Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning: Pursuing Quality and Purpose [1 ed.] 9781620364697

Citation preview

VOL. 4

“Provides essential guidance for those wishing to pursue service learning research. The richness of this volume comes from the personal narratives of leaders in the field who connect that guidance to their personal journeys as service learning practitioners and scholars. The result is a compelling case for the scholarly foundation of service learning research and a call to the next generation of scholars to embrace the work.” —Mel Netzhammer, Chancellor, Washington State University Vancouver For scholars seeking to undertake consequential research in service learning and community engagement, this book provides accounts by preeminent scholars of the trajectories of their research, their methodologies, and the lessons learned along the way, as well as their views about the future direction of the field. The Editors: Julie A. Hatcher is associate professor emeritus of philanthropic studies in the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI. Robert G. Bringle is chancellor’s professor emeritus of psychology and philanthropic studies at IUPUI. Thomas W. Hahn is the director of research and program evaluation at the Center for Service and Learning at IUPUI.

AVAILABLE

Vol. 1 International Service Learning Vol. 2A Research on Service Learning: Students and Faculty Vol. 2B Research on Service Learning: Communities, Institutions, and Partnerships Vol. 3

Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning

Cover design by Jen Huppert Cover photos (left) © asiseeit/iStock and (right) © South_agency/iStock

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2019 www.Styluspub.com

Hatcher / Bringle / Hahn

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH Editors: Robert G. Bringle & Julie A. Hatcher

Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning

“You will find this book a must-read because it illuminates the trajectory of some of the talented service learning and community engagement (SLCE) researchers’ stories of becoming involved in the work. Seasoned, early career, and aspiring SLCE researchers will find this book chock-full of guidance to inform and improve SLCE research. I cannot overstate the value of this book.” —Jeffrey Howard, Assistant Director, Center for Learning Through Community Service, University of Michigan

I UPUI SERI ES ON SERVICE LEARN I NG RESEARCH VOL. 4

Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning Pursuing Quality and Purpose

EDITED BY

Julie A. Hatcher, Robert G. Bringle, and Thomas W. Hahn

F O R E W O R D B Y Jeffrey Howard

VOL. 4

“Provides essential guidance for those wishing to pursue service learning research. The richness of this volume comes from the personal narratives of leaders in the field who connect that guidance to their personal journeys as service learning practitioners and scholars. The result is a compelling case for the scholarly foundation of service learning research and a call to the next generation of scholars to embrace the work.” —Mel Netzhammer, Chancellor, Washington State University Vancouver For scholars seeking to undertake consequential research in service learning and community engagement, this book provides accounts by preeminent scholars of the trajectories of their research, their methodologies, and the lessons learned along the way, as well as their views about the future direction of the field. The Editors: Julie A. Hatcher is associate professor emeritus of philanthropic studies in the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI. Robert G. Bringle is chancellor’s professor emeritus of psychology and philanthropic studies at IUPUI. Thomas W. Hahn is the director of research and program evaluation at the Center for Service and Learning at IUPUI.

AVAILABLE

Vol. 1 International Service Learning Vol. 2A Research on Service Learning: Students and Faculty Vol. 2B Research on Service Learning: Communities, Institutions, and Partnerships Vol. 3

Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning

Cover design by Jen Huppert Cover photos (left) © asiseeit/iStock and (right) © South_agency/iStock

22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2019 www.Styluspub.com

Hatcher / Bringle / Hahn

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH Editors: Robert G. Bringle & Julie A. Hatcher

Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning

“You will find this book a must-read because it illuminates the trajectory of some of the talented service learning and community engagement (SLCE) researchers’ stories of becoming involved in the work. Seasoned, early career, and aspiring SLCE researchers will find this book chock-full of guidance to inform and improve SLCE research. I cannot overstate the value of this book.” —Jeffrey Howard, Assistant Director, Center for Learning Through Community Service, University of Michigan

I UPUI SERI ES ON SERVICE LEARN I NG RESEARCH VOL. 4

Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning Pursuing Quality and Purpose

EDITED BY

Julie A. Hatcher, Robert G. Bringle, and Thomas W. Hahn

F O R E W O R D B Y Jeffrey Howard

PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR CONDUCTING R E S E A RC H O N S E RV I C E L E A R N I N G

Book.indb 1

03-10-2019 12:26:55

IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research Series Editors Robert G. Bringle and Julie A. Hatcher Vol 1:  International Service Learning Vol 2A: Research on Service Learning: Students and Faculty Vol 2B: R  esearch on Service Learning: Communities, Institutions, and Partnerships Vol 3:    Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning Vol 4:    Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning

Book.indb 2

03-10-2019 12:26:55

PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON SERVICE LEARNING Pursuing Quality and Purpose

edited by Julie A. Hatcher, Robert G. Bringle, and Thomas W. Hahn Foreword by Jeffrey Howard VOL. 4: IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Book.indb 3

03-10-2019 12:26:55

COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC. Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC. 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2019 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Hatcher, Julie A., 1953- editor. | Bringle, Robert G., editor. | Hahn, Thomas W., 1966editor. Title: Practical wisdom for conducting research on service learning : pursuing quality and purpose / edited by Julie A. Hatcher, Robert G. Bringle, and Thomas W. Hahn ; foreword by Jeffrey Howard. Description: First edition. | Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, 2020. | Series: IUPUI series on service learning research | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: “Preeminent SLCE researchers share their research stories, lessons learned, and guidance for future research and researchers. Each chapter is replete with each author’s SLCE research trajectory, homespun stories of their research and campus experiences, and past and future research agendas and practice plans, in essence portraits of reflective practitioners and researchers”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019017705 | ISBN 9781620364673 (cloth) | ISBN 9781620364680 (paperback) | ISBN 9781620364703 (consumer e-edition) | ISBN 9781620364697 (library networkable e-edition) Subjects: LCSH: Service learning--Research. | Service learning--United States. | Community and college--Research. | Community and college--United States. Classification: LCC LC220.5 .P699 2020 | DDC 361.3/70973--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019017705 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-467-3 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-468-0 (paperback) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-469-7 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-470-3 (consumer e-edition) Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard. Bulk Purchases Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for staff development. Call 1-800-232-0223 First Edition, 2020

Book.indb 4

03-10-2019 12:26:55

CONTENTS

FOREWORD Jeffrey Howard

vii



xi

SERIES PREFACE Robert G. Bringle and Julie A. Hatcher

PART ONE: FRAMING THE CONVERSATION   1.1: PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH

An Introduction3

Robert G. Bringle, Julie A. Hatcher, and Thomas W. Hahn

  1.2: PURPOSE BEYOND OURSELVES William M. Plater   1.3: PRACTICAL WISDOM AS AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENGAGED LEARNING AND SCHOLARSHIP Jay W. Brandenberger

19

31

PART TWO: SHARING PATHWAYS AND PERSPECTIVES   2.1: SERVICE LEARNING AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROJECT Building Bridges for the Next-Generation Research Agenda

Nicholas V. Longo

51

  2.2: A DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST’S JOURNEY How I Learned About Service Learning, Social Justice, and Community Engagement and Entered a New Research Field

Barbara E. Moely

  2.3: ADVANCING FULL PARTICIPATION KerryAnn O’Meara

65 81

v

Book.indb 5

03-10-2019 12:26:55

vi  

contents

2.4: MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH DOMESTICALLY AND ABROAD Field Building and Legitimacy Andrew Furco

93

  2.5: INTEGRATING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY WITH SERVICE LEARNING113 Robert G. Bringle   2.6: BUILDING AND BRIDGING Reflections of an Engaged Scholar  Lorilee R. Sandmann

129

  2.7: RESEARCH FOR JUST, INCLUSIVE, AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES147 Eric Hartman   2.8: THE JOURNEY OF A COMMUNITY-ENGAGED SCHOLAR Sherril Gelmon 2.9: A SPACE FOR PRAXIS Engaging in Reflective Practice as a Scholar-Administrator Emily M. Janke 2.10: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY TOWARD RESEARCH Julie A. Hatcher 2.11: SUPPORTING OTHERS IN RESEARCH Practical Wisdom From Emerging and Accomplished Scholars Dan Richard 2.12: RESEARCH TO INFLUENCE CHANGE John Saltmarsh

163

177 191

207 219

PART THREE: DEEPENING COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH   3.1: PRACTICAL WISDOM ON CO-INQUIRY IN RESEARCH ON SERVICE LEARNING Patti H. Clayton, Stephanie Stokamer, Leslie Garvin, Deanna Shoemaker, Stacey Muse, and Katrina Norvell ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

235

255

INDEX263

Book.indb 6

03-10-2019 12:26:56

FOREWORD

I

n the early 1980s, during what might be considered the nascence of the service learning and community engagement (SLCE) movement, there was a research special interest group in the National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE) where a very few of us attending the conference met to discuss the limited research in the experiential learning field writ large. We bemoaned the little research there was in the service learning field as well as the lack of research funding opportunities and well-­established, dedicated peer-review journals in which to publish such research. Fast forward to the 1990s: Incipient research studies were underway, published in journals dedicated to SLCE such as the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (MJCSL; I was the founder and editor for 24 years) established in 1994 and the Journal of Higher Education and Outreach founded in 2000. Then, in the latter part of the 1990s and through the 2000s, SLCE research began to gain steam. Many case studies that focused on student, faculty, and (less often) community outcomes emerged. Eyler and Giles (1999) also published their groundbreaking study, Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning?, during this wave. We fast forward now to the second decade of the twenty-first century. We have many more sophisticated studies in about 10 SLCE-dedicated and other journals. It was during this decade that Robert (Bob) G. Bringle, Julie A. Hatcher, and colleagues began their edited IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research, the first volumes in the series essentially having reviewed past research and offering guidance for future research. This present volume, Practical Wisdom for Conducting Research on Service Learning: A Practical Guide, represents the culmination of the book series, topping off the prior books on research related to international service learning; students and faculty; communities, institutions, and partnerships; and student civic outcomes. I first met Bob Bringle in 2000. With guest coeditors Sherril Gelmon and Dwight Giles working with me on what became the special issue of the MJCSL underwritten by national Campus Compact on Strategic Directions for Service-Learning Research in 2000, we invited Bob to write an article making the case for the role of quantitative research to advance the service learning field because we saw him as the preeminent quantitative researcher. vii

Book.indb 7

03-10-2019 12:26:56

viii  

foreword

We also invited Rob Shumer to write an article making the case for qualitative research to advance the SLCE field. Both Bringle and Shumer contributed articles to MJCSL and presented at the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) conferences, serving as a kind of point/counterpoint regarding the better research approach for SLCE. And so began our professional relationship, which was cemented during the subsequent 18 years through his MJCSL article submissions and as I turned to Bringle to review what I perceived to be the most significant and challenging quantitative research articles submitted to the MJCSL. I was confident that he would offer gold standard analyses and recommendations for improving the articles and ensure that the research was based on tools with uncompromised psychometric properties. His national and international reputation as an elite SLCE consultant is indisputable. I have known Hatcher for almost as long, primarily through her SLCE research studies, including those submitted to the MJCSL, and her peer reviews of MJCSL article submissions on civic learning outcomes, John Dewey, and graduate education—the SLCE areas in which I knew she would provide the most discerning reviews. She, too, has been a prominent, sagacious consultant in the United States and abroad. I have been a devoted attendee to the workshops Bringle and Hatcher, usually in tandem, have offered at various conferences. Bringle and Hatcher were well-deserving recipients of IARSLCE’s distinguished research award for their individual contributions to SLCE research, and Hatcher was further honored for the first three volumes in the IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research. In keeping with senior researcher practice, Hatcher and Bringle have invited others to join them in their editorial capacity to produce the volumes in the IUPUI Series. Thomas W. Hahn, director of research and program evaluation at the IUPUI Center for Service Learning, has been tapped for this volume (as well as for volume 3 on student civic outcomes). Patti Clayton, lead editor for volumes 2A (students and faculty) and 2B (communities, institutions, and partnerships), is a senior scholarpractitioner in her own right who has contributed so much through her own research, her collegiality and coinquiry with senior and perhaps more importantly junior scholars, and as an associate editor of the MJCSL. Steven Jones, while on staff at the IUPUI Center for Service Learning assisted as coeditor on volume 1 (international service learning). Given that the prior volumes in this series were mostly devoted to the primary stakeholders of SLCE, one might ask what more could be covered in a subsequent book devoted to SLCE research. Leave it to Hatcher and Bringle

Book.indb 8

03-10-2019 12:26:56

foreword  

ix

to identify a heretofore untapped focus—researchers’ practical wisdom. As in the previous 3 volumes, they have garnered preeminent SLCE researchers to share their research stories, lessons learned, and guidance for future research and researchers. Each chapter is replete with contributors’ SLCE research trajectories, homespun stories of their research and campus experiences, and past and future research agendas and practice plans—in essence portraits of reflective practitioners and researchers. The contributors represent at least half a dozen IARSLCE Distinguished Research awardees, some IARSLCE Early Career Research awardees, and other contemporary researchers in the SLCE field. Hatcher and Bringle’s process of inviting contributors, providing a chapter template as a guide, and gathering authors at a daylong meeting to share first drafts ensured a coherent edited book (and book series). Although it may seem counternormative to blend practice and research, doing so makes perfect sense. When we read a published article, we have no idea the trials and tribulations faced by the scholar, and often do not know the role of that particular study in the author’s overall research agenda. This book makes such matters and others transparent, and its focus is unprecedented in the SLCE field. If you consider yourself a SLCE researcher or a prospective one, in the United States or elsewhere, then you will find this book a must-read because it illuminates the trajectory of some of the talented SLCE researchers’ stories of becoming involved in the work; the highs and lows along the way; and suggestions for initiating, undertaking, and successfully completing future research processes and directions/questions. Seasoned, early career, and aspiring SLCE researchers will find this book chock-full of guidance to inform and improve SLCE research. But equally important, the book has the promise of drawing new researchers into the fold and enhancing the quality of their work, and this will contribute to continuing to advance SLCE so it can better achieve its immediate goals of improving student learning and community benefit as well as its longer term goals of contributing to a more socially just and democratically strong country and world. I cannot overstate the value of this book (and the entire series) to advancing the SLCE research agenda and movement. It is inspiring to see the arc of SLCE research from those early days at NSEE conferences to this culminating volume in the IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research. Throughout my career I was committed to conducting my own research and facilitating and publishing others’ research in the field in order to advance SLCE institutionalization, especially in higher education. It is hard for me to imagine SLCE research having advanced as much as it has without some noteworthy exemplars, including the career work of Bringle and Hatcher. Their names are virtually synonymous with SLCE research. Their individual and collaborative

Book.indb 9

03-10-2019 12:26:56

x  

foreword

research and their edited books elevate them to among the most important contributors to advancing the practice, knowledge, and permanency of SLCE, and the most important contributors to advancing SLCE research in our movement’s history. To that we now can add some of their own and others’ wisdom about this work. This book series has not only secured Bringle and Hatcher’s legacy but also ensured a bright future for service learning research. Please join me in tipping our hats to Julie, Bob, and their colleagues and reading this latest book. Jeffrey Howard Ann Arbor, Michigan November 2018

Book.indb 10

03-10-2019 12:26:56

SERIES PREFACE

C

hange does not come easily to higher education, but service learning has demonstrated its capacity to have an influence on dimensions of the academy that are among the most difficult to change: the curriculum, faculty work, organizational infrastructure, budget allocations, promotion and tenure, assessment of student learning, and campuscommunity partnerships. These changes have manifested themselves across institutional types and with a tenacity that suggests that they are not mere fads but enduring trends. More than 1,100 institutions are now members of Campus Compact, which reports increasing numbers of students, faculty, and community partners involved in service learning (Campus Compact, 2016). Stimulated by the model of service learning, institutions of higher education have examined how civic engagement more broadly can change the nature of faculty work, enhance student learning, advance institutional missions, provide a basis for public accountability, and improve quality of life in communities (e.g., Boyer, 1994, 1996; Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999; Calleson, Jordan, & Seifer, 2005; Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003; Edgerton, 1994; Harkavy & Puckett, 1994; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Percy, Zimpher, & Brukardt, 2006; Rice, 1996; Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011).1 However, when the degree and nature of the changes associated with service learning, and more broadly civic engagement, are assessed for their quality, breadth, and depth, interpretations vary. Saltmarsh, Giles, O’Meara, Sandmann, Ward, and Buglione (2009) analyzed portfolios for the Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification and found uneven evidence of institutional change: change had occurred in all classified institutions, but there was also evidence of resistance to change (e.g., the arena of ­promotion and tenure) and there were consistent shortcomings (e.g., with respect to community-campus reciprocity and community impact). Butin’s (2005) edited volume presented multiple perspectives that raised issues about the degree to which the assumptions, values, and operations of service learning are incompatible with the ingrained culture of higher education—constraining Portions of this series preface are from Bringle, Hatcher, & Jones (2012); Clayton, Bringle, & Hatcher (2013a, 2013b); and Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn (2017).

xi

Book.indb 11

03-10-2019 12:26:56

xii  

series preface

the capacity of the pedagogy to generate transformational institutional change. Saltmarsh, Hartley, and Clayton (2009) questioned the degree to which the changes associated with civic engagement more generally have been fundamental and systemic. Regardless of how full or how empty the glass is thought to be, service learning has produced and is aligned with changes not only in the curriculum but also more broadly, and this is not a trivial outcome. In the absence of a consensual goal, either among civic engagement practitioners or leaders in higher education in general, to produce systemic transformation, the amount of change service learning and civic engagement have produced in higher education can be viewed as an extraordinary accomplishment. Many of the criticisms that contend that change has been slow, small, incomplete, or otherwise fallen short of ideals underacknowledge and perhaps undervalue the significant changes that have occurred. Furthermore, the very existence of these interpretations, analyses, and critiques indicates that (a) scholars have some progress to review; (b) they care enough about the impact of service learning to invest their resources in studying it; and (c) there are aspirations and standards against which incomplete, although significant, accomplishments can be evaluated. Ongoing reflection on the extent and nature of change within and across institutions can inform future development of service learning and civic engagement. This series contributes to the progress by highlighting research-grounded perspectives on the processes and outcomes of service learning to this national and international conversation. The growth of service learning and civic engagement on the IUPUI campus mirrors national developments. Starting with opening an IUPUI Office of Service Learning in 1993 (now incorporated into the IUPUI Center for Service and Learning [CSL]), service learning has been purposefully nurtured within undergraduate and graduate education on a campus of more than 30,000 students with strong traditions of community involvement among its many professional schools. Through strategic decisions by executive leadership (Bringle & Hatcher, 2004; Bringle, Hatcher, & Holland, 2007; Plater, 2004), significant commitments to infrastructure have been made to support the growth of service learning. That growth has been guided by a Comprehensive Action Plan for Service Learning (CAPSL) that identifies 10 key tasks—planning, increasing awareness, identifying a prototype of good practice, gathering resources, expanding programs, providing recognition, monitoring, evaluating, conducting research, and institutionalizing—and 4 key stakeholders—institution, faculty, students, and community (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). There is evidence of institutional progress across all areas of

Book.indb 12

03-10-2019 12:26:56

series preface  

xiii

CAPSL at IUPUI (Bringle & Hatcher, 2004; Bringle, Hatcher, & Clayton, 2006; Bringle, Hatcher, Hamilton, & Young, 2001; Bringle, Hatcher, & Holland, 2007; Bringle, Hatcher, Jones, & Plater, 2006; Bringle, Officer, Grim, & Hatcher, 2009; Bringle et al., 2011; Hatcher, Bringle, Brown, & Fleischhacker, 2006; Officer et al., 2013; Pike, Bringle, & Hatcher, 2014; Plater, 2004). In addition, independent external reviews support the assessment of significant institutional progress at IUPUI around service learning and civic engagement. For example, IUPUI’s service learning program has been recognized every year since 2003 as one of the top programs in the country by U.S. News and World Report. In 2006, IUPUI was recognized in the Saviors of Our Cities national report by the New England Board of Higher Education as 1 of 25 urban colleges and universities that have dramatically strengthened the economy and quality of life of neighboring communities. IUPUI was the highest ranked public university receiving this distinction and was again recognized in 2009. Most noteworthy, in 2006, the inaugural year for the award, IUPUI was selected by the Corporation for National and Community Service as 1 of 3 universities in the country (out of 510 campuses that applied) to receive the Presidential Award for exceptional accomplishments in General Student Community Service activities. In 2006, IUPUI was a member of the first group of colleges and universities to receive the Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, in the 2 categories of Curricular Engagement and Outreach and Partnerships. The classification for community engagement was reaffirmed in 2015. With the intention to build on these accomplishments and to continue its field-building leadership, CSL applied for and received an internal campus designation in 2007 as an IUPUI Signature Center and established the CSL Research Collaborative. The mission of the CSL Research Collaborative is to do the following: • Increase the capacity of faculty to engage in research on service learning practice. • Convene service learning scholars to develop new conceptual frameworks and methodological tools to improve the quality of service learning research. • Disseminate high-quality scholarship through books, research briefs, monographs, websites that provide information on resources (e.g., grant opportunities, tools for research), presentations at scholarly conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Book.indb 13

03-10-2019 12:26:56

xiv  

series preface

The CSL Research Collaborative has provided the basis for launching several new initiatives for advancing scholarship on campus, nationally and internationally, including the IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research. This series was designed by identifying themes around which scholarship would advance the field and meet the strategic goals of IUPUI. The theme for the first book in the series, International Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research, grew out of a collaboration between CSL and the IUPUI Office of International Affairs and emphasized service learning as a distinctive aspect of the development of study abroad and strategic international partnerships. That collaboration included partnering with the International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership and Indiana Campus Compact to host two conferences at IUPUI focused on international service learning and two symposia at IUPUI at which authors and discussants shaped the chapters for the first volume. The second book, Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment, Vols. 2A and 2B (Clayton, Bringle, & Hatcher, 2013a, 2013b), grew out of CSL’s long-standing commitment to advance service learning research through improved assessment (Bringle, Phillips, & Hudson, 2004), theory (Bringle, 2003; Bringle & Hatcher, 2005b), and rigorous research design (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Bringle & Hatcher, 2005a; Steinberg, Bringle, & Williams, 2010). Assessment, as used here, encompasses measurement and is not limited to gauging student performance in a course for the sake of giving a grade. Measurement is relevant to qualities of process and to outcomes and, in the case of service learning, includes but transcends a focus on students. Furthermore, assessment and measurement are not isolated endeavors. Implicit or explicit in any measurement procedure, whether quantitative or qualitative, is a conceptual understanding of the construct that is being measured. Each construct that is part of systematic research is, or should be, embedded in a theoretical context that explains the manifestations of the construct and the relationships between it and other constructs. In addition, how the measurement is being taken (i.e., research design) and its implications for practice are both critical to its meaningfulness. Although elsewhere we have emphasized the importance of quantitative measurement (e.g., Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Bringle et al., 2004), here measurement is construed more broadly as any procedure that is used to systematically collect evidence, data, or indicators of a construct. The third book in the series, Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods (Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2017) grew out of the centrality of civic learning to service learning. Civic learning is uniquely associated with the service learning pedagogy, which

Book.indb 14

03-10-2019 12:26:56

series preface  

xv

is likely the best way to add civic learning to the existing curriculum and integrate it with academic learning and personal growth. However, in too many instances we see service learning courses with underdeveloped civic learning; ultimately, these are merely problem-based learning experience in the community (Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009). Although this may result in effective engagement of students, it runs the risk of not allowing those experiences to intentionally develop civic analysis, civic perspective, and civic skills in students. When civic learning is an integral component of course design, implementation, reflection, and assessment, it has the potential to augment pedagogy and learning in transformational ways. As Huber and Hutchings (2018) note, “When faculty from different disciplinary communities teach their field wearing a civic lens, both the concept of citizenship and even to the field itself (as taught and learned) are subject to change” (p. x). Our third book aspired to improve the empirical basis for understanding civic learning within the context of service learning. We have taken seriously the challenge to produce edited volumes that have coherence, while at the same time allowing contributors latitude to make distinctive contributions. To achieve the former, we have convened contributors to discuss the overall vision for a book and the contents of individual chapters. Contributors have been asked to take on a task that was expansive and forward looking: Develop a research agenda and recommendations for practice within a particular topic area, draw on theory from cognate areas, critique extant research, and identify methods and tools for assessment that will improve research. This was an intellectual challenge and all contributors are to be commended for their work in producing chapters that will shape future research on service learning. As a result, we expect each volume to advance the field by enhancing the understanding of, investigation of, and implementation of service learning in innovative and meaningful ways. Uday Sukhatme, past executive vice chancellor and dean of the faculties at IUPUI, provided three years of support for the CSL Research Collaborative through the Signature Center initiative. A special note of appreciation is extended to William M. Plater, who served as executive vice chancellor and dean of the faculties at IUPUI from 1987 to 2006 and then as the director of the Office of International Community Development. Plater was the architect for advancing much of IUPUI’s work on civic engagement and service learning. He also provided persistent and pervasive support to CSL and the work associated with the CSL Research Collaborative. Robert G. Bringle and Julie A. Hatcher March 2019

Book.indb 15

03-10-2019 12:26:56

xvi  

series preface

References Boyer, E. L. (1994). Creating the new American college. Chronicle of Higher Education, A48. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20. Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 3–21). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, E. A. (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens: Issues and perspectives. In R. Bringle, R. Games, & E. Malloy (Eds.), Colleges and universities as citizens (pp. 1–16). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221–239. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Meaningful measurement of theory-based service-learning outcomes: Making the case with quantitative research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Fall, 68–75. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2004). Advancing civic engagement through ­service-learning. In M. Langseth & W. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning. Boston, MA: Anker Press. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2005). Service learning as scholarship: Why theorybased research is critical to service learning. Acta Academica Supplementum, 3, 24–44. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Clayton, P. H. (2006). The scholarship of civic engagement: Defining, documenting, and evaluating faculty work. To Improve the Academy, 25, 257–279. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., Hamilton, S., & Young, P. (2001). Planning and assessing campus/community engagement. Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 89–99. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Holland, B. (2007). Conceptualizing civic engagement: Orchestrating change at a metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 57–74. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.). (2012).  International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., Jones, S., & Plater, W. M. (2006). Sustaining civic engagement: Faculty development, roles, and rewards. Metropolitan Universities, 17(1), 62–74. Bringle, R. G., Officer, S., Grim, J., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). George Washington Community High School: Analysis of a partnership network. In I. Harkavy & M. Hartley (Eds.), New directions in youth development (pp. 41–60). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Book.indb 16

03-10-2019 12:26:56

series preface  

xvii

Bringle, R. G., Studer, M. H., Wilson, J., Clayton, P. H., & Steinberg, K. (2011). Designing programs with a purpose: To promote civic engagement for life. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(2), 149–164. Butin, D. W. (Ed.). (2005). Service-learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. New York, NY: Palgrave. Calleson, D. C., Jordan, C., & Seifer, S. D. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise? Academic Medicine, 80(4), 317–321. Campus Compact (2014). Three decades of institutionalizing change: 2014 annual member survey. Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://compact.org/initiatives/ membership-survey/ Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013a). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2A. Students and faculty. ­Sterling, VA: Stylus. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013b). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2B. Communities, institutions, and partnerships. Sterling, VA: Stylus Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Edgerton, R. (1994). The engaged campus: Organizing to serve society’s needs. AAHE Bulletin, 47, 2–3. Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. L. (1994). Lessons from Hull House for the contemporary urban university. Social Science Review, 68, 299–321. Hartley, M., & Hollander, E. L. (2005). The elusive ideal: civic learning and higher education. In S. Fuhrman & M. Lazerson (Eds.), The public schools (pp. 252–275). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., Brown, L. A., & Fleischhacker, D. A. (2006). Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis: Supporting student involvement through service-based scholarships. In E. Zlotkowski, N. Longo, & J. Williams (Eds.), Students as colleagues: Expanding the circle of service-learning leadership (pp. 35–48). Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Hahn, T. W. (Eds.). (2017). Research on student civic outcomes in service learning: Conceptual frameworks and methods. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Officer, S., Grim, J., Medina, M., Foreman, A., & Bringle, R. G. (2013). Strengthening community schools through university partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 88, 564–577. O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Percy, S. L., Zimpher, N., & Brukardt, M. (Eds.). (2006). Creating a new kind of university. Bolton, MA: Anker. Pike, G. R., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2014). Assessing civic engagement at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. In D. Terkla & L. Shuler

Book.indb 17

03-10-2019 12:26:56

xviii  

series preface

(Eds.), Assessing community engagement in students. New directions for institutional research (pp. 87–97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Plater, W. M. (2004). Civic engagement, service-learning, and intentional leadership. In M. Langseth & W. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning (pp. 1–22). Bolton, MA: Anker. Saltmarsh, J., Giles Jr., D. E., O’Meara, K. A., Sandmann, L., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. M. (2009). The institutional home for faculty engagement: An investigation of reward policies at engaged campuses. In B. Moely, S. Billig, & B. Holland (Eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement. Advances in service-learning research (pp. 3–30). Denver, CO: RMC Research Corp. Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (Eds.) (2011). To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Democratic engagement white paper. Boston: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & Williams, M. J. (2010). Service learning research primer. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.

Book.indb 18

03-10-2019 12:26:56

PA RT O N E FRAMING THE C O N V E R S AT I O N

Book.indb 1

03-10-2019 12:26:56

Book.indb 2

03-10-2019 12:26:56

1.1 PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH An Introduction Robert G. Bringle, Julie A. Hatcher, and Thomas W. Hahn

O

ver the past three decades, an increasing number of colleges and universities, both domestically and abroad, have explicitly embraced service learning and community engagement (SLCE) as means to enact the public purposes of higher education (Campus Compact, 2016). The field of SLCE is flourishing, and more scholars across a range of disciplines are conducting research on SLCE than ever before. The time is right to capture its living history to both highlight accomplishments to date and advance research on SLCE in the years ahead. There are many indicators that collectively provide solid evidence for the growth and strength of SLCE in higher education. There is a flourishing network of national organizations (e.g., Association of American Colleges & Universities, Campus Compact, Imagining America) as well as international membership organizations (e.g., Campus Engage Ireland, Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario, Ma’an Arab University Alliance for Civic Engagement, Service-Learning Asia Network, Talloires Network) dedicated to deepening and improving practice in SLCE (Hoyte & Rowe, 2017). Additionally, the Council of Europe (2017) has recently endorsed service learning as a key educational strategy to support the development of competencies for democratic culture. Another important proxy for the vitality of SLCE in higher education is the Elective Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement (Saltmarsh & Johnson, 2017), a framework used to assess and deepen practice across time. Initiated in 2006, this elective classification process is now managed through the Swearer Center at Brown University. Currently, a total 3

Book.indb 3

03-10-2019 12:26:56

4  

framing the conversation

of 361 American colleges and universities have gained this distinction as a community-engaged campus through evidence-based documentation of foundational indicators, curricular engagement, and partnerships. A new pilot, the International Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, is now welcoming international institutions to explore how this framework might best be adapted in various cultural contexts. The International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) has assumed a prominent role in advancing research on service learning. Since 2002, IARSLCE has sponsored 18 annual research conferences, including conferences in Canada and Ireland, and cosponsored regional conferences in international locations. Conference program sessions document progress in both the quantity and quality of research on service learning. There has been a clear shift from presentations that are predominantly programmatic accounts and descriptive program evaluations of service learning courses to more prevalent examples of research that is higher quality and contributes to a knowledge base that can guide practice. Furthermore, more researchers across a range of disciplines attend IARSLCE conferences and are developing programs of research on SLCE as their primary area of scholarship. Research on service learning is also prevalent in higher education to the extent that several meta-analyses have examined the relationship of service learning and multiple student outcomes. For example, Bowman’s (2011) metaanalysis of undergraduate college diversity experiences and their relationship to civic engagement found that diversity experiences (e.g., face-to-face interactions with diverse groups) were related to changes in civic attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors. Conway, Amel, and Gerwien’s (2009) meta-analysis of studies with pretest-posttest design with community service reported positive changes for academic outcomes, personal outcomes, citizenship outcomes, and social outcomes. Celio, Durlak, and Dynmicki’s (2011) meta-analysis of 62 studies involving 11,837 students at the elementary, secondary, or postsecondary level found that service learning students showed significant gains in five outcome areas: attitudes toward self, attitudes toward school and learning, civic engagement, social skills, and academic performance. Yorio and Ye’s (2012) meta-analysis supported the hypotheses that service learning has a positive association with understanding of social issues, personal insight, and cognitive development. Novak, Markey, and Allen (2007) found service learning was associated with an improvement in learning estimated to be greater than 50%. Finally, Warren’s (2012) review of 11 research studies examining the relationship between service learning and student learning outcomes suggested that, regardless of the way learning was measured, service learning was associated with positive student learning

Book.indb 4

03-10-2019 12:26:56

practical wisdom for conducting research  

5

outcomes. Collectively, these studies represent the robust nature of research on service learning and support other forms of evidence for the association between service learning and learning.

IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research This book series was conceived when the Center for Service and Learning at IUPUI applied to become and was designated as a campus Signature Center to advance research. As with previous volumes in the IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research (Bringle, Hatcher, & Jones, 2011; Clayton, Bringle, & Hatcher, 2013a, 2013b; Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2017), the purpose of this volume is to share information that will enhance the breadth, depth, and quality of research on service learning. There have been several explicit and tacit factors that have shaped all volumes in the IUPUI series, including this one. The first and most important factor is the definition of service learning. As we have noted in previous volumes, there are variations in definitions, and they continue to evolve over time and context. For the purposes of the series, service learning is defined as a course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in mutually identified and organized service activities that benefit the community, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility. (Bringle & Clayton, 2012, pp. 114–115; adapted from Bringle & Hatcher, 1996)

Although this definition places service learning within the formal curriculum, we acknowledge that there are definitions of service learning that include both curricular and cocurricular programs (e.g., Jacoby, 2015) that can focus on civic learning, include reflection, and engage students and faculty in reciprocal partnerships with community constituencies. Research indicates that these cocurricular programs can provide meaningful opportunities for understanding the development of civic learning (Richard, Keen, Hatcher, & Pease, 2016). Nevertheless, we emphasize the formal curricular nature of service learning, and contributors in this volume were invited to describe their research on service learning and other means of community engagement. The second factor is our awareness that research on service learning outcomes must now be more attentive to the quality of course design. There

Book.indb 5

03-10-2019 12:26:56

6  

framing the conversation

is great variation, on our own campus and within the field at large, in the fidelity to the definition when service learning courses are designed, implemented, assessed, and improved. This is an important issue for deepening the learning experiences for all participants, as well as when conducting research on service learning. Too many research studies consider participation in service learning as simply a dichotomous variable (i.e., participation versus nonparticipation), rather than exploring how and to what extent various aspects of course design are related to targeted outcomes. Articulating and capturing the nature of service learning courses remains a seriously underdeveloped aspect of research to date. There are two new tools that can assist researchers in this regard. The IUPUI Service Learning Taxonomy (Hahn, Hatcher, Price, & Studer, 2017) delineates six attributes of service learning courses (i.e., assessment, civic competencies, critical reflection, community activities, diversity of interactions, and reciprocal partnerships) and can serve as a framework for evaluating alignment with each attribute. These attributes were identified through research to date on student outcomes for service learning (e.g., Conway et al., 2009; Jacoby, 2015), and they provide a basis for assessing course quality. In a similar way, through grant support from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education “First in the World” program, Furco and Matthews (2018) developed the Service-Learning Quality Assessment Tool (SLQAT). Currently in the pilot phase, SLQAT will be the first standardized, validated instrument to measure the quality of service learning courses in higher education. Collectively, this work supports a more fine-grained analysis of how variations in particular course attributes may be related to mediating variables and variations in student learning (e.g., academic, civic, personal) and other stakeholder outcomes. Third, in this series we view service learning as an integral activity in the broader agenda of civic engagement in higher education (Peters, 2010). Service learning involves the curriculum, faculty, students, staff, and community partners in what can be an excellent model for contributing to scholarly learning and the broader public purposes of the academy (Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999). Service learning and a range of effective teaching strategies have immediate and long-term outcomes for preparing students for engaged lives as civic-minded professionals (Hatcher, 2008). Thus, we assert that research on service learning is a means toward improving all instruction in ways that advance the democratic purposes of higher education. The contributors of chapters in this volume have articulated how they view their research on SLCE as having broader purposes that matter to them personally as well as professionally. They illustrated how research can be conducted for different reasons, both for self-interested curiosity and for

Book.indb 6

03-10-2019 12:26:56

practical wisdom for conducting research  

7

the public good. They also demonstrated how the “why” and “to what end” of their research can evolve as a program of research develops and matures across time. Fourth, we acknowledge that research is a somewhat contested term that is used in a variety of ways across the disciplines. Contributors to this volume represent a range of disciplines and fields including education, history, organizational leadership, political science, philanthropic studies, psychology, and public health. Their approach to research is diverse. We consider research to be a specific type of scholarship. This volume reflects our prior views on quantitative and qualitative research that refer to rigorous inquiry that is based on, evaluates, and informs theory (Bringle, 2003; Bringle & Hatcher, 2000; Bringle, Hatcher, & Williams, 2011; Patton, 2012). We place research at the intersection of theory, research design (quantitative and qualitative), measurement, and practice (see Figure 1.1.1) because we think the best research has relationships to each of these domains. Central to this view is the aspiration that good, rigorous, well-designed, and well-executed research will contribute to answering “why” questions that have generalizable implications that contribute to a knowledge base that informs both future research and improved practice (Patton, 2012). Figure 1.1.1.  Research situated within the context of theory, measurement, design, and practice.

Theory

Measurement

Research

Design

Practice

Book.indb 7

03-10-2019 12:26:57

8  

framing the conversation

This is in contrast to some empirical studies in the field that have presented descriptive, atheoretical, parochial program evaluations with limited generalizability as well as using assessments and measures that are not grounded in theory and lack psychometric evidence. In previous volumes in the series, contributors have been intentionally asked to identify cognate theories that can provide a basis for generating future research. Many contributors in this volume have done the same. Similarly, we expect that theory-based, highquality research (both quantitative and qualitative) will contribute to practice by elucidating choices made in service learning course design, identifying moderator variables (e.g., attributes that are brought to the service learning course experience) that are associated with different outcomes, developing an understanding for how intervening variables result in particular outcomes, and thus better documenting the breadth and depth of outcomes that are the strengths of service learning.

This Volume: Narratives to Improve Quality of Research Just as service learning is built on and incorporates the strengths of praxis, the research process is an experiential journey that contributes to learning and deeper understanding through experience. Conducting research, then, is a type of experiential learning, and these chapters are intended to convey some of the lessons learned. Research also represents a form of reflection, particularly when it meets the five qualities of good reflection: links activities to learning, is structured, occurs regularly, provides a basis for feedback, and allows for exploration of values (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). Contributors to this volume have distinguished careers conducting research, and they document well the ways in which research as a reflective activity has contributed to their professional development, scholarly identity, and new lines of inquiry. Their examples provide retrospective snapshots of programs of research as well as commentary about isolated research projects, including identifying ways to improve the study if replicated or extended. The corpuses of research and scholarship are exemplary and extensive. Through self-reflections by recognized contributors to SLCE research, chapter contributors were asked to address the dual themes of “How did we get here?” and “Where are we going?” as scholars and collectively as a field. They were given the opportunity to reflect on and share their personal experiences as scholars, the key questions and research agenda that they have pursued, and their contributions to building the SLCE field. The narratives are intended to both capture the pathways and support the journey of others toward higher quality research. Specifically, the goal was

Book.indb 8

03-10-2019 12:26:57

practical wisdom for conducting research  

9

for contributors to identify key choices they made in terms of inquiry and methodology, describe both successes and challenges in establishing and navigating a SLCE research agenda across one’s career, and share lessons learned from their research journey to advance the field both domestically and abroad. A number of books have used narratives to explore the experiences of community-engaged scholars. In recent years, Democracy and Higher Education: Traditions and Stories of Civic Engagement by Peters (2010) and Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education: Publicly Engaged Scholars edited by Post, Ward, Longo and Saltmarsh (2016) elevated the role of scholarly identity and generational differences that may exist in terms of how scholars enact their vision for community engagement. This volume is similar to the theme of sharing wisdom that is described in ServiceLearning: A Movement’s Pioneers Reflect on Its Origins, Practice, and Future by Stanton, Giles, and Cruz (1999) and Where’s the Wisdom in Service-Learning by Schumer (2017). However, this volume is distinct in that it has a specific emphasis on wisdom associated with conducting research and establishing a research agenda focused on SLCE. Contributors were asked to offer practical wisdom for varied audiences to improve research on this high-impact teaching practice in higher education (Kuh, 2008). Even though the contributors in this volume are exemplars, their narratives also illustrate a humility about their work, its importance, its quality, and how it could be improved. There is a sense of appreciation that they have been a part of a new field of study in which scholars are eager to collaborate and share information. They also demonstrate how isolated research projects can grow into a program of research. The field will be well-served when it takes more seriously the challenge of building up and improving on past research, rather than continuing to conduct isolated research projects that fail to break new ground or extend previous results. We hope that these stories provide inspiration, high standards, and advice for improving research on SLCE, whether it is a primary or secondary aspect of one’s corpus of research. We are aware that all of the contributors are American scholars, and this can be viewed as a limitation. However, we expect that their experiences, reflections, and wisdom will be relevant to the broader community of international scholars and researchers. The following two chapters in Part One frame the subsequent chapters in the book. Plater’s chapter provides a compelling argument, through the philosophical lens of pragmatism (e.g., Charles Peirce, John Dewey, William James), that research on service learning has a public purpose. Informed by insights gleaned at the contributors’ meeting held on the IUPUI campus in March 2018, Plater offers perspectives as to why this volume is particularly

Book.indb 9

03-10-2019 12:26:57

10  

framing the conversation

relevant at this point in time. He challenges current researchers on service learning to be bold in asking critical questions that emerge from the shifting demographics and interests of college students and faculty, the increasing pressures on higher education to be socially and fiscally accountable, and the broader contexts of our politically contentious times. He argues that the intentionality of the purposes of research are evident within the narratives and representative of faculty who see their work mattering to the common good. With the wisdom gleaned from his own backstory as a chief academic officer, Plater also offers a vantage point for the importance of research on service learning as a means to enact the democratic purposes of higher education. Brandenberger’s chapter articulates the rich philosophical ties between practical wisdom and service learning pedagogy. He argues that service learning values complex social contexts for learning, and this is the type of learning that develops practical wisdom. He makes the case for how research on service learning can contribute to the wisdom of the researcher as well as students. In different ways and to different degrees, the attributes that are associated with practical wisdom are reflected in the subsequent chapters: (a) social decision-making/knowledge, (b) prosocial attitudes and behaviors, (c) self-reflection, (d) acknowledgment of uncertainty, (e) emotional homeo­ stasis, (f ) value relativism/tolerance, (g) openness, (h) spirituality, and (i) sense of humor (Bangen, Meeks, & Jeste, 2013). These attributes provide a lens through which the following narrative chapters can be viewed and a set of variables that could be the basis for exploring questions on the professional development of researchers. Part Two comprises the narratives of those who have conducted research on SLCE across their careers. As with other volumes in the IUPUI Series, we offered a chapter template (Figure 1.1.2) to guide the development of each chapter; asked for eight-page drafts; and convened contributors to discuss their progress, gather feedback, and generate new avenues and implications for the book. We asked contributors to use components from the template that they thought would provide a basis for extracting wisdom for others. We expected that their narratives about research experiences would be the raw data for offering recommendations, advice, cautions, and inspirations that would help to improve research on service learning and strengthen the careers of service learning researchers. Due to the symbiotic nature between scholarship (e.g., conceptual analysis, theoretical analysis, principles of good practice) and empirical research, contributors were not limited to discussing only their research. As illustrated in these narratives, there is a generative relationship between scholarship and research, particularly when exploring new ideas.

Book.indb 10

03-10-2019 12:26:57

practical wisdom for conducting research  

11

Figure 1.1.2.  IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research: Book 4 Template

Chapter Template for Part Two Contributors





1. Brief introduction and background (5%) a. How did you first become involved in research on service learning? At what stage in your career? b. What is your disciplinary background and its relevance/congruence to service learning? c. In what ways did your campus context support your research? d. Is there a particular metaphor that gives the reader insight into your research trajectory and career? 2. Key developmental factors that shaped and influenced your trajectory as a service learning researcher (15%) a. What are the undergirding motives for why you conduct research on service learning? What are you most curious about? b. What early challenges and choices did you face as a researcher on service learning? c. Were there formative experiences during the research process or key advice from mentors that influenced your research choices? d. To what extent has your disciplinary field of study shaped your approach; to what extent have you broadened to a more transdisciplinary perspective on your research? e. What role did professional associations or networks play? 3. Reflections on your scope of research/scholarship, your scholarly identity, and career—What is your story, or narrative arc, as a researcher? (25%) a. How would you describe your research agenda? b. What theories/conceptual frameworks do you think have been most relevant to your research? c. What measurement strategies have been most useful? Are there issues associated with research design that would be important to share? d. How has your research informed service learning practice? How has practice informed your research? e. Reflections on support, resources, trends, motives, collaborations, cost/benefit analysis, collaborations on conducting research/­ scholarship, and paradigmatic and methodological choices and issues. How do you imagine the future direction of your research/ scholarship?

(Continues)

Book.indb 11

03-10-2019 12:26:57

12  

framing the conversation

Figure 1.1.2.  (Continued)





Book.indb 12

f. How has your research/scholarship aligned with and extended your academic/disciplinary roots into other disciplinary/transdisciplinary perspectives? 4. Illustrative example and “backstory” for one of your most meaningful and significant research publications: Choose one of your favorite or most widely cited research publications as basis for this section (20%) a. What was the background and impetus for this research (source of ideas, connection to prior research, conceptual framework/theory, research design, role of collaborators/mentors)? b. Why did you care about the question, and why was it significant to you at the time? Is it still relevant to the field? c. What is the backstory behind the research process? Any regrets, improvements that could have been made, obstacles and challenges, or second thoughts about the research? Would you do anything differently related to this research if you could do it over again? d. Was the manuscript for the research initially rejected and/or revised and resubmitted? In what ways was the peer review process helpful/ frustrating? e. What are its implications for future research and practice (as viewed then and now)? 5. Going forward, what practical wisdom can you share with others? Practical wisdom is the integration of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding. This can include concerns/opportunities/issues about research on service learning and community engagement and its future (35%) a. What compelling questions and promising research approaches would you recommend to improve the field of research on service learning? b. What advice do you have to others in the field of research on service learning regarding theories, research designs, measurement issues, and the relationships between research and practice? Between research and scholarship more broadly? c. What advice do you have for others for documenting research in promotion and tenure dossiers? d. What role do campuses, professional associations, and external funding organizations (e.g., foundations, government) have in supporting research on service learning? What would you most like to see occur during the next five years in the field of research on service learning?

03-10-2019 12:26:57

practical wisdom for conducting research  

13

The narratives provide a meaningful voice for capturing the human side of conducting research. Contributors were asked to articulate lessons learned about the research process, examine choices they made to establish and sustain a research agenda on SLCE, and share practical wisdom and valuable insights with others to improve research. Many were very articulate about their motivations and challenges. This backstory narrative approach on the research process itself is typically not included in formal presentations or publications, yet it can illustrate how research productivity is shaped and sustained across one’s career. At the same time, these narratives can be instructive and inspirational to others, particularly emerging scholars who are new to the field. Research is a complex, and sometimes messy, process that is shaped by disciplinary/professional background, different pathways to research on service learning, community engagement interests and activities, institutional context, privilege and opportunity, overarching values and motivations, and personal attributes. The researchers’ narrative, appraisal, and recommendations are unique and not equally relevant to everyone who reads the chapters. We endorse this diversity as a strength of the volume. We also expected that there would be some areas of consensus across their narratives. Therefore, some, but not all, of the practical wisdom gleaned from their knowledge, experience, and deep understanding of research can contribute to development of other researchers and the field more generally. Readers will gain from these chapters an understanding of the influence that different factors (e.g., campus context, collaborations, community partners, disciplinary norms, external grants, mentors, motivations, obstacles, roles and responsibilities, serendipity) can play in the process of undertaking, producing, and sustaining a program of research on SLCE. Because the IUPUI series is focused on research, these narratives are to support and improve research. Therefore, we asked contributors to be not only retrospective in their narrative but also prospective and prescriptive in their implications. The retrospective approach is a way to help clarify to readers how the journey through different stages of one’s career presented different challenges and successes as well as a background against which to foreground implications for future research. We recognize that the landscape of higher education changes and those currently entering professional academic careers are not on the same pathway as these contributors may have been; nevertheless, we trust that some of the lessons gleaned from the contributors’ experiences will be relevant and helpful. Each contributor was also asked to provide recommendations for future research. This can both inform and inspire other researchers and provide insight and advice to those embarking on service learning research in general as well as specific advice for advancing the field.

Book.indb 13

03-10-2019 12:26:57

14  

framing the conversation

To ask researchers to provide accounts of their personal journey and their research activities runs the risk of incorporating biases, distortions, and overly simplified summaries. We could not ask researchers to detail all of the processes of their research, which could include cognitive processes of arriving at the conception and interpretation of research, the logistics of executing the research and overcoming inevitable obstacles, or the various decisions that involved the allocation of time and attention to their various research projects versus other areas of their professional life and their personal lives. Instead, we asked them to tell the story of their research across their career. We know from psychological research that descriptions of products and outcomes are more accessible and accurate than descriptions of processes (Myers, 2010). Thus, the factors that control a person’s behavior are less well known to them than those that are used to explain that behavior (Myers, 2010). Typically, individuals provide an account that seems plausible, coherent, and reasonable to an audience. The chapters in Part Two may, to various degrees, be influenced by retrospective sense-making (Weick, 1995), a focus on successes rather than failures, and a positive illusion when explaining the nature of their journey (Myers, 2010); however, we value their descriptions and hope that others do so as well. Contributors in Part Three were invited to provide a broader commentary on ways to improve research on service learning, informed by both a synthesis of the narratives from Part Two as well as integration of their own research experience and vantage point. This chapter offers a type of informal meta-analysis of the narratives to reinforce recommendations for research. Clayton, Stokamer, Garvin, Shoemaker, Muse, and Norvell use the lens of coinquiry as an intentional strategy to improve scholarship and research. They note that many contributors to Part Two espoused the value of collaboration, but few articulated strategies for coinquiry with students, other faculty, or community partners. They offer practical implications for those looking to use this approach to cogenerate knowledge, research, and practice. We know that additional synthesis and analysis of the narratives is warranted, and we encourage others to explore how data from this set of narratives can be used to benefit the field. For example, analysis could be done through the lens of mentoring, faculty development, civic identity development, or implications for offices and centers responsible for research. Additionally, implications could be identified for associations and grantfunding organizations to better support scholars across the various stages of their SLCE careers. A community of practice or reading circle could use the volume as a means to discuss the challenges and opportunities inherent in conducting and advancing research on SLCE.

Book.indb 14

03-10-2019 12:26:57

practical wisdom for conducting research  

15

Conclusion Service learning as a curricular strategy for community engagement is front and center in terms of revitalizing the civic and academic mission through community engagement. Understanding the outcomes of service learning through assessment, but particularly through research, is essential to maintaining support for this high-impact teaching practice. Service learning, other high-impact pedagogies (Kuh, 2008), and excellent teaching more generally have immediate and long-term outcomes for preparing students for engaged lives as civic-minded professionals (Hatcher, 2008). Thus, research on service learning is not an empty, pedantic exercise but rather a means of improving all instruction in ways that advance the public good. We hope this volume contributes practical wisdom to enact that broader purpose.

References Bangen, K. J., Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: A review of the literature. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1254–1266. Bowman, N. A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A metaanalysis of college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research 81(1), 29–68. Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 3–21). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Civic education through service-learning: What, how, and why? In L. McIlrath, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 101–124). New York, NY: Palgrave. Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, E. A. (Eds.). (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221–239. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179–185. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Meaningful measurement of theory-based service-learning outcomes: Making the case with quantitative research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 68–75. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.). (2011). International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Williams, M. J. (2011). Quantitative approaches to research on international service learning: Design, measurement, and theory. In

Book.indb 15

03-10-2019 12:26:57

16  

framing the conversation

R. Bringle, J. Hatcher, & S. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 275–290). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Campus Compact (2016). Revitalizing our democracy: Building on our assets. 2016 Annual Member Survey: Executive Summary. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34, 164–181. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013a). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2A. Students and faculty. Arlington, VA: Stylus. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013b). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2B. Communities, institutions, and partnerships. Arlington, VA: Stylus. Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social context: A meta-analysis of service learning’s effects on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 233–245. Council of Europe (2017). Council of Europe reference framework of competences for democratic culture (CDC): Vol. 3. Guidance for implementation. 2. CDC and pedagogy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Furco, A., & Matthews, P. H. (2018, July). Using a new, research-based tool to assess the quality of planning and implementation of service-learning courses. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement, New Orleans, LA. Hahn, T. W., Hatcher, J. A., Price, M. F., & Studer, M. L. (2017). IUPUI taxonomy for service learning courses. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1805/10851 Hatcher, J. A. (2008). The public role of professionals: Developing and evaluating the Civic-Minded Professional scale (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Pro Quest Dissertation and Theses, AAT 3331248. Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. Journal of College Teaching, 45, 153–158. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Hahn, T. W. (2017) (Eds.). Research on student civic outcomes in service learning: Conceptual frameworks and methods. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hoyte, L., & Rowe, A. N. (2017). National, regional, and global networks for university community engagement. In C. Dolgon, T. Mitchell, & T. Eatman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of service learning and community engagement (pp. 385–395). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jacoby, B. (2015). Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Myers, D. G. (2010). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Novak, J. M., Markey, V., & Allen, M. (2007). Evaluating cognitive outcomes of service learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 24, 149–157.

Book.indb 16

03-10-2019 12:26:57

practical wisdom for conducting research  

17

Patton, M. Q. (2012). Improving rigor in service-learning research. In J. Hatcher & R. Bringle (Eds.), Understanding service-learning and community engagement: Crossing boundaries through research (pp. 3–9). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Peters, S. (2010). Traditions and stories of civic engagement: Democracy and higher education. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Post, M., Ward, E., Longo, N., & Saltmarsh, J. (Eds.) (2016). Publically engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Richard, D., Keen, C., Hatcher, J. & Pease, H. (2016). Pathways to adult civic engagement: Benefits of reflection and dialogue across difference in college ­service-learning programs. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1), 64–70. Richard, F. D. (2017). Quantitative research on civic outcomes and service learning. In J. Hatcher, R. Bringle, & T. Hahn (Eds.) Research on student civic outcomes: Conceptual frameworks and methods (pp. 221–240). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Saltmarsh, J. & Johnson, M. B. (2017). The elective Carnegie Community Engagement classification: Constructing a successful application for first-time and re-classification applicants. Boston MA: Campus Compact. Schumer, R. (Ed.). (2017). Where’s the wisdom in service-learning? Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Stanton, T. K., Giles Jr., D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning?: A metaanalysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 56–51. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 9–27.

Book.indb 17

03-10-2019 12:26:57

Book.indb 18

03-10-2019 12:26:57

1.2 PURPOSE BEYOND O U R S E LV E S William M. Plater

T

his is an unusual book. It is a collection of essays by scholars and practitioners reflecting on their own personal experiences as researchers who have inquired into service learning, among other topics. As is generally the case with most reflections, understanding and meaning are artifacts of hindsight no matter how intentional or fortuitous careers might have been in their making. Inherently, there is a tension between research on service learning as the subject of this volume and self-reflection on the process. Self-reflection can unintentionally lead toward self-absorption, leaving research as the subject itself behind. This is a book about how individuals have conceived their research and less about their own accomplishments, or what might be attributed to their own welfare. And therein lies its purpose and its value—beyond the authors’ self-acclaim or self-indulgence. The contributors strive to never forget their subject of research as they describe the many and varied paths, perspectives, and experiences that converge on the shared point of explaining why research on service learning is important to them and to others. For the most part, what scholars in general and these contributors in particular know is defined by their own experiences. As John Dewey, among others, has argued, experience is essential for learning, but experience itself is problematic. In Experience and Education, Dewey (1938) notes that amid all uncertainties there is one permanent frame of reference: namely, the organic connection between education and personal experience; or, that the new philosophy of education is committed to some kind of empirical and experimental philosophy. But experience and experiment are not self-explanatory ideas. Rather, their meaning is part of the problem to be explored. (p. 25) 19

Book.indb 19

03-10-2019 12:26:57

20  

framing the conversation

So it is with the essays that comprise this book. What is it to conduct research in this domain, and what advice can be offered to improve research on service learning going forward? As with the other contributors to this volume, I, too, have a backstory, and that will emerge in due course. However, most of my knowledge of service learning is shaped and informed by my own experience at IUPUI. Among many factoids of my experience, I have become a selective reader of the works of Charles Sanders Peirce, the American philosopher and mathematician who, along with William James, is the founder of pragmatism and whose collected works are being assembled, edited, and published by faculty at IUPUI through the Center for American Thought. From my perspective, the pages of this volume are in many ways undergirded by pragmatism. This complex idea is based on the principles of utility and practicality, stressing “the priority of action over doctrine, of  experience over fixed principles, and it holds that ideas borrow their meanings from their consequences and their truths from their verification. Thus, ideas are essentially instruments and plans of action” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018, para. 1). This is not unlike service learning and conducting research on service learning. The connection between Dewey’s influential work and pedagogies of experiential learning, including service learning, is well established and much cited. Less noted is Dewey’s debt to Peirce, with whom he studied at Johns Hopkins University. The chain of association and inference from Peirce to Dewey to IUPUI to service learning is too rich—and, surely, problematic—to ignore. So, in my own reflection, I have found a means, or perspective, to assess the volume’s essays in these associations, largely as a by-product of reading the essays, participating in the contributors’ meeting, and writing this chapter. In his article “The Function of a University” that was published in Science in 1900, Peirce talked about Clark University, which had placed research above teaching as its primary mission, and reflected on research— much as the contributors to this volume have been asked to do. Peirce (1900) observed the following: The great medieval universities, the modern German universities, the new science colleges of England, which did, and do, great things for their students personally, were never in the least founded for their students’ individual advantage, but on the contrary, because of the expectation that the truths that would be brought to light in such institutions would benefit the State. The end was, and is, so constantly in view that the scholars are led to regard their own lives as having a purpose beyond themselves. (p. 358)

Book.indb 20

03-10-2019 12:26:57

purpose beyond ourselves  

21

In the same essay, Peirce (1900) notes that “whoever makes his own welfare his object will simply ruin it utterly” (p. 358). Whether intentionally or by inference, the contributors in this volume have understood that making this exploration of conducting research on service learning about themselves and their own status as scholars would ruin the book—and its purpose—utterly. The truths that are to be brought to light through their reflections are to benefit what Peirce called “the State,” but which we might now recognize as the common good (Reich, 2018). The contributors have adhered purposefully to the concept that their own research experiences, personal and unique as each may be, can yield meaning to others to advance the field.

Why This Book? Many have argued for and some have conducted research to demonstrate the positive value of service learning. Service learning has been repeatedly cited in research compiled and curated by the National Survey of Student Engagement, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, Campus Compact, the International Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement, the Association of American Colleges & Universities, and many other organizations as well as individual scholars and practitioners. Scholars find it to be a “high-impact” (Kuh, 2008) educational practice that enhances overall student learning, improves retention and graduation, and provides evidence of applied and practical learning to prospective employers. Indeed, this is the fourth volume in a series devoted to research on service learning and civic engagement. Some of the contributors to this volume have noted that the success of implementing service learning has so outstripped actual knowledge of what really works best with this and other forms of community-based learning that there is a real need for expanding and intensifying research on and about service learning pedagogy—to know that its value is as great as presumed and inferred. Because the perceived value of service learning is so well accepted, critical questions are often not asked. As the practices of service learning have matured and widened, are its values and effectiveness the same? How have changes in the precollegiate experiences and demographics of students influenced the student learning experience in service learning courses? What impact and differences have the students’ own experiences had on faculty and institutional practice? What differentiates service learning in the United States compared to other international contexts, and what practices internationally can improve this

Book.indb 21

03-10-2019 12:26:57

22  

framing the conversation

teaching strategy? Has the polarization of politics and the political critique of higher education changed the public’s (and students’) view of the public purposes of service learning? The questions are many, and we lack suitable answers. There are, of course, parallel questions that might be asked about conducting research on service learning. How have the modes of research changed? How has research changed as the field of researchers has developed or as experienced researchers mentor others, including graduate students? Have there been shifts across time in the values that service learning researchers use to guide their research (e.g., from higher level interest in educating students to pragmatic concerns about tenure, professional advancement, reputation)? How have changes in higher education and society influenced how service learning is studied? Has conducting research on service learning changed the researcher and approaches to asking and answering questions? These are questions that the contributors inherently are addressing. One of this book’s principal contributions is the critical assessment of where research needs to go, what questions need to be answered, what truisms need to be reverified or discarded. Of equal importance, the contributors each raise questions about the position and identity of researchers—past and future. There are frequent references to passion, privilege, power, and legitimization. No one gets a pass on assumed authority to speak definitively about personal inquiries into service learning without acknowledging the biases from which perception and writing spring—or at least not without noting that there are value-based experiences as well as disciplinary perspectives that shape and precondition both questions and responses. The personalization of what issues need the attention of researchers is a significant and rare act of transparency. The resulting recommendations for further inquiry are refreshingly honest while still being earnest and at times passionate. Another major contribution of this book is its collective bibliography. Many of the most influential scholarly and descriptive works of the past three decades have been written by these very contributors, but they acknowledge influences and predecessors far and wide. As the contributors pull back the curtain on their own works and the pathways that led them to their conclusions, readers can look behind the facts, figures, and words of scholarship and gain insight into the choices and, not infrequently, doubts that underlie the certainty and formality of so many of the polished and published pieces. Some of the contributors even address research that was abandoned or left unpublished, and these reflections, too, provide insights into where future research might go as well as where it has been. As one reads through the essays and bibliographies, it becomes apparent that there is an unusual degree of familiarity among the contributors. They cite each

Book.indb 22

03-10-2019 12:26:57

purpose beyond ourselves  

23

other’s publications, offer anecdotes about shared experiences, and speak appreciatively of contributions of their peers.

Who Is the Audience? Guarding against the perception that there might be a bubble of complacency as committed teachers and scholars talk only to each other, most of the contributors have a specific audience in mind. That audience, in large measure, is understood to be a curious and perhaps naïve audience—naïve in the sense that many younger scholars and educators come to service learning without the benefit of years of engagement or personal experience with the pedagogy, although a growing minority of new faculty have had the benefit of studying at institutions where service learning has been widely accepted and broadly implemented across disciplines. Even to their fresh eyes, what may be self-evident and settled to the originating generation of scholars and practitioners is unproven and untested in their new context. Faculty largely stay in place while students continually change. What was once taught and learned must be taught and learned again. But faculty do change—new colleagues are hired and, increasingly, part-time and adjunct teachers replace full-time retirees. Part of the audience for this book includes newly minted faculty who may arrive at an institution where the commitment to service learning is strong, reflected in mission and vision statements, proclaimed ritualistically on public occasions, and institutionally supported. Yet to them service learning may be new, not much discussed in graduate school, or a pedagogy that seemingly requires too much additional time—detracting from research or demanding pro bono, uncompensated time from the contingent faculty. The contributors have these new colleagues in mind, and their personal reflections speak variously to aspiring faculty in their first appointment, seasoned scholars new to service learning, or peers at institutions in other nations where community engagement and civic learning are new to curricula and missions. Due to the organizational framework of offices and centers that support service learning, the contributors also keep in mind the staff administrator asked to lead and assess civically oriented programs, a student affairs leader seeking credibility with faculty, and graduate students who recognize that their academic futures likely rest more in their own skills and adaptabilities than the security of a permanent job. With an experienced eye to the highly uncertain future of higher education, the contributing researchers recognize that most of them have had the privilege of institutional support and administrative encouragement that

Book.indb 23

03-10-2019 12:26:57

24  

framing the conversation

may not be possible for the next generation of faculties (plural because the forms of faculty work are increasingly disaggregated and differentiated) and in other institutional contexts. Many have lived the life of what Gene Rice (1996) called the complete and connected scholar or enjoyed the benefits of institutional recognition of Ernest Boyer’s (1990) more open and comprehensive reconsideration of scholarship. Even those commentators who themselves may not have enjoyed tenure benefited from a culture where their work and service have been honored and respected. Without saying it so plainly, most of the authors are trying to suggest ways that faculty new to service learning—whether teaching or researching or hopefully both—can create “privilege” for themselves through intentionality, collaboration, and intrinsic satisfaction.

Lessons Learned, Wisdom Shared One of the most powerful lessons of the contributors’ practical wisdom is that the community of scholars is itself an asset to be used deliberately and well. Institutional supports may not be as robust as desired, one’s academic career may consist of various appointments at several different institutions, or leadership changes and priorities can shift. In all of these cases, the community of the committed and engaged can offer reassurance, critical feedback, and support for continuing service learning and for conducting research on the value, impact, and effectiveness of the pedagogy, and certifying its contribution to the institutional mission. Five lessons stand out across all of the essays.

Community Community can be local (e.g., within the same institution, among colleagues in nearby institutions, within a state or region, linked through statewide organizations such as Campus Compact); national through umbrella organizations such as the national Campus Compact, the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, the Association of American Colleges & Universities, or sector organizations such as the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the American Association of Community Colleges (all of which have dedicated programs, conferences, or workshops related to service learning); and international (linked virtually through the Internet and organizationally through such groups as the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement or the Talloires Network with its regional organizations on each continent).

