© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 17, Number 1, p. 97, (2013) Copyright © 2013 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104 From Outreach to Engaged Placemaking: Understanding Public Land-grant University Involvement with Tourism Planning and Development Rolando D. Herts Abstract This dissertation research project aimed to identify benefits and drawbacks of public land-grant university involvement with tourism planning and development, an emergent form of uni- versity-community engagement. Using qualitative methodology, the study’s findings led to the codification of levels of university tourism planning and development capacity. It is hoped that the overall project—a portion of which is summarized in this dis- sertation overview—lays the groundwork for further research on public land-grant university tourism planning and development as potentially both a beneficial and a disempowering form of university-community engagement. Research Purpose T he purpose of this dissertation research project was to explore how public land-grant university involve- ment with tourism planning and development reflects a national shift from outreach to engagement modes of public service in higher education (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Indeed, public land- grant universities have become involved with tourism planning and development efforts in their communities as forms of education and public service through academic programs and cooperative tourism extension, as well as through conference and event services and campus-based visitor information centers. Public land-grant university involvement with tourism planning and development signals a trend toward university placemaking, place promotion, and place marketing that coincides with the national university- community engagement movement (Connell, 1996, 2000; Gunn, 2002; Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995; Sidhu, 2006). Do tourism planning and development activities advance or detract from the tripartite mission (i.e., public service, research, and teaching) of public land-grant universities? In an era of scru- tiny regarding the value of higher education to broader society, public land-grant universities, as well as other research universi- ties, are being called upon to show greater accountability to the 98 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement public that supports them through taxes and tuition (Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006; McDowell, 2001; Taylor, 2010; Weerts, 2007). If public land-grant university involvement with tourism planning and development is a new form of university-commu- nity engagement, is the practice a viable way for public land-grant universities to advance a community engagement agenda in an era of public accountability? With growing skepticism regarding universities’ contributions to society, why would public land-grant universities opt to administer public service through tourism plan- ning and development instead of through what may be viewed as more pressing regional and community development topic areas (e.g., workforce development, public health and nutrition, access to information technology, housing)? Is the phenomenon more about promoting institutional interests than it is about improving com- munity prosperity? To address these questions, this dissertation research project sought to identify benefits and drawbacks of public land-grant uni- versity involvement with tourism planning and development as an emergent form of university-community engagement. Concepts Underlying the Research Two primary concepts underpinned the research project: university capacity for tourism planning and development, and university promotion of tourism planning and development as community-engaged placemaking. University Capacity for Tourism Planning and Development The tourism planning and development capacity concept derives from two fields: community-based tourism planning and community development. From a tourism planning perspective, Moscardo (2008) defines such capacity as a community’s readiness to participate in tourism development based on its level of collective, collaborative tourism knowledge. From a community develop- ment perspective, Glickman and Servon (1998) identify aspects of organizational capacity, including programming and networking capabilities. For example, programming capacity was understood as a public land-grant university’s ability to provide tourism plan- ning and development services that fulfill its education, research, and public service missions (e.g., offering technical assistance to small businesses; planning and/or hosting cultural events and edu- cational conferences). Networking capacity was understood as a Understanding Public Land-grant University Involvement with Tourism Planning and Development 99 public land-grant university’s ability to create and manage part- nerships with external entities (e.g., municipal- and county-level destination marketing organizations; state tourism departments; national tourism-oriented professional organizations). University Tourism Planning and Development as Community-Engaged Placemaking Today, public land-grant universities appear to be inculcating principles of placemaking in their public service activities and missions. Placemaking is a holistic approach to planning and development that integrates natural, built, and sociocultural envi- ronments through interorganizational collaboration and citizen participation. Urban scholars argue that place competitiveness, place quality, and place attachment are critical in a global-network society in which the fortunes and misfortunes of individuals, organizations, cities, and regions have become tied to the types of places that they are perceived as coming from, currently occu- pying, and/or moving toward (Bonner, 2002; Castells, 2000; Corcoran, 2002; Drier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstrom, 2005; Florida, 2002). Professions and institutions with expert-level influence over placemaking processes—including planning, public policy, historic preserva- tion, architecture, engineering, and now, community-engaged universities—are viewed as having increasingly significant power in determining how places are perceived by residents and visi- tors, as well as where communities rank in