encountered it. They could identify some anchor components where they had strengths and weaknesses, but it was not their frame of reference. University leaders did not think or talk about themselves as arts and cultural anchors. One of our subjects commented, “It’s hard to explain value and benefits. It’s easier to have them experience it. It’s hard to quantify value. It’s something you have to experience to understand” (Participant , spring ). They did not position themselves broadly as actors in AED and its trends: aesthetics, workforce development, community development, amenity building, and ARTIVATE 10.2 23 creative industries (Ashley, ). They do not measure the local economic impact of their campus arts activities, the arts activities that their faculty participate in off and on campus, or the type and quality of relationships their institutions have with commercial and non-profit arts organizations in the community. This is an example of how research and practice are disconnected in that scholars increasingly visualize or narrate these processes or attributes, but it is not the language of the actual practitioners or stakeholders. Universities provide important resources to student and faculty artists affiliated with the institution such as employment, training, networking, and access to facilities, and even in a climate of dwindling resources, universities are arts-rich places. They do know their traditional artistic success quite well, but there is an opportunity to consider these AED narratives for their own benefit and institutional advancement. In fact, we often see university structures as the barriers to shaping the creative ecosystem, and it isn’t clear where the universities’ points of entry are for high community impact. Additionally, we did not see evidence of universities measuring how these resources advance artistic careers or how they support the creative ecosystem. One study subject commented, “Too often we abdicate our responsibilities for explaining to our students what they are going to do with their degree” (participant , spring ). In general, interview subjects typically noted a curriculum alternative in supporting artist workforce development, which is an important starting point. However, we also see this “hidden-ness” as isolation when it comes to curriculum integration via arts entrepreneurship, arts management, creative placemaking, and STEAM practices (table ). Ideally, in a contemporary setting, universities actively and intentionally shape artistic careers through their resources and infrastructure, and these programs try to do so. There is external excitement around new integration or workforce readiness programs, but as Beckman shows (), there is also fuzziness around design and implementation because of the lack of accreditation in fields with otherwise strong accrediting bodies (NASAD, NASM, NAST, and NASD) and the lack of the ability to articulate what the different programs accomplish for students. In many instances, these programs do not have a home program or department due to their interdisciplinary structure, and if they do have a home, it is often disconnected from the traditional arts departments and their related infrastructure. In many instances, these programs have high expectations from university administrators but are inadequately resourced. One subject commented, “I have said to the people above, thank goodness I’ve run nonprofits and businesses because if I was a straight academic, I couldn’t do this” (Participant , spring ). Additionally, these programs are opt-in, and thus, it suggests that workforce readiness is not important enough to integrate into the existing and traditional arts programs. ARTIVATE 10.2 24 Table 3. Illustrations of Types of Integration and Interdisciplinary Programs Intention/ Motivation Sample of Student Targets Arts Entrepreneurship Skill building: Give arts students the skills to own their own business, make new products, create their own brand; highly connected to self- employment Arts Arts Management Skill building: Give art students the skills to work for arts organizations in public, private, civic sector Arts Gaming Problem solving: Give STEM students a new approach to answer problems by using art practices, applying art theory, or working with artists STEM, Sometimes Arts Creative Placemaking Social innovation: Use art and design to remake urban space or to work with artists to help facilitate urban change Urban planning, Urban studies, Sometimes arts, Community members Design Thinking Problem solving: use a particular strategy to address a problem in the private, civic, or nonprofit sector Business Arts Education Supporting artists to become art teachers in K-  Education Arts Source: Ashley and Durham Note: This list is not exhaustive but shows examples of integration and examples of motivations and intentions. Finding Four: Broadening Anchor Concept to include Social Practice and Community Engagement We agree with Taylor and Luter () that the arts and cultural experience within HEIs shows how the university anchor conceptualization should include a “social purpose credo” (Ehlenz, ) or a “change agent in social development” since we see an increasing practice of this theoretical positioning in our cases and in research. As one of our study subjects commented, “We haven't coalesced in a meaningful way to leverage the power of the entire college to reach out to communities that may be marginalized or oppressed. [There is] growing interest at the administrative level and the individual faculty level [in doing so]” (Participant , fall ). The anchor concept is limited in its focus on a standard treatment of regional economic development and overlooks the ways that the university anchor contributes to social development in the community, which leads to intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes. Our work goes beyond typical “scholarship of engagement” frameworks or how the university sees its public facing role in connecting students to the “real world” (e.g. service learning, technical assistance) (Northmore & Hart, ; Reardon, ; Wiewel & Knaap, ; Winkler, ) to ARTIVATE 10.2 25 incorporate a richer understanding of engagement as posited by Tepper and Arthurs () as a “trading zone” where collaboration, innovation, and intellectual risk-taking build transformative new alliances that explode previous institutional structures and redefine participants’ experiences of relationship and place. For example, the National Creative Placemaking Certificate employs arts and culture as a strategy for improving community development in under-resourced neighborhoods, and there are a number of ways that the university could partner with community organizations on a variety of topics, as other scholars have noted in their work (Wiewel & Knapp, ). These experiential collaborations are more than tacking on a