Book.indb 24

03-10-2019 12:26:57

purpose beyond ourselves  

25

Collaboration Another lesson learned from the contributors’ practical wisdom is the importance of collaboration—a natural by-product of community and itself a necessary condition for community. Most of the contributors comment on the value of working with a colleague on their research and drawing on different methods and disciplinary approaches to consider service learning from a variety of perspectives. Others address the value of a mentor or earlier adopter of service learning as a pedagogy. There is real joy and personal meaning in the way many of the contributors talk about their collaborations.

Campus-Community Partnerships The great value and recognition of collaboration comes from an understanding of the nature of the interrelationship of campus-community partnerships. One of the most important lessons is the reappraisal of expertise and knowledge that comes in working with community leaders, nonprofit organizations, government officials, school principals, union organizers, and residents. They have equal, reciprocal, and important knowledge that can inform and change theory as well confirm the suppositions that laid the foundation for a service learning course. As researchers explore the many, varied aspects of service learning, they often reaffirm the importance and value of true collaboration between communities of scholars and citizens. Most also acknowledge that the realization of community-based expertise as well as the capacity to differentiate and apply that knowledge in learning must be continually relearned and reformulated by teachers. Integrating community members as coinvestigators should be a continued area of development and a distinctive feature of research on service learning.

Community of Writers and Readers This recognition of cogeneration of knowledge is a fundamental aspect of publicly engaged scholarship. Community is sustained and grounded in publications, whether in reference documents for community collaborators, resources for peers on campus, policy papers for organizations, or peerreviewed research articles and monographs to advance knowledge about service learning in theory and in practice. As this book itself attests, the community of writers and readers who share a common interest and, perhaps, common goals is highly interactive. The essays almost “talk” with each other as a reflection of the authors’ boundary-spanning knowledge and their understanding of the intended audiences. The development of and, more importantly, the continuation of journals dedicated to service learning and

Book.indb 25

03-10-2019 12:26:57

26  

framing the conversation

community engagement confirm the reality of a community of practice and tends to support the recognition of service learning pedagogy and research as a legitimate field of inquiry. As the practice and experience of service learning grows and is reinvented by successive generations of faculty, its acceptance within disciplinary and professional associations will anchor it to the most well-traveled pathways of academic success.

Persistence Among the other lessons learned and shared as practical wisdom is a realization of the importance of persistence. All of the contributors have experienced roadblocks of various kinds—personal detours around unresolvable issues or findings, programmatic reassignment, changes in institutional priorities, lack of support from departmental colleagues, loss of funding, or just the kinds of disruptions that life throws at everyone, usually without preparation. In the essays and reflections, the contributors recall and reconstruct the paths that have led them to their most important research questions and findings—and to the current moment of taking stock of what it all means. The paths are varied. There are gaps. There is self-doubt. There is competition among different tasks for attention and personal investment of limited time. But in every case, there is persistence—and in that persistence a recognition of the value of community in all of its forms.

Why It Matters Intention often emerges as a reflective reconstruction, finding meaning in a selective series of occurrences with the benefit of hindsight and the discernment of a pattern when each instance may seem random. Intention can also be deliberate and purposeful even as plans and strategies are adjusted to accommodate the unforeseen. Planned intention and discovered intention are as intertwined in these essays as are the researchers and their research—seeking objectivity, fact, the unknown or unrecognized—yet always being aware that the abilities to see, to find, and to understand are conditioned by experience and somewhat limited in scope. Dewey’s dilemma reemerges again and again: Experience and the search for that which is not yet known are both problems to be explored. In that sense, this book on service learning is a book about all research, not just service learning research. So why does research on service learning matter? There is a larger purpose for this book, which derives from the fundamental duty of all sectors of higher education to advance the common good through teaching, research, and professional service. Service learning has a particular role to play in giving

Book.indb 26

03-10-2019 12:26:57

purpose beyond ourselves  

27

students tools and abilities they may need to enact their own contributions, but it also calls on them to discern through reflection—much as the contributors to this volume have done—what their personal role might be in contributing to the public good now and in the future. Research is essential to guide the ends as well as the means of service learning. Recall the point of pragmatism: “Ideas borrow their meanings from their consequences and their truths from their verification” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018, para. 1). Research is not just about the finished product or outcome. We, as ­researchers, value and assess its quality based on the process and inputs. The experience and positionality of the researcher are also inputs, a truth more often acknowledged in qualitative research than quantitative.

My Backstory My own experiences have shaped this reflection on the work of the ­contributors. As I alluded, most of my experience related to service learning comes from my work at IUPUI as a faculty member (English, philanthropic studies, public affairs) and academic administrator (dean of liberal arts and chief academic officer for the campus). IUPUI is a large, urban, public research university that is part of a system of campuses differentiated by its history and its emphasis on professional education. It was created in the late 1960s as an amalgamation of a large medical center; extension campuses of two competing flagship universities; and several formerly private schools of art, law, and physical education. Fragmented and conflicted from its birth, by the early 1980s IUPUI was at best a federation of separate academic units scattered across four different locations in Indianapolis linked only in name, rhetoric, and a hope that things would ultimately work out. There was no shared history, no shared vision, no apparent shared values, and no real desire to be a unified whole. There seemed to be no purpose other than to coexist and cohabitate in the same space and share the same parking lots. While “real” research would come (or, more accurately, be accepted) later, inquiry and the search for the unknown and unseen led to a startling discovery. Every school and almost every program of the federated units sometimes called IUPUI shared a common dependency on community-based learning and a deep engagement with the local community, which itself was as fragmented as the university. Under course titles as varied as internship, clinical, practice teaching, practicum, residency, apprenticeship, and placement, virtually every school had relationships with segments of the larger central Indiana region, and in some cases the entire state of Indiana, across all sectors

Book.indb 27

03-10-2019 12:26:58

28  

framing the conversation

of government, business, and nonprofits. The purpose in IUPUI’s creation gradually became apparent—the community needed a university with all of its different programs and parts in order for Indianapolis to be a successful and thriving city. Likewise, the campus needed the community to strengthen the relevance of teaching and learning and deepen the processes and purposes of research. Although the adoption of a shared vocabulary took years to be accepted, the intent of using civic engagement and what later was accepted as service learning became the unifying concept for IUPUI and a theme for its 2002 reaccreditation by the Higher Learning Commission. The common activity of drawing on community contexts for student learning and the interdependence of all of the separate academic units with the broader civic community allowed a sense of coherence and shared purpose that transformed a federation into a university. This account is oversimplified and glosses over many noteworthy nuances, but the point has been validated through research: Intention matters. In this case, the interdependence of the university and the community defined the distinctive character of IUPUI. I could argue (and one day research will no doubt confirm) that in turn IUPUI has determined the future of Indianapolis and its central Indiana region. The example of IUPUI’s intentionality in discovering a common purpose and then using research to both justify the creation of an institutional identity and guide the institution’s further development illustrates an overarching theme of the collected essays. Research can justify ends and conclusions already reached as well as serve as a guide to an institution’s future—toward a vision it wishes to achieve. There is a hunger for evidence and excitement in an awakening of what already exists. In Peirce’s pragmatic view, to say a belief is true is itself “the subject of continuous scientific inquiry by the community of investigators, [among whom] assent to the belief would increase and dissent decrease ‘in the infinite  long run’” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018, para. 22). In his concept, meaning thus implies a future. Hence, these chapters attend not only to the stories of programs of research but also to the future contributions that will continue to shape the field and higher education institutions. As I have noted repeatedly, our ability to research—which means the discovery of new facts and truths and the revision or reinterpretation of accepted conditions based on new facts—is constrained and advanced by our experiences as well as our hopes. By participating in the rebirth of IUPUI from a collection of separate faculties and goals into an institution with a common purpose, I recognize myself as situated in the metaphoric social Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where the act of observing changes the observation,

Book.indb 28

03-10-2019 12:26:58

purpose beyond ourselves  

29

just like all of the contributors to this volume. And that is okay. Apologies are not needed. We can be passionate about what we are doing even as we study— research—our own activities. Yes, our participation in and advocacy for the activity we are considering does affect the facts of what we find. What gives me peace and confidence in this reality—and makes me believe in the integrity and value of the research of colleagues who have contributed to this volume—comes from being a participant in the intentional remaking of IUPUI. The fundamental purpose of IUPUI and every other college and university is educating students for their role in advancing the common good. Peirce (1900) said it best: “The truths that would be brought to light in such institutions would benefit the State” (p. 358), by which I (even if not Peirce) mean the common good. As IUPUI recognized its fundamental purpose, it could use its knowledge about itself and its engagement with the community to create—intentionally—a future for itself based on research that would validate its reason for existing as a citizen of the broader community. This chapter is not the place or occasion to make the case for the essential and fundamental role of higher education in preparing graduates for their role in sharing in and advancing the common good. I assert it as a proven fact to be justified elsewhere. What I claim for research on service learning and for the importance of the practical wisdom being shared by the contributors to this volume is their recognition that beyond the practical value of experiential learning there is learning for a purpose that can only be found when that learning comes from and returns to the community. Our nation’s founders recognized that they were not only doing something never before done in the history of humankind in creating a government based on a shared commitment to the common good but also that preserving that government depends on a people educated to understand a shared responsibility for the common good with knowledge of what that responsibility entails. As Robert Reich (2018) has recently reasserted in his book on the common good in America, “Without an educated populace a common good cannot even be discerned” (p. 33). Service learning is one very good way in which students can learn about and enact the common good. We need more research to examine and support what service learning achieves and how it does it. This research needs to be conducted based on a commitment to quality course design, sound research methods, and a belief in the academic ethos and quest for truth as a common good. This volume of reflexive and personal accountability is a manual for those who will take up research for the sake of the society we share.

Book.indb 29

03-10-2019 12:26:58

30  

framing the conversation

References Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Preferences of the professoriate. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Retrieved from https://archive.org/ details/ExperienceAndEducation Encyclopedia Britannica. (2018). Pragmatism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica .com/topic/pragmatism-philosophy Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/ files/files/LEAP/HIP_tables.pdf. Peirce, C. S. (1900). The function of a university. Science, April 20. Quoted in The Annals of America, 12. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/ content/11/277/620 Reich, R. B. (2018). The common good [Kindle edition]. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Rice, R. E. (1996). Making the place for the new American scholar (Working Paper Services: Inquiry No. 1). Washington DC: American Association for Higher ­Education.

Book.indb 30

03-10-2019 12:26:58

1.3 PRACTICAL WISDOM AS AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENGAGED LEARNING AND SCHOLARSHIP Jay W. Brandenberger We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future. —George Bernard Shaw (1921)

H

igher education has multiple purposes: creating new knowledge, sharing understanding across contexts, promoting learning at multiple levels, and fostering ethical human development. Faculty, who foster engaged forms of learning and scholarship, and the students and partners with whom they collaborate often work at the intersection of such purposes. In this chapter I use the term engaged learning broadly, including service learning, community-based research, and other forms of experiential learning, many of which have been identified as high-impact practices in higher education (Kuh, 2008). Although the academy’s traditional focus is content and technical/professional knowledge, new forms of engaged learning and scholarship have the potential to extend higher education epistemologically and foster ethical contributions. Doing research on such engaged work—balancing competing needs, fostering reciprocity, and working toward the common good—requires, I argue, forms of practical wisdom. Practical wisdom, known as phronesis in classical philosophy, is a welcomed virtue (who could be against it, we may ask?). Yet wisdom is also difficult to define and study: We know it when we see it, perhaps. We expect wisdom from our leaders, even from faculty, and we praise it at commencement ceremonies. We hope, implicitly, that educational systems foster wisdom, though seldom are learning outcomes so framed. 31

Book.indb 31

03-10-2019 12:26:58

32  

framing the conversation

I consider research examining the impacts of engaged learning to be part of engaged scholarship, especially when pursued over time with attention to higher order purposes. Engaged scholarship is a reflective practice that pursues, according to Ernest Boyer (1996), “answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic and moral problems” (p. 11). The scholars featured in this volume of the IUPUI series are, in many respects, exemplars of practical wisdom. Their stories of negotiating ethical complexity in generating purposive new knowledge provide maps for others with similar goals. This chapter uses the lens of practical wisdom as a framework for enhancing research on service learning and engaged scholarship. How might engaged work help scholars promote integration, avoiding “reason without practice” and “practice without reason” (Whitmore, 2001, p. 5)? How might engagement foster complexity of thought that is enhanced by multiple perspectives? What can be learned from the study of practical wisdom to enhance scholarship on the complex practices of engaged work? I will address such questions with an eye toward both future research and practice, drawing on theory and recent scientific explorations of practical wisdom.

The Need for Practical Wisdom Rapid social and technological change over the last century presents a host of challenges. Social conventions—built on long-standing paradigms—are strained as new forms of communication and economic exchange multiply. Institutions taken for granted not long ago (e.g., the press, media, education, government) seem ill-equipped to guide social functioning and decisionmaking. Although “knowledge . . . is connected to purpose or use and is associated with intentionality” (Gross, 2010, p. 49), the search for truth amid changing conditions mandates types of learning and research that are adaptive to surprise and unintended consequences. As the complexity of social contexts increases, we reach, according to Barry Schwartz and Ken Sharpe (2010), for two common tools: rules and incentives. Although the desire to codify practice into a set of procedures or outline a mix of enticements may serve lower level objectives, Schwartz and Sharpe caution that such practices are insufficient and may often discourage higher order functioning and purpose. Institutions that are overly dependent on “sticks and carrots” (Schwartz & Sharpe, 2010, p. 10), or rely on technocratic solutions, will likely not foster the type of complex decision-making necessary in the fluid contexts of modern life. What is needed is the ability to consider multiple points of view, discern ethical priorities, and work toward integrated solutions that serve common ends. In short, practical wisdom.

Book.indb 32

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

33

Higher education is not immune, of course, to the complexities of social change, and it can be slow to respond. The academy’s formal structures, its tendency to keep an ivory tower distance from the real world, and its pedagogical orientation toward the transfer of knowledge (versus forms of discovery learning) may constrain collective (and wise) responses. Yet there are potential strengths as well, including recent progress in understanding learning holistically and efforts to connect learning and research to the benefit of society (e.g., service learning, community engagement, community-based research). A focus on practical wisdom reminds practitioners of service learning and engaged scholarship to keep the end in mind and to consider the telos (moral purpose) of learning and research. Such efforts cannot be framed simply in terms of individual students and scholars. A profession is literally demoralized if it relies predominantly on rules and incentives, note Schwartz and Sharpe (2010). “Character and practical wisdom,” they emphasize, “must be cultivated by the major institutions in which we practice” (p. 8).

Wisdom’s Journey: Early to Modern Conceptions Interest in wisdom dates at least to Confucius (see Curnow, 2015, for a detailed history). In Eastern traditions wisdom was considered “a way of life” directed toward “compassion . . . and a genuine desire to improve oneself and one’s surroundings” (Karelitz, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2010, p. 841). Socrates was an early proponent of the human aspects of wisdom, a somewhat radical notion at the time, suggesting that it is “won like all virtues by hard work, in this case the hard work of experience, error, intuition, detachment, and above all critical thinking” (Hall, 2010, p. 21). Aristotle emphasized that practical wisdom is the master virtue, one that coordinates other virtues. In Nicomachean Ethics (2012, Book VI), he distinguished practical wisdom ( phronesis) from more theoretical (epistêmê) and technical (technê) forms of knowing. Practical wisdom, he argued, is a virtue based in rationality and directed toward living well, “the quality of mind concerned with things just and noble and good for man” (Aristotle, 2012, p. 78). Although discernment of the good (or moral truth) is key to all virtues, practical wisdom does not allow understanding to lay fallow but to “take the right means” toward the “right mark” (Aristotle, 2012, p. 78). Practical wisdom revolves around right action for the good: one “has practical wisdom not by knowing only but by being able to act” (Aristotle, 2012 p. 92). During the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, wisdom, long named as a gift of God

Book.indb 33

03-10-2019 12:26:58

34  

framing the conversation

through faith in Christian thought, came to be understood increasingly in human terms (Karelitz et al., 2010). Conceptions of wisdom evolved into the modern era to include elements of moral reasoning and the civic good that could be informed “through contemplation, observation and scientific inquiry” (Karelitz et al., 2010, p. 845). The work of Paul Baltes and colleagues (Baltes & Smith, 1990, 2008; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000) animated the study of wisdom within psychology and human development, as have contributions by Sternberg (1990). In a comprehensive review by Bangen, Meeks, and Jeste (2013), the following components of wisdom emerged (listed here in order of frequency of mention in the scientific literature): (a) social decision-making/knowledge, (b) prosocial attitudes and behaviors, (c) self-reflection, (d) acknowledgment of uncertainty, (e) emotional homeostasis, (f ) value relativism/tolerance, (g) openness, (h) spirituality, and (i) sense of humor. How such elements of wisdom develop and cohere frame important research questions. Schwartz and Sharpe (2006) noted that wisdom is not simply knowledge (“Knowing that kindness is a virtue does not tell you what to do” [p. 382]) or having a set of positive traits, but the ability to discern the proper balance and integration of qualities needed (consistent with Aristotle’s claim that virtues require finding means between extremes). Strengths such as honesty and kindness or justice and forgiveness will naturally come into conflict. Too much courage in the moment, for example, may have unwanted consequences. Practical wisdom orchestrates related skills and virtues in “the priority of the particular” (p. 383). Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) argue, with Aristotle, that wisdom is learned but cannot be taught—at least not didactically. This suggests that wisdom is the product of experience. One becomes wise by confronting the difficult and ambiguous situations, using judgement to decide what to do, doing it, and getting feedback. (p. 388)

This text resonates with arguments for engaged pedagogies. I define practical wisdom as a high-level virtue that integrates reasoning, action, and perspective taking in an ethical orientation toward the common good. Although it has a significant intellectual component, practical wisdom goes beyond critical thinking to incorporate an active orientation to moral ends. In this regard, wisdom is best understood not as an accrued set of precepts or advice (e.g., “She had accumulated a great deal of wisdom to pass on”), but a personal trait or striving to apply knowledge, reason, and experience to resolve an ethical challenge, and the skill to do so in

Book.indb 34

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

35

context. According to Birren and Svensson (2005), “wisdom is perhaps the most complex characteristic that can be attributed to individuals or to cultures” (p. 28). Given the complexity of wisdom as a virtue, we can expect its development to be multifarious and varied, as illustrated by the journeys of scholars shared in this book.

Wisdom Across the Lifespan A developmental view of wisdom raises key questions. Is wisdom a stable character trait? To what extent is it culturally dependent? Which comes first, knowledge of ethical principles or personal mastery/virtue to live accordingly? Narvaez, Gleason, and Mitchell (2010) used cross-sectional research to examine models of virtue/wisdom development across a wide range of age groups (third and fifth graders, college students, middle-aged and older adults). They found evidence that although moral cognition (knowledge of the good, of virtue) generally develops before prudential judgments (practical wisdom), an interplay of social interactions and brain maturation is key to understanding the relation between virtue and wisdom. Although we may conceive particular moral truths to be stable (or to be principles), wisdom by nature is fluid (Hall, 2010) as individuals seek to apply felt truth in emergent contexts (asking, which principles are relevant, and in what priority?). Although mapping the developmental trajectory of wisdom presents challenges, theory and research both suggest that adolescence may be a particularly ripe period for developing wisdom (Pasupathi, Staudinger, & Baltes, 2001). Advances in reasoning and related capacities among adolescents and young adults may set the stage for later growth in wisdom. Although many assume that wisdom represents the accumulation of knowledge/experience, the relationship between age and wisdom is not linear (Ardelt, 2010; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Glück et al., 2013). Research by Pasupathi et al. (2001) suggests that age-related growth in wisdom-related constructs is most tied to chronological age during adolescence and early adulthood, overlapping the traditional age for college attendance. They point out that the period between childhood and adulthood presents rich contextual opportunities for both development and constraint. It is possible that knowledge about the contents, scope, and variation of lives is one of the first bodies of knowledge that adolescents develop as they progress toward the kind of general meta-understanding of the human condition that wisdom implies. (Pasupathi et al., 2001, p. 359)

Book.indb 35

03-10-2019 12:26:58

36  

framing the conversation

Elements of Practical Wisdom and Their Development Although research on wisdom is limited, especially with respect to college students (not to mention faculty development), many constructs considered to be components of wisdom (and, not coincidentally, of service learning) have been examined developmentally. Here I briefly address research on moral reasoning, moral identity, moral imagination, purpose, and ways of knowing and illustrate each as used in research on service learning. Moral Reasoning Most agree that wisdom incorporates (or points to) what is moral or good. Pasupathi and Staudinger (2001) examined the particular role moral reasoning may play with respect to wisdom, examining a sample of 220 adults ranging in age from 20 to 87. They found that level of moral reasoning (as measured by the Moral Judgment Test) correlated positively with measures of wisdom, though other factors (e.g., personality variables) were also salient. The study also indicated a threshold effect: Those with very low moral reasoning scores were quite underrepresented among peak wisdom performers. The authors argue that although moral reasoning and wisdom may be distinct, a preference for using abstract moral principles may facilitate complex functioning that broadens perspective taking and enhances wisdom. Research also suggests that the college experience overall (not simply maturation) is a consistent predictor of higher levels of moral reasoning (King & Mayhew, 2004) and that service learning can enhance moral reasoning (Lies, Bok, Brandenberger, & Trozzolo, 2012) Moral Identity Moral identity integrates a sense of self as a moral person with motivation to act morally and thus is conceptually aligned with wisdom. Blasi (1993) notes that individuals come to appropriate a sense of the self as a responsible person through experience, seeing oneself respond in social or moral contexts and engaging the consequences. Beliefs about personal agency, including selfefficacy, are also an important component of identity and may be influenced by engaged learning (Youniss & Yates, 1997). Moral Imagination In many ways, moral imagination (Johnson, 1993) is central to the moral life and to wisdom. Moral deliberation is essentially an “imaginative rehearsal” (Dewey, 1996, p. 132) of potential moral outcomes. To be moral—and wise— humans need to be willing to encounter others in complex moral contexts and to envision and weigh moral potentials. Often, such an encounter (basic

Book.indb 36

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

37

to engaged learning) and moral effort is difficult, yet “a central strength of the young adult is the capacity to respond to the world as it might become” (Parks, 1986, p. 97). Those leading engaged work will do well to build on this capacity through reflection, interactions with moral exemplars, and dialogue across difference. Purpose Like wisdom, purpose in life—having a sense of direction and a goal orientation—is an integrative, higher order construct that has the power to animate other elements of the self (Bronk, Lapsley, Talib, & Finch, 2009). The college years have been identified as salient for purpose development (Hill et al., 2010). In particular, having a sense of prosocial purpose upon graduation from college—which correlates with service learning during college—has been shown to be a salient predictor of well-being and flourishing later in life (Bowman et al., 2010). Consistent with Aristotle (and common to practice in engaged pedagogies), learning about and working with moral exemplars (e.g., Bronk, 2012) may be especially relevant to the integration of purpose and wisdom. Ways of Knowing Those who participate in service learning and related pedagogies often experience a heightened awareness of their own learning styles or ways of knowing (Brandenberger, 2005). This may be no less true for faculty who begin to develop engaged forms of scholarship (O’Meara, 2011). The field itself is highly influenced by the work of Dewey (1938), Kolb (1984), and other learning theorists and reinforces Piaget’s (1970) constructivist claims that cognitive development and intelligence are built primarily on action and social interaction: “To know is to transform reality to understand how a certain state is brought about” (p. 15). Learning through experience according to Kolb (1981) is a “central process of human adaptation to the social and physical environment” (p. 248). Through such active processes, with feedback across contexts, humans develop increasingly more complex levels of rationality and, during adolescence and young adulthood, the ability to think about thinking (i.e., metacognition; Moshman, 2011). A key strength of engaged pedagogies is their ability to foster active and metacognitive learning and to do so in the context of moral complexity, central to wisdom.

Implications of Neuroscience Recent findings in neuroscience—regarding, for example, how individuals regulate emotion, make meaning, and develop judgments—shed

Book.indb 37

03-10-2019 12:26:58

38  

framing the conversation

additional light on the development of wisdom. Meeks and Jeste (2009) suggest that wisdom may represent an integration of more primitive brain elements with recently developed functions (the prefrontal cortex). Hall (2010) notes the importance of “knowing what is important” (p. 79) and outlines how the brain rapidly assigns value to opposing options presented in the environment, makes predictions, then chooses courses of action, often in a manner idiosyncratic to the individual. Research suggests that “most of the action in terms of wisdom and judgment probably happens upstream of the decision . . . in the neural spigots that feed information and data into valuation” (Hall, 2010, p. 89). For wisdom’s sake, we need to learn (both as individuals and as researchers) how such processes can be enhanced, especially in the area of valuation (central to wisdom). Do we need to slow down in assigning value or build habits that preserve (previously authenticated) principles of right action? Such questions, with implications for education, are made more complex by the entanglement of moral emotion and judgment, which neuroscience suggests are not as distinct as typically portrayed in historical conceptual/philosophical arguments (Hall, 2010). In a comprehensive work, Narvaez (2014) drew from neurobiology, cultural anthropology, and lifespan theory to examine the development of morality and wisdom. She noted that current cultural shifts (e.g., in childrearing practices, social organization, and technology) are rewiring how we develop morally. She argued that individuals develop different “global brain states” (p. 211) that become various “moral heritages” (p. 68) or ethics. To advance beyond an ethic of self-protectionism, one needs positive community experiences that foster empathy. An ethic of “engagement” (Narvaez, 2014, p. 118), she argued, is the foundation for social relations, and fosters a subsequent ethic of imagination or possibility. She called for social and educational initiatives grounded in engagement and compassion to foster wisdom. Ludvik (2016) and colleagues applied such research in neuroscience to higher education, arguing for active pedagogies and opportunities to critically engage students with lived experience in the context of diverse perspectives, again mirroring or supporting best practice in engaged forms of learning.

Practical Wisdom: Summary Practical wisdom, then, is complex, and its development is no small challenge. To summarize, a wise person (and a successful and engaged scholar, I argue)

Book.indb 38

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

39

(1) knows the proper aims of the activity she is engaged in, (2) knows how to improvise, balancing conflicting aims and interpreting rules and principles, (3) knows how to read a social context, (4) knows how to take on the perspective of another . . . to feel empathy, and (5) knows how to make emotion an ally of reason. (Schwartz & Sharpe, 2010, pp. 24–25)

In addition, they noted that a wise person knows how to learn from experience. Such active forms of knowing—key elements of practical wisdom— provide a framework for engaged learning and scholarship.

Engaged Learning and the Wisdom of Experience The literature of engagement (see Brandenberger, 2012, for a review of developmental outcomes associated with service learning) often describes and supports the development of phronesis without explicitly mentioning it. For example, Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, and Stephens (2003) describe the following developmental trajectory that service learning practitioners may hope to foster: As individuals [mature], their moral judgment moves from simple conceptions of morality grounded in unilateral authority . . . to judgments grounded in shared social norms to an appreciation of . . . evaluating the existing social system in relation to more fundamental principles of justice. (pp. 103–104)

Reciprocally, wisdom researchers often suggest processes that could be used to justify engaged learning such as the following: Truth, the concept sought by wisdom, lies in the transition from what we think we know to be true at this point in time, which is then challenged by new and conflicting information, understandings, or circumstance, to finally culminating in an integration of perspectives (Karelitz et al., 2010, p. 851).

Faculty often choose engaged forms of learning with moral goals in mind (though sometimes these are implicit). One educator described the inherent processes involved: “In the service learning courses that I teach, I . . . am concerned that students think systemically about the causes of injustice and that they frame their moral judgments based on such an analysis” (Strain, 2005, p. 63). Yet his students often reported to him that it is the relationships that they enter into with inspiring community leaders, with immigrants struggling to learn English, with inner-city kids in

Book.indb 39

03-10-2019 12:26:58

40  

framing the conversation

after-school programs, and even long-distance relationships with embattled human rights workers in Latin America that are morally transformative. (Strain, 2005, p. 63)

Such an integration of conceptions of morality and justice combined with insight developed through human relationships represents precisely the components of practical wisdom and suggests an important role for engaged forms of learning in promoting its development. Ambrosi-Randic and Plavsic (2015) point out that it “is not any kind of experience in itself that leads to wisdom, but rather the decision to use that experience in a reflective, action oriented way that leads to a common good” (p. 12). Engaged learning can foster the desire to learn from experience and build wisdom, especially if educators make such links explicit through structured reflection and examination of individual and collective purpose. As Karelitz and colleagues (2010) note, “People must want to acquire and maintain wisdom-related knowledge and skills, and then must adopt the attitudes toward life—reciprocity, openness to experience, reflectivity on experience, and willingness to profit from experience—that will enable wisdom to develop” (p. 875). Again, parallels to best practices in service learning (and other forms of engagement) are apparent.

Pedagogical Applications: Practical Wisdom in Higher Education Efforts to foster practical wisdom in the academy have taken root in various contexts. The Jubilee Centre at the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom) has developed a formal statement on wisdom and piloted research on the development of wisdom in the contexts of professional education (Harrison & Khatoon, 2017). The University of Dayton (2010) built a campus-wide initiative that frames learning goals and outcome assessments in terms of practical wisdom and advocates for service learning as a means to promote practical wisdom. Additional resources in other higher education domains include Dalton and McClinton (2002) and Gillespie (1996).

Advancing Engaged Scholarship Grounded in Practical Wisdom Scholars in this volume not only promote wisdom through service learning and related teaching but also live it out in their research, which often takes the form of engaged scholarship. Such scholarship presents challenges that go beyond traditional research tasks, presenting the opportunity to develop

Book.indb 40

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

41

phronesis. Even service learning at a basic level calls for reciprocity with community concerns and aligning learning goals with local issues through dialogue and cooperation. Forms of engaged scholarship that are community based build on questions arising from public challenges and require negotiation across constituencies. Scholars who sustain such work must learn to balance the needs of students, faculty, and community partners (at many levels) while factoring in academic and disciplinary goals and constraints (e.g., research institutional review boards). Their work must be both ethical and effective, for more is at stake than a peer-reviewed article or an individual’s promotion. Thankfully, the scholars in this volume welcome such challenges, even thrive on them. Their work contributes—even if outcomes are evolving—to a larger purpose. To promote such scholarship, we can draw from work on faculty development. Qualitative research by Deming et al. (2007) examined ethical dilemmas experienced by senior researchers working with human subjects. Although guidelines provided by traditional ethics training were useful, researchers often indicated the importance of practical wisdom in building a professional “moral compass” (p. 20). Findings indicated that researchers may “calibrate” their own ethical sensibilities through “self-reflection, sincere skepticism, and open dialogue with colleagues” (p. 18), practices apparent in the journeys of engagement shared in this volume. O’Meara, Sandmann, Saltmarsh, and Giles (2011) provided a thoughtful outline of common professional pathways for engaged faculty and models used to encourage such work. Faculty hoping to build an academic portfolio grounded in engagement reported facing challenges of institutional inertia as well as efficiency (there are no adjustments to the tenure clock for engaged work). Although universities increasingly champion engagement (at least rhetorically), curricular and reward structures present limits, and communities are complex and (appropriately) resistant to unidirectional interventions. Given such challenges, Bloomgarden and O’Meara (2007) found that faculty able to integrate teaching, research, and civic engagement were able to “achieve important professional, personal, and pedagogical synergies” (p. 14) that enhanced their careers. A research question that arises in this context is: How can the addition of community/civic engagement to traditional teaching/research roles serve as an animating, an integrating, and a transforming force for professional career paths? The scholars in this volume answer this question well. Having an ethical frame and the challenge/call to negotiate across contexts can be a developmental prompt that helps to forge skill development and sustain commitment. In addition, a strength of engaged forms of learning and scholarship is the intersectionality of experience and perspective not only among

Book.indb 41

03-10-2019 12:26:58

42  

framing the conversation

students but also between faculty members and community partners, amplifying the potential for development among all three constituents. Community-based scholarship tends, perhaps by definition, toward social change (as does research on service learning, implicitly). As noted, such an orientation represents an ethical line to negotiate. Scholars need to find appropriate balance (in the tradition of practical wisdom) between activism and scholarship. The advice of E.O. Wilson (2013) seems wise: Your legacy will be the increase and wise use of new, verifiable knowledge, of information that can be tested and integrated. . . . Be an activist as you deem necessary—and you can be highly effective with what you know— but never betray the trust that membership in the scientific enterprise has conferred upon you. (p. 240)

The exemplars in this book have kept such trust. How can we best prepare future scholars? The work of Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) suggested that practical wisdom is learned via practice over time through taking initiative, reflecting on outcomes, and consulting with others, especially (at first) mentors. Such practices mirror what takes place in thoughtful engaged scholarship over time. In addition, Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) identified the importance of system changers, individuals who respect the need for rules and incentives but also employ moral imagination to “create institutions that pursue the right goals and encourage their practitioners to do the same, precisely because they are right” (p. 276). Such efforts, they argued, will prompt the development of wisdom, though the process is not linear, step-by-step. The scholars in this volume are in various ways system changers whose work has impacted students and communities as well as higher education and the disciplines they represent.