regional, national, and global place hierarchies (Florida, 2008; Nelson, Butler, & Wall, 1999; Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995). Research Methods Little published research exists on university involvement with tourism planning and development, particularly as a form of public service. Thus, for this emerging area of inquiry, this dissertation project employed a non-linear, inductive design that incorporated three qualitative methodological frameworks: grounded theory, case study, and institutional ethnography (Glaser, 1998; Leonard & McAdam, 2001; Smith, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Yin, 2003). Grounded Theory to Explore and Analyze the Literature and University Websites: Phases I and II Due to lack of theory related to the benefits and drawbacks of public land-grant university involvement with tourism planning 100 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement and development as an emergent form of university-community engagement, the study progressed through three phases of dis- covery. The first phase proposed the integration of three bodies of literature for examining university-community tourism engage- ment phenomena. The three bodies of literature were planning, tourism planning, and higher education public service. As with other grounded theory efforts, the literature review not only iden- tified theoretical gaps, but also provided data for establishing a theoretical space for examining university-community tourism engagement critically (Connell & Lowe, 1997; Heath, 2006). The litera- ture review, therefore, provided a basis for developing and refining the study’s research questions, two of which are addressed in this brief dissertation overview: • How are public land-grant universities with greater tourism planning and development capacities distin- guished from public land-grant universities with lower capacities? • What are reciprocal benefits and drawbacks of univer- sity-community tourism planning and development? Do benefits and drawbacks differ based on institu- tional capacity? The second phase identified and characterized five levels of public land-grant university tourism planning and develop- ment capacity. Visual and textual data were gathered from over 150 websites for university-based cooperative tourism exten- sion departments, conference and event services operations, and campus-based visitor information centers. Data gathered from websites were interpreted using semiotic analysis, a method of deconstructing language and images as texts (Bourdieu, 1991; Thurlow & Jaworski, 2006), to determine levels of tourism planning and development capacity among the 69 public land-grant uni- versities included in the study. The semiotic analysis also led to the identification of distinguishing characteristics for each capacity level. In addition, over 150 in-person and phone survey interviews were conducted with university and community leaders (e.g., academic administrators, extension and academic faculty, local tourism professionals) to verify the interpretation of the website data. The five-tiered capacity classification system emerged from this analysis. Understanding Public Land-grant University Involvement with Tourism Planning and Development 101 Case Study and Institutional Ethnography Methods: Phase III For the third research phase, the public land-grant university tourism planning and development classification system developed in the second phase served as a basis for conducting two case study institutional ethnographies. The two institutions were Rutgers University, a public land-grant university located in New Jersey’s Gateway Tourism Region, and Alcorn State University, a histori- cally Black 1890 public land-grant university and a legislatively designated partner in the Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area. The institutions were selected for their contrasting capacity levels. Based on the classification system developed in Phase II, Rutgers University was classified as a high capacity Level 3 university, and Alcorn State University was classified as a low capacity Level 1 university. They also were selected based on the investigator’s familiarity with tourism planning and development characteristics and initiatives within the institutions’ respective regions. Three data collection and verification techniques were used to achieve in-depth, critical comparative analyses of the institutions’ involvement with tourism planning and development initiatives: (1) participant observation of university-community tourism engagement meetings; (2) material review (e.g., case study univer- sity websites; community planning meeting minutes; local tourism promotion websites and marketing materials); and (3) approxi- mately 15 semi-structured on-site interviews with university-based and community-based leaders. The Findings The study had two primary findings related to the benefits and drawbacks of public land-grant university involvement with tourism planning and development as an emergent form of uni- versity-community engagement. Finding 1: University Tourism Marketing Reinforces Historic Institutional Hierarchies The study found that public land-grant university tourism engagement marketing reinforces hierarchies that have existed his- torically among public land-grant universities based on geographic location, institutional type based on race (i.e., 1862 land-grant institution vs. historically Black 1890 land-grant institution), and perceived institutional prestige. The five-tiered classification system that evolved from the findings of this study is a basis for this finding (see Table 1). 