service-learning project or experiential learning connected to arts curriculum: they are a more comprehensive and deliberate way to use the problem-solving skills of art students, art/integration faculty, and community partners to realize the broader vision as Alexroth and Dubb (, p. ), who suggest how Urban universities [can] seek to fully achieve their anchor institution mission —that is, to consciously apply their long-term, place-based economic power, in combination with their human and intellectual resources, to better the long-term welfare of the communities in which they reside. In essence, this is another way that arts and culture have contributed to the contemporary frame of the anchor institution by reinforcing the role that universities can play in their communities through drawing on their many arts and cultural assets. This is also in line with new evidence-based practice about the impacts of experiential learning and its importance for high-quality education outcomes (Busteed, ; Eyler, ). Finding : The Intermountain West as Varied Context We found that anchor attributes and the evolution of the anchor identity is not a one-size- fits- all narrative. Rather, universities are part of a longer historical arc in the development of the region’s arts and cultural identity. Several study subjects commented on the importance of the geography and natural surroundings, not only in their practical or artistic work but as part of inspiration in work/life balance, as one person noted, “The wide-open spaces, liberating skies . . . [there’s] more freedom here. There’s less constraints” (Participant , fall ). Analyses need to move beyond the university as an isolated, separate (or immune) entity, and they need to frame how the university has responded and reacted to the political, cultural, financial, and regulatory forces that drive the structural foundation of the region. This observation is particularly relevant for our geographical focus and scale. For example, we found that, for many years, artists could live and work affordably in the region, and interviewees with a history in the region spoke to the importance of an affordable cost of living in their choice of locale for launching careers and entrepreneurial ventures. But as these cities have grown, and as more people in other industries flooded into the region, housing costs in particular have skyrocketed. One university administrator noted its impact on attracting and retaining faculty ARTIVATE 10.2 26 artists: “The cost of housing in our growing city is a huge issue, and we’re on the brink of a crisis. Unless newcomers have independent financial resources, they won’t be able to afford suitable housing on our starting salaries in the arts. Buying a home is out of reach, and rentals are scarce. The situation is untenable.” Artists with faculty appointments have much more stable incomes and benefits than student artists and non-faculty artists, so the impact will be even more intense on those populations. The pipeline fueling the creative sector may become highly constricted as a result. In addition, the right-to-work nature of many of the Intermountain West states has implications for how universities anchor arts and cultural activity since artist unions are common and powerful in the performing arts. In another example, regionally dominant organizations and institutions influence how certain arts practices and disciplines develop, and thus, how the university responds to those priorities. Additionally, a fair amount of the anchor literature stems from the loss of corporate commitments and the rise of large nonprofits to fill that leadership, funding, employment, and philanthropic gap. However, the large cities of the Intermountain West don’t share that story, but they are often connected to different industries in agriculture and extraction rather than in corporate finance and high-end services. It is essential to understand the path-dependent nature of the arts and culture eco-system to position the university and its role as an anchor. There is limited information about how anchor institutions—as well as how arts and cultural institutions—play a different or more profound role in the Intermountain West due to the geographic isolation and the lack of a strong history of philanthropic investment in the arts, as one study subject commented, “People won’t spend money on art here. [We’re] trying to educate the public on why art is expensive and what the value is of collecting art (Participant , spring ). At the same time, it does raise questions about whether the entrepreneurial spirit of the West influences the way universities work and function as their role shifts. We see the isolation of universities in medium-sized markets in the Intermountain West not as a limitation but as an opportunity to control for variables that strengthen comparative elements as well as providing a much-needed lens with which to view high-growth cities that are overlooked in AED research. Finding . Difficulty Finding the Connection Between Anchor and DEI We found that many of the universities did not discuss how their work (strategies, programming, resources, curriculum) with AED or AWD connected with university goals or objectives in supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (DEI). There is also very little general anchor research that discusses the university in that arena, with the exception of studies (Ehlenz ) that call for a new indicator to be used about community development and social innovation for evaluating the ways that universities act as anchors, but this largely tends to be more place or neighborhood-based with a focus on gentrification (McGraw, ) and placemaking. There is not a great deal of information on anchoring with DEI and underrepresented student populations in how to address data that shows the difficulties for students from marginalized backgrounds to pursue careers in entrepreneurship or innovation or how to support workforce development needs for different communities and ARTIVATE 10.2 27 intersectionalities, and there is limited information about how undergraduate and graduate curricula in the arts address these concerns (Cuyler, ). One of the study subjects commented, “We are very clear that we need to do a better job. We are working toward figuring out where the curriculum isn’t supporting social justice, equity, and even access” (Participant , fall ). This may be a growth opportunity since this is often a focus of universities through the lens of student success and retention, and it’s the topic of many university associations and convenings (see Association of American Colleges & Universities  virtual conference on diversity, equity, and student success). This kind of focus is also happening outside of the university as practitioners and applied researchers suggest the importance of supporting artists who work in these