Implications for Research(ers) Although wisdom-related research and the field of engaged learning have both progressed over the last few decades, there are important points of intersection that remain to be explored. An important starting point is theory development: “There is nothing as practical as a good theory,” noted Kurt Lewin (see Sandelands, 1990, p. 235, emphasis added). Yet we must avoid taking “refuge in theory,” a temptation Aristotle (2012, p. 18) warned about. The key challenge will be to build theory that can account for the developmental interplay of individual change and dynamic social contexts.

Book.indb 42

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

43

Scholars oriented toward engagement also need to avoid the allure of action and of making false distinctions between theory and application (Ramón y Cajal, 1897/2015). As Craig (1996) suggests, the application of theory to practice is itself “an exercise of practical judgment and skill, not formal logic” (p. 77). A helpful resource toward this end within higher education is the Bringing Theory to Practice Project (Harwood, 2012). Research in this field will be enhanced by clarifying terms without ­reifying constructs or constraining the research foci to field-specific frames. Much can be learned from parallel disciplines and the integrative work (both social and epistemological) germane to engaged scholarship. Drawing from theory and research on wisdom has the potential to broaden as well as deepen efforts and point toward ends (goals) in addition to means (pedagogy). A further research challenge is measurement. Although instruments assessing component constructs of wisdom (e.g., those noted previously) can be useful, building assessments specific to wisdom can enhance research. Glück et al. (2013) reviewed five measures of wisdom, examined their relationship to related constructs, and suggested means to measure wisdom across contexts. Future research should also examine how students, faculty, and community partners think collectively and forge collective wisdom. In the academy, individualism reigns. Students earn degrees and faculty earn tenure largely by going it alone. Community-engaged learning inherently orients us to public challenges, yet there is still much to be learned about how individuals and communities come to appropriate new insights and visions of the common good. How do new concepts evolve among groups with shared experiences, and how might the diversity within and across groups (of age, income, race, or place) contribute? What leadership efforts can foster the alignment of individual goals, knowledge building, and community ends? In an age of contested truth and polarization, such questions are salient and will require collective wisdom to address them. The work of Mulgan (2017) on collective intelligence may be a helpful starting point. Finally, as the field of SLCE matures, an evolving challenge is evaluating how well we are advancing research and scholarship. Enhanced rigor and methodological sophistication are important steps, yet they raise a subsequent question: By what criteria might we mark overall advancement in the field? An exploration of scientific progress is beyond the scope of this work, but it is of interest that Piaget (1970) studied the development of cognitive structures in individuals to answer such epistemological questions in science. Scientific reasoning among individuals is advanced by the ability to not only use evidence in the context of theory but also judge the overall quality and fit of theories and evidence; that is, to think metacognitively

Book.indb 43

03-10-2019 12:26:58

44  

framing the conversation

(Moshman, 2011). Similarly, scientific communities need collective metacognition with respect to theory and evidence. “Wisdom is a type of science that judges not only conclusions but also first principles,” note Birren and Svensson (2005, p. 7), referencing Aquinas. Scholars who study active, engaged forms of learning in relation to social challenges are in a prime position— given their interest in knowledge and social progress and their locus of intersection among students, community partners, and social institutions—to develop mature (wise) research paradigms that advance both the field and the community. Given the pace of social change, technological innovation, and shifts in how information and knowledge are shared, changes in higher education and faculty life are inevitable. The challenge is to adapt wisely, to foster practical wisdom through learning and scholarship relevant to emerging social concerns and the common good. Such goals are aspirational: “To understand wisdom fully and correctly probably requires more wisdom than any of us have,” quipped Sternberg (1990, p. 3). But the wicked problems of today mandate such vision and collective commitment.

References Ambrosi-Randic, N., & Plavsic, M. (2015). The role of education in development of wisdom. In O. Chigisheva & N. Popov (Eds.), Quality, social justice, and accountability in education worldwide: Vol. 13. No. 2 (pp. 11–17). Sofia, Bulgaria: BCES Conference Books. Retrieved from http://bces-conference-books.org/2015%20 volume%2013/volume%2013%2C%20number%202.html. Ardelt, M. (2010). Are older adults wiser than college students? A comparison of two age cohorts. Journal of Adult Development, 17(7), 193–207. Aristotle. (2012). Nicomachean ethics (R. C. Bartlett & S. D. Collins [Trans.]). [Kindle version]. Oxford, UK: Acheron Press. Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (1990). The psychology of wisdom and its ontogenesis. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),  Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development  (pp. 87–120). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (2008). The fascination of wisdom: Its nature, ontogeny, and function. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 56–64. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A meta-heuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologists, 55, 122– 136. Retrieved from https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/volltexte/institut/dok/full/ Baltes/wisdomam/index.htm Bangen, K. J., Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2013). Defining and assessing wisdom: A review of the literature. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1254–1266.

Book.indb 44

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

45

Birren, J. E., & Svensson, C. M. (2005). Theories of wisdom across time, culture, and peoples. In R. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), The handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Blasi, A. (1993). The development of identity: Some implications for moral functions. In G. Noam & T. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 99–122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bloomgarden, A. H., & O’Meara, K. (2007). Faculty role integration and community engagement: Harmony or cacophony? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2), 5–18. Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20. Bowman, N., Brandenberger, J. W., Hill, P., Lapsley, D., & Quaranto, J. (2010). Serving in college, flourishing in adulthood: Does community engagement during the college years predict adult well-being? Applied Psychology Health and WellBeing, 2, 14–34. Brandenberger, J. W. (2005). College, character, and social responsibility: Moral learning through experience. In D. Lapsley & F. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 305–335). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Brandenberger, J. W. (2012). Investigating personal development outcomes in service learning: Theory and research. In P. Clayton, R. Bringle, & J. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessments: Vol. 2A. Students and faculty (pp. 133–156). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bronk, C. K. (2012). The exemplar methodology: An approach to studying the leading edge of development. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2(5), 1–12. Bronk, K., Lapsley, D., Talib, T., & Finch, H. (2009). Purpose, hope, and life satisfaction in three age groups. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 500–510. Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Craig, R. T. (1996). Practical theory: A response to Sandelands. Journal for Theory of Social Behavior, 26(1), 65–79. Curnow, T. (2015). Wisdom: A history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dalton, J. C., & McClinton, M. (Eds.). (2002, July). The art and practical wisdom of student affairs leadership. (New Directions for Student Services No. 98, pp. 3–10). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deming, N., Fryer-Edwards, K., Dudzinski, D., Starks, H., Culver, J., Hopley, E., Robins, L., & Burke, W. (2007). Incorporating principles and practical wisdom in research ethics education: A preliminary study. Academic Medicine, 82(1), 18–23. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. Dewey, J. (1996). Theory of the moral life. New York, NY: Irvington. (Original work published 1932)

Book.indb 45

03-10-2019 12:26:58

46  

framing the conversation

Gillespie, M. L. (1996). Stories, cases, and practical wisdom. Innovative Higher Education, 21(1), 49–66. Glück, J., Konig, S., Redzanowski, U., Dorner, L., Staber, I., & Wiederman, W. (2013). How to measure wisdom: Content, reliability, and validity of five measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–11. Gross, M. (2010). Ignorance and surprise: Science, society, and ecological design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hall, S. (2010). Wisdom: From philosophy to neuroscience. New York, NY: Knopf ­ Doubleday. Harrison, T., & Khatoon, B. (2017). Virtue, practical wisdom, and professional education. University of Birmingham, UK: Jubilee Center for Character and Virtues. Retrieved from https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/userfiles/jubileecentre/pdf/ Research%20Reports/Interventions.pdf Harwood, D. W. (Ed). (2012). Transforming undergraduate education: Theory that compels and practices that succeed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hill, P. H., Burrow, A., Brandenberger, J. W., Lapsley, D. K., & Quaranto, J. C. (2010). Collegiate purpose orientations and well-being in adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 173–179. Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Karelitz, T. M., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The meaning of wisdom and its development throughout life. In R. Lerner & W. Overton (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development (pp. 837–881). New York, NY: John Wiley. King, P., & Mayhew, M. (2004). Theory and research on the development of moral reasoning among college students. In J. Smart & M. Mayhew (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research: Vol. 19 (pp. 375–440). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a change society (pp. 232–235). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Lies, J. M., Bok, T., Brandenberger, J. W., & Trozzolo, T. A. (2012). The effects of off-campus service learning on the moral reasoning of college students. Journal of Moral Education, 41(2), 189–199. Ludvik, M. J. B. (Ed.). (2016). The neuroscience of learning and developmewnt: Enhancing creativity, compassion, critical thinking, and peace in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2009). Neurobiology of wisdom: A literature overview. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 355–365. Moshman, D. (2011). Adolescent rationality and development: Cognition, morality, and identity (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Book.indb 46

03-10-2019 12:26:58

practical wisdom as an ethical framework  

47

Mulgan, G. (2017). Big mind: How collective intelligence can change our world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Narvaez, D. (2014). Neurobiology and the development of human morality: Evolution, culture, and wisdom. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Narvaez, D., Gleason, T., & Mitchell, C. (2010). Moral virtue and practical wisdom: Theme comprehension in children, youth, and adults. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 171, 363–388. O’Meara, K. (2011). Faculty civic engagement: New training, assumptions, and markers needed for the engaged American scholar. In J. Saltmarsh, & M. ­Hartley (Eds.), To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 177–198). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & Giles Jr., D. E. (2011). Studying the professional lives and work of faculty involved in community engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 83–96. doi: 10.1007/s10755-010-9159-3. Parks, S. (1986). The critical years: The young adult search for a faith to live by. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Pasupathi, M., & Staudinger, U. M. (2001). Do advanced moral reasoners also show wisdom? Linking moral reasoning and wisdom-related knowledge and judgement. International Journal for Behavioral Development, 25, 401–415. Pasupathi, M., Staudinger, U. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2001, May). Seeds of wisdom: Adolescents’ knowledge and judgment about difficult problems. Developmental Psychology, 37, 351–361. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. E. Duckworth (Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Ramón y Cajal, S. (2015). Advice for a young investigator. N. Swanson & L. Swanson (Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1897) Sandelands, L. E. (1990). What is so practical about theory? Lewin revisited. Journal for Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 235–262. Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. E. (2006). Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 377–395. Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. E. (2010). Practical wisdom: The right way to do the right thing. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Shaw, G. B. (1921). Back to Methuselah. New York, NY: Bentrano. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13084/13084-h/13084-h.htm Sternberg, R. (Ed.). (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins and development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Strain, C. R. (2005). Pedagogy and practice: Service learning and students’ moral development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Fall(103), 61–72. Retrieved from https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/boisi/pdf/s091/ strain_service.pdf University of Dayton. (2010). The common academic program. University of Dayton Academic Policies Committee. Retrieved from: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=senate_docs.

Book.indb 47

03-10-2019 12:26:58

48  

framing the conversation

Whitmore, T. (2001). Teaching and living practical reasoning: The role of Catholic social thought in a Catholic university curriculum. Journal of Peace and Justice Studies, 11(2), 1–35. Wilson, E. O. (2013). Letters to a young scientist. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Book.indb 48

03-10-2019 12:26:58

PA RT T W O S H A R I N G PAT H WAY S A N D PERSPECTIVES

Book.indb 49

03-10-2019 12:26:59

Book.indb 50

03-10-2019 12:26:59

2.1 S E RV I C E L E A R N I N G A N D T H E D E M O C R AT I C P R O J E C T Building Bridges for the Next-Generation Research Agenda Nicholas V. Longo

T

he methods chapter of my dissertation invoked an engaged and relational conception of knowledge-making, a way of knowing that undergirds my yearning to lead “an undivided life” (Palmer, 2004)— as a scholar, an educator, and a citizen. I had by then decided to pursue a PhD in education studying the role of community in civic life, a focus borne out of my own experiences with service learning. As an undergraduate student, the pedagogy of service learning ignited my passion for finding ways to connect my studies—and future work—to building democratic communities. I have since been on a journey toward a scholarly identity where my research, teaching, and service can be part of a larger whole, such that my life becomes intertwined with the topics I am researching. Trying to overcome declining civic life through community engagement is as much about who I am as what I am studying. My introduction to service learning led to the realization that learning in the community was not only a powerful experience for me but also permeated the lives of many others. I also recognized the potential for community practice to unleash democratic possibilities in students, communities, and institutions—a core insight that became the foundation for my work as an engaged scholar. As a way to refine my initial dissertation research questions, I asked people to “tell stories of meaningful learning experiences” (Longo, 2007, p. ix) in their lives. The stories people told were as diverse as they were interesting. People’s passion for learning was told in the people and places that helped shape them. Some stories of learning had civic connections—stories 51

Book.indb 51

03-10-2019 12:26:59

52  

sharing pathways and perspectives

of public work, community involvement, or community organizing. Other stories involved experiencing new places or diverse cultures (e.g., travel to a foreign country). Many other stories involved a mentor—a parent, teacher, or coach. But in a remarkably consistent pattern, most people told stories of learning outside the confines of a classroom as part of a broader ecology of education. The evidence was overwhelming, as I later wrote in Why Community Matters, that “it takes a village to educate a citizen” (Longo, 2007, p. ix). Communities must be educative based on not only this research but also countless other studies (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Longo, 2007). And yet, as a society we are not doing such a good job at offering this more expansive view of education. Education is too often narrowly defined. This includes what I see as the most fundamental mission of our academic institutions: how we educate for democracy. Along with a focus on classrooms and school-based knowledge, civic education promotes some of the easiest things to count— voting, volunteer hours, and the acquisition of civic knowledge. Yet we still know far too little about the role of engaged pedagogies, like service learning, in civic learning. That is why this book project is so important and timely, as the contributors offer an epistemological shift that gives voice to the idea that sharing narratives on one’s research agenda is a valuable and legitimate form of scholarship. But this approach to research is a radical departure from how we are trained and socialized in graduate school. We are most often taught to search for so-called objective and quantifiable findings. As a result, this book itself offers an alternative way of framing scholarly activities. Simply, it contends that we have much to learn from the lived experiences and stories of publicly engaged scholars. My reflections, particularly, offer lessons from building bridges between service learning and democratic engagement. This chapter offers my humble advice for service learning researchers and educators. I reflect on my own journey in service learning, and how this pedagogical practice ignited my commitment to citizen politics, deliberative pedagogy, and publicly engaged scholarship. I offer recommendations for service learning researchers that include creating communities of practice, acting collaboratively, and rethinking the architecture of engagement. This configuration of priorities can help shape the next-generation research agenda for service learning.

A Different Kind of Politics, Pedagogy, and Scholarship I was immersed in local politics even before I went away to college to formally study political science. But like so many young people, I quickly

Book.indb 52

03-10-2019 12:26:59

service learning and the democratic project  

53

became disillusioned with the way politics was taught on campus and, even more depressingly, practiced within our national scene. This was the mid1990s, a time of growing hyperpartisanship and polarization in American society—a worrying trend which has only accelerated in the decades since. Simultaneously, I felt like my college coursework was too narrowly academic and detached from the world. This is when I was introduced to service learning. Providence College, where I was a student and I am now a professor, was launching a program focused on public and community service led by two newly recruited national leaders in the field, Rick Battistoni and Keith Morton (Battistoni, 1998; Morton, 2012). The program brought me outside the bubble of the college campus as I began to do work in collaboration with members of the broader Providence community through service learning courses. I helped to coordinate an afterschool program at a local middle school and learned more from that experience about the issues of educational policy, student achievement, and public leadership than from receiving lectures about anything in the classroom. These experiences were transformative for me. Service learning set the trajectory that then brought me to graduate school at the University of Minnesota, where I determined that I could best continue connecting my academic studies with community engagement, specifically through the Center for Democracy and Citizenship. Led by Harry Boyte and a cadre of visionary leaders who would become important mentors, colleagues, and friends, the Center for Democracy and Citizenship developed a practical philosophy of “what works” to engage citizens in public life through public work projects. I immersed myself in these communities of practice, particularly the Jane Addams School for Democracy, a community learning center with college students and recent immigrants that allowed me to learn side-by-side with a diverse mix of people working for civic transformation. The Jane Addams School soon became the primary site for my scholarship (Kari & Skelton, 2007). But this was no conventional research setting where, as a traditional graduate student, I might be expected to conduct research on a community. Rather, over time this site became my community. I spent countless hours working with the circle of learners. The ethos of the school—“everyone is a teacher, everyone is a learner”—became my mantra, allowing me to see creative possibilities in the reciprocal and genuine relationships being developed with immigrant families. I negotiated with professors to deepen my coursework by integrating academic assignments with my community practice. A political theory paper became a study of the conceptions of freedom at the Jane Addams School; policy analysis requirements allowed me to do a formal evaluation

Book.indb 53

03-10-2019 12:26:59

54  

sharing pathways and perspectives

of the campus-community partnerships; youth studies courses invited me to explore the lived reality of urban youth and the nascent field of civic youth work (Roholt, Baizerman, & Hildreth, 2013). Harry Boyte and Jerry Stein, along with Mike Baizerman, Nan Skelton, John Wallace, and other mentors helped me to navigate university culture and utilize campus resources in support of community development. Through these early opportunities in publicly engaged scholarship, I honed my skills as a civic educator and organizer. I also developed new conceptions of politics, pedagogy, and scholarship—the touchstones of my research and practice in service learning.

Citizen Politics These experiences with education in the community during graduate school helped me develop a different way to conceptualize and practice politics. I saw how the relationships across age, race, class, and cultural boundaries could be more genuine, reciprocal, and productive than other associations in public life. These relationships also informed what for me became a different conception of politics, what has been termed citizen politics (Boyte, 2004; Gibson, 2006; Mathews, 1998). Citizen politics puts everyday people—as opposed to outside experts—in a position to name and frame issues for themselves and then to work across differences to address complex, wicked issues. It offers a “hands-on, accessible, and community-rooted politics,” writes Boyte (2004, p. 4), that is “an alternative to politics as usual with far ranging possibilities” (p. 4). Citizen-centered politics is becoming more widespread—though often unnamed—especially among young people, as I learned beginning with my work with Campus Compact directing a national student civic engagement campaign in the early 2000s. The Raise Your Voice campaign brought me to college campuses across the United States where I met with students who were rejecting conventional politics for many of the same reasons that caused my disillusionment a decade earlier. This next generation of students was turning toward relational, inclusive, and productive practices through service learning, deliberative dialogue, and other forms of engagement. This shift was articulated quite powerfully by 33 college students who met to discuss their civic experiences in higher education at the Wingspread Conference in 2001. This conversation led to the student-written The New Student Politics (Long, 2002), which forcefully argues that student work in communities is not an alternative to politics but rather an “alternative politics” (p. 18). After spending several years listening to students share their civic aspirations, I completed my dissertation and became a program officer at the Kettering Foundation, a research foundation that studies how democracy

Book.indb 54

03-10-2019 12:26:59

service learning and the democratic project  

55

works. This gave me an opportunity to learn more about the way college students understood political engagement through more rigorous study of the topic. I helped launch a multicampus qualitative research project conducted by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE; now at Tufts University) to understand the civic attitudes and practices among the Millennial generation. Based on focus groups with more than 400 college students on a dozen college campuses, Millennials Talk Politics (Kiesa et al., 2007) found that college students are involved locally but are ambivalent about formal politics. Not unlike earlier research findings (Longo & Meyer, 2006), college students disliked spin and were looking for authentic opportunities to discuss public issues and be engaged in public life. My experiences demonstrate that service learning can provide an antidote to this desire among young people.

Deliberative Pedagogy Young people are not born knowing how to be democratic citizens. As a result, Boyte (2018) argues in his book on civic education for the development of pedagogies that one must “teach empowering citizenship” (p. 107) through engaged learning practices. Developing these pedagogies has been the focus of a diverse and international group of faculty working with the Kettering Foundation to explore how colleges and universities can teach for democratic citizenship since 2011. Our research honed the potential for public deliberation to be part of teaching and learning for colleges and universities to realize their public purposes. In the process, we developed a method of civic education that we termed deliberative pedagogy (Longo, 2013; Shaffer, Longo, Manosovich, & Thomas, 2017). As a method of civic education, deliberative pedagogy integrates deliberative processes with teaching, learning, and engagement—in both classroom and community settings. The work of deliberative pedagogy is ultimately about space-making: by creating and holding space for authentic and productive dialogue, conversations can ultimately be not only educational but also transformative. This allows deliberative pedagogy to have more immediate relevance to community problem-solving, but also contributes to building the civic capacity of future generations. Even seasoned practitioners of dialogue and deliberation are often unsure of what is meant by the nascent term deliberative pedagogy. Nevertheless, this novel approach is an attempt to be more intentional about developing pedagogical processes that put democratic outcomes into educational practice. As a pedagogy of empowerment, deliberative pedagogy also moves the academy from the more traditional teaching-to-learning dynamic toward a model in

Book.indb 55

03-10-2019 12:26:59

56  

sharing pathways and perspectives

which knowledge is generated collaboratively through a cocreative process. Deliberative pedagogy involves conversations about real-world issues with a wide range of actors and dialogues between more than just a professor and students; it includes those in the larger community affected by an issue. Too often service learning and deliberative dialogue are like two ships passing in the night, mirroring the silo mentality that permeates academia. There are separate conferences, academic journals, funding streams, and offices to promote what could and should be complementary approaches. Deliberative pedagogy attempts to make connections between service learning and dialogical, participatory practices (see Longo & Shaffer, 2019).

Publicly Engaged Scholarship Service learning also challenges ideas about what it means to be a scholar and how scholarship is conducted in higher education. This insight about the changing notions of scholarship emerged from a collaborative, multiyear project exploring next-generation engagement sponsored by the New England Resource Center for Higher Education under the leadership of John Saltmarsh (this volume, chapter 2.12). Beginning in 2009, I became part of a diverse group of (then) early career professionals, which included Adam Bush, Tim Eatman, Emily Janke, Cecilia Orphan, Margaret Post, and Elaine Ward. Collectively, we created an informal learning community that engaged in conversations, workshops, and joint writing projects that led to Publicly Engaged Scholars: Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education (Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh, 2016), an edited book that captured the voices of next-generation engagement. Contributors to the volume articulated how civic engagement can and should shape and transform higher education. I first noticed different waves of engaged scholarship when as a graduate student I interviewed John Wallace, one of my mentors and a philosopher from the University of Minnesota who had done significant early work in service learning. Wallace described his experience coming to the University of Minnesota as an academic star in 1972 at the age of 33, already a full professor. He eventually came to the realization that the academic system in which he thrived “treats people badly” (personal interview, June 1998). His sense of disillusionment led him to radically change his scholarly work, becoming a pioneer in service learning through networks like Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL) for student leaders, the Invisible College for engaged faculty, and the Jane Addams School for community residents in St. Paul, Minnesota. Wallace acknowledged that “it wasn’t so much that I rejected the game, but had already played it” (J. Wallace, personal communication, June 1998)

Book.indb 56

03-10-2019 12:26:59

service learning and the democratic project  

57

The arc of the crisis after tenure narrative leading to service learning contrasts with the journey of many of my peers, who, like me, were immersed in service learning and civic engagement as undergraduate and graduate students. This next generation then came to see public engagement as fundamental to who we are and what we do as scholars. This means our academic work is relational and is done with the public. As a result, the university is a part of an ecosystem that cocreates knowledge and is focused on educating democratic citizens while also addressing real-world problems. Even with the increased institutional support for community engagement that has developed over the past few decades (Hartley & Saltmarsh, 2016), many entering higher education soon realize that integrating engagement early in academic careers is still at odds with broader institutional norms and cultures. This has led to a disconnect: a new generation of scholars, educators, and practitioners committed to the public purposes of higher education but not to perpetuating the existing policies, structures, and practices that have tended to delegitimize scholarly identities. Thus, engagement on campuses is now often led by early-career scholars and professionals who are oriented toward public engagement and who are not waiting for the increasingly rare bestowal of tenure to find ways to contribute to the broader public. Scholarship then becomes publicly engaged, a process of “unleashing the voices, power, and potential of higher education as a tool for democracy now, and for many generations to come” (Post et al., 2016, p. xxi).

Future Pathways: Recommendations for Research on Service Learning These conceptions of politics, pedagogy, and scholarship are essential to my personal path as well as my research agenda, as they found grounding in my study of seminal historical models of civic education. As a graduate student, I discovered the pioneering work done at Jane Addams’ Hull House, an urban settlement house leading social reform efforts in Chicago (Addams, 1998/1910), and Highlander Folk School, which was cofounded by Myles Horton in rural Tennessee, that became an educational center for the civil rights movements (Horton, 1998). I became interested in researching these innovative models—and the connections between them—because they served as foundations for my educational philosophy and aspirations for my public work. Hull House and the Highlander Folk School also laid important philosophical and practical groundwork for the contemporary service learning movement (Daynes &

Book.indb 57

03-10-2019 12:26:59

58  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Longo, 2004; Morton & Saltmarsh, 1997). These two cases revealed a subterranean tradition of civic education that is rooted in communities. They demonstrated the power of creating spaces for a diverse group of people to share stories, collaborate on real-world issues, and develop civic capacities. They also offered hopeful reminders that education can lead to real and lasting social change. My research convinced me that unearthing the lessons from this too-often-forgotten history provides essential touchstones for future research and practice in service learning (Longo, 2007). A few years after reading Horton’s (1998) The Long Haul, in which he mentioned the influence of Jane Addams on Highlander Folk School and his definition of democracy as collaborative problem-solving by people affected by an issue, I discovered correspondence in the Highlander archives between Myles Horton and early leaders at Hull House. This communication solidified for me the influence and connection between these democratic innovators. Myles Horton had visited Jane Addams in Chicago in the early 1930s to learn firsthand from her then-40-year experiment with education in the community. Horton (1969) later wrote about the tremendous impact of this visit on his future work and what it meant for future generations in a letter to a contemporary of Jane Addams. He concluded by reflecting, “Hopefully, I can help provide a bridge between the ideas we discussed at Hull House and the educational approaches that will have to be developed if today’s social and economic problems are to be dealt with constructively” (as cited in Longo, 2007, p. 68). In the summer of 2017, I shared a copy of this letter as an artifact to help introduce myself as a representative of the next generation at a gathering organized to foster dialogue across generations with service learning pioneers (Stanton, Giles, & Cruz, 1999) such as Dick Cone, Nadinne Cruz, Dwight Giles, Rob Shumer, and Tim Stanton. These early leaders captured much of the spirit and lessons from Addams and Horton to launch the service learning movement, so it seemed fitting to recognize the legacy of previous generations as we discussed the future of service learning. The stories shared at this intergenerational gathering, like the stories in this book, made clear that the initial advocates for service learning so often had to make the road by walking (Cone & Harris, 2016), charting new paths in higher education. Their efforts created opportunities for those who followed. As a result of this pioneering work, more institutional support and resources are available for service learning research, along with a set of practices and even a career path for service learning scholars and practitioners in higher education. This is also a time of rapid transformation and pervasive challenges in higher education. Future work will require a purposeful and

Book.indb 58

03-10-2019 12:26:59

service learning and the democratic project  

59

rigorous commitment to developing ideas and practices that cultivate a new generation of research that is engaged, relevant, and democratic. Horton’s letter acknowledged the importance of building bridges between generations in these kinds of educational pursuits. It is a reminder that there is a need to share lessons learned and the practical wisdom. One of the pioneers in service learning, Ira Harkavy of the University of Pennsylvania, offered a useful lesson about standards of excellence in research in what he calls the “Noah Principle”: reward building arks, not predicting rain (as cited in Longo, 2007, p. 137). Our research agendas in higher education, however, too often focus on predicting, describing, and analyzing problems, with less attention given to doing research to influence change (Saltmarsh, chapter 2.12, this volume). Service learning research has the potential to build upon alternative democratic traditions and create new pathways that constructively deal with the social and economic problems of the day as envisioned by Horton, Addams, and other visionary advocates for community-based education. In this pursuit, I offer the following recommendations.

Create Communities of Practice Perhaps more than anything else, my journey makes clear the importance of creating communities of practice. The foundation for these types of learning communities is finding and cultivating mentorship. This involves making deliberate connections with respected scholars who can offer support and encouragement as well as critical feedback for growth. Mentorship also goes both ways. Investing in time to mentor junior colleagues (including students) is necessary, even early in academic careers. Although mentor-mentee relationships can be fluid and dynamic, they should be reciprocal relations based on mutual trust and the ability to engage in genuine dialogue. In the hypercompetitive world of higher education, these types of relationships will be essential. All too often, the colleagues most attuned to our research agenda are in our disciplines on campuses many miles away. Although these specialized networks are certainly helpful and fulfilling, communities of practice should also be cultivated at our home institutions. Local relationships are where we can best develop meaningful political, pedagogical, and scholarly identities, and place-based communities of practice can also lead to more tangible research outcomes. These networks can be formal or informal but should include a diverse and interdisciplinary mix of researchers and practitioners, along with students and community partners with a passion for advancing action-orientated forms of scholarship. The Next Generation Engagement Project and the Deliberative Pedagogy Workgroup provided

Book.indb 59

03-10-2019 12:26:59

60  

sharing pathways and perspectives

useful examples, as do longer term place-based learning groups like the Jane Addams School, along with other campus models such as faculty-community partner joint research fellowships, common reading groups, and grant collaboratives.

Act Collaboratively In a networked society where information is no longer proprietary or the exclusive purview of experts and gatekeepers, the most robust forms of knowledge are cocreated by a wide range of actors. This has certainly been my experience. When I reflect on the research products I have produced, all of them are the result of acting collaboratively. What makes collaboration in service learning research distinctive is its focus on community, the recognition that learners are cocreators of knowledge, and the involvement of a diverse range of participants to address real-world problems. A collaborative research process empowers the people most affected by the issue being studied to have a fundamental role in setting the research agenda. It shifts the center of power and authority by putting “experts on tap, not on top” (Boyte, 2008, p. 143). Collaboratively designed research processes where leadership is shared have the added benefit of being educative and capacity-building for participants; they are also more likely to have lasting impact. In service learning, this would most often entail codesigning research with the public—community residents and other key stakeholders outside the walls of the university. But students can also become partners and coinvestigators in the research process. New kinds of scholarly products and assessment processes begin to emerge through collaborative engagement with the cocreation of artifacts that are more accessible, visible, and relevant. These products include interactive digital publications, public reports, public art, oral histories, educational programs, and other useful creative products, and they could then be evaluated by a more inclusive and comprehensive peer-review process.

Rethink the Architecture of Engagement This kind of collaborative research process is more time and resource intensive, and some of the products that emerge are marginalized or not recognized within the current tenure and promotion guidelines on most campuses. Thus, the future of service learning must be attuned to rethinking the architecture of engagement, on campuses and in partnership with communities. This means developing new, collaborative, and flexible reward systems, funding opportunities, teaching expectations, and research spaces to support the next generation of service learning educators. There is also a need to reimagine

Book.indb 60

03-10-2019 12:26:59

service learning and the democratic project  

61

what is necessary to support the kinds of collaborative research that will be led by the next generation of service learning scholars. In this effort, we need to be aware that service learning is one of the many high-impact practices (Kuh, 2008) that support student learning and success. Our research needs to learn from, build on, and connect with the lessons for engaged learning taking place in areas such as career education, global education, multicultural education, and student life. An architecture that promotes collaborative engagement invites sharing across university domains. We need what might be termed next-gen collaboratories, incubators for innovation in advancing service learning research and practice. Some structures to support this kind of research are already afforded to more established disciplines, such as studios and laboratories in the fine arts and sciences. Faculty conducting research and doing creative work in these areas are often rightfully granted space, financial commitments, and reduced teaching loads—resources necessary for high-impact service learning research and teaching partnerships. Similarly, campuses should enable faculty to work closely with a core group of students and community partners on service learning research projects as part of their core teaching and research responsibilities through credit-bearing research courses and reduced course enrollments. These types of intensive and intentional collaborations lend themselves to mentoring opportunities and external funding—and have the potential to develop genuinely cocreated knowledge and significant impact.

Conclusion These reflections are meant to provide ideas to help research on service learning reach its potential to “awaken democracy” (Boyte, 2018). The ideals set forth by the pioneers of service learning and the leaders who followed demonstrate that service learning can be a transformational pedagogical practice. Service learning helped me discern that I did not have to choose between who I am (being) and the work I do (doing). My research can be integrally connected to my teaching and my professional service. Service learning introduced me to innovative models of civic education. It allowed me to see that public work can be grounded in different conceptions of politics, pedagogy, and scholarship, while offering lessons about the importance of creating communities of practice, acting collaboratively, and rethinking the architecture of engagement. Given the current challenges facing civic life—such as the loss of trust in institutions, placing citizens on the sidelines of problems that most affect

Book.indb 61

03-10-2019 12:26:59

62  

sharing pathways and perspectives

them, and the wicked problems like climate change or racial inequality that cannot be solved through technical solutions—we need to cultivate new and visionary ways of thinking about what a robust research agenda for service learning scholarship might entail. A new generation of publicly engaged scholars can learn from the wisdom of those who pioneered this pedagogical practice, but they also need to carve their own pathways and build bridges to new ideas, partners, and communities. This work requires imagination that emerges from reciprocal relationships and creative collaborations. It can lead to a more hopeful future in which the next generation of service learning research serves the democratic project.

