1. Building Town-Gown Relationships: In the Heart of the Student Experience
Dr. Keegan Nichols, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs/ Title IX Coordinator
Brett Bruner, Director of Transition & Student Conduct
2016 NASPA Region IV-West/East Conference | St. Louis, MO
Transfer Student myself- 4 schools in 4 years
This transition that students go through, I was going through that every year, over and over.

2. Overview Learning Outcomes Introductions
Overview of Institution & City
Theories & Research
Applying Theory to Practice
Lessons Learned Along the Way
Closing and Q&A

3. Learning Outcomes
As a result of attending this session, participants will:
Identify key principles of partnering with their local community to improve town-gown relationships.
Describe the four-square typology of town-gown relationships.
Apply the principles to create 1 new strategy related to their student affairs functional area(s) to enhance the student experience through town-gown relationships.

4. Introductions

5. Fort Hays State University
Regional, comprehensive, public university
Established in 1902
Located halfway between Kansas City & Denver
Approximate student populations
4,500 on-campus students
5,500 virtual students
3,000 international partner students
On-campus living requirement for first-year students

6. City of Hays Largest city in Northwest Kansas
Crossroads of Interstate 70 & US Highway 183
Incorporated in 1883
20,000 residents

7. Personal Reflection #1
How do you see a connection between your student affairs role and your local community?

8. Theories & Research History of Town-Gown Relationships
Gavazzi, S. M., Fox, M., & Martin, J. (2014). Understanding campus and community relationships through marriage and family metaphors: A town-gown typology. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5),
History of Town-Gown Relationships
At first glance, however, much of the literature on campus-community relationships can appear to be anything but optimistic.
“Historically,” Bruning, McGrew, and Cooper (2006) wrote, “town-gown relations have been a source of difficulty, frustration, and annoyance for both the town and the university” (p. 125).
. The thought behind this quote is not a starting point for the faint of heart. Campus and community interactions can often be portrayed as a struggle, and an exasperating one at that. What is at the root of this stress and strain? Brockliss (2000) provided descriptions of scholars who took great pains to keep their students shielded from the “immorality” of city life at and near the birth of the first universities in the twelfth century. This was largely an attempt by medieval university personnel with strong religious affiliations to create a spiritual and intellectual sense of separateness, however, and not as much a corporal one. With few early exceptions, including most notably Oxford and Cambridge, university students largely slept, ate, and otherwise carried out the mundane tasks of living outside of the university walls. From the early 1800s forward, by contrast, Brockliss (2000) asserted that a number of factors led to a more complete merging of town and gown sensibilities throughout Europe, thus lessening both the psychological and physical divisions between campuses and communities. This integration included the general lack of available contiguous land around universities that demanded a more de-centered approach to the construction of new classrooms and other collegiate buildings. In addition, the rise in importance of medicine and other science-based research efforts within the academy helped to create stronger symbiotic relationships between campuses and communities through the provision of health care to residents and empirical assistance through business and industry sponsors. The capacity to study in the “splendid isolation” (McGirr, Kull, & Enns, 2003) that would be accompanied by a more distinct and physical separation of campus and community came in more modern times and had a more distinctly North American flavor. In the United States especially, the development and widespread adoption of the “campus model” created extremely palpable town-gown divisions by building residences, dining halls, recreational areas, and other student life facilities within the confines of the institution’s boundaries. McGirr, Kull, and Enns (2003) have described this phenomenon in terms of the “invisible wall” that often exists between the full service campus and the community surrounding the institution.
The boundary between town and gown entities can have real and lasting consequences, however, particularly in terms of land use and policy issues. Sungri-Eryilmaz (2009) has created perhaps the most extensive review to date regarding these sorts of property concerns. Noting that “land use and development processes at the campus edge will repeatedly put towngown relations to the test” (p. 6), this author outlined the many and varied issues that arise as 362 Innov High Educ (2014) 39:361–374 Author's personal copy the result of an institution’s land use activities. Those issues included social inequity issues when longer-term, typically economically challenged residents are displaced by new construction, “spillover effects” that involve everything from new traffic snarls to upward pressures on rental costs as a result of re-gentrification activities, the failure to include area stakeholders in planning processes, and the impact of property tax losses that result from nonprofit status of the university or college.