marginalized communities (Louis & Burns, n.d.) as well as marginalized artists at different points of their careers in training (Louis & Burns, n.d.; Americans for the Arts, ; Americans for the Arts, ; SMU Data Arts, ). This focus is starting to shift through public policy reports (Schildt & Rubin, , p. .) that are championing an approach of “economic inclusion for low-income residents and communities of color,” or through having anchor institutions buy from business owners and entrepreneurs in underserved areas (ICIC, n.d.), or in helping nurture entrepreneur-driven immigrant communities (Abello, ). Markusen and Gadwa (, p. ) suggest that an equity focus would “greatly strengthen” research in arts and economic development to address questions of impact, opportunity costs, and access at different geographic scales, and we can apply this to the university anchor conversation as well. As Harris () notes, “the soft underbelly of the university'' shows a disconnect between the university and community research and engagement priorities. There are opportunities to think about how we can measure, plan, support and communicate to reach these underserved audiences. We would also suggest that, given the changing demographics of the US, it is important to consider how to support these different constituencies and that this is connected to different aspects of the anchor concept. We think this is a ripe area for research to explore how the anchor concept may support this focus. Finding : A Typology for Anchor Positioning Our data shows that there are different stages of anchor positioning. There are four broad stages or opportunities as an anchor: dormant, aspirational, accidental, and intentional. They are driven by their awareness of what an anchor can do—which involves both identifying and sharing the narrative of building blocks of an anchor—and by their activities to invest in arts and culture elements. We suggest that this is part of the general anchor evolution in the ways that universities contribute to the economy that are standard and require very little activation; however, there are ways that the university can become a more advanced anchor through strategic narratives and investment. Based on interviews and literature from general anchor studies, arts economic development research, university arts evaluations, and arts and cultural anchors, we have ARTIVATE 10.2 28 identified four university anchor types for arts and culture. The y-axis denotes whether university administrators are aware of how they anchor arts and culture in the region, and the x-axis denotes the extent to which the university has invested in arts and culture. This is a conceptual drawing to help universities figure out where they sit and to give them information about how to move to different phases (figure ). Figure 2. Arts and Cultural Typology for University Anchor Institutions. Ashley & Durham, 2019. We suggest there are four broad categories: ) Aspirational anchor institution: These are universities that have high awareness and interest about what it means to be a contemporary art and cultural anchor, but they have limited resources to invest in the ways they would like. These universities might have a few initiatives or strategies in play, but they are unable to harness the resources (political, financial, administrative) to become an active or intentional anchor and are looking for ways to do so. ) Intentional anchor institution: These are universities that have high awareness of what it means to be a twenty-first century arts and cultural anchor, and they are actively engaged in investing and supporting their capabilities because they are able to harness significant resources. ) Passive anchor institution: These are universities that have low awareness about how to identify the building blocks of an arts and cultural anchor and don’t know how to communicate or narrate their story. However, they have made significant investments in arts and culture. This is a missed opportunity to fully communicate their role or help make a case for the importance of arts and culture for economic, community, and workforce development. ) Dormant anchor institution: These are universities that do not know how to identify the building blocks of an anchor institution, and they can’t convey their narrative or story; they have made limited investments in arts and culture. As one study subject observed, “my perception from the university level is we [in the arts] are tolerated rather than ARTIVATE 10.2 29 embraced (Participant , spring ). We see these anchor types deeply aligned and connected to the impact assessment tool that we discuss below. The assessment tool offers universities the opportunity to identify its strengths while recognizing aspects of its programming that might benefit from strategic redesign. We take inspiration from Cathy Davidson () who writes, We need educators and administrators themselves committed to redesigning ethical, democratic, pragmatic, forward-looking education. . . . We need individuals and institutions to work together to rejuvenate an antiquated system for our accelerating times and to ensure that the solutions we craft address the real problems rather than just generating new ones. The alternative university setting has the potential to move from treating the anchor concept as a “given” and to consider ways to energize its opportunities through active reflection. Application: Impact Assessment Tool Our research underscores that universities typically do not think of themselves as art and cultural anchors, or they think about it in marginal or incomplete ways. As a result, they do not seize the opportunity to evaluate or communicate their contributions, and they are not able to make good choices about arts and cultural investments so that they strengthen their anchor role and realize their potential. To help university leaders perceive their role in influencing the artistic communities in their vicinity and to help them become aware of their cultural assets, we have created a pilot impact assessment tool. This will give them the knowledge to enhance their universities’ reputations and distinguish their universities’ identities while enhancing the reputations and distinguishing the identities of their home cities. Universities attract significant artistic talent to their faculty ranks, and those uniquely skilled faculty, in turn, attract students. Without the university’s presence in a region like the Intermountain West, artistic labor would be scarce for a variety of industries. This would allow them to start to measure the creative and economic contribution they have. We want them to identify the key aspects of being an anchor, and we have designed the pilot test to help with this stage. We suggest that there are three parts: ) being able to identify the key aspects of being an anchor, ) being able