References Addams, J. (1998). Twenty years at Hull House. New York: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1910) Battistoni, R. (1998). Making a major commitment: Public and community service studies at Providence College. In E. Zlotkowski (Ed.), Successful service-learning programs (pp. 169–188). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Boyte, H. (2004). Everyday politics: Reconnecting citizens and public life. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Boyte, H. (2008). The citizen solution: How you can make a difference. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press. Boyte, H. (2018). Awakening democracy through public work: Pedagogies of empowerment. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Cone, R. & Harris, S. (2016, Fall). Review essay: Scholarship redefined. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.114 Daynes, G., & Longo, N. (2004). Jane Addams and the origins of service-learning practice in the United States. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 11, 5–13. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gibson, C. (2006). Citizens at the center: A new approach to civic engagement. Washington DC: Case Foundation. Hartley, M., & Saltmarsh, J. (2016). A brief history of a movement: Civic engagement and American higher education. In M. Post, E. Ward, N. Longo, & J. Saltmarsh (Eds.). Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 34–60). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Horton, M. (1969, March 5). Letter to Dr. Alice Hamilton. Highlander Papers: Box 96. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Historical Society. Horton, M., with Judith Kohl and Herbert Kohl. (1998). The long haul: An autobiography. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Book.indb 62

03-10-2019 12:26:59

service learning and the democratic project  

63

Kari, N., & Skelton, N. (2007). Voices of hope: The story of the Jane Addams School for Democracy. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press. Kiesa, A., Orlowski, A. P., Levine, P., Both, D., Kirby, E. H., Lopez, M. H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2007). Millennials talk politics. College Park, MD: CIRCLE and the Kettering Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.org Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Long, S. (2002). The new student politics: The Wingspread statement on student civic engagement. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Longo, N. V. (2007). Why community matters: Connecting education with civic life. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Longo, N. V. (2013) Deliberative pedagogy in the community: Connecting deliberative dialogue, community engagement, and democratic education, Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(2), 16.  Longo, N. V., & Meyer, R. (2006). College students and politics: A literature review. CIRCLE Working Paper 46. Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), Tufts University. Longo, N. V., & Shaffer, T. (2019). (Eds.). Creating space for democracy: A primer for dialogue and deliberation in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Mathews, D. (1998). Politics for people: Finding a responsible public voice. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Morton, K. (2012). Process, content, and community building. In D. Butin & S. Seider (Eds.), The engaged campus: Certificates, minors, and majors as the new community engagement (pp. 89–108). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Morton, K., & Saltmarsh, J. (1997). Addams, Day, and Dewey: The emergence of community service in American culture. Michigan Journal of Community ServiceLearning, 4, 137–149. Palmer, P. (2004). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Post, M., Ward, E., Longo, N., & Saltmarsh, J. (Eds.). (2016). Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Roholt, R., Baizerman, M., & Hildreth, R. (2013). Civic youth work: Co-creating democratic youth spaces. Chicago, IL: Lyceum. Shaffer, T., Longo, N., Manosovich, I., & Thomas, M. (Eds.). (2017). Deliberative pedagogy: Teaching and learning for democratic engagement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Stanton, T. Giles, D., & Cruz, N. (1999). Service-learning: A movement’s pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Book.indb 63

03-10-2019 12:26:59

Book.indb 64

03-10-2019 12:26:59

2.2 A D E V E L O P M E N TA L PSYCHOLOGIST ’S JOURNEY How I Learned About Service Learning, Social Justice, and Community Engagement and Entered a New Research Field Barbara E. Moely

I

n this chapter, I give an overview of my research in service learning, how it came about and grew over two decades, how it changed my career and research interests, and how it has contributed to understanding the on­going involvement of Tulane University with the city of New Orleans.

Learning About Service Learning In 1996, the opportunity arose for members of the psychology departments at Tulane and Xavier Universities to become involved with a new program funded by the United States Office of Housing and Urban Development, the Tulane–Xavier Campus Affiliates Program (CAP). With the support of this program, several Tulane and Xavier University colleagues and I began to work with schools in the central city area of New Orleans, a low-income, predominantly African American area that included several public housing developments. Psychology faculty members Mike Cunningham, Margaret Dempsey, Stacy Overstreet, and I collaborated with representatives of Carter G. Woodson Middle School, and later with other area schools, to enhance their educational efforts. Our approach was guided by a philosophy of community voice—rather than attempting to do things for or to the community, we listened to parents, other residents from the area, teachers, 65

Book.indb 65

03-10-2019 12:26:59

66  

sharing pathways and perspectives

and administrators as they told us about problems and joined with us in efforts to address pervasive issues. James D. Wright, a much-respected and widely published sociologist who directed the implementation of CAP, was a positive guide and influence in our activities. As CAP developed, we began to involve our undergraduate students, adding components to our courses that offered them opportunities to apply course concepts in their work with children, through activities developed in consultation with the schools and programs for children. We soon found out that we were doing something similar to what people were calling service learning and that there were theories, research publications, and outstanding scholars supporting this innovative teaching practice. In 1997, Vincent Ilustre began working with me to build a program on service learning at Tulane. I continued my teaching and research and assumed an informal role as faculty leader of service learning on the campus. As a tenured faculty member with extensive experience in university service, including a recent term as chair of the Department of Psychology, I was in a good position to make a commitment to this new initiative. Ilustre and I made progress in program development through the next few years with support from CAP and several small external grants and with the cooperation of a number of community agencies, including schools, hospitals, community centers, and tutoring programs. Andy Furco also gave us helpful advice and offered a model of scholarship in service learning programming and research. Faculty interest in the new pedagogy spread gradually from psychology to other disciplines, especially business, education, English, and French as early adopters. During this early stage, Ilustre and I were fortunate to become part of a 7-campus program led by Dale Rice and his colleagues at Eastern Michigan University. Funded by a U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education grant, the Academic ServiceLearning Faculty Fellows project provided a model for building faculty expertise and commitment to service learning (Eastern Michigan University, n.d.). Over the 3 years of this FIPSE program, approximately 30 Tulane faculty members were supported in learning about principles of service learning course design and research findings and creating new and revised service learning courses. There was steady support at the higher administrative level for our work. In particular, the individuals who held the office of university provost between 1996 and 2005 were helpful (Martha Gilliland, Paul Barron, and Lester Lefton). The collective work we accomplished provided a solid foundation for a much larger program, instituted by the university administration after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in August of 2005 (Cowen, 2018).

Book.indb 66

03-10-2019 12:26:59

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

67

Getting Started in Service Learning Research My interest in research has always been in seeking answers to questions that arise from practice. More than some other areas of psychology, developmental psychology has been concerned with societal situations in which individuals live and grow, including family characteristics, day care, early childhood education, and family support. Bronfenbrenner’s conceptualization of how levels of society affect children has both reflected values of developmental psychologists and shaped perspectives and research in the field (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). My own research focused on cognitive development, especially factors affecting children’s learning, study strategies, memory, and motivation. I had gained experience with data collection techniques that ranged from observation to surveys to individual interviews with children and adults. This background gave me tools such as knowledge of theories of learning and cognition, ability to use a variety of data collection techniques, concern for psychometric properties of measures, and ability to use statistical techniques for treating data, all of which were useful in developing research on service learning. Initial university support for my interest in service learning was mixed. My department colleagues expressed a number of reservations: The program development work was too applied, it was not what an academic psychologist should be doing, no worthwhile research was going to result, and I should give it up and go back to traditional psychology. This led to somewhat of a separation from my department, which was a major personal and professional change. But with less of the commitment I had always felt there, and the security that tenure provided, I was free to work with colleagues from other departments and to develop a new research focus. Jim Wright (CAP director) was particularly important at this time, providing feedback for my ideas, as well as support and a good laugh when things were difficult. Students also offered new questions and showed inspiring enthusiasm; Devi Miron, Sarah Gallini, and Sterett Mercer made particularly important contributions to my research. My colleague and collaborator Vincent Ilustre has had a tremendous impact on this research, providing creative ideas, good judgment, positive feedback, and consistent support throughout the duration of the work.

Questions Addressed in My Research Looking back over the past 20 years, I would say that my service learning research has focused on basic issues concerning instruction and college student outcomes. The work can be summarized as addressing four questions:

Book.indb 67

03-10-2019 12:26:59

68  

sharing pathways and perspectives

1. Do students benefit from their participation in service learning? In what ways? 2. How can college courses be designed to facilitate a positive learning experience for students? 3. How do students react to a service learning requirement? 4. How do civic attitudes and skills develop? What factors influence change?

Do Students Benefit From Their Participation in Service Learning? In What Ways? This question arose as I watched my students reflect on their service learning experiences. They seemed to be enjoying themselves, and they wrote creative journals and made interesting presentations in class. But how general were these outcomes? What might their behaviors reflect in terms of attitudes, skill development, and goals for the future? The research literature had begun to address these questions—the seminal work of Eyler and Giles (1999) was an important influence on our research, as were articles by Markus, Howard, and King (1993); Olney and Grande (1995); and others. Ilustre and I worked with psychology graduate students Sterett Mercer, Devi Miron, and Megan McFarland to design a study to find out what students were thinking about civic engagement and how their views might be affected by a service learning experience. About 30 service learning courses in various disciplines were offered during 1999–2000; we wanted to gain information that could be generalized across the campus, so we gathered data from as many of these courses as possible. We used a survey that asked students for quantitative responses, endeavoring to create a measure that was psychometrically sound and tapped concepts of interest. The measure we created, the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ; Moely, Mercer, et al., 2002) has been used by other researchers, as well, to answer questions about program impacts. We found that students who were engaged in service learning, relative to comparable controls who were not, showed increases over a semester in their plans for future civic action; assessments of their own interpersonal, problem-solving, and leadership skills; and social justice perspectives (Moely, McFarland, et al., 2002). These findings were encouraging and consistent with informal observations of faculty members. Ilustre and I described the research findings in our yearly reports to the provost and the deans of colleges at Tulane, as a way of encouraging them to think of service learning as providing positive learning experiences for students. Conference presentations and eventual publication allowed us to share this information with others beyond the Tulane campus. As we presented findings from this initial work, we learned from other researchers that the satisfaction students reported with their service learning

Book.indb 68

03-10-2019 12:26:59

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

69

experiences might influence their views of their college and, in particular, their plans to continue their studies at Tulane. Retention was a topic of great interest to Tulane’s administrators at the time, with a new provost, Lester Lefton, aiming to improve the numbers of undergraduates who continued at Tulane through the completion of their undergraduate studies. Sarah Gallini was in her final year of undergraduate studies when she decided to investigate the retention issue for her senior honors thesis. The study she designed and carried out (Gallini & Moely, 2003) showed that students who engaged in service learning, relative to controls, were more positive about the academic aspects of their service learning courses and were more likely to plan to continue their studies at Tulane. Gallini’s work has been widely cited in the literature, along with an even stronger retention study by Bringle, Hatcher, and Muthiah (2010); both reports undoubtedly have been used to convince administrators that they should value and support service learning. At Tulane, Provost Lefton was particularly pleased to learn about this research. The findings changed his view of service learning from just another type of community service to one of his useful academic tools for improving student retention.

How Can College Courses Be Designed to Facilitate a Positive Learning Experience for Students? Despite the encouraging findings of these studies, it was clear that not every student or every course showed positive outcomes. This led to my next question: What could we find out about the importance of various course characteristics? The implications for faculty development and community partner engagement in course planning and implementation were great. Two papers that were important to me in considering this issue were Eby’s (1998) paper on what students learn about communities through service learning and Morton’s (1995) delineation of paradigms of service. Both Eby and Morton were concerned with the nature of the service in which students engage. The implication of Eby’s article was that we need to engage community partners as coeducators who will work collaboratively with faculty members in planning and implementing courses in order to make the students’ service experiences meaningful and beneficial to the community. In course readings and lecture/discussions, we can prepare students to process their experiences in ways that invoke concepts of social justice and community strengths. Morton’s (1995) paradigms of service article presented a similar view. In the first paradigm, the charity model, students are sent out into the community to engage in service to individuals that can be superficial, reinforcing

Book.indb 69

03-10-2019 12:26:59

70  

sharing pathways and perspectives

stereotypes in the students and not producing lasting value to those served. A second paradigm, the project model, can lead to substantial change through careful planning and consideration of community issues. But Morton points out that there can be problems if poor planning leads to unexpected outcomes or rigidity in implementation. Morton’s third paradigm, social change, is concerned with facilitating changes that originate with the community and can have a major impact on the community. The approach, if well implemented, is collaborative, locating power within the community and aiming to produce changes that will benefit the entire community. The ideas I gained from Eby (1998) and Morton (1995) were important in relation to my students’ concerns about the social conditions affecting children and schools and how negative conditions might be changed through social or political action. My courses came to focus more deliberately on the child’s social context, with readings from Jonathon Kozol (1991), Beverly Tatum (1997), and others. We incorporated these ideas into faculty development activities, as well. I began to wonder how students thought about their own service and how they saw their service sites in terms of charity, project, or social change. Devi Miron and I developed some measures to get at student ideas and tried them out to see if we could arrive at a valid way of assessing Morton’s paradigms (Moely & Miron, 2005). We had some difficulty measuring the project paradigm and carried out further work using charity and social change measures. In later studies, we found that (a) charity and social change are independent, so that an individual or a service site can be high on both, low on both, or high on one but not the other and (b) students gained more from service learning when there was a correspondence between their preferences for charity or social change and the nature of their actual service experiences (Moely, Furco, & Reed, 2008). One exception to this is that students who were not enthusiastic about either paradigm did best when they experienced service activities that were high in both charity and social change (Moely et al., 2008; Moely & Ilustre, 2014). These findings have implications for practice. Among our students, the most involved were those who valued and experienced both charity and social change orientations. Instead of the typical message in our field (charity-oriented service bad, social-change-oriented service good ), we need a more qualified view. Charity-oriented service can be helpful in getting students started in community-based work; showing them negative conditions related to poverty, homelessness, or an underfunded education system; and introducing them to community members with whom they begin to form bonds. In the next phase, students often begin to question how society is structured for people with whom they are involved

Book.indb 70

03-10-2019 12:26:59

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

71

at their service site. This can motivate them to seek information about social issues (consider Bronfenbrenner’s [1977] levels affecting the individual) and take steps to become more active members of their communities. Thus, I think there are benefits to charity-oriented service as a motivator to build students’ interest in and commitment to community involvement. Instructional support for student exploration of social justice issues can facilitate increased complexity in students’ thinking to an appreciation of the value of both charity- and social change–oriented service (Moely & Ilustre, 2014). We have looked at other service learning course characteristics as well, ones that may be more familiar: Moely and Ilustre (2014) found that when students engaged in service that they saw as worthwhile, having real community benefits and accomplishing something, they reported that their course participation led to higher academic learning and learning about the community, gains in problem-solving and leadership skills, and increases in satisfaction with the university. Opportunities for reflection and service integrated well with the academic content of the course also predicted positive student outcomes. Again, implications for faculty efforts to design effective service learning courses are clear (Furco & Moely, 2012).

How Do Students React to a Service Learning Requirement? For the first decade of my involvement with service learning, I was strongly opposed to requiring students to take service learning courses. Going into the community with a negative attitude would be a problem for both the student and the community members who would have to interact with that student. Further, there was research showing that students did not react well to a requirement (Jones, Segar, & Gasiorski, 2008; Marks & Jones, 2004). On the basis of our more recent research, however, I am pleased to report that I was wrong. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans in August 2005, the university made a powerful commitment to the rebuilding of New Orleans, with student involvement through service learning as an important feature of that effort (Cowen, 2018; Ilustre, Lopez, & Moely, 2012). A major change was to institute a public service graduation requirement: For students beginning undergraduate study in 2006 and thereafter, two public service courses must be taken before graduation. The first, to be completed by the end of the second year of study, should be a service learning course; the second course could be an advanced service learning course, a public service internship, a community-based research project, or

Book.indb 71

03-10-2019 12:26:59

72  

sharing pathways and perspectives

some other community-based course work (e.g., honor’s thesis, independent study). Ilustre became director of a new Center for Public Service that would manage the implementation of the graduation requirement. Over the next few years, he and his staff built the center into a model for the nation, showing how universities can work with the surrounding communities for the benefit of both campus and community (Ilustre et al., 2012; Tulane University, n.d.a). Scott Cowen, who was the president of Tulane when Katrina took place, reflected recently on the decision to implement this requirement, along with other changes aiming to rebuild the university and to contribute to the rebuilding of the city: Perhaps the key decision post-Katrina—the one that signaled an evolution in our mission—was the integration of public service into the core curriculum for all undergraduates, with a greater emphasis on community engagement, social innovation and entrepreneurship, and experiential learning. Through the Center for Public Service [and other new programs], the university has markedly enhanced its impact on the entire community, contributing through learning, service, and research to health, education, housing, culture, the environment, and the economy. . . . Our aim was to make the Tulane of the future a deeply committed anchor institution for New Orleans, where students would become active leaders and citizens of the city, and later the nation and world, through thoughtful engagement with communities outside our walls. . ­. . Ironically, it was a disaster that helped us sharpen our sense of mission. (Cowen, 2018, pp. 15–16)

My initial questions about students’ reactions to the requirement led to what became a substantial research project, lasting through eight years of data collection, in which Ilustre and I followed the same students in a longitudinal study, adding additional groups as necessary to enhance the findings (Moely & Ilustre, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016a, 2018). One of the most consistent findings throughout this work, from students just entering the university (Moely & Ilustre, 2011, 2016b) to alumni surveyed two years after graduation (Moely & Ilustre, 2018), was that students evaluated the requirement positively and planned to and did engage in more community-based service and service learning than was required. To account for these positive attitudes, we invoked concepts from social psychology, especially the work of Stukas and his colleagues (Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999). The consistency of our findings over time and persons shows that an academically based service requirement can work, as long as it is consistent with the attitudes toward service shown by students, is well-planned and implemented, and allows students choices of courses and service activities.

Book.indb 72

03-10-2019 12:26:59

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

73

How Do Civic Attitudes and Skills Develop? What Factors Influence Change? Some other features of our longitudinal study dealt with developmental changes and factors responsible for them. The surveys used included measures of civic attitudes, knowledge, and skills, incorporating items from the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ; Moely, Mercer, et al., 2002), along with new items created through discussions with the committee that was planning the new Center for Public Service at Tulane after Katrina. Faculty members whose students would be engaged in service learning, staff members planning programs for the new center, as well as students participated in these discussions. This collaborative process contributed to our success in designing measures that were useful not just for first-year college students but throughout the college years and beyond. We wanted to make our surveys available to all undergraduates entering Tulane in a given year, numbers ranging from 879 to 1,423 in this highly selective private university. We did not have the resources to contact personally all of these individuals within weeks of their entry into college, so we used an online survey that students could complete at their convenience. The response rate for the initial testing averaged 18%, which is not high, but we did find the sample to be comparable in many characteristics to the larger student body. The same procedure was used to contact the students again after 2 years of college and a third time just before graduation. Finally, a short survey was sent to alumni 2 years after they had completed their studies. Because all Tulane undergraduates entering in 2006 or later were required to complete the graduation requirement, it was not possible for us to create a control group of Tulane students. We were able to take advantage of a design used in developmental psychology, the time lag design, which involved a comparison of students of similar age/year in college surveyed before and after the requirement was implemented (Achenbach, 1978). In Moely and Ilustre (2013), we found that students surveyed from 2008 to 2010 (at the end of their sophomore year) were higher in a number of attributes that should have been affected by public service than similar-age students surveyed in 2006, who were not required to complete the public service graduation requirement. Students who were required to do public service showed increases over time in their valuing of community engagement, interest in seeking information about political and social issues, and selfassessed knowledge of city culture and issues and of current events. The time lag design showed that these changes were not due to age increases but to experiences unique to the students who entered the university after Katrina

Book.indb 73

03-10-2019 12:26:59

74  

sharing pathways and perspectives

(Moely & Ilustre, 2013). By the end of four years of college, students maintained these increases and also showed increases from college entry in social justice attitudes and in self-ratings of interpersonal skills. We found that civic attitudes and skills of college seniors were related to both civic interests at college entry and service involvement during college (Moely & Ilustre, 2016a). An additional study followed up on these findings to look in more depth at the attitudes toward service that students showed when they entered the university. We surveyed students beginning their studies at Tulane in 2013, asking them about their precollege experiences with service and the attitudes their parents held toward community involvement (Moely & Ilustre, 2016b). We found that both family influences and precollege service experiences were related to attitudes toward the graduation requirement and civic attitudes. We also showed that the effects of family orientation were partially mediated by students’ involvement in service during secondary school years, testing for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In admissions, Tulane representatives emphasize public service opportunities and requirements (Tulane University, n.d.b), thereby attracting students whose backgrounds and experiences prepare them to take part in public service courses and cocurricular service activities available to them at the university. In summary, then, both precollege experiences and participation in academically based service during college influenced students’ attitudes and involvement.

Recommendations for Researchers If you are planning to begin research in this field, whether you are a graduate student seeking a dissertation topic or a seasoned researcher interested in a new field, there are some things that I think you might consider. It is critical to make it personal! Address questions that are of interest to you. Do research on topics with which you are familiar or seek input from practitioners, community members, students, program leaders—all those who play a part in creating the conditions for the individuals you want to study. Research should flow smoothly from the questions you derive from real situations. Integrate these questions with theory and published research to enhance the depth and meaning of your research. Tie your research to desired student outcomes as specified by your institution, such as general growth and well-being, career decisions, and future active citizenship (Campus Compact, 2015). Sometimes opportunities arise from new initiatives at a university. For example, accreditation of colleges and universities by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (n.d.) requires higher education institutions to adopt a quality

Book.indb 74

03-10-2019 12:26:59

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

75

enhancement plan (QEP) that details a multiyear effort to enrich students’ learning. Several schools have used service learning or communitybased learning to achieve their QEP goals, thus providing research opportunities for interested faculty, as, for example, at the University of North Florida (n.d.) and the College of Coastal Georgia (n.d.). Bring your own expertise in theory, design, data collection, and reporting of research, so that your work can help build and broaden the SLCE research field. At the same time, be open to new questions and ways of studying them. An interdisciplinary approach can be very positive, leading to new concepts, new applications of theory to practices, and more complex methods. But do continue to work for rigor in design and measurement in order to produce findings that are meaningful and generalizable. Encourage student involvement in your research by offering research topics or questions they might find interesting. I have found students eager to be involved in research, just needing a little help to get started and some guidance through the process. Your work will benefit from their insights about student life, while you are fulfilling your academic purpose, giving them opportunities to learn about the research process as they carry out their own projects. Be persistent! Over the course of a research project, you will encounter positive experiences (e.g., a good response to your survey, a finding that supports your hypothesis, a paper accepted for publication), but you will also encounter frustrations and setbacks. Treat the negatives as learning experiences—deal with the challenges they offer as ways of building your knowledge and understanding and try to keep your sense of humor. Friends and colleagues are very important always, but especially when the day looks dark.

Disseminating Information The main vehicles we have for sharing information gained from research are peer-reviewed conferences and professional journals. A major and lasting influence on my research has been the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, which I learned about on a visit to the University of Michigan in 1996. Jeff Howard, who retired recently from the University of Michigan with the grateful thanks of the entire service learning/community engagement (SLCE) community, shaped this research field, and I am grateful to have benefited many times from his advice, support, and critical judgment on our work. Another influence over the years was the annual SLCE research conference (originally called Advances in Service-Learning Research, later the

Book.indb 75

03-10-2019 12:26:59

76  

sharing pathways and perspectives

conference of the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement). Begun by Andy Furco and Shelley Billig, the first meeting was held in Berkeley in October 2001. Our Tulane group has presented at this conference many times, and I have been challenged and inspired by the speakers, breakout sessions, and conversations with colleagues at all the conferences I have attended. Promotion and tenure committees will pay attention to publications in peer-reviewed journals with high circulation rates. In preparing articles for publication, I have found it useful to present research at a conference before writing. Organizing the ideas for presentation and getting feedback from peers help iron out problems in presenting findings, which makes the next step to producing a journal article easier. Reviews of your submission are essential to a strong paper that communicates well. Other open access venues available now (e.g., electronic mailing lists and blogs) are also useful for sharing information. For example, practitioners and beginning researchers often use the Google Groups higher education and service learning electronic mailing lists as a way of learning about theory, measures, and research findings. More established researchers should use these communication systems to make summaries of research findings and implications for practice easily available. Similarly, conferences could make greater efforts to bring together researchers, program staff, and community leaders for sharing information that will stimulate new initiatives in practice, as well as in research. Disseminate information about your research on your own campus as well, getting information to the individuals positioned to make use of it for the benefit of the institution and for the support of your program and your subsequent research.

Conclusion I was fortunate to encounter this field at a time when I could accomplish some work that was beneficial to my university and the New Orleans community as well as to the field of SLCE. Looking back, our experiences in building the service learning program at Tulane prompted research questions and, subsequently, findings from the research-influenced approaches to enhance the program. I hope this synergy is occurring on other campuses. I realize that we are all in unique situations, with more or less support for research and practice. So I leave you, the reader, to decide if my experiences have implications for your work. For the future, I am interested to see how the field grows, with new voices, theories, and methods making it possible to address new research questions. I wish you the best as you continue in this important work!

Book.indb 76

03-10-2019 12:26:59

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

77

References Achenbach, T. M. (1978). Research in developmental psychology: Concepts, strategies, methods. New York, NY: Free Press. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R. N. (2010). The role of service-learning in the retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 38–49. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Campus Compact (2015). 30th Anniversary Action Statement of Presidents and Chancellors. Retrieved from https://compact.org/actionstatement/ College of Coastal Georgia (n.d.). Quality enhancement plan and service learning. Retrieved from https://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=1359 Cowen, S. (2018). Winnebagos on Wednesdays: How visionary leadership can transform higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Eastern Michigan University (n.d.) Academic service-learning records. Retrieved from https://caine.emich.edu/archives/findingaids/html/Academic_Service_­ Learning_records.html Eby, J. W. (1998, March). Why service-learning is bad. Unpublished paper. Retrieved from https://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/artsci/servicelearning/ WhyServiceLearningIsBad.pdf Eyler, J., & Giles Jr., D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Furco, A., & Moely, B. E. (2012). Using learning communities to build faculty support for a pedagogical innovation: A multi-campus study. Journal of Higher Education, 83, 128–153. Gallini, S., & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service learning and engagement, academic challenge, and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10, 5–14. Ilustre, V., Lopez, A. M., & Moely, B. E. (2012). Conceptualizing, building, and evaluating university practices for community engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(4), 2–26. Jones, S. R., Segar, T. C., & Gasiorski, A. L. (2008). “A double-edged sword”: College student perceptions of required high school service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(1), 5–17. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown. Marks, H. M., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Community service in the transition: Shifts and continuities in participation from high school to college. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 307–339.

Book.indb 77

03-10-2019 12:26:59

78  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F., & King, D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 410–419. Moely, B. E., Furco, A., & Reed, J. (2008). Charity and social change: The impact of individual preferences on service-learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(1), 37–48. Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2011). University students’ views of a public service graduation requirement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 17(2), 43–58. Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2013). Stability and change in the development of college students’ civic attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 19(2), 21–35. Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2014). The impact of service-learning course characteristics on university students’ learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(1), 5–16. Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2016a). Outcomes for students completing a university public service graduation requirement: Phase 3 of a longitudinal study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 22(2), 16–30. Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2016b). Pre-college factors influencing college students’ civic attitudes: The importance of familial and community service experiences. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 4(1), 255–271. Moely, B. E., & Ilustre, V. (2018). Service involvement and civic attitudes of university alumni: Later correlates of public service participation during college. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 25(1), 30–42. Moely, B. E., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S. H., & Ilustre, V. (2002). Changes in college students’ attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 18–26. Moely, B. E., Mercer, S. H., Ilustre, V., Miron, D., & McFarland, M. (2002). Psychometric properties and correlates of the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ): A measure of students’ attitudes related to service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(2), 15–26. Moely, B. E., & Miron, D. (2005). College students’ preferred approaches to community service: Charity and social change paradigms. In S. Root, J. Callahan, and S. Billig (Eds.), Improving service-learning practice: Research on models to enhance impacts (pp. 61–78). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project, and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32. Olney, C., & Grande, S. (1995). Validation of a scale to measure Development of Social Responsibility. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 43–53. Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E.G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10(1), 59–64.

Book.indb 78

03-10-2019 12:27:00

a developmental psychologist’s journey  

79

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (n.d.). About the commission. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/about.asp Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tulane University (n.d.a). Center for Public Service. Retrieved from https://cps .tulane.edu/ Tulane University. (n.d.b). Undergraduate admission. Retrieved from https:// admission.tulane.edu/ University of North Florida (n.d.). The Center for Community-based Learning. Retrieved from http://www.unf.edu/ccbl/Community-Based_Instruction.aspx

Book.indb 79

03-10-2019 12:27:00

Book.indb 80

03-10-2019 12:27:00

2.3 A D VA N C I N G F U L L PA R T I C I PAT I O N KerryAnn O’Meara Full participation is an affirmative value focused on creating institutions that enable people, whatever their identity, background, or institutional position, to thrive, realize their capabilities, engage meaningfully in institutional life, and contribute to the flourishing of others. —Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush (2011, p. 3)

F

ull participation is a guiding principle for my work as a scholar and change agent in higher education. My work as a professor of higher education has focused on studying and advocating for the full participation of engaged scholars and valuing their work in the academy. I occupy a space studying and advocating for reform in how engaged scholars more generally are supported, retained, and advanced, and another space studying equity issues for diverse faculty and legitimacy for diverse forms of scholarship. These two areas have significant overlap in terms of needed reform, yet I do not often find scholars who conduct research in both of these spaces. My conceptual contributions have been made stronger by living in these two research worlds simultaneously and more generally by taking an interdisciplinary approach to illuminating problems of and strategies for full participation in the academy. As a scholar-practitioner I seek to collaborate with colleagues to identify policies, practices, cultures, and systems of recognition that constrain the agency of engaged scholars. I then work with communities of faculty and campus leaders to build stronger infrastructure for full participation and engagement. There are many ways to advocate for full participation, including protest, pressure from outside, and critique. Perhaps it is because I believe systems can be remade that I have always preferred to work inside organizations to make them better. Perhaps in contrast to some of the pioneers of the service 81

Book.indb 81

03-10-2019 12:27:00

82  

sharing pathways and perspectives

learning movement who advocated for wholescale transformations and revolution in higher education and society, my approach has been more evolutionary. I approach higher education—like many of the other institutions I belong to—as a place of radical possibility (hooks, 1994) for full participation. Although higher education often disappoints in actualizing some of its more transformative potential, it is still one of the best institutions we have for helping individuals and society to contribute meaningfully and thrive. Change takes time and bends to the persistent.

Starting Places I grew up in a family and faith community where service and social justice were priorities and expectations. Attracted to Loyola University in Maryland because of their Jesuit social justice mission and local and global service projects, I was there when Erin Swezey and Father Tim Brown built the Center for Values and Service. For four years, I was immersed in service learning as a student leader, including an annual winter break service trip to Mexico, leading an after-school partnership with Baltimore’s Choice program, and many other service projects. I left my Jesuit alma mater with stronger visions of justice in the world and higher education’s part in creating and sustaining that vision. A strong sense of purpose developed within me, and I wanted to follow in my mentors’ footsteps as a director of a community engagement center. Although I had transformative experiences of mentoring and immersion in issues of social justice and community, I knew when I graduated from college that I wanted to work and live in spaces with more diversity and sought out public higher education environments for that reason. The Ohio State University provided such an environment. I was offered an opportunity to study community engagement with Mary Ann Sagaria at the Ohio State University, while also launching community engagement activities at Otterbein College that would later emerge as a center there. My master’s thesis focused on the work of community engagement professionals in higher education. It was during this time that Sagaria saw in me someone who could later be a good faculty member; someone who loved the space of the classroom and seemed to thrive there. She identified that I loved writing, providing feedback to others on writing, and advocating for change through scholarship. She encouraged me to apply to doctoral programs and that is how I came to work with Robert Birnbaum at the University of Maryland. While completing my dissertation, I also served as a coordinator for higher education for the Maryland Governors Commission on Service, working with higher education institutions across

Book.indb 82

03-10-2019 12:27:00

advancing full participation  

83

the state, and as director of service learning and undergraduate research for the College Park Scholars program at the University of Maryland. Thus, my early academic career was shaped by both research and practice. I enjoyed using research to understand how something in faculty affairs and the world of community engagement might be improved and then designing initiatives with colleagues to make reforms and study outcomes. However, because the realization that I wanted to become a faculty member instead of director of a community engagement unit came later to me in my doctoral program, I needed to catch up in terms of research experience to be competitive for faculty positions. As such, I went to work for Harvard University’s Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) project as a postdoc. After two years at Harvard, I was hired into my first academic post as an assistant professor at University of Massachusetts–Amherst.