9. Theories & Research Introducing Marriage & Family Metaphors
Gavazzi, S. M., Fox, M., & Martin, J. (2014). Understanding campus and community relationships through marriage and family metaphors: A town-gown typology. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5),
Introducing Marriage & Family Metaphors
The literature on town-gown topics has focused intensively on the quality of interactions that occur between campus representatives and members of the community. Because of this emphasis, the use of marriage as a metaphor for describing what happens between these relationship partners may require a little stretch of the imagination on the part of readers here, as the term “engagement” has been used to center attention on the efforts that campus leaders can take in fostering healthy town-gown associations. The marriage metaphor has been applied in a number of other contexts as well, including perhaps most notably in the business realm of strategic alliances (Kanter, 1995). Although no diamond band is involved, the idea that some sort of “courtship” might be implied within in the process of bringing campus and community partners together should ring true to those who have participated in such efforts. Within the marital literature, there has been long-standing interest in the development of typologies of marriages. The earliest and perhaps best known effort to create such a classification scheme is that of Cuber and Harroff (1965). Based on a series of interviews that were conducted with husbands and wives, these researchers identified five main types of marriages that could be distinguished from the data they gathered. Importantly, a certain fluidity is thought to exist within and among these categories, such that couples can and do move from one type to another over the course of their relationship history

10. Theories & Research Couples Relationships Devitalized Conflicted
Gavazzi, S. M., Fox, M., & Martin, J. (2014). Understanding campus and community relationships through marriage and family metaphors: A town-gown typology. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5),
Couples Relationships
Devitalized
Conflicted
Traditional
Harmonious
Vitalized
The devitalized category describes relationships in which individuals are the least satisfied with one another as relationship partners. Typically, there was some sort of stronger and more positive attraction to each other at a previous point, a fact which contributes to the subsequent Innov High Educ (2014) 39:361– Author's personal copy disappointment in the relationship. In essence, couples in this type of relationship have the sense that something was “lost” along the way. Partners in a devitalized relationship might long for a return to better times, but they have little hope that any sort of “relationship magic” can be rekindled. One or both of the spouses has likely decided that they are on the road to divorce proceedings. Conflicted couples also report lower satisfaction levels, but individuals in this category can still experience and report positive aspects about each other and about their relationship overall. The main difficulty here is the fact that the couple is engaged in ongoing quarrels. Cuber and Harroff used the term “conflict habituated” in order to identify the degree to which the relationship is defined by persistent fighting. Partners do not see themselves as being done with one another, at least not at present; but the amount of energy needed to engage in these enduring struggles can be quite stressful, especially if most or all of their communication with one another is handled through shouting matches. The next category is the traditional couple. Partners report modest levels of satisfaction with one another, and the relationship is seen as quite stable. Labeled “passive congenial” by Cuber and Harroff, this type of couple invariably is described as being devoid of any sort of spark or energy. Partners may have very little actual contact with one another and often lead very separate lives. This is a marriage of convenience that reflects a philosophy of “live and let live,” one where “his” and “hers” are much easier to define than what is “ours.” Harmonious couples often as not reflect the same level of stability when compared to the traditional couple, but typically report greater satisfaction levels. The main difference here lies in the greater amount of shared activity that is present in the lives of partners in the harmonious couple category. These are spouses who are working together in ways that define and enhance their relationship with one another, and they derive pleasure from those shared activities. These partners typically also are identified as a strong and healthy couple by others with whom they interact in their social circles. The last marital type, and the category that can generate the highest satisfaction levels among partners, is the vitalized couple. Relationship partners in this category are similar to the harmonious couples in certain aspects. However, the spouses seem to share virtually all aspects of their existence with one another. Termed “total” by Cuber and Harroff, the distinguishing feature here is each partner’s whole and complete commitment to the relationship itself. Compared to the traditional couple, there is much that can be labeled “ours,” with much less time spent on the identification of the “his” and “hers” aspects of their lives as individuals. In addition to partners in this marital type reporting very high relationship satisfaction levels, these unions are among the most stable marriages. After all, vitalized couples would find it difficult if not impossible to imagine a scenario where they were not actively interacting with, much less not married to, their beloved partner.

