Media Effects Research Lab - Research Archive
Placemaking as community engagement for college students
Student Researcher(s)
Tiffany Knearem (Ph.D Candidate);
John-Erik Koslosky (Ph.D Candidate);
Olivia Shotyk (Ph.D Candidate);
Faculty Supervisor
This paper was based on a project as part of the Comm 506 course.
INTRODUCTION
College towns across the U.S. face a daunting challenge in strengthening ties between campus and permanent residents. This study examines placemaking as an opportunity to overcome this division and determine which placemaking initiative could be successful in engaging ephemeral residents, namely college students. Analyzing relationships between level of sense of community, level of needing to belong, and four types of placemaking, we investigate which placemaking intervention is the most desired by college students, their interest in participating in placemaking interventions, and which interventions students feel would be best for the community. This study can assist towns in determining the best return on investment for placemaking initiatives and the best way to engage college students in the local community outside the university.
RESEARCH QUESTION / HYPOTHESES
RQ1: For college students, what is the relationship between placemaking initiative and interest in participating in placemaking initiatives
RQ2: What are the moderating influences of sense of community and need to belong, on that relationship?
H1: College students demonstrate greater interest in participating in certain placemaking types over others.
H2: College students prefer participating in placemaking scenarios involving interaction with the wider community (e.g. Tactical Placemaking).
H3: College students who score high on the Sense of Community (SOC) scale will prefer all four placemaking scenarios more than college students who score low on the SOC scale.
H4: College students who score high on the Need to Belong (NTB) scale will prefer all four placemaking scenarios more than college students who score low on the NTB scale.
METHOD
We conducted a correlational survey on a convenience sample of undergraduate college students (N = 97) who attend Pennsylvania State University and are residents of State College, PA, a mid-sized college town. Our survey used validated scales to measure levels of moderating variables. We developed a placemaking scale to measure attitudes (our DV) toward four placemaking scenarios (our IV) which represented the four different types of placemaking (standard, strategic, creative, and tactical). [Place Figure01 here] A ranking activity instructed participants to rank scenarios based on which initiative they thought would be best for the city, which one they liked most, which one they disliked most, and which one would most likely make them feel like part of the local community. We ran reliability and correlational tests on all of our variables and found all scales to be reliable and strong correlation of variables. [Place Figure02 here] We then conducted statistical tests on our hypotheses to determine whether or not we had support for our hypotheses.
RESULTS
Significant variation emerged in the types of placemaking scenarios that are preferred by university students in the State College community, as proposed in Hypothesis 1. Tactical placemaking, which offers high levels of interaction between participants, generated significantly more interest than other scenarios, as proposed in Hypothesis 2. We also discovered strong moderating effects for sense of community across the scenarios, as postulated in Hypothesis 3. [Place Figure03 here] The study found no statistically significant relationship between Need to Belong and placemaking scales, indicating that Hypothesis No. 4 was rejected. [Place Figure04 here] A small, but still significant, moderating effect in need to belong in influencing participants’ responses regarding preferences for placemaking, particularly when the scenarios involved higher levels of interaction with others in the community.
CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION
Tactical placemaking, being the most interactive of the placemaking types, was most preferred by students and rated as highest in terms of making respondents feel like part of the State College community. However, students rated creative and strategic placemaking as best for the State College community. This is likely due to the more permanent and impactful nature of those initiatives. On the whole, while respondents thought all initiatives to be positive, they had little interest in participating in them. Also, the initiatives on average, did not change their perspective of State College or make them prouder of their community. This is likely either due to the lack of impact of the placemaking interventions or due to the disconnect between campus and town community (the “town-gown” division). This study finds that placemaking interventions are not significant enough to encourage college students to participate in the community outside of the college campus. Future research could tap into college students’ interest in participating in community in non-placemaking based interventions, as well as studying their existing relationship to town community.
For more details regarding the study contact
Dr. S. Shyam Sundar by e-mail at sss12@psu.edu or by telephone at (814) 865-2173