Understanding and Advancing Full Participation Through Scholarship I studied and completed my dissertation with Robert Birnbaum, an organizational scholar who wrote the well-known text How Colleges Work (Birnbaum, 1988). As such, my analysis of higher education contexts has always had a strong foundation in organizational behavior. Because higher education is an interdisciplinary, applied field, I have also been drawn to a broad spectrum of theory and research in organizational and social psychology, sociology, and feminist and behavioral economics to frame studies in higher education. My dissertation research (O’Meara, 2002a, 2002b) emerged from an interest in how faculty community engagement was valued through promotion and tenure in different academic environments. Despite dated language and some other things I would now change, I still like the following things about my dissertation research: (a) using Schein’s (2004) classic work on organizational cultures as made up of artifacts, values and beliefs, and behaviors; (b) mapping the valuations occurring inside promotion and tenure rooms; and (c) understanding how the backdrop of institutional culture, mission, and history shaped the evaluation of engaged scholarship and the valuing of engaged scholars. One of the things this study did well was show how the same people who found community-engaged scholarship important and wanted to value it were unintentionally devaluing engaged scholarship or putting it into a lesser category than more traditional scholarship through the evaluation process. I went on to conceptually and practically map how faculty reward systems work and thereby how diverse forms of scholarship and diverse

Book.indb 83

03-10-2019 12:27:00

84  

.

sharing pathways and perspectives

faculty can be disadvantaged within them. For example, I explored the ways in which reward systems operated as a complex system of reward and central motivational systems for faculty reflecting institutional aspirations, values, insecurities, and distribution of power (O’Meara, 2011c). Reward systems operate as much by perception as misperception. When I work with institutions trying to reform their reward systems, I often recall visiting a campus where I met with department to college to university promotion and tenure committees. At the first two levels, the committee members told me that their process was not the one devaluing engaged scholarship but the one above; when I got to the campus level the committee members said their role was to ensure the criteria set by the department was used, and if lower levels valued this work, they did too. In other words, perceptions and fears were shaping behavior, rather than policy. Although reward systems shape behavior, they can also be shaped by individuals. This point offers hope to newer entrants to the academy who are trying to remake reward systems, in part by their presence within these systems. Although institutions try to change to be more inclusive, reward systems continue to distribute legitimacy, resources, and autonomy. Therefore, academic leaders who want to move engaged scholarship to the center of their missions and priorities need to think carefully about the current distribution of resources and power—including but not limited to visibility in campus publications, course releases, prestigious awards, teaching assistants, and stipends to support summer or research work. I tend to ask how and why questions most often and as a starting point as a researcher and scholar-practitioner. Thus, I employ case studies, interviews and qualitative methods, and discourse and document analysis to study phenomena. However, a good deal of my work in recent years has been in areas without prior research. Here exploratory survey design has been most helpful. Ethnographic observation of processes, time diaries to capture microinteractions, and focus groups have also been effective research designs as I sought to contribute knowledge that was both theoretically and practically useful in different areas. In the last three years, I worked with colleagues on a randomized control action research experiment comparing academic departments that put equity reforms in place to academic departments that did not. This allowed me to understand the efficacy of the reforms in achieving intended objectives. Overall, I would like to see more randomized control trials, longitudinal studies, and natural experiment studies in our field. I think scholars in community engagement are drawn to the field by a desire to understand and advance the topics they cover, and some use certain theories to contextualize and study service learning and civic engagement. However, it would benefit the next generation of research to develop greater expertise

Book.indb 84

03-10-2019 12:27:00

advancing full participation  

85

in research methods used often in the social sciences such as ethnography, experimental designs, or experience sampling. Although I am proud of the quality and rigor of methods that I have used in my work, I think my most important contributions within the field of community engagement research and the study of faculty and reward systems have been conceptual contributions—naming phenomena, calling things out, and providing language for others to use to navigate and/or attempt reform. Additionally, I have contributed as a thought leader in important community engagement and diversity conversations and initiatives, mentored and supported junior colleagues, and visited many college and university campuses to help them reform their faculty development, retention, or promotion and tenure processes as they relate to faculty engagement. My conceptual contributions emerged from a fascination with culture, how colleges and universities and faculty careers “work” and how we might change them to be more inclusive of and embody community engagement values and perspectives. Despite being a cisgender heterosexual White woman with many privileges that such an identity provides in our society in comparison to the experiences of underrepresented minority colleagues, I have often had the experience of standing on the outside of academic cultures I did not quite understand, where I was not included in important ways. From this outside view I would try to figure out why that culture did not fully include or embody my own identities and values or those of others. Examples of some of my conceptual contributions to research and practice include the following: • understanding the values and assumptions embedded in evaluation of engaged scholarship (O’Meara, 1997, 2002a, 2010, 2011b, 2011c; O’Meara, Eatman, & Peterson, 2015; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Saltmarsh et al., 2009; Sandmann, Saltmarsh, & O’Meara, 2008) • faculty reward systems as regard systems (O’Meara, 2002a, 2011b; O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008) • faculty professional growth defined as agency, networks, learning, and recognition (O’Meara et al., 2008) • faculty civic agency and motivation for engagement (O’Meara, 2008, 2011a, 2012; O’Meara & Niehaus, 2009; O’Meara, Sandmann, Saltmarsh, & Giles, 2011) • college and university inequality regimes or systems that dis-advantage engaged scholars and prevent their full participation (O’Meara, 2011c, 2016; Orphan & O’Meara, 2016) • faculty agency, defined as assuming perspectives, and taking actions to achieve goals that are meaningful (O’Meara et al., 2008; O’Meara & Terosky, 2010; Terosky & O’Meara, 2011)

Book.indb 85

03-10-2019 12:27:00

86  

sharing pathways and perspectives

In every movement, there comes a point when organizers will have a better chance of achieving their goals if they find accessible language to more precisely name what it is that they want. Research can play a powerful role in that process of naming and achieving goals. This is in part what I tried to do with my research. For example, I tried to explain how current reward systems have acted as an inequality regime while providing academic leaders a vision of how that system might be reformed. I named concrete enablers of faculty agency so that faculty might be better launched and supported to have successful careers while involved in community engagement. In each case, I sought to diagnose the issue to provide fodder for academic leaders and faculty to craft policy reform, develop new programs, and systems of recognition and mentoring to support goals of full participation. Over the last five years, I have had the opportunity to immerse myself in the social psychology and behavioral economics research foundational to the concept of implicit bias (e.g., Kahneman, 2011; Moss-Racusin et al., 2014; Thaler, Sunstein & Balz, 2010; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). This work has important implications for how community-engaged scholarship is valued. It has informed how I work with campuses to think about the perfect storm of conditions that make it more likely that certain kinds of biases will emerge in faculty evaluation or hiring processes. For example, when faculty evaluators have had no prior exposure to engaged scholarship, no context for evaluation, no clear criteria for how to define and assess the work, and when there is little transparency and accountability in the process, implicit biases are more likely to appear. If I were engaged in 2018 in the same study I did in 2002, I would still try to understand the process from the perspective of organizational culture. However, I would also frame the process as a set of perfect storm conditions that allows implicit biases against engaged scholarship to emerge.

Contributing to the Full Participation of Others As director of the ADVANCE program at the University of Maryland, which aims to enhance faculty agency, retention, and advancement campus wide, I spend a good deal of time supporting and reflecting on faculty careers and professional development. I have designed six peer networks and many workshops for faculty and academic leaders on everything from developing networks to aligning time and priorities. Yet, I rarely take the opportunity to reflect on what has been most important for my own career. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, and I offer three pieces of strategic advice to new scholars related to networks, feedback, and leadership.

Book.indb 86

03-10-2019 12:27:00

advancing full participation  

87

First, cultivating a strong professional network is one of the great satisfactions of a good career, alongside mentoring and helping students progress in their careers. My collection of great colleagues has provided a sounding board for new ideas, a place to go with methodological questions, and an inspiration for new work. I have been lucky that the professional networks that I have built have often been with colleagues with complementary skills. For example, Gene Rice, John Saltmarsh, and George Mehaffy are all great macro, balcony thinkers; that is, they can easily see how many other issues in higher education relate to the one we might be discussing. Tim Eatman is a great visual thinker and often uses new technologies and mediums, strategies that I would never have considered, in his presentations and publications. Audrey Jaeger and Corbin Campbell are my quantitative methods gurus, Anna Neumann role-models thick description and use of theory to understand phenomena like no one else, and Aimee Terosky knows all things teaching and learning. I truly believe we are only as good as our networks and the advice we give and receive within them. Second, it is critical to set aside time each week to respond to colleagues and engage with them. I cannot imagine a career as a researcher, writer, or thinker without a strong “phone a friend” system. For example, when I want to make sure I have seen the latest work in an area, I write to three or four colleagues and ask if what I have is the latest. Colleagues also constantly send me papers to keep me up to date, as I do them. As I write this, I am trying to decide on next steps for a project and have set up phone calls with at least five of the smartest and well-informed people I know to get their input. Once I feel like I have saturated the issue with good and different perspectives, I will decide on next steps. Colleagues have told me (and I them) when an article was not a good fit for a particular journal; when a conceptual framework did not fit the research questions or data; or when a piece was really two articles, not one. My network of great colleagues, many of whom I have written with over the years, have helped me support students looking for jobs, given me feedback on grant proposals, helped me organize conferences, and changed and improved my thinking on many issues. When I am concerned my perspective has gone stale or is uninspired, I can ask my long-term colleagues, “Where do you go to get new ideas, to be pushed, to feel like you are learning?” As someone who is motivated by the opportunity to continue learning, I believe there is nothing like being part of a strong professional network. I hope readers invest time in building their own network of colleagues and critical friends, for it is a mutually beneficial way to advance one’s career and the field more broadly. Third, learning how to give feedback, receive feedback, and use feedback effectively is critical as a scholar. There is indeed something worse than

Book.indb 87

03-10-2019 12:27:00

88  

sharing pathways and perspectives

receiving an article rejection or revise-and-resubmit with feedback about the flaws of your thinking, methods, and conclusions—and that is receiving no feedback at all. Early on in my career I found it challenging to receive critical feedback from my advisers, mentors, or peer reviewers because I worried that they would consider my flawed thinking or mistakes to be fixed characteristics of my self. A mentor of mine explained good editors do not associate an incomplete idea or a flawed study with a flawed person. They see writing and ideas as things we cultivate separate from ourselves. The most seasoned scholar can have ideas that need work and a new scholar may produce something that is ready to be published. Good editors focus on the work and help writers improve it. My advice to young scholars is to find good editors and develop the skills to be one yourself to colleagues. With the benefit of hindsight, I now see that one of the reasons I had success in publishing is that I have learned over time how to receive and use feedback. A colleague of mine shared that whenever he received a revise-andresubmit letter for a journal article with three to four pages of feedback, he read it and then left it in a drawer for a few days. Then he would take it out; read it again; and, if it was frustrating or would take an awful lot of work, he would roll over it with his desk chair to let off a little steam. Then, and only then, would he parse the letter, create a to-do list for each critique, and come up with a plan to address the feedback. Likewise, when I receive a revise-andresubmit letter and the feedback is detailed and hard to accept, I often feel like I am at the bottom of a hill that I will need to run up with a heavy backpack. However, when I now read my articles that required the most extensive revisions, I see how much better they are because my thinking was pushed by good reviewers and editors. Having served as an associate editor for the Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning (MJCSL) and the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, as well as on the editorial review board for the Journal of Higher Education, I also recommend that early-career scholars send their work to places that will “up their game” in terms of quality. Jeff Howard, founder and longtime editor of the MJCSL, is especially talented at keeping expectations high, and that is one of the major reasons the MJCSL has led in the field for so long. In general, there are journals with lower acceptance rates that are harder to get into but whose review process will push your thinking more than others. I recommend scholars choose venues that push them to be better. I advise my students to think about the unique contribution a research project can make in the following areas: (a) topic—that is, studying something that is important but currently understudied; (b) theory/conceptual— that is, applying a way to view a topic in a way that brings new light to the subject at hand; or (c) methods—that is, using nontraditional methods to

Book.indb 88

03-10-2019 12:27:00

advancing full participation  

89

study the topic, thus allowing us to know more than we otherwise could using more traditional research methods. Editors and reviewers are also looking for this to advance research. I also believe it is important to identify ways to lead. Sometimes this means figuring out one’s unique conceptual, methodological, and/or practical gifts and focusing attention on contributing as much as you can. For example, I have found that having one foot in the ADVANCE world and one in the community-engagement world strengthened contributions I could make to each. In particular, I found theories and framing issues from each side useful to the other. Sometimes it means stepping forward to lead a community engagement initiative on your campus or across campuses that is important but lacks someone to provide sweat equity and vision. I have had the opportunity in my research and professional career to be engaged with colleagues in national and international associations, state systems, and individual institutions. Some important examples include being part of the Wingspread conferences, New England Research Center on Higher Education working papers and projects, Campus Compact initiatives, and the Kettering Foundation meetings. A number of national associations have been important venues to share research and meet new colleagues, including the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Colleges & Universities, and the International Association of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE). I chaired the IARSLCE conference in 2013 to contribute leadership as well as an appealing location (Baltimore, MD) to draw participation at a time that was needed, and I was glad I did. Participating in and leading such initiatives provided me a bird’s-eye view of issues in our field, a stronger network of research colleagues, and some wonderful lifelong friendships. Leadership is often about making small contributions out of the limelight. Many times, the work I have created with colleagues included conference presentations, working papers, scholarly magazine articles, and conference proceedings, rather than journal articles, because we were trying to disseminate ideas in ways that would be most conducive for immediate use by academic leaders and diverse audiences. Leadership can also mean serving as reviewers, editors, and conference program chairs. It means writing tenure letters for emerging scholars in the field and recommending them for professional opportunities.

Conclusion In conclusion, there are many ways to contribute to full participation; the agency of others; and a democratic, just society. For me, academic life has

Book.indb 89

03-10-2019 12:27:00

90  

sharing pathways and perspectives

been an excellent way to have a voice, to make a difference in changing higher education at my home institution and beyond, to mentor and be mentored, to learn, and to advance knowledge. Research within meaningful networks such as ours facilitates full participation. I once heard Gloria Steinem say that hope is an organizing strategy. Throughout my career, I have also found research to be a way to hope and to make change. Research provides a way to imagine the kind of society and institutions we want to build, understand where they fall short of that vision, and build and test new ways of being and improving. To those just starting on this journey, I wish for you important questions, new ways to think about and study those questions, and excellent colleagues to share the road.

References Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Education as the practice of freedom. London, UK: Routledge. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Moss-Racusin, C. A., van der Toorn, J., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2014). Scientific diversity interventions. Science, 343, 615–616. O’Meara, K. (1997). Rewarding faculty professional service (Working Paper No. 19). Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. O’Meara, K. (2002a). Scholarship unbound: Assessing service as scholarship for promotion and tenure. In P. Altbach (Ed.), Studies in higher education dissertation series. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer Series. O’Meara, K. (2002b). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57–80. O’Meara, K. (2008). Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from exemplars. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 7–29. O’Meara, K. (2010). Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship: Promotion and tenure. In H. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship, volume 1: Institutional change (pp. 271–294). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. O’Meara, K. (2011a). Because I can: Exploring faculty civic agency (Working Paper 2011-1). Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation. Retrieved from http://kettering .org/publications/because-i-can-exploring-faculty-civic-agency/ O’Meara, K. (2011b). Faculty civic engagement: New training, assumptions, and markets needed for the engaged American scholar. In J. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.), To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education (pp. 177–198). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Book.indb 90

03-10-2019 12:27:00

advancing full participation  

91

O’Meara, K. (2011c). Inside the panopticon: Studying academic reward systems. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 26 (pp. 161– 220). New York, NY: Springer. O’Meara, K. (2012). Research on faculty motivation for service learning. In P. Clayton, R. Bringle, & J. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on service-learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment (Vol. 2B, pp. 215–243). Sterling, VA: Stylus. O’Meara, K. (2016). Legitimacy, agency, and inequality: Organizational practices for full participation of community-engaged faculty. In M. Post, E. Ward, N. Longo, & J. Saltmarsh (Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the culture of higher education (pp. 96–109). Sterling, VA: Stylus. O’Meara, K., Eatman, T., & Peterson, S. (2015). Advancing engaged scholarship in promotion and tenure: A roadmap and call for reform. Liberal Education, 101(3), 52–57. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2015/summer/ o’meara O’Meara, K., & Niehaus, E. (2009). Service-learning is . . . How faculty explain their practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 16(1), 1–16. O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (Eds.) (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & Giles Jr., D. E. (2011). Studying the professional lives and work of faculty involved in community engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 36(2), 83–96. O’Meara, K., & Terosky, A. L. (2010). Engendering faculty professional growth. Change, 42(6), 44–51. O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). ASHE Higher Education Report: Vol. 34, no. 3. Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Orphan, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2016). Next generation engagement scholars in the neoliberal university. In M. Post, E. Ward, N. Longo, & J. Saltmarsh (Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next-generation engagement and the culture of higher education (pp. 214–231). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Saltmarsh, J., Giles Jr., D. E., O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. M. (2009). Community engagement and institutional culture in higher education: An investigation of faculty reward policies at engaged campuses. In B. Moely, S. Billig, & B. Holland (Eds.), Advances in service-learning research: Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement (pp. 3–29). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Sandmann, L., Saltmarsh, J., & O’Meara, K. (2008). An integrated model for advancing the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 47–64. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for diversity and community engagement in higher education (Catalyst paper). NERCHE, Imagining America, Center for Institutional and

Book.indb 91

03-10-2019 12:27:00

92  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Social Change. Retrieved from http://imaginingamerica.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/09/fullparticipation.pdf Terosky, A., & O’Meara, K. (2011). Assuming agency: The power of strategy and networks in faculty professional lives. Liberal Education, 97(3/4), 54–59. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2010, April 2). Choice architecture. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1583509 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

Book.indb 92

03-10-2019 12:27:00

2.4 MEETING THE CHALLENGES O F S E RV I C E L E A R N I N G R E S E A R C H D O M E S T I C A L LY AND ABROAD Field Building and Legitimacy Andrew Furco

M

y career over the past 30 years has focused on advancing service learning research and practice. From my early involvement in K–12 service learning to my current role as a researcher and academic administrator in higher education, I have had the privilege of working with diverse colleagues, both domestically and abroad, who are dedicated to institutionalizing service learning in our primary, secondary, and higher education systems. Over the years, I have been actively involved as an educator who incorporates service learning in my courses, a researcher who has examined the impacts and institutionalization of service learning, an editor of books and journals on the subject, an organizer of conferences and networks focused on building and advancing the service learning field, a seniorlevel administrator responsible for institutionalizing community engagement initiatives across a university system, and a speaker and presenter who has sought to support emerging service learning and community engagement initiatives in the United States and abroad. Through these rich, rewarding experiences, I have arrived at a vantage point that now affords me the opportunity to not only admire and appreciate the growth and development that service learning has achieved after a long struggle to gain academic legitimacy but also see a bright and exciting future for service learning as it continues to advance and take on new forms across the globe. 93

Book.indb 93

03-10-2019 12:27:00

94  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Like other early adopters who saw firsthand the power of service learning for improving student academic learning and civic development, I, too, wanted to see service learning integrated more fully into the academic core of our primary, secondary, and higher education systems. However, as a counternormative pedagogy (Howard, 1998) that lacks definitional clarity, I realized that service learning was not going to be an easy sell to educational practitioners, leaders, and policymakers who viewed service learning as nothing more than glorified community service and volunteerism. Almost as soon as service learning began to gain national attention in the United States in the early 1990s, critics were pushing back on proponents’ claims that service learning was academically rigorous and could enhance students’ learning and development (Buchen & Fertman, 1994; Kraft & Krug, 1994; Waterman, 1997). Critics of service learning also suggested that published claims of positive outcomes for participating students, faculty, institutions and communities were derived primarily from self-reported anecdotes, rather than from empirical evidence produced through high-quality research (Buchen & Fertman, 1994; Waterman, 1997). Facing an uphill battle to secure greater mainstream support for service learning within educational institutions, early adopters of service learning were hungry for research evidence that could support their case for incorporating service learning into the academic curriculum. It is not surprising, therefore, that research agendas of the day focused heavily on questions pertaining to service learning’s role in enhancing student development and less on issues pertaining to community benefits and impact (Billig & Furco, 2001; Giles & Eyler, 1998). Despite the growing popularity of service learning that we now see in many parts of the globe, and despite the many published peer-reviewed research studies that have examined the outcomes associated with service learning, educators and educational policymakers continue to question the educational value of service learning and whether the practice should be supported (Case, 2018; Thomsen, 2014). Some educational reform experts suggest that the criticisms have reemerged due to the rising tide of fiscal accountability within educational systems, which has prompted greater scrutiny of educational innovations such as service learning, especially those that challenge the dominant educational structures and approaches (Dougherty et al., 2016). Others suggest that because of the increased prominence of service learning practice in the academic curriculum, administrators are seeking more data and evidence on its educational value as they must weigh the level of institutional support needed to sustain service learning initiatives with service learning’s educational return on investment (Cicero-Johns, 2016; Furco & Holland, 2009). In addition, with today’s global expansion of service learning, the academic legitimacy questions that service learning practitioners in

Book.indb 94

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

95

the United States faced throughout the early years are now being asked of service learning advocates in other countries who are working to advance and institutionalize service learning in their educational systems (Murphy & Tan, 2012; Reinders, 2016; Tong, 2019). Throughout this struggle to secure service learning’s academic legitimacy, research has played an important role in responding to the needs of the field as service learning has continued to develop, evolve, and mature. Research has not only produced much needed evidence to build the academic case for service learning but also uncovered the contextual and cultural complexities of service learning practice. In this chapter, I present some of the ways that research has been used over the years to help build the field and secure service learning’s academic legitimacy for external constituents (e.g., policymakers, funders, educational leaders, educators, critics who do not practice service learning). I also discuss how the quest to secure service learning’s external legitimacy during the early years created internal legitimacy challenges (i.e., legitimatization of the research studies from practitioners and researchers within the service learning field). As we look to the future, I argue for the importance of securing both external and internal legitimacy in service learning investigations and how garnering this legitimacy can prove difficult in light of the ongoing debates within the service learning field regarding epistemology and the standards for scientific inquiry. I share some lessons learned from my own attempts to grapple with these issues as a means to offer ideas on how we can meet the challenges of today’s more complex and more global service learning research agenda.

Research for Field Building Throughout much of the 1990s, the evidence for service learning remained scarce. Service learning was not a well-known concept outside of the relatively small group that practiced or studied it. There was minimal funding for service learning programming, let alone money to support research activities. There were no established networks of researchers who were studying the practice, and the methods for capturing the outcomes of service learning were still undeveloped. Early adopters debated the definition and standards of practice, and as service learning began to gain traction in the United States’ educational systems through the Learn and Serve America program, the criticisms over the lack of evidence regarding the academic and educational merits of service learning only grew (Eby, 1998; Egger, 2007). Without funding for research, and without a robust literature base or academic journals in which to publish the research, there were few incentives

Book.indb 95

03-10-2019 12:27:00

96  

sharing pathways and perspectives

or opportunities to conduct research. With a small number of exceptions (e.g., Eyler & Giles, 1999; Marcus, Howard, & King, 1993), the available studies consisted mostly of single-site investigations that focused on service learning activities situated within a particular community setting and focused on a narrow band of student learning outcomes (Bailis & Melchior, 2003; Waterman, 1997). The majority of these studies reported positive benefits for students who participated in service learning. In turn, the body of research continued to be widely criticized for lacking experimental designs, control groups, validated instruments, generalizability, and conclusive evidence (Billig & Waterman, 2003; Steinberg, Bringle, & Williams, 2010). Seeking to address the needs of an undefined and underdeveloped field, the service learning research agenda of the 1990s lacked coherence. The body of service learning research was composed primarily of disparate, unconnected research studies that examined a broad set of outcomes, studied different kinds of service learning experiences situated in diverse contexts and disciplines, and applied a wide array of instruments often developed for the specific service learning context. Over the course of the 1990s, the call for randomized, controlled experimental studies of service learning grew louder (Billig & Waterman, 2003; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001), even though none of the federal agencies, including the Corporation for National and Community Service, was providing funding for such research. Those of us who practiced service learning had many stories to share regarding the benefits of service learning for students and communities. As a K–12 educator in the 1980s, I had the opportunity to witness positive, transformational changes in students who engaged in service learning. I found that the combination of community service with academic curricula not only contained many of the high-impact instructional practices that promote students’ academic engagement and motivation but also channeled young people’s talents to make a positive difference in society. Therefore, in 1992, when it was time to select a dissertation topic for my doctoral studies in educational administration and policy at University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), I chose to study the effects of service learning on students’ educational development. However, with next to no research or literature on the topic on which to build, and with no obvious research community or network with which to connect, it is not surprising that my assigned doctoral adviser strongly discouraged me from focusing my dissertation on the issue. He suggested that the rising tide of learning service (as he called it) was simply a reflection of another educational fad which, like most educational innovations, would certainly have a short shelf life. He made it clear that learning service was not a field of inquiry and there was not enough of a research literature base

Book.indb 96

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

97

available on which to build my conceptual framework and dissertation study. He warned me that if I pursued a study on this fad, I would ruin my career and would never be able to secure a job anywhere in academia. A career as a researcher of service learning would be out of the question. Today, I reflect on the current research challenges in service learning as a tenured, full professor in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota, where I also serve as the university’s associate vice president for public engagement. In these roles, I work with others to improve and advance the institutionalization of the university’s policies and practices for community engagement, conduct research on service learning and community engagement–related issues, teach a course on the role of public engagement in higher education, and advise and support graduate students who are working on thesis research projects focused on service learning and community engagement. I have had the privilege of leading or coleading more than 30 studies of service learning. By all measures, this is an unexpected and most unlikely career, given the prognostication of my first doctoral adviser and the prevailing challenges and opposition that I and other service learning colleagues faced in the early 1990s. I attribute this success to two factors. First, I had the good fortune of ultimately finding a supportive dissertation adviser, K. Patricia Cross, who saw service learning as an educational innovation worth investigating and who guided me in completing my dissertation study. Second, I was given the opportunity to serve as the founding director of UC Berkeley’s first Service Learning Research and Development Center, which was established in 1994 with the dual role of conducting studies of K–12 and higher education service learning and supporting Berkeley faculty in developing service learning activities within their courses. These opportunities put me on a promising path to carve out a career as a service learning researcher and practitioner. As I reflect on the nature of conducting service learning research over the past 30 years, the following interrelated issues stand out as important for conducting research to advance service learning research and practice: (a) responding to the ongoing call for evidence, (b) balancing external and internal legitimacy, and (c) questioning the gold standard.

Responding to the Ongoing Call for Evidence The research that was produced in the early years of service learning’s development was critical to codifying service learning as a field of study and practice. The first studies of K–12 service learning (Conrad, 1980; Conrad & Hedin, 1981, 1982) were seminal investigations that were used as the evidentiary foundation for establishing the National Youth Leadership Council in 1989

Book.indb 97

03-10-2019 12:27:00

98  

sharing pathways and perspectives

and a national service learning policy that eventually led to the establishment of the 1990 National and Community Service Act. Similarly, early studies of higher education service learning, such as Markus, Howard, and King’s (1993) study, which went beyond self-reports and incorporated experimental conditions, were of immense value to the rapidly growing cadre of service learning practitioners who were eager for research evidence that could help build the academic case for service learning. As these early research efforts gained attention at conferences, and more research studies began to appear in books such as Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? (Eyler & Giles, 1999), it became evident that there was a growing base of service learning supporters that needed research to respond to service learning’s critics. The call for more and better research was a main impetus for me to collaborate with colleagues to host the first international conference on service learning research in 2001, which has since become an annual conference facilitated by the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement. The conference brings together producers and consumers of service learning research to engage in presentations about the latest service learning research investigations, and to discuss the future of service learning research. At the 2001 inaugural conference, the first issue of the Advances in Service Learning series, Service Learning: The Essence of the Pedagogy (Furco & Billig, 2001) was distributed to participants, and a set of papers presented at the conference was selected for publication in the second issue of the series Service Learning Through a Multidisciplinary Lens (Billig & Furco, 2002), giving participants access to the latest research as well as opportunities to publish their studies. With critics questioning the quality of service learning research, many of the early discussions at the conference and the Advances in Service Learning Research series focused on the importance of improving the quality of service learning research for field building. The opening chapters of the second volume of the research series, which were “Establishing Norms for Scientific Inquiry in Service Learning” (Furco & Billig, 2002), and Janet Eyler’s inaugural conference keynote address, “Stretching to Meet the Challenge: Improving the Quality of Research to Improve the Quality of Service Learning” (Eyler, 2002), exemplified the extent to which the need for more evidence through better, more rigorous scientific research dominated the discourse at the time. To build such evidence and secure external legitimacy, service learning research would need to include more randomized controlled studies, include larger sample sizes and multisite studies, ensure greater fidelity of treatment across study sites, and apply more validated measures (Furco, 2003). However, the kinds of research studies that were needed to secure greater external legitimacy raised questions from within the field regarding

Book.indb 98

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

99

whether the focus of the research methods and outcomes were advancing the issues that were most important to service learning practitioners (Butin, 2003).