11. Theories & Research Balancing Individual & Common Goals
Gavazzi, S. M., Fox, M., & Martin, J. (2014). Understanding campus and community relationships through marriage and family metaphors: A town-gown typology. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5),
Balancing Individual & Common Goals
2009) has asserted that this is decidedly not the case. 364 Innov High Educ (2014) 39:361–374 Author's personal copy A family can be thought of as a system that maintains physical and emotional distance between and among its members through the regulation of interpersonal boundaries. The most functional families have boundaries that are firm but flexible, allowing family members to balance the sense of their own unique individuality with the simultaneous experience of being strongly connected to their family. In turn, moderately functional families maintain boundaries that sacrifice the individual’s sense of separateness for the greater good of a sense of belonging, or vice versa. Finally, families that display the lowest functioning levels regulate boundaries in ways that leave members with no sense of being connected to one another and without the experience of respect for who they are as individuals. Bringing this focus on family dynamics back together with the marital typology literature, couples in the devitalized, conflicted, and traditional categories may all be seen as struggling to find the proper balance between a sense of individuality and a sense of connectedness. By comparison, partners in harmonious and vitalized relationships have been able to create a healthy and functional equilibrium between their individual needs and those of their partner. In essence, the healthiest relationships are based on the principle of a “fair give and take” between partners, where the realization of symmetry is always the preferred path and outcome of their interactions with one another. The only real difference between the harmonious and vitalized couples is the number of activities that are shared between the partner

12. Theories & Research Application to Town-Gown: 4x4 Typology
Gavazzi, S. M., Fox, M., & Martin, J. (2014). Understanding campus and community relationships through marriage and family metaphors: A town-gown typology. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5),
Application to Town-Gown: x4 Typology
The balancing of individual and relationship needs in the more functional marital types would seem to fit well with the various descriptions of healthy town-gown relationships. For example, Sungri-Eryilmaz (2009) specifically highlighted the need to balance university or college and community interests in tandem with the identification of common town-gown goals as part of a best practices framework. Similarly, McGirr, Kull, and Enns (2003) described how balanced planning and the simultaneous pursuit of institutional and community goals was an important feature of highly effective towngown relationships .These writers also underscored the value of a differentiated approach to the community, highlighting the notion that individual neighborhoods surrounding a given campus might have distinctly different needs. Of the two higher functioning marital categories, the description of the harmonious type would seem to reflect best the descriptions of the most highly effective town-gown relationships. Significant effort is put into the pursuit of goals that are of shared benefit to the campus and community, and yet clearly there are many objectives that also are the target of separation actions taken by the institution and the community surrounding it. While perhaps an ideal to be upheld as the ultimate in town-gown partnerships, the vitalized relationship type would seem to represent a “bridge too far” for most campuses and communities to cross. Unless the town is literally comprised of the university and affiliated resources, the idea of only pursuing shared goals would seem to be unworkable in actual practice. Hence, for all practical purposes we have designated the harmonious type as the most desirable form of town-gown relationship. In turn, the traditional martial type would seem to match the description of the conventional town-gown relationship. Here, campus and community members tend to express modest if somewhat tepid levels of satisfaction with the one another; and the relationship has been that way for as long as anyone can remember. Lacking enthusiasm and typically having relatively little contact with one another, university or college representatives and community stakeholders often as not simply ignore each other as they pursue their own individual goals. Innov High Educ (2014) 39:361– Author's personal copy Perhaps the only fate worse than being unnoticed is to become the object of scorn or disappointment, sentiments captured within the conflicted and devitalized types, respectively. While all healthy relationships are accompanied by some amount of disagreement between partners, the relative well-being of any couple is determined largely by how well that discord is resolved. Those campuses and communities that cannot adequately settle their differences – and thus likely have a history of unresolved issues from past clashes – can end up repeatedly fighting old battles alongside efforts to handle new concerns that arise. As a result, town-gown relationships can become habitually conflict-ridden over time, even when present circumstances might not indicate the need for hardline positions to be drawn. Ongoing battles do connote some sort of ongoing interaction, even while running the risk of becoming ever more destructive over time. The devitalized type, in contrast, indicates disenchantment amidst a lost sense of connectedness. Regarding town-gown relationships, this means that there was at some point some sort of positive linkage between campus and community, at least for a period of time. As a result, it seems axiomatic to state that all devitalized relationships started out as a partnership best described by a different category. Often these relationships are conflicted in orientation, such that, where there once was something worth fighting for (and about), the cost of the war eventually became too great to sustain by one or both parties. Alternatively, the devitalized relationship can arise out of the repeatedly dashed hopes of budding harmonious relationships. In essence, there are only so many chances that one gets to be the “right” relationship partner. Therefore, in reality there are four types of town-gown relationships: devitalized, conflicted, traditional, and harmonious. By utilizing the four-square schematic displayed in Figure 1, we argue that two distinct dimensions can be discerned that matter most in terms of understanding the different ways that campuses and communities relate to one another. The first of the two dimensions surrounds the level of comfort that the current relationship holds for university or college personnel and community stakeholders. The second dimension centers on the level of effort that is required to maintain the present state of the town-gown relationship. By default, the traditional relationship becomes the preferred state of affairs for most campuses and communities. This town-gown category retains its desirable status if only because it does not take much work to remain embedded in a moderately comfortable relationship. For all intents and purposes, this category might well be labeled the “ignorance Devitalized Conflicted Traditional Harmonious • Higher effort, higher comfort • Lower effort, higher comfort • Higher effort, lower comfort • Lower effort, lower comfort Figure 1 A Four-Square Typology of Town-Gown Relationships 366 Innov High Educ (2014) 39:361–374 Author's personal copy is bliss” typology, reflecting a philosophy that lends itself to maintenance of a status quo where town and gown are largely disconnected from one another. However, at the same time this relationship type might just as easily be described as the “nothing ventured, nothing gained” modus operandi. Even further, however, the ongoing stresses and strains that exist on the edge of campus properties across the country, especially in more urban locations, make such an arrangement near impossible to maintain in practice. Therefore, with the movement toward more intensive engagement between campuses and communities becoming the norm, there is increased pressure on higher education representatives and community members to put more effort into fostering positive town-gown relationships. Whether or not the outcome of such effort is meaningful – resulting in a harmonious relationship type – or more negative and less functional will depend on a variety of factors that have been alluded to throughout this article. We must also mention the flexibility of these typologies. Not unlike a marriage, the positive or negative qualities of town-gown relationships can wax and wane over the passage of time. Hence, at different points in the development of the relationship, campus personnel and community stakeholders might exert significantly different degrees of effort to connect to one another; and they might experience different degrees of comfort with how they find themselves linked together