to tell the anchor story through narrative frameworks, and ) then investing in and developing partnerships based on an evaluation of performance or based on the mission of the institution and its different units. This exercise is useful for universities in any locale, but it may be especially critical for universities in the Intermountain West that are experiencing tremendous growth and that have not historically had deep and highly developed artistic resources. The impact assessment tool and its overview are found in the appendix. Conclusion and Future Work Universities in the US are touted as great patrons of the arts largely due to their investments in bricks-and-mortar projects and their academic programs that train emerging artists in the ARTIVATE 10.2 30 traditional arts. However, this patronage status overlooks the ways that universities anchor arts and cultural activity as part of the regional creative ecology. Our research shows the breadth and depth of this anchoring to overcome the fuzziness of the concept and to help university and economic development stakeholders understand the powerful role that the university plays in the regional creative ecosystem or in the regional arts and cultural ecology. Our research makes seven central points. First, the university is an important and diverse arts and cultural anchor as a knowledge center, landowner and real estate developer, major employer and facilitator, and as a social developer. Second, there has been a shift in how the university acts as an art and cultural anchor from the traditional patronage approach to a contemporary model where the university is an investor, innovator, and facilitator. Third, there are four broad stages or opportunities as an anchor (dormant, aspirational, passive, and intentional) that are driven by their awareness of what an anchor can do, which involves both identifying and narrating the building blocks of an anchor and by their activities to invest in arts and culture elements. Fourth, university leaders, both in the arts and in general leadership positions, are largely unaware of how to explain and communicate the ways that universities can act as anchors or how their specific institution does. Fifth, the anchor concept is limited in its focus on a standard treatment of regional economic development and overlooks the ways that the university anchor contributes to social development in the community, which leads to extrinsic outcomes. Sixth, the arts and cultural anchor institutions in the Intermountain West show that context matters as the geographic, political, and cultural development of this region influences the ways that universities can perform as anchors creating both opportunities and limitations. Seventh, DEI is not a central part of anchoring conversations, but it could be in the future. These findings demonstrate a disconnection between theory and practice, which leads to missed opportunities to invest in ways that respond to evidence-based strategies. To help ameliorate this disconnect, we marshalled our data and analysis to design and create a pilot “University Anchor: Arts and Cultural Impact Assessment Tool” for chairs, program leads, program coordinators, and deans to employ to help them identify the building blocks of a university arts and cultural anchor so that they can narrate their value to relevant stakeholders and to provide support around investment discussions and decision-making. This assessment tool, coupled with our typology of anchor status, gives university leaders more information to help make decisions in the difficult funding and political climates surrounding HEIs. We hope our applied research helps universities see how they can move from being an arts patron to an arts investor, innovator, and catalyst. Our work also suggests the need to expand the anchor concept from a purely economic development angle about regional growth and shrinkage to include the social role or the “social purpose credo” that universities play in their place-based communities, as noted by Taylor and Lutner () and Ehlenz (). This work is also part of innovation and entrepreneurship, but often from a socially engaged perspective. Our future work centers on pilot-testing the assessment tool with select university communities to determine its applicability and to create a tool that is easy to implement so that we can continue our efforts to align research and practice. ARTIVATE 10.2 31 References Abello, O. P. (2016, March 2). NYC, CUNY will help international entrepreneurs create U.S. jobs. Next City. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/jobs-new-york- city-international-entrepreneurs Addie, J. P. D. (2020). Anchoring (in) the region: The dynamics of university-engaged urban development in Newark, NJ, USA. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 102(2), 172–190. Allen, S. (n.d.). Arts incubator connects with community: Washington Park facility creates collaborative space for South Side artists. University of Chicago. https://www.uchicago.edu/features/arts_incubator_c onnects_with_community/ Allen, T. J., & O’Shea, R. (Eds.) (2014). Building technology transfer within research universities: An entrepreneurial approach. Cambridge University Press. Alper, N. O., & Wassall, G. H. (2000). More than once in a blue moon: Multiple job holdings by American artists. Research division report #40. National Endowment for the Arts. Americans for the Arts. (2016). Statement on Cultural Equity. https://www.americansforthearts.org/about- americans-for-the-arts/cultural-equity. Americans for the Arts. (2019). Mapping our progress toward cultural equity: Americans for the arts’ diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts since the 2016 adoption of the statement on cultural equity. Aoun, J. (2018). Robot proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. MIT Press. Ashley, A. J. (2015). Beyond the aesthetic: The historical pursuit of local arts economic development. Journal of Planning History, 14(1), 38–61. Ashley, A. J. (2021). The micropolitics of performance: Pop-up art as a complementary method for civic engagement and public participation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(2), 173–187. Ashley, A. J. & Durham, L. (2015). The working artist: Boise’s hidden economy of creators, makers, and doers. Boise State University Public Policy Center and Center for Idaho History and Politics Urban Research Series. Association of American Colleges and Universities (2021, March 24–26). Proceedings at 2021 diversity, equity, and student success conference. https://www.aacu.org/events/2021-diversity-equity- and-student-success-conference Axelrod, P. (2017, October 31). Is there too much emphasis on STEM fields at universities? The conversation. https://theconversation.com/is-there- too-much-emphasis-on-stem-fields-at-universities- 86526. Axelroth, R., & Dubb, S. (2010). The road half traveled: University engagement at a crossroads. Proceedings at the Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland. Bain, A., & McLean, H. (2013). The artistic precariat. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 6, 93–111.
 Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. Routledge. Baum, H. S. (2000). Fantasies and realities in university- community partnerships. Journal of planning education and research, 20(2): 234–246. Becker, H. (2008). Art worlds. University of California Press. Beckman, G. (2007). “Adventuring” arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An examination of present efforts, obstacles, and best practices. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 87–112. Beckman, G., & Essig, L. (2012). Arts entrepreneurship: A conversation. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 1(1), 1–8. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the Social Sciences. 8th edition. Pearson. Birch, E. L. (2010). Anchor institutions and their role in metropolitan change. Penn Institute for Urban Research, University of Pennsylvania. Birch, E., Perry, D.C., & Taylor, Jr. H.L. (2013). Universities as anchor institutions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(3): 7–15. Carrigan, M. (2017, August 30). What happens when social practice art means the market? Artsy. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-social- practice-art-meets-market. Chea, S., & Yu, C. (2016). Assessing economic of research and innovation originating from public institutions and universities – case of Singapore PRIs. Triple helix: A Journal of University-Industry- Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 1–46. Chriss, A. (2018, January 19). Don’t ditch that liberal arts degree: A liberal arts degree is an asset in Silicon Valley, not a liability. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved June 13, 2019. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge- bank/articles/2018-01-19/in-this-digital-age- students-with-liberal-arts-training-stand-out Community-wealth.org (n.d.). Overview: Anchor institutions. https://community- wealth.org/strategies/panel/anchors/index.html. Considine, A. (2019, January 2). Why wait? The rise of undergrad arts admin programs. AmericanTheatre.org. https://www.americantheatre.org/2019/01/02/why- wait-the-rise-of-undergrad-arts-admin-programs/. Cummings, M. (2018, February 8). A maker space where art and technology merge. Yale News. https://news.yale.edu/2018/02/08/maker-space-where- art-and-technology-merge Cunningham, S., & Higgs. P. (2009). Measuring creative employment: Implications for innovation policy. Innovation, 11(2), 190–200. Cuyler, A. (2017)). Diversity, equity, & inclusion (DEI) in the cultural sector: What’s next? Culture work, 21(3). Davidson, C. N. (2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. Basic Books. Davis, B. (2016, August 30). Is getting an MFA worth the ARTIVATE 10.2 32 price? Artnet.com. https://news.artnet.com/art- world/mfa-degree-successful-artists-620891 Dix, W. (2016, November 16). A liberal arts degree is more important than ever. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/willarddix/2016/11/16/ a-liberal-arts-degree-is-more-important-than- ever/?sh=575d9dc339f2. Dodgson, M., & Gann, D. (2020, October 14). Universities should support more entrepreneurs. Here’s why and how. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/universiti es-should-support-more-student-entrepreneurs/ Dutt-Ballerstadt, R. (2019, March 1). Academic prioritization or killing the liberal arts? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/03/01/ shrinking-liberal-arts-programs-raise-alarm-bells- among-faculty. Ehlenz, M. M. (2015). Neighborhood revitalization and the anchor institution: Assessing the impact of the university of Pennsylvania’s West Philadelphia initiatives on University City. Urban Affairs Review, 52(5): 714–750. Ehlenz, M. M. (2017). Defining university anchor institution strategies: Comparing theory to practice. Planning Theory & Practice. 19(1): 74–92. Essig, L. (2014). Arts incubator: A typology. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 44(3), 169– 180. Essig, L., & Guevara, J. (2016). A landscape of arts entrepreneurship in higher education. Prepared for the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities. Eyler, J. (2021, July 29). The power of experiential learning. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/publications- research/periodicals/power-experiential-education. Forsyth, A., Schively Slotterback, C., & Krizek, K. (2010). Health impact assessment (HIA) for planners: What tools are useful? Journal of Planning Literature, 24(3), 231–45. Friedman, D., Perry, D., & Menendez, Cr. (n.d.). The foundational role of universities as anchor institutions in urban development: A report of national data and survey findings. Coalition of Urban Serving Universities and Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. Gaffikin, F. (2011). The university and the city: Place- based anchor institutions and urban development. University of Pennsylvania. http://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the- university-and-the-city-placebased-anchor- institutions-and- urban-development(a7c6c99d- 5b1d-4ae5-a6cf-a21167d2748d).html. Glazer, L. (2018, January 5). Google finds STEM skills aren’t the most important skills. Michigan Future Inc. http://michiganfuture.org/01/2018/google-finds- stem-skills-arent-the-most-important-skills/ Grant, D. (2016, February 5). Social practice degrees take art to a communal level. The New York Times. Grodach C. (2011). Art spaces in community and economic development: Connections to neighborhoods, artists, and the cultural economy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1): 74–85. Hannon, K. (2019, March 12). Raising the cultural bar on campuses. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/arts/college- university-museums.html Harris, M.S. (2019). The soft underbelly of universities as anchor institutions: The disconnect between university and community research priorities. High education policy, 34: 603–621. Harris, A. (2018, December 13). The liberal arts may not survive the 21st Century. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018 /12/the-liberal-arts-may-not-survive-the-21st- century/577876/ Harris, M., & Holley, K. (2016). Universities as anchor institutions: Economic and social potential for urban development. In L. W. Perna & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.) Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 393–439). Springer, Cham. Hartley, S. (2018). The fuzzy and the techie: Why liberal arts will rule the digital world. Mariner Books. Huss, E, & Sela-Amit, M. (2018). Art in social work: do we really need it? Research On Social Work Practice, 29(6): 721–726. Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. (n.d.). Leveraging anchor institutions to grow inner city businesses. http://icic.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/ICIC_Le veraging-Anchor-Institutions.pdf Initiative for a Competitive Inner City. (n.d.). Anchor institutions and urban economic development: From community benefit to shared value. Inner City Insights, 1(2). Jackson, M. R., Kabwasa-Green, F., & Herranz, J. (2006). Cultural vitality in communities: Interpretation and indicators. Urban Institute. Johnson, S. (2018, November 13). As tech companies hire more liberal arts majors, more students are choosing STEM degrees. EdSurge. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge- bank/articles/2018-01-19/in-this-digital-age- students-with-liberal-arts-training-stand-out Jones, N. (2015–2016). The continuous death and resurrection of the liberal arts. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2015- 2016/fall-winter/jones. Lederman, D. (2021, July 7). Despite positive experiences, students question value of college. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/07/07/s tudents-see-less-value-college-despite-positive- experiences Louis, S. & Burns, L. (n.d). Neighbourhood arts network: Arts and equity toolkit. Toronto Arts Foundation. Luberecki, L. (2019, March 14). Arts management programs train future arts administrators. The Washington Post. ARTIVATE 10.2 33 https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/2019/03/1 4/arts-management-programs-train-future-arts- administrators/ Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1): 1–5. Markusen, A., & Schrock, G. (2006). The artistic dividend: Urban artistic specialization and economic development implications. Urban Studies, 43(10): 1661–1686. McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E.H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2005). Reframing the debate about the value of the arts. RAND Corporation. McClanahan, K. O. (2016, April 1). The four minutes that changed STEM to STEAM. Artsblog. Americans for the Arts. https://blog.americansforthearts.org/2019/05/15/the- four-minutes-that-changed-stem-to-steam. McGraw, D. J. (2016, April 18). The college that ate a city. Next City. Retrieved February 18, 2020. https://nextcity.org/features/view/san-marcos- fastest-growing-city-texas-state-university- affordable-housing Olejarz, J.M. (2017, July-August). Liberal arts in the data age. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/07/liberal-arts-in-the-data-age Paul, E. (2019, April 29). Bringing the true value of higher education to the forefront. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/04/29/ we-must-communicate-true-value-our-higher-ed- institutions-opinion Penn State News. (2019, June 20). Heard on state campus: Dean Korner on blending art and research to change lives. Penn State University. https://news.psu.edu/story/578567/2019/06/20/acade mics/heard-campus-dean-korner-blending-art-and- research-change- lives?fbclid=IwAR2c26Wfu0_Z_6qoBZSSLFr3Rp940 MhBMOyKuNtbMt4PMff8OI_MC0hrRwwAlliance for the Arts in Research Universities. Porter, M. E. (2010, October 26). Anchor institutions and urban economic development: From community benefit to shared valued. Inner City Economic Summit, Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, San Francisco, CA. Potts, J., & Cunningham, S. (2015). Creative industries in the wider economy. In C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creative industries (pp. 387–404). Oxford University Press.
 Regional Plan Association. (2017). The fourth regional plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan area. Rhode Island STEAM Center. (2021). RI STEAM Now Coalition. http://www.risteamcenter.org/coalition/. Roche, M. W. (2017). Realizing the distinctive university: Vision and values, strategy and culture. University of Notre Dame Press. Roodhouse, Simon. (2010). Cultural quarters: Principles and practice. University of Chicago Press.. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Russell, J. S. (2014, November 16). On elite campuses, an arts race. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/arts/design/on -elite-campuses-an-arts-race.html?nytmobile=0. Rutheiser, C. (n.d.). The promise and prospects of anchor institutions: some thoughts on an emerging field. PD&R edge. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_ hudpartrpt_062211.html. Schildt, C, & Rubin, V. (2015). Leveraging anchor institutions for economic inclusion. Sustainable communities series. PolicyLink. Seymour, S. & Lopez, S. (2015, April 8). "Big Six" college experiences linked to life preparedness. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/182306/big-six-college- experiences-linked-life-preparedness.aspx Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research. (4th ed.). Sage. SMU Data Arts. (2019, July). New York City Department of Cultural Affairs workforce demographic pilot study results. Staley, D. (2019). Alternative universities: Speculative design for innovation in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Sternal, M. (2014). Artist entrepreneurship in education and professional life: Is there room for creative approaches? ACTA. Academiae Artium Vilnensis, 72, 159–168. Sternberg, R. (2016). What universities can be: A new model for preparing students for active, concerned citizenship and ethical leadership. Cornell University Press. Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. (n.d.). What we know about graduates of arts administration programs (part 2): Occupations. Databrief, 5(4). http://snaap.indiana.edu/databrief/vol5no4.html Taylor, H. L., & Luter, G. (2013). Anchor institutions: An interpretive review essay. Anchor Institutions Task Force. Tepper, S. J., & Arthurs, A. (2013). Animating the creative campus: Education and engagement for the 21st Century. Association of Performing Arts Presenters. http://toolkit.creativecampus.org/animating-the- creative-campus-education-and-engagement-for- the-21st-century/. Thomson, P. & Jacque, S.V. (2017). Creativity and the performing artist: Behind the mask. Academic Press. Tiret, H. (2017, May 25). The benefits art therapy can have on mental and physical health. Michigan State University Extension. http://www.risteamcenter.org/coalition/ University of Buffalo Art Management Program (2021). Learn, practice, manage the arts. University of Buffalo College of Arts and Science. http://www.buffalo.edu/cas/arts_management.html Wellmon, C. (2015). Organizing enlightenment: Information overload and the invention of the modern university. Johns Hopkins University Press. ARTIVATE 10.2 34 White, J. W. C. (2019, December 28). Believe the liberal arts are dead as doornails? Think again. Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine. https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2019/12/28/b elieve-liberal-arts-are-dead-doornails-think-again Wiewel, W., & Knaap, G. (2005). Partnerships for smart growth: University-community collaboration for better public places. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Wolff, B. (2021, April 6). The arts and humanities deliver untapped value for future work. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminwolff/2021/0 4/06/the-arts-and-humanities-deliver-untapped- value-for-the-future-of-work/?sh=79c6ff153914 Winkler, T. (2013). At the coalface: Community- university engagements and planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(2), 215l. Yin, R. (Ed.). (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications. Cover Image Credit: Center for Public Art and Space, Weitzman School of Design, University of Pennsylvania. Creative Commons. ARTIVATE 10.2 35 Appendix : Assessment Tool Background Intentional Arts Anchor Assessment Tool What It Is A series of questions developed in response to data collected while creating university case studies in the Intermountain West after interviews with national arts education leaders and as a result of synthesizing current work on anchor institutions broadly conceived, arts economic development, and the st-century university. As one considers the questions, they gain a richer appreciation of the assets on their campus and in their community, and they have the opportunity to view them through a broader lens of the multi-dimensional components that an innovative arts anchor might have. The questions are in four parts: integrative arts training, supporting integrative arts training beyond the curriculum, investments and infrastructure, and university/ community connections. While these four pieces form the core of the innovative arts university, it is also possible to focus on one of the four areas for analysis, work, and investment. What It Does Maps local arts and community features in the context of what an innovative arts anchor can be, regionally and nationally. It builds awareness of key anchor features, ensures self-awareness of university assets and how they relate to each other, and the results provide an essential tool for promoting the importance of arts on campus and in the community. It helps university arts leaders tell the story of their artistic innovation, cultural relevance, and economic impact to their various stakeholders, including faculty, students and parents, campus fundraisers, potential donors, upper university administration, and community stakeholders in the arts and in a variety of industries. Who Might Use It and in What Contexts: The tool will be of value to individuals and teams. It can be used as an independent “desktop exercise” or in a workshop or meeting. Multiple university perspectives (from administrators, faculty, professional staff, and community partners) will likely maximize the tool’s impact, but a solo investigator can also use the tool effectively if they assemble some relevant institutional data. The Benefits: It helps universities assess where they should invest precious resources ● To fills gaps in a developing or established arts ecosystem ● To highlight and advance identity-building strengths that already exist ● To forge deeper community connections aimed at advancing social good ● To create a vibrant creative workforce prepared to meet the challenges of twenty-first century employment ● To accelerate the economic impact of the arts in the local community ARTIVATE 10.2 36 Appendix : Intentional Arts Anchor Assessment Tool Part  Focus: Integrative Arts Training: Key Components and Skills A. Fundamentals of arts training Yes No Unsure NA Is your program nationally accredited? (NAST, NASM, NASD, NASAD) B. Interdisciplinary exposure Do your students have learning opportunities within at least one of your field's subdisciplines? Do your students have learning opportunities across artistic fields? Do your students have exposure to arts management or arts administration? Do your students have exposure to arts entrepreneurship? Do your students have exposure to arts technologies? Do your students have exposure to creative placemaking? Do your students have exposure to arts as social practice? Are interdisciplinary experiences integrated into your degree requirements? Are interdisciplinary experiences offered as supplements to your degree requirements? Are interdisciplinary experiences credentialed through degrees, minors, certificates, or badges? C. Applied learning Do your students have internship opportunities in non- profit arts? Do your students have internship opportunities in commercial arts? Do your students have internship opportunities in the education sector? Do your students have internship opportunities in the government sector? Do your students have internship opportunities in commercial sector beyond the arts? Do your students have service opportunities where they utilize their artistic skills? Do your students have service opportunities that include a social justice component? Are there study abroad programs focusing on the arts? Do your students have opportunities to participate in faculty-developed research projects? ARTIVATE 10.2 37 Do your students have opportunities to participate in student-developed research projects? D. Skills articulation Do you ask your students to recognize their creative thinking? Do you ask your students to recognize their critical thinking? Do you ask your students to recognize their skills in teamwork and collaboration? Do you ask your students to recognize their ability to respect diverse perspectives? Do you ask your students to recognize their capacity for empathy? Do you ask your students to recognize where their skills will be in demand within the arts? Do you ask your students to recognize where their skills will be in demand beyond the arts? Part  Focus: Supporting and Extending the Integrative Arts Curriculum A. Admissions Yes No Unsure NA Do general university recruiting materials feature the arts? Are there recruiting materials specially designed for prospective arts students? Is there arts focused recruiting of under-represented student groups? Are there arts focused recruiting events locally? Are there arts focused recruiting events regionally? Are there arts focused recruiting events nationally? Is there arts focused orientation? B. Arts experiences Is student work shown on campus? Is student work sold on campus? Is faculty work shown on campus? Is faculty work sold on campus? Is the work of community-based artists shown on campus? Is the work of community-based artists sold on campus? Is the work of non-locally based artists shown on campus? Is the work of non-locally based artists sold on campus? Is the work of artists from under-represented groups shown on campus? Is the work of artists from under-represented groups sold ARTIVATE 10.2 38 on campus? Do students have free admission to arts events on campus? Do students