Balancing External and Internal Legitimacy Through the more than 30 studies my colleagues and I completed through the Berkeley Center over a 14-year period, I saw firsthand the important role that research can play in securing greater support for service learning. Given the criticism of service learning that was present at the time, I felt a deep sense of responsibility to produce research that could provide the field with the kinds of studies and results that would not only help secure service learning’s academic legitimacy but also address other important questions in this emerging field. For internal audiences, these studies would focus on issues of best practices, community impacts, and program institutionalization. For external audiences, the studies would focus on the impact of service learning on students’ academic learning and overall educational development. I learned early on that to conduct research that is both relevant and impactful and, in turn, is taken seriously by service learning advocates and critics alike, researchers need to secure both external and internal legitimacy of their studies. External legitimacy is built on validation given by those outside of the field who verify the rigor and quality of the research and who can accept the research findings as evidence. Internal legitimacy is built on validation given by those within the field who see the research produced as having value for their work and the broader field, and who in turn, agree to participate in and/or champion the research studies. Research that lacks external legitimacy can be dismissed as biased research that is conducted by advocates simply to bolster the value of a phenomenon they support (Mertens, 2009). As Mertens (2009) suggested, research that lacks internal legitimacy, especially when the research lacks favorable findings, can be ignored by those within the field who do not see the research conducted in a manner that is aligned with the field’s priorities or norms of practice. As I learned quickly, balancing the external and internal legitimacy of the research would be a key to producing studies that could gain traction both inside and outside of service learning circles and ultimately contribute to field building. I perhaps learned this lesson best while conducting a six-year study with a group of colleagues that focused on K–12 service learning funded by the California Department of Education. As was true in other states in the late 1990s and early 2000s, California’s Department of Education established a service learning agenda for its primary and secondary (K–12) programs

Book.indb 99

03-10-2019 12:27:00

100  

sharing pathways and perspectives

through a statewide service learning grant program (CalServe). Thirty-five school districts in the state received grants to engage students in at least one service learning experience at each grade span, including K–5, 6–8, and 9–12 grade levels. All of the sites that received a grant and participated in the CalServe program were required to participate in a set of research activities. The Service Learning Research and Development Center at UC Berkeley was contracted to conduct two three-year studies. There was great pressure from the teachers and the Department of Education to show positive results regarding the role that service learning played in enhancing students’ academic learning and civic development. The group of teachers using service learning was already convinced it produced positive outcomes for students; the teachers did not believe that the research, which they feared would impede on their teaching time, was necessary. In their view, the research was only seeking to tell them what they already knew. With a relatively high level of resistance among the K–12 educators to engage in research activities, we needed to find a way to ensure a robust level of buyin and participation from across the school sites and districts (internal legitimacy). Simultaneously, given the prevailing criticisms regarding the quality of service learning research at the time, there was also pressure to conduct a “quality” study that could withstand scrutiny among critics who remained unconvinced of proponents’ purported claims regarding service learning’s many benefits (external legitimacy). At the start of the study, there was wariness among the K–12 educators about researchers from outside the system coming into their schools to study their students or classrooms. Building the trust of the teachers and site administrators, as well as the students and their parents, proved essential for securing site participation and educators’ willingness to implement the research protocols in their classrooms. The managers at the California State Department of Education wanted the study to focus on particular sets of data and outcomes. Yet, they came to understand that we would have to work closely with the teachers and principals, ensure that the service learning issues the educators cared most about were foregrounded, and that the study’s requirements would not be too disruptive to the teachers’ classrooms. This meant that we had to compromise our research design. We could not randomly assign classrooms, teachers, or students to treatment conditions. We did not have permission to dictate how service learning should be practiced. We also needed to secure parents’ permission in order to collect student data. Our research team also had to explore means to establish treatment and comparison groups. After explaining to the teachers and principals the value of having a comparison group, they allowed us to survey all students in a

Book.indb 100

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

101

school regardless of whether the students were in a classroom in which service learning was offered; whole-school student surveying was something that a number of teachers and principals had initially rejected. To further build internal legitimacy and to ensure data integrity for external legitimacy, our research team provided much technical assistance to teachers regarding how to administer questionnaires and offered step-by-step instructions on how to secure other required data (e.g., number of hours, types of service learning). Listening to and involving the teachers and school site administrators were essential in crafting a quality study. For example, our research team developed a pre-post questionnaire to measure K–12 student’s civic responsibility. A group of teachers questioned the developmental appropriateness of the questionnaire for younger students. Some of the teachers also pointed out that a large majority of their students were native Spanish speakers. Based on the teachers’ feedback and with their input and guidance, our research team developed 6 versions of the civic responsibility pre-post survey. Three different versions of the questionnaire were designed to meet the developmental needs of students at different grade levels (K–5, 6–8, 9–12), and then each of these versions was translated into Spanish. With the teachers’ buy-in and support, we were able to administer the questionnaire to more than 10,000 students engaged in myriad service learning activities across 35 school districts in the state over a 6-year period. Although having the various versions of the questionnaire complicated our analyses and compromised aspects of the research design (which might potentially lower the external legitimacy of our study), making these adjustments and allowing other ways we worked with the teachers garnered us internal legitimacy that not only provided us with more robust and valid data but also brought greater value and appreciation of the research to the K–12 educators. Conducting this study taught me much about the importance of incorporating participatory methodologies to secure internal legitimacy in service learning research while keeping an eye on the overall research design to ensure external legitimacy. As I discuss in the article “Legitimizing Community Engagement in K–12 Schools” (Furco, 2013), without internal legitimacy, the external legitimacy of a study might ultimately be compromised due to lack of teacher buy-in and participation, resulting in low response rates and incomplete data. I have continued to use the lessons learned from this study throughout my career. Although most of my research has been situated in formal educational settings in the United States and abroad, I believe that the practice of balancing internal and external legitimacy is equally important for research conducted in other community-based settings. Given the highly contextualized nature of service learning, it is important to engage community partners in informing the development of the instrumentation, securing

Book.indb 101

03-10-2019 12:27:00

102  

sharing pathways and perspectives

an effective research design that will garner robust participation, providing important insights in interpreting the findings, and using the research results to enhance practice, all while maintaining integrity to principles of scientific inquiry. This issue is front and center in today’s discourse on service learning research. Within the field, producers and consumers of service learning research are calling for the inclusions of more participatory methods in the study of service learning (Bartleet, Bennett, Power, & Sunderland, 2016; Siemers, Harrison, Clayton, & Stanley, 2015). Yet, in balancing the internal legitimacy of service learning research with the external legitimacy, accommodations need to be balanced with assurances that the norms of scientific inquiry will be met. For some time, several of us within the field have argued that this positivistic approach to scientific inquiry has limited applicability to the study of service learning (Bailis & Melchior, 2003; Furco, 2003). Indeed, a number of us engaged in service learning research during the early years found ourselves pushing for more randomized controlled, experimental studies on the one hand, while highlighting the limitations of such studies on the other (Billig & Waterman, 2003). In a way, this was our attempt to secure both internal and external legitimacy of the research. Dismissing the positivistic research frame outright would not have served well the still marginalized field of service learning. Embracing the objective, positivistic frame fully might have alienated service learning supporters from participating in research activities that they might have perceived as not compatible with the more participatory, coconstructed, and contextualized nature of their work. As I discuss in the next section, the push to go beyond a focus on randomized controlled studies to define what constitutes quality research has gained momentum and has expanded the forms and nature of today’s service learning research agenda.

Questioning the Gold Standard Like others within the field who understood the nature and character of service learning practice, I did not believe that the primary way to produce quality research was through randomized controlled investigations that met the gold standard of research. However, it was quite clear during the early years that without robust evidence for service learning that was derived from studies that met that standard, greater external legitimization of service learning and its body of research would be difficult to garner. As important as these studies have likely been in helping to secure service learning’s broader external legitimacy as a high-impact educational practice, the emphasis on producing

Book.indb 102

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

103

more experimental studies has, over time, spurred a healthy debate in the field about what counts as quality research. This debate has encouraged and led to the production of a more diverse set of service learning research studies that are based on a broader range of epistemologies and that incorporate a wider variety of designs and methods. In 2010, during the closing keynote session at the 10th Annual International Research Conference on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE), I asked 100 members in the audience to respond to a set of questions regarding the current and future state of service learning research. After providing an overview of the state of service learning research and the purposes that the extant research had sought to fulfill, I asked the audience to respond, using hand-held clickers, to the question: Which of the following statements do you support the most? This question was followed by two choices to which the audience (N = 100) responded as follows: 1. The community engagement field should work to meet the rigorous standards of traditional experimental design. (64%) 2. The rigid standards of experimental design should be relaxed to accommodate for the realities of community engagement practices. (36%)

Six years later, I conducted a similar polling at a national Campus Compact conference and asked the same question. Although the attendees at this conference were not the same as those who had responded to the 2010 poll, they were similar consumers and producers of service learning research. In the 2016 polling, the response pattern was flipped, with only 33% of the 58 respondents selecting the first option (should meet the rigors of experimental design) and 67% of the respondents selecting the second option (should relax the rigid standards of experimental design). This movement away from a focus on randomized controlled experiments (gold standard), which some have argued as being too restrictive and inappropriate for highly contextualized, real-world practices like service learning (Robinson & McCarten, 2016), has gained momentum in the field. The shift has helped open the door for the field to embrace other forms of research and expand the epistemologies that are informing much to today’s research agenda. For example, there is a growing appreciation for interpretative studies, as is evidenced by the growing number of journal submissions of research studies that employ qualitative methods. These studies are advancing the field by capturing the nuances of the service learning contexts and including fuller and richer descriptions of the service learning experiences than is often found in quantitative studies.

Book.indb 103

03-10-2019 12:27:00

104  

sharing pathways and perspectives

In addition, more attention is being given to research studies based on participatory methods that engage community partners as coinvestigators. While such studies are scant in the service learning literature, they are much sought after as service learning expands in new cultural settings and communities. In celebrating the tenth anniversary of the formation of IARSLCE, the board of directors brought these emerging issues to the fore in a reaffirmation statement, which articulated the need for a research agenda that incorporates methodologies “that emerge from service-learning and community engagement,” that “emphasize research conducted through communityengaged approaches (e.g., participatory research),” and “give voice to and value the perspective of silenced and subordinated groups and communities with the explicit aim of improving the lived experiences of those individuals” (International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 2014). This expanded research agenda is bringing new, welcomed vistas to the study of service learning. With the broadening of the research perspectives and approaches, the overall quality of service learning research is improving. In today’s studies (both qualitative and quantitative), there is greater awareness of the contextual factors that potentially influence variations in findings within and across groups. For example, more studies are capturing dosage (e.g., Francis et al., 2016); student self-selection (e.g., Holz & Pinnow, 2015), amount of community voice (e.g., Petri, 2015); and particular programmatic factors, such as level of challenge and students’ preparation for service (Ngai, Chan, & Kwan, 2018). Also present is greater acknowledgment that service learning can produce negative outcomes (e.g., reinforce stereotypes) if not done well (Houshmand et al., 2014). In addition, more studies are incorporating stricter eligibility requirements for research participation, including in the investigation only of those service learning programs or efforts that meet a set of defined programmatic structures and standards of quality practice (Ngai et al., 2018). Experimental and quasiexperimental quantitative investigations are including better matched comparison groups (i.e., through propensity score matching); larger sample sizes; multiple sites; standardized and validated instruments that include psychometric information (e.g., factor analysis data, reliability data); and more advanced conceptual frameworks, designs, and analyses (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling, structural equation modeling; see Chao, Paiko, Zhang, & Zhao, 2017; Furco, White-Jones, Huesman, & Gorny, 2016; Niehaus & Garcia, 2017). We now have available a series of meta-analyses (e.g., Celio, Durlak, & Dymnicki, 2011; Warren, 2012; White, 2001; Yorio & Ye, 2012), and several well-designed studies have been replicated (e.g., Dahan, 2016; Farmer, Perry, & Ha, 2016).

Book.indb 104

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

105

Today’s studies are also digging deeper into the more nuanced areas of research, such as examining the service learning experiences of specific populations, including underrepresented students (Song, Furco, Lopez, & Maruyama, 2017), students with disabilities (Woodruff & Sinelnikov, 2014), and indigenous communities (Bartleet, Sunderland, & Carfoot, 2016). The research is also taking a closer look at particular approaches to service learning, such as international service learning (Bringle, Hatcher, & Jones, 2011), critical service learning (Mitchell, 2008), and e-service learning (Strait & Nordyke, 2015; Waldner, Widener, & McGorry, 2012). In sum, the quality of the research continues to improve as new perspectives on the study and practice continue to mature and advance across more diverse communities and global contexts. To a great extent, the early years’ goal of securing more and better research is being realized. As we look to the future, the research lessons learned from the past and the body of research that has been produced provide a solid foundation for guiding the next phase of service learning’s development.

Looking to the Future: Field-Building Research in Global Contexts As broader frames for research are incorporated into the current service learning research agenda, it is important to remember that such frames reflect a field that now has a body of literature and a body of evidence on which to build further study and practice. Critical questions about service learning can be pursued because, to a great extent, service learning has secured academic legitimacy and general acceptance within educational systems in the United States. Service learning is now recognized and valued as a “high-impact practice” (Kuh & Schneider, 2008) and is an approach that has higher perceptions of gains in learning among students than other high-impact practices (Finley & McNair, 2013). However, as the practice of service learning continues to expand globally, we must keep in mind that in many other countries, the value, legitimacy, and broader acceptance of service learning has not yet been realized, and therefore, particular and different kinds of research will be needed within different national contexts. In countries and regions such as Germany, Hong Kong, and Eastern Europe, empirical evidence that supports the educational value of service learning is likely to go a long way to help build and advance the field in those areas. In other parts of the globe, such as Latin America and Africa, research that is informed by community partners and indigenous knowledge is likely to be most influential in furthering service learning’s advancement. In

Book.indb 105

03-10-2019 12:27:00

106  

sharing pathways and perspectives

light of the diverse approaches to service learning that are developing across the globe, the service learning research agenda is likely to raise interesting debates about which kinds of research should be advanced and supported and which types of research qualify as evidence of impact and quality. Our conferences and networks should embrace these debates and provide opportunities to unpack and explore the issues that undergird them. Today’s researchers, especially those whose positionality is rooted in Northern and/or Western perspectives, would benefit from immersion in new service learning and community engagement contexts. Attending and presenting at some of the national service learning conferences in other countries has been immensely informative. At various events based outside the United States, I have received valuable, constructive feedback on survey language and concerns about how service learning is being conceptualized in a particular study. For example, at conferences in Hong Kong and Argentina, I presented a draft of a tool that our research team at the University of Minnesota is currently developing (Service Learning Quality Assessment Tool). The instrument, which comprises 27 best-practice elements of highquality service learning, is designed to provide a quantitative score that indicates the overall quality of a credit-bearing, academic, service learning course. The instrument has weighted scores for each best-practice element, and it was interesting to learn which elements researchers and practitioners in the different parts of the world recommend should be weighted more or less. While colleagues from Hong Kong believed that the instrument’s curricular and student-experience components should be weighted more highly, colleagues from Argentina recommended giving the community-partnership and community components greater weights. Engaging in these kinds of cross-cultural conversations has informed and enriched my research in many ways. These conversations have not only deepened my understanding of the many different layers of service learning but also given me a greater appreciation of the multifaceted and complex nature of conducting service learning research and practice within and across different cultural, national, and community contexts. These experiences have also immersed me in understanding new research methods and have expanded my views on research epistemology. For example, from my work in South America, I have learned the value and importance of building affinity with community partners before engaging them in any type of research activity. Relationships within the Latin American culture are rooted in the values of camaraderie, solidarity, national pride, and a sense of community. There is a pervasive sense of working together and neighborliness. Therefore, maintaining distance and an objective stance as a researcher may actually make it more difficult to conduct

Book.indb 106

03-10-2019 12:27:00

meeting the challenges of service learning  

107

research, given that some Latin Americans may view that distance as disrespectful. In such a culture, building a genuine relationship with members of the community and having them welcome you as a part of the community are essential for establishing the trust and respect that will help secure members’ full participation in the research study. In my experience conducting research in Latin America, informally sharing information over food, drink, and cultural experiences has provided richer research data than conducting formalized research interviews or survey administrations. While such informal exchanges go against the norms of systematic, scientific inquiry, they adhere to the cultural norms of particular communities and facilitate the flow of information. In contrast, in other cultural settings (e.g., certain Asian cultures), such informal, familial exchanges might be viewed as unacceptable and disrespectful. Therefore, service learning researchers need to calibrate their approach to research to align with the particular cultural values and norms of the community. Understanding a community’s cultural norms and preferred ways of knowing can prove helpful in securing more robust data and advancing the overall quality of service learning research.

Conclusion Over the last 30 years, the study and practice of service learning have come a long way. The depth and breadth of service learning practice have expanded within and across national, cultural, religious, and political boundaries, resulting in a complex array of service learning research agendas, expectations, methodologies, and focuses. Whereas external criticisms of the quality of the service learning research dominated the discourse throughout the early years, internal debates and criticisms have emerged regarding which epistemological and methodological approaches the service learning field should embrace and support. This internal debate demonstrates a maturing of the field, and it brings to the fore the diversity of perspectives through which researchers and practitioners now approach the study and practice of service learning. The experiences and lessons learned over the years regarding the importance of securing both external and internal legitimacy can be useful, as we consider what kinds of research are needed to build the service learning field in particular cultural or national contexts. As we incorporate expanded methodologies, epistemologies, and designs in service learning research and practice and build upon prior research, we should consider carefully which aspects of the extant research are appropriate and which aspects are not appropriate to guide new studies. We also need to consider whether the findings from

Book.indb 107

03-10-2019 12:27:01

108  

sharing pathways and perspectives

studies of service learning programs developed with Northern and Western perspectives are generalizable to service learning situated in Southern and Eastern contexts. The growing popularity of service learning and community engagement in the United States and abroad offers a ripe opportunity to conduct new kinds of cutting-edge research that will bring broader understanding of this multifaceted phenomenon we call service learning. By building on previous studies and adapting them to new contexts, we can continue to produce field-building research that furthers the quality and impact of service learning research and practice across the globe.

References Bailis, L. & Melchior, A. (2003). Practical issues in the conduct of large-scale, multisite research and evaluation. In S. Billig & A. Waterman (Eds.), Studying servicelearning: Innovations in education research methodology (pp. 125–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bartleet, B. L., Bennett, D., Power, A., & Sunderland, N. (Eds.) (2016). Engaging First Peoples in arts-based service learning: Towards respectful and mutually beneficial educational practices. London, UK: Springer. Bartleet, B. L., Sunderland, N., & Carfoot, G. (2016). Enhancing intercultural engagement through service learning and music making with Indigenous communities in Australia. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(2), 173–191. Billig, S. H. & Furco, A. (2001). Research agenda for K–12 service-learning. In A. Furco & S. Billig (Eds.), Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (pp. 271– 279). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Billig, S. H. & Furco, A. (Eds.) (2002). Advances in service learning: Vol. 2. Service learning through a multidisciplinary lens. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Billig, S. H. & Waterman, A. S. (Eds.) (2003). Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2011). International service learning. In R. Bringle, J. Hatcher, & S. Jones (Eds.), International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 3–28). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. (Eds.). (2011). International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Buchen, I. H. & Fertman, C. I. (1994). Service-learning and the dilemmas of success. NSEE Quarterly, 14–15, 20. Butin, D. W. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizations of service learning within education. Teachers College Record, 105, 1674–1692. Case, S. (2018, July 18). Is service-learning a disservice to philosophy. Quillette. Retrieved from https://quillette.com/2018/07/18/is-service-learning-a-disserviceto-philosophy/ Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of service-learning on students. Journal of Experiential Education, 34(2), 164–181.

Book.indb 108

03-10-2019 12:27:01

meeting the challenges of service learning  

109

Chao, R. C. L., Paiko, L., Zhang, Y. S. D., & Zhao, C. (2017). Service-learning: A training method to enhance multicultural competence toward international students. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(1), 28–42. Cicero-Johns, B. (2016). Higher education administrators’ perspective on service learning (Doctoral dissertation). Marshall University. Conrad, D. E. (1980). Differential impact of experiential learning programs on secondary school students (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota. Conrad, D. E., & Hedin, D. (1981). National assessment of experiential education: Summary and implications. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(2), 6–20. Conrad, D. E., & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experiential education on adolescent development. In D. Conrad & D. Hedin (Eds.), Youth participation and experiential education [Special issue]. Child & Youth Services, 4(3/4), 57–76. Dahan, T. A. (2016). Revisiting pedagogical variations in service-learning and student outcomes. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 4(1), 1–15. Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Pheatt, L., Natow, R. S., & Reddy, V. (2016). Performance funding for higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Eby, J. (1998). Why service-learning is bad. Service Learning, General. Paper 27. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceslgen/27 Egger, J. B. (2007, October 2). Service “learning” reduces learning. Baltimore Examiner. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/a966679~John_B_Egger_Service_ learning_reduces_learning.html Eyler, J. (2002). Stretching to meet the challenge: Improving the quality of research to improve the quality of service-learning. In S. Billig & A. Furco (Eds.), Servicelearning through a multidisciplinary lens: Advances in service-learning research (pp. 3–13). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Eyler, J. & Giles Jr., D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., Giles Jr., D. E., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. L. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 1993–2000 (3rd ed.). Higher Education. Paper 139. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slcehighered/139 Farmer, B. A., Perry, L. G., & Ha, I. S. (2016). University-community engagement and public relations education: A replication and extension of service-learning assessment in the public relations campaigns course. International Journal of Research in Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 4(1), 235–254. Finley, A. & McNair, T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in highimpact practices. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Francis, K., Philliber, S., Walsh-Buhl, E. R., Philliber, A., Seshadri, R., & Daley, E. (2016). Scalability of an evidence-based adolescent pregnancy prevention program: New evidence from 5 cluster-randomized evaluations of the Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of Public Health, 106(S1), S32–S38.

Book.indb 109

03-10-2019 12:27:01

110  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Furco, A. (2003). Issues of definition and program diversity in the study of servicelearning. In S. Billig & A. Waterman (Eds.), Studying service-learning: Innovations in education research methodology (pp. 13–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Furco, A. (2013). Legitimizing community engagement with K–12 schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 88, 622–636. Furco, A. & Billig, S. H. (Eds.). (2001). Advances in service learning: Vol. 1. Service learning: The essence of the pedagogy. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Furco, A., & Billig, S. H. (2002). Establishing norms for scientific inquiry in service learning. In S. Billig & A. Furco (Eds.), Advances in service learning: Vol. 2. Service learning through a multidisciplinary lens (pp. 15–29). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Furco, A., & Holland, B. (2009). Securing administrator support for service-learning institutionalization. In J. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.), The future of service-learning (pp. 52– 64). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Furco, A., White-Jones, D., Huesman, R., & Gorny, L. (2016). Modeling the influence of service-learning on academic sociocultural gains: Findings from a multiinstitutional study. In K. Soria & T. Mitchell (Eds.), Civic engagement and community service at research universities. Engaging undergraduates for social justice, social change, and responsible citizenship (pp. 143–163). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Giles Jr., D. E. & Eyler, J. (1998). A service-learning research agenda for the next five years. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 65–72. Holz, K. B. & Pinnow, E. (2015). Self-selection effects in service-learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(5), 39–47. Houshmand, S., Spanierman, L. B., Beer, A. M., Poteat, V. P., & Lawson, L. J. (2014). The impact of a service-learning design course on White students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(2), 19–48. Howard, J. P. F. (1998). Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 21–29. International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (2014). Reaffirmation statement. Retrieved from http://www.researchslce .org/reaffirmation-statement/ Kraft, R. J., & Krug, J. (1994). Review of research and evaluation on service learning in public and higher education. Higher Education, Paper 108, 1–13. Kuh, G. D., & Schneider, C. G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has them, and why they matter. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F., & King, D. C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 410–419. Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65.

Book.indb 110

03-10-2019 12:27:01

meeting the challenges of service learning  

111

Murphy, T., & Tan, J. (Eds.) (2012). Service-learning and educating in challenging contexts: International perspectives. London, UK: Continuum International. Ngai, G., Chan, S., & Kwan, K. (2018). Challenge, meaning, interest, and preparation: Critical success factors influencing student learning outcomes from servicelearning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(4), 55–80. Niehaus, E. K., & Garcia, C. E. (2017). Does location really matter? Exploring the role of place in domestic and international service-learning experiences. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 5(1), 99–118. Petri, A. (2015). Service-learning from the perspective of community organizations. Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education, 5, 93–110. Reinders, H. (2016). Service-learning—Theoretische Überlengungen und empirische Studien zu Lernen durch Engagement. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Juventa. Robinson, C., & McCarten, K. (2016). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (4th ed.). London, UK: Wiley & Sons. Siemers, C. K., Harrison, B., Clayton, P. H., & Stanley, T. A. (2015). Engaging place as partner. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 22(1), 101–104. Song, W., Furco, A., Lopez, I., & Maruyama, G. (2017). Examining the relationship between service-learning participation and the educational success of underrepresented students. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24(1), 23–37. Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & Williams, M. J. (2010). Service-learning research primer. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Strait J., & Nordyke, K. J. (Eds.) (2015). eService-Learning: Creating experiential learning and civic engagement through online and hybrid courses. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Thomsen, J. (2014). State policies on service-learning. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Tong, T. W. (2019). Foreword. In D. Shek, G. Ngai, & S. Chan (Eds.), Servicelearning for youth leadership: The case of Hong Kong (pp. v–vii). Singapore: Springer. Waldner, L. S., Widener, M. C., & McGorry, S. Y. (2012). eService learning: The evolution of service-learning to engage a growing online student population. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(2), 123–150. Warren, J. L. (2012). Does service-learning increase student learning?: A metaanalysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18, 56–61. Waterman, A. S. (Ed.) (1997). Service-learning: Applications for the research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. White, A. (2001). Meta-analysis of service-learning research in middle and high schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton. Woodruff, E. A. & Sinelnikov, O. A. (2014). Teaching young adults with disabilities through service learning. European Physical Education Review, 21, 292–308. Yorio, P. L. & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(1), 9–27.

Book.indb 111

03-10-2019 12:27:01

Book.indb 112

03-10-2019 12:27:01

2.5 I N T E G R AT I N G S O C I A L PSYCHOLOGY WITH S E RV I C E L E A R N I N G Robert G. Bringle

M

y doctoral education in experimental social psychology and my subsequent psychological research on relationships had a major role in shaping my service learning research. This chapter illustrates ways in which I draw on my knowledge as a social psychologist and how other researchers can draw on their home disciplines/professions as cognate areas to inform and deepen service learning research.

Early Career: Social Psychology and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Academic jobs were scarce in 1974 when I left graduate school. What I most desired was a position that would balance teaching and research. The department of psychology at IUPUI was in transition from a teaching unit to one that also had, then, modest research expectations for new hires. One year later, John Kremer was hired and we began to collaborate on teaching initiatives in addition to our own programs of research. Together, we were involved in the development, implementation, and evaluation of educational programs directed at talented undergraduate psychology majors (four National Science Foundation grants; Kremer & Bringle, 1990), high school psychology teachers (one National Science Foundation grant; Bringle & Kremer, 1981; Kremer & Bringle, 1981), and the introductory psychology course (several internal grants; Kremer & Bringle, 1994). Thus, even as a pretenure faculty member, and while I was developing a social psychological 113

Book.indb 113

03-10-2019 12:27:01

114  

sharing pathways and perspectives

research program on close relationships and jealousy, we were engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) before the term ever existed. Writing grant proposals, developing logic models for the relationships between interventions and outcomes, thinking through how to assess outcomes, and disseminating the results of this work seemed endemic to approaching those activities in an academic manner with good preparation, clear goals, identifying good methods, examining impact, and disseminating results (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997). When I arrived at IUPUI, there were no laboratories, so I transitioned to conducting most of my research with questionnaires. Social psychology supplies excellent background in theory, statistics, measurement, and research design. During my pretenure years, I received a National Science Foundation grant to develop scales to measure jealousy and other relationship constructs, and I helped develop and taught in an applied social psychology master’s program that was focused on program evaluation. Posttenure, I conducted theory-based research and scholarship on close relationships as well as intelligence, genetic and academic counseling, unrequited love, familial estrangement in adulthood, religion, and aging. All of this work implicated clarifying concepts and constructs (What is the difference between jealousy and envy?) for the sake of measuring constructs and designing research to test theories. During the first half of my career, I had a secondary interest in the social psychology of aging, and John Kremer and I received a grant from the National Council on Aging in 1980 that was part of a National Demonstration Project on Intergenerational Service-Learning. Kremer was teaching a seminar on adulthood and aging, which involved an inter­ generational experiential component, either short-term interactions with an elderly person or students who were paired with senior companions to visit home-bound elderly. Because we had a grant, we built evaluation of the educational experience into the grant activities. This research included several elements that have been themes to the approach I often used in subsequent service learning research: (a) a pretest, posttest design as an index of change in participants over time; (b) a comparison group (students from a social psychology course that did not involve content on aging or visitations); (c) multiple scales to detect different outcomes; and (d) data were collected from the students as well as the senior companions and the home-bound elderly persons who were visited (Bringle & Kremer, 1993). Aside from the formal program evaluation, we knew that the service learning experience was the most powerful teaching experience we had ever encountered for us as instructors and for the students, whose lives were changed by the experience.

Book.indb 114

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

115

Something else is embedded in this project’s description: The grant activities were conducted from 1980 to 1981; a paper was presented in 1984 at the Association for Gerontology; and the journal article was published in 1993. That time between data collection and publication is not ideal, but it can easily happen in academic life. The simplest explanation for the lag was that my life was complicated by teaching in Malaysia from 1987 to 1988, and other activities dominated my professional work in the early 1990s. These other activities included restructuring an introductory psychology course that enrolled more than 1,000 students each semester. However, the lag time also illustrates the importance of persistence, a theme on which my whole career has been contingent. Conducting research and publishing sounds attractive, but it is also mundane, frustrating, time-consuming, and arduous. I have become convinced that persistence matters more than intelligence, although good judgment contributes to the process, which includes choices on distributing time to tasks and balancing work and one’s personal life.

Midcareer: Service Learning and Civic Engagement At midcareer, I had kind of done my basic research faculty thing (although that social psychological research has continued across my entire career), and I was looking for something that involved me more in the community. I had successfully avoided several opportunities to become chair of the department of psychology because I was not particularly interested in that form of administrative work. As I learned more about the IUPUI plan to integrate service into academic study, I decided that I was interested in being involved administratively by helping faculty develop service learning courses and support community engagement. Joining Julie A. Hatcher in our new Office of Service Learning (now the IUPUI Center for Service and Learning) allowed me to have an indirect impact on the community and community involvement by enhancing civic engagement at IUPUI through advocating for service learning. In my letter of application for the director’s position I mentioned that I would have a very academic orientation to service learning, which would include scholarship and research. And so I joined Hatcher, who had begun IUPUI’s service learning initiative several months earlier. Our chief academic officer, William Plater, encouraged us from the beginning to present and publish our work (Bringle, Hatcher, & Holland, 2007). Our early articles focused on early institutional steps at IUPUI. First, an article on faculty development (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995), which was followed with subsequent articles on faculty development (Bringle et al., 2000;

Book.indb 115

03-10-2019 12:27:01

116  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Bringle, Hatcher, & Clayton, 2006; Bringle, Hatcher, Jones, & Plater, 2006; Bringle, Jones, & Pike, 2009; Jameson, Clayton, Jaeger, & Bringle, 2012). Our second publication included the Comprehensive Action Plan for Service Learning (CAPSL) that provides a framework for staging the work of an office of service learning and strategic planning (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). CAPSL was important not only operationally (e.g., what should we focus on in the next year? The next five years?) but also for delineating activities focused on the four central constituencies in the work: institution, faculty, student, and communities. CAPSL included our institutional definition of service learning, a definition that has been widely used. CAPSL also resulted in a research study on institutionalization (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000a). A third publication resulted from our review of service learning course development minigrant proposals from IUPUI faculty. We noted that reflection was a weak component of every proposal. We then asked ourselves “What is good reflection?” That resulted in us developing criteria for good reflection: links activities to learning objectives, is structured, occurs regularly, provides a basis for feedback, allows exploration of values (Bringle & Hatcher, 1999; Hatcher & Bringle, 1997) and subsequent research on reflection (Hatcher, Bringle, & Muthiah, 2004). As a final example of how our early work contributed to our scholarship and research, Hatcher and I had been regularly using the phrase “educationally meaningful service” in our explanations about the nature of service learning. We then asked ourselves and our staff “What does this mean?” We spent multiple staff retreats coming up with the critical common elements of the civic learning domain that cut across our center’s curricular and cocurricular programs. This resulted in the civic-minded graduate (CMG) conceptual framework (Bringle & Steinberg, 2010; Bringle et al., 2011) and subsequent research to support the validity of CMG (Bringle, Hahn, & Hatcher, 2018; Bringle & Wall, 2018; Steinberg, Hatcher, & Bringle, 2011). Several lessons are embedded in the narrative about this phase of research on service learning. First, institutional context matters. Not all campuses are equally receptive or supportive. IUPUI is exceptional in its institutional investment in and capacity to support and recognize SoTL and civic engagement (Bringle et al., 2000; Bringle, Hatcher, Jones, & Plater, 2006). Second, collaboration has been central to my early work on SoTL (with John Kremer) as well as service learning and civic engagement (primarily with Julie Hatcher and Patti Clayton). Only about 10% of my publications across my career have been authored solo. Hatcher and I formed a remarkably symbiotic relationship that always improved the quality of the work. Collaborators can contribute theoretical perspectives, technical assistance (e.g., psychometric, statistical), or simply good critical thinking, and all parties will grow as a

Book.indb 116

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

117

result. For example, our first two publications were Bringle and Hatcher (1995) and Bringle and Hatcher (1996). Then there was Hatcher and Bringle (1997), followed by Hatcher (1997). Hatcher, who had not previously published a journal article, grew into an exemplary scholar and researcher on service learning and civic engagement. Find (good) collaborators to improve your research! An additional collaborator in our work, including our research and scholarship, was Indiana Campus Compact (ICC). We received ICC grants for projects focused on service learning and retention (an important issue to the funder, ICC member presidents, and IUPUI; Bringle, Hatcher, & Muthiah, 2010), an expansive examination of the potential for civic engagement in higher education (What are the “implications of Boyer’s vision for the scholarship of engagement?” [Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999, p. 15]), measurement tools and resources for research (Bringle, Phillips, & Hudson, 2004), and a statewide survey of public perceptions of civic engagement (Bringle & Plater, 2008). Third, this body of scholarship and research demonstrates how we often published conceptual pieces as building blocks for subsequent empirical research. This reflects the importance of good preparation and conceptual clarity to develop research. Fourth, feedback we received about proposed work and preliminary results in presentations at professional conferences was important to the development of publications. We view presentations and conversations with other professionals as a critical element of the evolution of our research. Fifth, these descriptions provide examples for how our practice—administering programs—influenced our research. Challenges and issues we faced (e.g., definitions, institutional development, course quality, institutional assessment, student retention, faculty development) resulted in careful analysis that developed an enhanced understanding of what we were doing and guided subsequent scholarship and research (i.e., data collection). Sixth, this work has expanded my analysis of issues by compelling me to learn about other areas of theory and research (e.g., psychology of learning, literature on retention in higher education, organizational theories related to institutional change in higher education, SoTL research, the history of higher education). Be ready to leave your comfort zone and to become a learner when you embark on service learning research. Seventh, I had a penchant for working on underresearched topics. There were almost no previous research studies on jealousy, unrequited love, and adult-child estrangement when I initiated those research projects. The same pattern is reflected in our research on service learning. There are still many opportunities for service learning researchers to identify niches

Book.indb 117

03-10-2019 12:27:01

118  

sharing pathways and perspectives

in which they can break new ground. The research agendas presented in the previous four volumes in the IUPUI Service Learning Research series (Bringle, Hatcher, & Jones, 2011; Clayton, Bringle, & Hatcher 2013a, 2013b; Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2017) identified cutting-edge opportunities for research. Finally, IUPUI has offered for over a decade the IUPUI Research Academy to help those interested in conducting service learning research to expand their knowledge of research design, measurement, theory, and practical steps for conducting research. The Research Academy was modeled after IUPUI Boyer’s Scholars program, a year-long learning community for IUPUI faculty who wanted to conduct research on service learning. We adapted this approach to a three-day event hosted on the IUPUI campus each May. Learning communities are integral to the design of the Research Academy. Forming a learning community on service learning research is another form of collaboration to consider either within your department/ school, on your campus, with other nearby campuses, or virtually with those who have similar interests. It does not have to be a formal learning community, but it can be a useful way of sharing ideas and resources, and it may develop into ­multicourse, multi-institutional research.