13. Personal Reflection #2
Where do you see your institution & town’s relationship fitting within the 4x4 typology? Why?

14. Theories & Research
Kull, R., & McGirr, D. (2004). Ten principles of community partnering. Business Officer, 1-3.
Build relationships – don’t just “show up” at community meetings to brief those about events & issues on campus
Mutual benefit – give equal weight & attention to institutional & community goals
Local representation – community partnering needs to be done with the recognized community governance organizations, not just interested and/or active individuals

15. Theories & Research
Kull, R., & McGirr, D. (2004). Ten principles of community partnering. Business Officer, 1-3.
Neighborhood identity – recognition that each neighborhood is different & form multiple partnerships to pursue each unique common agenda
City relationships – resolve differences before going to the city

16. Personal Reflection #3
What common trap does your institution fall into regarding community building with your town?

17. Impetus to Action First-to-second year student retention
Historical 68% average
Spring 2012 – partnership with Hanover Research
Most cited issue for reason FHSU = disliking Hays, Kansas
Investigation of options to resolve the issue
International Town-Gown Association (
Dr. Nichols – Certificate in Town-Gown Relationships

18. Applying Theory to Practice
Town-Gown Committee Formation
Associate Vice President for Student Affairs/Title IX Coordinator (chair)
Director of Transition & Student Conduct
Graduate Assistant for Off-Campus Life
Chief of Hays Police Department
Executive Director of Hays Convention & Visitors Bureau
Executive Director of Hays Area Chamber of Commerce
Executive Director of Downtown Hays Development Corporation
Hays City Manager
President of FHSU Student Government Association

19. Core2Campus Hays Convention & Visitors Bureau
Downtown Hays Development Corporation
FHSU Alumni Association
FHSU Brand Implementation Team
FHSU TGOF Committee
Eagle Communications
City of Hays Police Department
City of Hays Fire Department
FHSU Athletics
FHSU Marching Tigers

20. Applying Theory to Practice
Tree Campus USA
Life in the City of Hays, America presentations at New Student Orientation
International Student Orientation partnerships with HACC, CVB & DHDC
Alcohol Town Hall
Party Registration Packs

21. Lessons Learned Along the Way
Conduct research on what is already being done on-campus and within city organizations
Understand each unique role within community leadership (and being prepared to understand the politics)
Rotate your meetings into the community
Start small – you won’t revolutionize the relationship overnight
Compare with peer institutions and peer towns
Chief Scheibler’s story about parking when coming to campus

22. Personal Reflection #4
What is 1 new strategy related to your functional area to enhance the student experience through town-gown?

23. Building Town-Gown Relationships: In the Heart of the Student Experience
Dr. Keegan Nichols, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs/ Title IX Coordinator
Brett Bruner, Director of Transition & Student Conduct
2016 NASPA Region IV-West/East Conference | St. Louis, MO
Transfer Student myself- 4 schools in 4 years
This transition that students go through, I was going through that every year, over and over.