have free admission to arts events off campus? Do faculty have free admission to arts events on campus? C. Advising Do academic advisors for your department's students have an arts background? Can academic advisors for your department's students articulate the skills a student is likely to gain through the arts degree? Can your department's academic advisors articulate the skills a student is likely to gain in particular arts courses? Are your department's academic advisors familiar with classes that would complement the standard arts curriculum? Are your department's academic advisors knowledgeable about applied learning opportunities? D. Career Services Do Career Services staff have an arts background? Do Career Services staff recognize the range of skills arts students have? Do Career Services staff recognize the range of industries in which arts skills would be applicable? Is Career Services well connected to nonprofit arts employers? Is Career Services well connected to commercial arts employers? Does Career Services have an established record of placing arts students beyond the arts sectors? Do they host job fairs or industry showcases focusing on artist employment? Can Careers Services staff help students with application materials targeting arts sector jobs? Can Careers Services staff help students translate arts-based application materials for non-arts jobs? E. Alumni Does the alumni association track and promote arts alumni successes? Is there an arts alumni board? Are there events for arts alumni networking? Are there professional development events designed for arts ARTIVATE 10.2 39 alumni? Are there structures for connecting arts alumni and current students? Part  Focus: Investments and Infrastructure A. Facilities Yes No Unsure NA Does the number of performance venues meet the needs of your department? Does the number of performance venues meet the needs of community presenters? Does the number of exhibition venues meet the needs of your department? Does the number of exhibition venues meet the needs of community artists? Do the sizes of performance venues meet the needs of your department? Do the sizes of performance venues meet the needs of community presenters? Does the number of maker spaces meet the needs of your department? Does the number of maker spaces meet the needs of community artists? Do facilities have current industry-standard technology? Are maintenance funds allocated to update technology regularly? Are arts facilities accessible by public transit? Is parking readily available at arts facilities? Do faculty artists have studio space or discipline-appropriate creative space on campus? Is there a living/learning community for arts students? Are there on-campus accommodations for visiting artists? B. Advancement and Fundraising Is there at least one development director focusing on the arts? Does scholarship funding for students in your department align with funding levels at peer institutions? Are there endowed chairs for arts faculty in your department? Are the arts a focus in major university fundraising initiatives? Are arts spaces named for donors? Are arts programs named for donors? Does the university seek support for the arts from corporations and foundations? C. Faculty ARTIVATE 10.2 40 Does faculty staffing in your department follow accreditation guidelines? Are faculty salaries at or above CUPA averages? Do arts faculty serve in administrative roles beyond their departments? Are promotion and tenure policies attentive to and respectful of artistic work products? Do promotion and tenure policies recognize interdisciplinary work within the arts? Do promotion and tenure policies recognize interdisciplinary work beyond the arts? Do promotion and tenure policies recognize community-based work? Do promotion and tenure policies recognize work done in collaboration with students? Do promotion and tenure guidelines recognize entrepreneurial work? Are there professional development opportunities designed specifically for arts faculty? Are their policies to counteract bias in faculty hiring? Are there programs designed to retain under-represented faculty? Is there a dual career policy used to recruit faculty artists? D. Research Does anyone in the research office have arts expertise? Do college-level administrators who support research have any arts experience? Is there proposal development assistance for arts faculty? Does the research office publicize opportunities for external funding in the arts? Does the research office have internal funding programs designed for artists? Does the college have research opportunities designed for artists? Are there opportunities for arts faculty to reduce teaching load in order to concentrate on research? Are there benchmarks for productivity of arts programs and faculty? Is F&A typically reinvested in externally funded arts projects? Are activities in the arts promoted by the research office in their publications or on their website? Are activities in the arts promoted by the college in their publications or on their website? E. Marketing and Branding ARTIVATE 10.2 41 Are the arts featured in the university's marketing materials? Are there recognized areas of excellence in the arts? Are the arts part of the university's strategic plan? Part : Focus: University/Community Connections A. University expertise in the city Yes No Unsure NA Do arts faculty in your department work in the local non-profit arts sector? Do arts students in your department work in the local non-profit arts sector? Do alumni from your department work in the local non-profit arts sector? Have arts faculty in your department founded local arts entities? Have arts students in your department created new local arts entities? Have arts alumni from your department created new local arts entities? Do department faculty work in the local commercial arts sector? Do department students work in the local commercial arts sector? Do department alumni work in the local commercial arts sector? Are arts faculty from your department patrons of local arts entities? Are non-arts faculty patrons of local arts entities? Are arts faculty from your department donors for local arts entities? Are non-arts faculty donors for local arts entities? Do faculty researchers analyze or evaluate local culture activities? B. City expertise at the university Do locally based artists serve as adjunct faculty in your department? Do locally based artists participate as artists-in-residence at the university? Do locally based artists serve on industry advisory boards for the university? Do locally based artists volunteer their time in support of university arts programming? C. Economic Impact of the Arts Does the university measure the economic impact of its arts activities in the city? Does the city count the university's artistic activities in its assessment of local arts economic impacts?