102 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement Table 1. Proposed Classification System of Public Land-grant University Tourism Planning and Development Capacity Tier Description Examples (alphabetized by General characteristics state) Level 4 Public land-grant • University of Florida-Gainesville Institutional types universities that fea- • Purdue University (Indiana) • 38% are members of the AAU ture all four tourism (Association of American otal) pm(1lae3nn tnto imntagel )acnhdan disemvesl op- •• ICoowran eSltla Uten Uivenrivseitrys i(tNyew York) • U31n%iv earrsei tcieosn)sidered “Public Ivies” 2 t • Texas A&M University • One (2%) is a historically Black 4 ( university acity • 3M3i%ss issesirpvpei sDtaetletas aloncda tGerde aint tPhlaei ns ap Level 3 Public land-grant • University of Arizona regions; none of these are his- gh c utunrieve trhsriteiee so tfh tahte f efoa-ur • UShnoivreersity of Maryland-Eastern tuonrivicearlslyit iBelsack public land-grant Hi tourism planning and development mecha- • University of Minnesota-Twin Perceived commitment to community nisms (29 total) Cities engagement • Rutgers, The State University of • 71% are members of Campus New Jersey Compact • University of Wisconsin-Madison • 19% received the 2010 Carnegie Community Engagement Classification designation Level 2 Public land-grant • University of Connecticut-Storrs Institutional types universities that fea- • Fort Valley State University • None are members of AAU ture two of the four (Georgia) (Association of American 1 total) tdnoiesuvmreilsso m(p1m 1p eltanonttn amiln)eg cahnad- •• KMaonnstaasn Sat Sattaet eU nUivneivresritsyity • UOIvynn”iev e(r9s%it)ie iss) considered a “Public 1 • Virginia State University ( • 36% are historically Black public ty land-grant universities ci a • Three (27%) serve states located p a in the Great Plains of Mississippi m c Delta regions; one of these is a historically Black public land-grant u di university e M Perceived commitment to community engagement • 72% are members of Campus Compact • 36% received the 2010 Carnegie Community Engagement Classification designation Level 1 Public land-grant • Alabama A&M University Institutional types universities that fea- • Tuskegee University (Alabama) • None are members of the ture one of the four AAU (Association of American tourism planning and • Alcorn State University Universities) ) development mecha- (Mississippi) tal nisms (9 total) • South Dakota State University • None are considered “Public Ivies” 6 to • University of Wyoming • 8la8n%d- agrrean hti sutnoirviecraslliyti eBslack public 1 ( y • 69% serve states located in the cit Great Plains or Mississippi Delta a regions; 81% of these are his- p ca “Not Public land-grant • Southern University (Louisiana) torically Black public land-grant w applicable” universities that fea- • North Carolina A&T University universities Lo ttuoruer insmon pel aonf ntihneg faonudr • Langston University (Oklahoma) Penergcaegievmede nctommitment to community dniesvmelso (p7m teontat lm) echa- • South Carolina State University • 56% are members of Campus • Tennessee State University Compact • One (6%) received the 2010 Carnegie Community Engagement Classificiation designation Understanding Public Land-grant University Involvement with Tourism Planning and Development 103 High capacity universities. Public land-grant universities ranking in the classification’s Level 3 and 4 categories were determined to be high capacity institutions. The data analysis found that high capacity public land-grant universities tend to promote their involvement with tourism planning and development as community engagement, thereby advancing themselves as powerful placemakers that help to make their communities more competitive destinations in regional and national place hierarchies. Moreover, over one third of high capacity public land-grant universities (38%) are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities and/or have been identified as “Public Ivies” by Greene and Greene (2001). Cooperative tourism extension departments, conference and event services operations, and campus-based visitor information centers at these institutions also tend to be affiliated with national pro- fessional organizations and scholarly networks (e.g., Association of Collegiate Conference and Event Directors–International, Collegiate Information and Visitor Services Association, National Extension Tourism Conference). They also tend to maintain rela- tionships with local tourism marketing and policy entities (e.g., state tourism offices, destination marketing organizations, cham- bers of commerce). Such affiliations afford these university-based entities opportunities to enhance institutional programming and networking capacity for tourism planning and development activity. Medium capacity universities. Public land-grant universities ranking in the classification’s Level 2 category were identified as medium capacity institutions. This category featured a mix of institutional types that, when viewed collectively, appeared to have levels of commitment to community engagement comparable to and perhaps even greater than high capacity public land-grant universities, as evidenced by membership levels with Campus Compact, and designation as community-engaged institutions by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Level 2 category, however, con- tained more historically Black 1890 public land-grant universities than Level 3 and Level 4 combined. The study found that medium capacity public land-grant universities collectively were perceived as less prestigious than their high capacity counterparts. Overall, their cooperative tourism extension departments, conference and event services operations, and campus-based visitor information centers had fewer affiliations with national professional organi- zations and scholarly networks, and were less likely to maintain relationships with local tourism marketing and policy entities. 104 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement Low capacity universities. Public land-grant universities ranking in the classification’s Level 1 and “Not Applicable” categories were identified as low capacity institutions. These public land-grant universities appeared less equipped to participate in tourism planning and development as community engagement and, thus, also appeared to lack place- making power in their communities. Collectively, low capacity public land-grant universities appeared to have less commitment to community engagement than institutions in the high and medium capacity categories. Because most of these institutions lack coopera- tive tourism extension departments, conference and event services operations, or campus-based visitor information centers, overall they tend not to affiliate with national professional organizations and scholarly networks related to tourism. Moreover, relationships with local tourism marketing and policy entities are much less evi- dent among these institutions than they are among their high and medium capacity counterparts. The study found that historically Black 1890 public land-grant universities are the most common institutional type in the low capacity category (88%). Also, unlike high and medium capacity institutions, a majority of low capacity public land-grant universities (69%) serve states that are located in historically depopulating and chronically poor regions—particu- larly the Great Plains and the Mississippi Delta—where tourism is being considered as a key economic development strategy (Popper & Popper, 2006). In contrast to the high and medium capacity categories, the vast majority (81%) of public land-grant universi- ties that serve these regions are historically Black 1890 institutions. Finding 2: Placemaking Power Is an Indicator of Institutional Competitiveness The study revealed that the adoption of tourism engagement marketing strategies among high capacity public land-grant univer- sities creates a “new playing field.” Low capacity public land-grant universities and their communities are disadvantaged when trying to compete with high capacity universities and their communities. This new playing field is driven largely by sophisticated, collabora- tive tourism engagement programs that shape perceptions of public land-grant university placemaking power. High capacity public land-grant universities collaborate with others within their ranks on tourism development projects (see Figure 1), thus codifying prestige and socioeconomic power structures that distinguish not only the institutions, but also the Understanding Public Land-grant University Involvement with Tourism Planning and Development 105 geographic places surrounding them, as competitive destinations. These high capacity institutions also add value to community and regional tourism planning and development capacity, as they pro- mulgate tourism knowledge through Cooperative Extension and academic programs. For example, the University of Minnesota Tourism Center promotes tourism “research, facilitation, and con- sultation services,” including “festival and event management” and “tourism development” (University of Minnesota Tourism Center, 2011). High capacity institutions also provide event spaces and visitor information services that aim to strengthen local and regional social capital networks and enhance community destination image. One example is the Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center at Michigan State University, which “fit[s] with the land grant mis- sion of the University” of “service beyond the campus boundaries” (Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center, n.d.a) and is billed as “the jewel of hotels in Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan” (Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center, n.d.b). Another example is the visitor and infor- mation program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, which promotes “popular destinations,” “landmarks,” and other attrac- tions on campus and in the city of Madison (2011). Figure 1. The Cooperative Extension tourism departments at Clemson University, a Level 4 public land-grant university, and the University of Illinois, a Level 3 public land-grant university, collaboratively offer the Pee Dee Agritourism Passport, a web- based marketing portal advertising a variety of agritourism businesses and attractions in the northeastern Pee Dee region of South Carolina. The portal promotes farmers markets, agricultural festivals, pick-your-own farm experiences, farm- based bed and breakfast inns, and a farm-based museum. Retrieved October 11, 2012, from http://peedee.agritourism. illinois.edu/agri/about 106 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement Conversely, public land-grant universities with low tourism engagement capacity tend to be separate (read: divested) from, rather than embedded (read: invested) in their communities. Indeed, historically Black 1890 universities, which, in this study, were over-represented among low capacity public land-grant universities, generally are members of the national university- community engagement organization Campus Compact, and their students and faculty commit many hours of service to their communities. Moreover, some of the historically Black 1890 uni- versities highlighted in this study, particularly those at high and medium capacity levels, do, in fact, promote their cultural heritage and event facilities as mechanisms of institutional public service. For example, Fort Valley State University, a medium capacity institution, describes its historic Anderson House Museum and Welcome Center “as a viable university and public information center that responds to the education and facility usage needs of small groups” (Jordan, n.d.) as well as promotes its C. W. Pettigrew Farm and Community Life Center as “a full-service conference, convention, and fine arts facility” that is an “outreach program” of the institution (Boston, n.d.a). Low capacity public land-grant universities—whether they are historically Black 1890 universi- ties or not—provide utilitarian and, in some cases, incomplete and/or outdated promotional information about their cooperative tourism extension projects and their conference and event services and campus-based visitor information operations. Programming and networking capacity are important factors in promoting public land-grant university involvement with tourism planning and development as university-community engagement. The two case study institutions in this dissertation research project, Rutgers University and Alcorn State University, were found to have quite different levels of involvement and perceived place- making power in their respective regional tourism planning and development initiatives. With its flagship New Brunswick campus promoted for having “an arts and culture powerhouse” location (New Jersey Department of State Division of Travel & Tourism, 2012, p. 117), Rutgers University, a high capacity Level 3 institution, emerged in the study as one of 20 “trendsetters” at the forefront of advancing public land-grant university tourism engagement. Conversely, as of the completion of the study, Alcorn State University, a low capacity Level 1 institution, was perceived by study respondents as having limited involvement with Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area planning activities when compared with other non-land-grant