Social Psychology and Service Learning Research My disciplinary field of social psychology has provided a strong foundation for all my research (i.e., theoretical, conceptual, measurement, design). Edward Zlotkowski (2000) stimulated connections between a discipline/profession and service learning for many practitioners through the monograph series, American Association of Higher Education Series on Service-Learning in the Disciplines, including for me (Bringle & Duffy, 1998; Bringle & Velo, 1998). This was followed with a more extensive analysis of the role that service learning can play in achieving all of the goals of an undergraduate psychology major delineated by the American Psychological Association, including concrete examples of reflection in many psychology courses using the Describe, Examine, and Articulate Learning (DEAL) model (Ash & Clayton, 2009), assessment strategies, faculty development activities, and enhancement of the engaged psychology department (Bringle, Reeb, Brown, & Ruiz, 2016; Bringle, Reeb, et al., 2016). Two books related to service learning have been published by the American Psychological Association (Bringle et al., 2004; Bringle, Ruiz, et al., 2016). I was thus achieving integration across not only teaching, research, and service as executive director of IUPUI’s CSL but also of that work with my disciplinary roots.

Book.indb 118

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

119

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people perceive social environments and relate to one another. Topics of research include social perception and cognition, attitudes and persuasion, prejudice and discrimination, interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup behavior, and prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social psychological theory has only a very small presence in service learning research, in spite of the richness of connections of those theories to the design, implementation, and evaluation of service learning experiences. Previous social psychological analyses of service learning have focused on interpersonal relationships (Bringle & Clayton, 2013; Bringle & Hatcher, 2002); attitudes, cognition, and behavior (e.g., Bringle, 2005; Bringle, Clayton, & Bringle, 2015); intergroup contact theory (Bringle, 2005; Erickson & O’Connor, 2000); analyses of attributions by those serving and those being served (Bringle & Velo, 1998); Nadler’s theory of intergroup social dominance (Brown, 2011a; 2011b; Brown, Wymer, & Cooper, 2016); and an exploration of research based on motivation, emotion and mood, self and civic identity, and attitudes (Bringle, 2017). These only scratch the surface for how social psychological theory and research can contribute to future research. If you want to strengthen your service learning research, collaborate with a social psychologist. Although Bringle and Hatcher (1996), which presented CAPSL, is probably my most cited publication, the area of work that I have enjoyed most has been the merger of my research on relationships from the first half of my career with my work on service learning and civic engagement. In Bringle and Hatcher (2002), we took some of the theories (e.g., exchange theory), concepts (e.g., Waller’s principle of least interest), and research from the relationships literature (e.g., the findings on the nature of closeness in relationships) and applied them to analyze the formation, maintenance, and dissolution of community-campus relationships in service learning and civic engagement. That was a fun article to write. Subsequently, we developed the SOFAR model to detail relationships beyond the community-campus partnership and to differentiate relationships from partnerships, which is a constant source of confusion in the literature (Bringle, Clayton, & Price, 2009). SOFAR built on CAPSL by splitting community into nonprofit organizational staff (O) and residents/clients (R), and splitting university into faculty (F), students (S), and administrators and support staff (A). It then mapped the relationships among these five constituencies. That article was followed by an analysis of a partnership network that was based on IUPUI’s 20-year partnership with a community school in a neighborhood adjacent to the IUPUI campus (Bringle, Officer, Grim, & Hatcher, 2009; Officer et al., 2013). Other work provided a conceptual analysis of the democratic qualities of relationships for developing

Book.indb 119

03-10-2019 12:27:01

120  

sharing pathways and perspectives

democratic civic identity (Bringle, Clayton, & Bringle, 2015) and research on relationships as one-sided, transactional, and transformational (Clayton et al., 2010). This work illustrates, again, how our practice of fostering partnerships for more than 20 years at IUPUI led to conceptual and empirical research on relationships implicated in service learning and civic engagement. In addition, the research on relationships has resulted in developing interventions to improve IUPUI’s relationships with the community in service learning and civic engagement (Bringle, 2011; Price, Clayton, & Bringle, 2016). Furthermore, relationships in service learning are critical to the processes and outcomes to which we all aspire. Inherent in relationships between persons and with other entities (e.g., nonprofit board, city government, neighborhood associations) are multiple issues that need to be better understood, like power, distribution of resources, decision-making, competing values and interests, diversity, and communication (Clayton et al., 2010). Enhancing civic learning is not just about students; it can also be a goal for growth of each constituency in SOFAR and beyond. How the nature and structures of these relationships, including face-toface interactions and dialogue across difference, contribute to civic learning and civic outcomes for all remains an underresearched topic in service learning and civic engagement. The extant literature contains some case studies on partnerships, but too often these case studies fail to place the case within a theoretical context and explicate implications from which others can learn (Bringle & Clayton, 2013). More research, both quantitative and qualitative, is needed that goes beyond parochial case studies and that clarifies an understanding for how relationships contribute to intended and unintended outcomes for all participants in service learning and civic engagement. Some of the potential for social psychological theory to contribute to research on service learning relationships is contained in a research agenda for relationships in service learning (Bringle & Clayton, 2013). We presented research questions that are generated from considering multiple perspectives on relationships (e.g., expectations, differences in values and outcomes), different types of relationships (e.g., short-term versus enduring, transitions in relationships), measurement strategies (e.g., self-report measures, nonverbal measures, focus groups), changes in relationships over time (no change versus progression versus regression), and how the nature of relationships is related to outcomes for different constituencies. Service learning is, at its core, about relationships, and more and better research on relationships is warranted.

Book.indb 120

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

121

Looking Back, Looking Forward My disciplinary foundation in experimental social psychology and experiences in evaluating educational programs have biased me toward quantitative measures (Bringle et al., 2004) and designs (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000b), although we have also promoted good qualitative research (Jones & Foste, 2017; Kiely & Hartman, 2011; Steinberg, Bringle, & McGuire, 2013) and have incorporated qualitative methods in some research (e.g., Steinberg et al., 2011). Elsewhere (Steinberg et al., 2013), we have presented recommendations for improving service learning research. These recommendations were (a) designing theory-based research; (b) carefully clarifying and defining constructs; (c) controlling or accounting for differences among groups; (d) controlling or accounting for selection bias; (e) avoiding overreliance on self-report measures; (f ) using psychometrically defensible measures that have multiple indicators; (g) using multiple methods of measurement and establishing convergence across methods; (h) using research designs that support conclusions; (i) using research designs that support generalization; (j) avoiding overinterpreting results based on the research design; (k) drawing appropriate conclusions based on the research design, particularly with reference to making causal inferences; and (l) considering the implications of the research for teaching and learning in general. I will add to this list of recommendations (m) conducting more frequent longitudinal research (Hill, Pasquesi, Bowman, & Brandenberger, 2017). In addition, I would suggest that laboratory experiments, which are the most powerful way to test and refine theories, can supplement other forms of research for clarifying theories and the dynamics between constructs implicated in service learning (e.g., Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999). Not one of my research studies satisfies all of these criteria. I present them as aspirational criteria against which to compare research studies as they are being designed. Andy Furco, Sherril Gelmon, Barbara Holland, and I did presentations at IARSLCE in which we each took one of our recent research studies, presented it, and then critically analyzed what we had done and how we could have improved it (Gelmon, Furco, Holland, & Bringle, 2005). Self-reflection is important for a researcher to identify ways to improve a particular research study as well as a program of research. There are lots of ways I know I can improve on and build on my research, and I hope to see others do that in the future. You cannot do everything that you want to do and study all aspects of a research question in a single study. That is the advantage of planning a program of research across your career.

Book.indb 121

03-10-2019 12:27:01

122  

sharing pathways and perspectives

In both my psychological research on relationships and my research on service learning, I have used primarily self-report measures. On the one hand, I endorse self-report measures as being phenomenologically meaningful, particularly when they converge with other forms of evidence. On the other hand, self-report measures may suffer from social desirability response set, inaccuracies, not reflecting processes that determined outcomes, and being based on inaccurate or biased memories (Kolek, 2013; Steinberg, Bringle, & Williams, 2010). Self-assessments of skill, character, and learning may be particularly flawed (Bowman & Seifert, 2011; Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). Our chief academic officer, William Plater, posed two questions that challenged our reliance on self-report measures: “What are the knowledge and skills that result from service learning?” and “Wouldn’t it be nice if every graduate of IUPUI (e.g., accountants, engineers, physicians, dentists, lawyers, undergraduates) wrote an exit narrative about the relationship of their IUPUI education to their future civic lives?” I knew that any work on either of these would not be addressed with self-report measures that had strongly agree–strongly disagree response formats. Rather, they would focus our attention on authentic, direct measures. Our response to this has been a fledgling one. Our work on the CMG was based, in part, as a response to his challenges, particularly the CMG narrative prompt and rubric. Furthermore, Clayton’s DEAL model for reflection (Ash & Clayton, 2009) provides the best available method for obtaining and evaluating authentic, direct evidence tied to specific learning objective, even institutional ones. Plater’s challenges demonstrate at a high level the interplay between practice and research and how each can contribute to the other. They also present an important perspective from which to consider how assessment and research can be useful to service learning courses, programs, institutions, and the field. I hope that others will incorporate more authentic, direct evidence of academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth in their research at the level of the assignment, the course, the department, the school, and the campus. For example, we identified the following ways in which an assessment procedure like CMG or other direct evidence on civic learning could be used to contribute to practice: (a) common understanding of and appreciation by the staff of the strengths of individual programs; (b) a delineation of knowledge, skills, and dispositions associated with civically oriented programs; (c) development of assessment procedures (scale, narrative analysis with rubrics, interviews) to evaluate CMG (Steinberg et al., in press [2011]); (d) the capacity to evaluate CSL programs and provide feedback to coordinators for program improvements; (e) a framework for enhancing civic learning in service-learning

Book.indb 122

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

123

courses by more intentionally designing course activities in terms of CMG elements; (f ) a procedure for obtaining institutional assessment of students’ civic outcomes across majors; (g) a way of communicating and discussing civic learning outcomes with various internal and external audiences; (h) a means for conducting research associated with civic growth that can evaluate components of developmental models as programmatic or mediating variables; (i) thinking and planning more intentionally and coherently about civic development; and (j) deepening partnerships with and contributions to the community. (Bringle et al., 2011, p. 22)

Transforming these program-oriented uses of good assessment on practice into evidence that can answer compelling research questions about the power of service learning should be a high priority for the field.

Conclusion Two themes that have been dominant in my journey as an academic have been persistence and integration. Each of these has been evident in my institutional approach to developing faculty involvement in service learning and research on service learning. The goal for CSL’s faculty development has been to help professionals develop a passion for their civic engagement, to identify a broader meaning for their work, and to see transitions as opportunities for exploring new facets of their work. The “north star” for CSL’s faculty development is the complete and connected scholar. Eugene Rice, when at the American Association for Higher Education, put forth the goal of the complete and connected scholar, based in part on Ernest Boyer’s (1990) foundational reexamination of the professoriate. By complete, Rice meant having “a sense of the way in which different forms of scholarly work interrelate and enrich one another” (Rice, 1996, p. 22). Rice goes on to note, The notion of the complete scholar becomes a career objective that unfolds over a lifetime of scholarly work. Faculty would have the opportunity to grow and change over time, being basically competent in, and committed to, a broader conception of scholarly work. (p. 22)

The aspiration of being complete reflects balance and integration across IUPUI’s complete mission: teaching, research, and civic engagement. A “connected” scholar engages in “scholarly work that would provide interactive connection with students, the larger community, and the central mission of one’s institution” (p. 23). Becoming a complete and connected scholar offers an important aspiration for professionals to reflect on as they examine their career path and a basis against which to evaluate subsequent choices.

Book.indb 123

03-10-2019 12:27:01

124  

sharing pathways and perspectives

What I now realize and retrospectively appreciate about the shift in my work to service learning is how conducting research on service learning enhanced the integration of my work across teaching, research, and service (or, if you prefer, across discovery, communication, application, and integration [Boyer, 1990]). It also illustrates the aggregation of experiences across time, opportunities, and tasks, through persistence that was shaped by purpose. How can your next day, your next semester, or your next transition provide opportunities for you to explore becoming a more complete and a connected scholar?

References Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection for applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1, 25–48. Bowman, N. A., & Seifert, T. A. (2011). Can college students accurately assess what affects their learning and development? Journal of College Student Development, 52, 270–290. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bringle, R. G. (2005). Designing interventions to promote civic engagement. In A. Omoto (Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 167–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bringle, R. G. (2011, May). Partnerships in civic engagement activities. Faculty workshop at Colorado University–Boulder, Boulder, CO. Bringle, R. G. (2017). Social psychology and civic outcomes. In J. Hatcher, R. Bringle, & T. Hahn (Eds.), Research on service learning and student civic outcomes (pp. 69–89). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2013). Conceptual frameworks for partnerships in service learning. In P. Clayton, R. Bringle, & J. Hatcher (Eds.). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2B. Communities, institutions, and partnerships (pp. 539–571). Arlington, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., & Bringle, K. E. (2015). Teaching democratic thinking is not enough: The case for democratic action. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement, 6(1), 1–26. Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., & Price, M. F. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1–20. Bringle, R. G., & Duffy, D. K. (Eds.). (1998). With service in mind: Concepts and models for service-learning in psychology. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Book.indb 124

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

125

Bringle, R. G., Games, R., Ludlum, C., Osgood, R., & Osborne, R. (2000). Faculty Fellows Program: Enhancing integrated professional development through community service. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 882–894. Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, E. A. (Eds.) (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bringle, R. G., Hahn, T. W., & Hatcher, J. A. (2018). Civic-minded graduate: Additional evidence II. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112–122. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221–239. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning of experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179–185. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000a). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 273–290. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000b). Meaningful measurement of theory-based service-learning outcomes: Making the case with quantitative research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 68–75. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). University-community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 503–516. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Clayton, P. H. (2006). The scholarship of civic engagement: Defining, documenting, and evaluating faculty work. To Improve the Academy, 25, 257–279. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Holland, B. (2007). Conceptualizing civic engagement: Orchestrating change at a metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities, 18(3), 57–74. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Jones, S. G. (Eds.). (2011). International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., Jones, S., & Plater, W. M. (2006). Sustaining civic engagement: Faculty development, roles, and rewards. Metropolitan Universities, 17(1), 62–74. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R. (2010). The role of service-learning on retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 38–49. Bringle, R. G., Jones, S. G., & Pike, G. (2009). Faculty perceptions of civic engagement and service learning. In M. Moore & P. Lin (Eds.), Service-learning in higher education: Paradigms and challenges (pp. 17–27). Indianapolis, IN: University of Indianapolis Press. Bringle, R. G., & Kremer, J. F. (1981). Adulthood and old age. In Understanding psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 243–263). New York, NY: Random House. Bringle, R. G., & Kremer, J. F. (1993). An evaluation of an intergenerational servicelearning project for undergraduates. Educational Gerontology, 19, 407–416.

Book.indb 125

03-10-2019 12:27:01

126  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Bringle, R. G., Officer, S., Grim, J., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). George Washington Community High School: Analysis of a partnership network. In I. Harkavy & M. Hartley (Eds.), New directions in youth development (pp. 41–60). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bringle, R. G., & Plater, W. M. (2008). The public purposes of higher education: What does the public think? Metropolitan Universities, 19(3), 25–40. Bringle, R. G., Reeb, R., Brown, M. A., & Ruiz, A. (2016). Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Bringle, R. G., Ruiz, A., Brown, M. A., & Reeb, R. (2016). Enhancing the psychology curriculum through service learning. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 1–16. Bringle, R. G., & Steinberg, K. (2010). Educating for informed community involvement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46, 428–441. Bringle, R. G., Studer, M. H., Wilson, J., Clayton, P. H., & Steinberg, K. (2011). Designing programs with a purpose: To promote civic engagement for life. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(2), 149–164. Bringle, R. G., & Velo, P. M. (1998). Attributions about misery. In R. Bringle & D. Duffy (Eds.), With service in mind: Concepts and models for service-learning in psychology (pp. 51–67). Washington DC: American Association for Higher ­Education. Bringle, R. G., & Wall, E. (2018). Civic-minded graduate: Additional evidence. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN. Brown, M. A. (2011a). The power of generosity to change views on social power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1285–1290. Brown, M. A. (2011b). Learning from service: The effect of helping on helpers’ social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 850–871. Brown, M. A., Wymer, J. D., & Cooper, C. S. (2016). The counternormative effects of service-learning: Fostering attitudes toward social equality through contact and autonomy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1), 37–44. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013a). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2A. Students and faculty. Arlington, VA: Stylus. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (Eds.). (2013b). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2B. Communities, institutions, and partnerships. Arlington, VA: Stylus. Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., Senor, B., Huq, J., & Morrison, M. (2010). Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitive, transactional, and transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 5–21.

Book.indb 126

03-10-2019 12:27:01

integrating social psychology with service learning 

127

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69–106. Erickson, J. A., & O’Connor S. E. (2000). Service-learning: Does it promote or reduce prejudice? In C. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service-learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 59–70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gelmon, S., Furco, A., Holland, B., & Bringle, R. G. (2005, November). Beyond anecdote: Challenges in bringing rigor to service-learning research. Panel presented at the 5th Annual International K–H Service-Learning Research Conference, East Lansing, MI. Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hatcher, J. A. (1997). The moral dimensions of John Dewey’s philosophy: Implication for service learning in undergraduate education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 22–29. Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. Journal of College Teaching, 45, 153–158. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Hahn, T. W. (Eds.). (2017). Research on service learning and student civic outcomes: Conceptual frameworks and methods. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Muthiah, R. (2004). Designing effective reflection: What matters to service learning? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 38–46. Hill, P. L., Pasquesi, K., Bowman, N. A., & Brandenberger, J. W. (2017). Longitudinal research and student civic outcomes. In J. Hatcher, R. Bringle, & T. Hahn (Eds.), Research on student civic outcomes in service learning: Conceptual frameworks and methods (pp. 283–302). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Jameson, J. K., Clayton, P. H., Jaeger, A. J., & Bringle, R. G. (2012). Investigating faculty learning in the context of community-engaged scholarship. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(2), 40–55. Jones, S. R., & Foste, Z. (2017). Qualitative research on service learning and student civic outcomes. In J. Hatcher, R. Bringle, & T. Hahn (Eds.), Research on student civic outcomes in service learning: Conceptual frameworks and methods (pp. 241–260). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Kiely, R., & Hartman, E. (2011). Qualitative research methodology and international service learning. In R. Bringle, J. Hatcher, & S. Jones, (Eds.). International service learning: Conceptual frameworks and research (pp. 291–318). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Kolek, E. A. (2013). Can we count on counting? An analysis of the validity of community engagement survey measures. The International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 1, 92–108. Kremer, J. F., & Bringle, R. G. (1981). Stress and conflict. In Understanding psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 317–339). New York, NY: Random House.

Book.indb 127

03-10-2019 12:27:01

128  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Kremer, J. F., & Bringle, R. G. (1990). The effects of an intensive research experience on the careers of talented undergraduates. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 24, 1–5. Kremer, J. F., & Bringle, R. G. (1994, July). Enhancing the large, introductory (psychology) course: Structure, instruction, evaluation. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Improving University Teaching, College Park, MD. Officer, S., Grim, J., Medina, M., Foreman, A., & Bringle, R. G. (2013). Strengthening community schools through university partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 88, 564–577. Price, M. F., Clayton, P. C., & Bringle, R. G. (2016, September). To walk the talk we must crawl first: Tools to strengthen democratically-engaged dimensions of community–university partnerships. Preconference Workshop, Annual Conference of the International Association for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement, New Orleans. Rice, R. E. (1996, January). Making a place for the new American scholar. Paper presented at the AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards, Atlanta, GA. Steinberg, K., Bringle, R. G., & McGuire, L. E. (2013). Attributes of quality research in service learning. In P. Clayton, R. Bringle, & J. Hatcher (Eds.). Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2A. Students and faculty (pp. 27–53). Arlington, VA: Stylus. Steinberg, K. S., Bringle, R. G., & Williams, M. J. (2010). Service learning research primer. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. Steinberg, K, Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). A north star: Civic-minded graduate. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(1),19–33. Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 59–64. Zlotkowski, E. (2000, Fall). Service-learning in the disciplines. Strategic directions for service-learning research [Special issue]. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 61–67.

Book.indb 128

03-10-2019 12:27:01

2.6 BUILDING AND BRIDGING Reflections of an Engaged Scholar Lorilee R. Sandmann

I

grew up, often on site, at my father’s residential and commercial construction projects. I marveled at the time-lapse process of going from a flat blueprint to a deep foundation, critical support scaffolding, walls and roof enclosures, fine finishing touches, and finally a structure where generations would live their multidimensional lives. I saw how each structure was a creative adaptation realized by taking basic plans and customizing them for particular needs. I observed how multiple specialized skilled tradespersons and subcontractors were necessary to design and complete each structure. I grew up with building in my bones! That background became a metaphor for my evolving agenda as an engaged scholar through roles as a field educator/practitioner, administrator, and academic. I have built foundations on a practice-informed ­scholarly agenda around the conceptualization of engagement by scaffolding the processes involved in institutionalizing community engagement and ­community-engaged scholarship. I have worked collectively with others, including community leaders, faculty, students, and organizational partners. I did so as a boundary spanner and a builder of bridges—bridges across ­disciplines; between theory and praxis; across the functions and roles of teaching, research, and service; and among higher education institutional types and their partnerships. This bridging started early in my professional career, because working across and between was inherent in my job as a field-based and campusbased university extension educator and administrator for the Cooperative Extension Service. By tradition, extension’s mission involves holding a responsive, nonpolitical stance and providing information intended to 129

Book.indb 129

03-10-2019 12:27:01

130  

sharing pathways and perspectives

embody disinterested objectivity (Peters, 2010). However, I could see that the wicked problems I was encountering (Camillus, 2008; Rittel & Webber, 1973) called for a different approach. As Schön (1987) described, In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground overlooking a swamp. On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the application of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowland, messy, confusing problems defy technical solutions. . . . [I]n the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern. (p. 3)

Those communities, courses, and campuses with which I worked as an educator, administrator, researcher, and editor were rich, challenging, fertile sites of interactive inquiry. Even as they posed problems, issues, and questions, they also offered diverse, talented collaborators. I developed into a dual role of professional and scholar, my work simultaneously embracing practice and the study of it. Peters’s (2010) characterization of the action researcher/ public scholar/educational organizer aptly described the stance I developed throughout my four-decade career.

Theoretical and Practical Foundations The scholarly agenda that emerged across my career was informed by the sociopolitical and religious context of my formative years and a resultant social justice activist orientation. This was accompanied by an early exposure to the Deweyian progressive pragmatism educational philosophy and adult education principles of learning by doing, learning in context, and reflective practice (Dewey, 1916, 1938). My undergraduate and graduate education involved the inherently interdisciplinary studies of family and consumer science (formerly known as home economics) and adult learning and programming. My grounding in education, leadership, and organizational theory was integrated across these fields. Transcending these areas of study was an ecological/systems perspective and social science research viewpoint. The nesting of these theoretical foundations as depicted in Figure 2.6.1 reflects a transdisciplinary understanding of and approach to community engagement. These foundational theoretical perspectives and philosophical orientations interacted with my multitrack professional career, which consisted of (a) my work as an educator practitioner (i.e., community, campus, formal, nonformal); my work as program and institutional manager and executive leader (unit, statewide, system-wide); and my work as an academic

Book.indb 130

03-10-2019 12:27:01

building and bridging  

131

Figure 2.6.1  Theoretical foundations for community engagement. Ecological systems perspective Social science research Education Leadership Organizational theory

Family and consumer sciences Adult learning and programming

professional and tenure-track faculty member (full professor with graduate faculty status); and editor, as well as (b) the concurrent study of my work and my varied roles. Having such rich practice settings provoked many questions about how things worked—by whom, what they did, why, and to what end. Being a “reflective practitioner” (Schön, 1987, p. xi) informed my research topics and methodologies while the theories also informed my practice. As with most major construction or developmental processes, this dual trajectory of practice and research was fraught with critical tensions. Especially poignant was the pull to be responsive to community-based issues while managing other role demands. I also faced the challenges of educating colleagues and graduate students about the nature of authentic engagement and how it was a form of scholarship relevant to adult, continuing, and higher education; ensuring the rigor of the scholarship; and providing evidence of the value and contribution of the scholarship through dissemination modalities, conventional and unconventional, that met the standards of research-extensive universities. I addressed these challenges by integrating the roles of engaged scholar and practitioner/administrator/academic throughout my career. Coming from similar professional practice-based fields, I was inspired by others modeling this integrated scholarly orientation. Two deserve special mention: Michael Quinn Patton and James C. Votruba. Patton is an evaluator, a scholar, a prolific writer, and a gifted educator—the embodiment of those who research and also engage in practice. He is considered a pioneering theorist in program evaluation. A former colleague at the

Book.indb 131

03-10-2019 12:27:02

132  

sharing pathways and perspectives

University of Minnesota, he ingrained and demonstrated an appreciation for utilization-focused (Patton, 2008) and developmental evaluation (Patton, 2011), approaches that build the capacities of individuals, organizations, and nations through an intentional collaboration of generating knowledge that is then used thoughtfully and strategically to inform practices and policies. As director of university outreach for Michigan State University (MSU), I was on the administrative team headed by then Vice Provost Votruba, who catapulted MSU and the entire field into conceptualizing outreach as scholarship, cutting across the teaching and research missions of a university. Further, with courageous foresight and a large grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, he facilitated a change process to better align the university with the larger social agenda and deeply embed community-engaged scholarship across MSU. His groundbreaking thinking and efforts created a leadership model for institutionalizing and sustaining community engagement (Votruba, 1996). My beliefs and subsequent practices were substantially refined and operationalized through working alongside these two intellectual visionaries. In addition, numerous think tanks (e.g., the National Forum for the Public Good, Wingspread Conferences), professional networks (e.g., for extensionists, for continuing and adult educators, for evaluators), and professional and academic associations (e.g., Academy of Community Engagement Scholarship, American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, Association for the Study of Higher Education, Engagement Scholarship Consortium, and International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement) served as important venues for knowledge and experience sharing, field building, and collaborator gatherings. These venues are available to scholars for enriching their scholarly pursuits, and they have enriched my career in ways highlighted in the next section.

Architecture of Practice and Research My career as a practitioner, an administrator, and an academic in adult, continuing, and higher education has been focused on developing knowledge that can help contribute to public issues through the collaboration of communities and institutions of higher education. This area of inquiry, including service learning course development, was often framed more broadly to include both the scholarship of engagement and scholarship on engagement. The area consisted of the following major themes: (a) conceptualizing the theory and practice of the scholarship of engagement; (b) identifying and strengthening major institutional change processes and systems that promote

Book.indb 132

03-10-2019 12:27:02

building and bridging  

133

and institutionalize community engagement in higher education; and (c) building capacity for engaged scholarship with future faculty, current faculty, and higher education administrators. What evolved was an integrated agenda of teaching, research, and service to advance theory about the scholarship of engagement; knowledge about engagement through research, application, and practice; and leadership and service to make higher education more responsive and relevant to the public good. In practice, however, these themes have shifting and permeable boundaries, and Figure 2.6.2 shows how they have served as foci informing professional roles throughout the phases of my scholarly career.

Conceptualization and Intellectual Foundations of the Scholarship of Engagement Over several decades, one focus of my work was contributing to the conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement, starting with some of the field’s formative publications (e.g., Fear & Sandmann, 1995, 2001/2002; Sandmann et al., 2000). I was fortunate to be part of initial work at MSU that led to defining engaged scholarship as well as developing criteria and standards for its planning, implementation, and evaluation. An early result was Points of Distinction (Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach, 1996), for which I was lead author. This document served as a template for MSU and other institutions for planning and evaluating engagement activities. Another important initiative, which I cocreated and codirected with Amy Driscoll, was the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement (initiated in 2001 with W.K. Kellogg Foundation funding), which provided expert external peer review and assessment for faculty dossiers with an engagement emphasis. The most significant impact of the National Review Board for the field has been its use of evaluation criteria appropriate for engaged scholarship. My continuing conceptual inquiry gained an international scope, which led me to apply critical perspectives to the realities of globalization intersecting with local communities (e.g., Sandmann, Kliewer, Kim, & Omerikwa, 2010; Sandmann, Moore, & Quinn, 2012). A standout effort for me was a thematic analysis of 10 years of literature of the scholarship of engagement, represented by the articles published in the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement from 1996 to 2006, to explain the conceptual development of the field (Sandmann, 2008). Using the framework of punctuated equilibrium, a hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by episodes of rapid speciation between periods of little change, the resultant article described the evolution of the term scholarship of engagement, clarified the “definitional anarchy” (Sandmann, 2008, p. 91)

Book.indb 133

03-10-2019 12:27:02

Book.indb 134

03-10-2019 12:27:02

Practitioner

• Conceptualization/ Foundations of Engagement (e.g., Fear, F., & Sandmann, L. R. [1995]. Unpacking the Service Category: Reconceptualizing University Outreach for the 21st Century; Sandmann, L. R. [2008]. Conceptualization of the Scholarship of Engagement in Higher Education: A Strategic Review, 1996–2006; Sandmann, L. R., Furco, A., & Adams, K. R. [2016]. Building the Field of Higher Education Engagement: A 20-Year Retrospective) • Actors, Processes, and Structures Institutionalizing Engagement (e.g., Sandmann, L. R., Thornton, C.H., & Jaeger, A. J. [Eds.], [2009]. Institutionalizing Community Engagement in Higher Education: The First Wave of Carnegie Classified Institutions; Weerts, D., & Sandmann, L. R. [2010]. Community Engagement and Boundary-Spanning Roles at Research Universities)

Administrator

Figure 2.6.2  Relationship of primary professional roles and scholarly agenda

Academic

• Capacity Building for Engaged Scholarship (e.g., Sandmann, L. R. [2006]. Scholarship as Architecture: Framing and Enhancing Community Engagement; Sandmann, L. R. [2009]. Second Generation: Community Engagement Promotion and Tenure Issues and Challenges; Jaeger, A. J., Sandmann, L. R., & Kim, J. [2011]. Advising Graduate Students Doing Community-Engaged Action Research: The Adviser-Advisee Relationship)

building and bridging  

135

surrounding its use, and explored temporal punctuations in the concept’s evolutionary progress in higher education.

Actors, Processes, and Structures That Integrate Engagement Into Higher Education Who are those involved in engagement, what is their practice, and what are the barriers to and facilitators of their work? Four sets of actors have been the focus of my research: faculty, community partners, boundary spanners, and higher education leaders. The study of the community partner’s role in engagement has often been neglected. However, I have participated in collaborative efforts that have contributed to understanding community partnerships, particularly the knowledge flow, the power relationships, the community partner’s voice, and the role of boundary spanners (e.g., Fear, Sandmann, & Lelle, 1998; Sandmann & Kliewer, 2012; Sandmann & Simon, 1999; Sandmann & Weerts, 2008; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Finally, an examination of characteristics and choices of leaders of exemplar engaged institutions (e.g., Driscoll & Sandmann, 2004; Liang & Sandmann, 2015; Sandmann & Plater, 2009, 2013) has resulted in understanding the current range of commitment, implementation, and best practices of leading engaged institutions. As a consequence of holding academic administration leadership positions and serving in leadership roles in national organizations (e.g., president of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education; a commission chair of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities) and doing research on related topics, I have assisted many campuses seeking to develop or strengthen systems supporting the scholarship of engagement. Undergirding this work has been a rigorous research agenda investigating the practices and policies of publicly engaged colleges and universities, particularly in regard to the institutionalization of higher education community engagement (e.g., Sandmann, Thornton, & Jaeger, 2009; Sandmann & Weerts, 2008; Sandmann, Williams, & Abrams, 2009). Other related work included the development of a model representing the role of academic departments and disciplines in supporting faculty work for engagement (Sandmann, Saltmarsh, & O’Meara, 2008). This research has been disseminated in higher education research journals and used in professional development.

Research Methods of Community-Engaged Action Research My methods of inquiry have been eclectic, driven by the questions and contexts being studied. Fortunately, having been educated as an evaluator where

Book.indb 135

03-10-2019 12:27:02

136  

sharing pathways and perspectives

mixed methods are most effective to get results read and used, I value both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. But what really ignites my interest has been action technologies, a family of research and evaluation methods that simultaneously pursue both action (intentional change) and research (learning and understanding). Specifically, I resonate with community-engaged action research, a method that is consistent with the values of community engagement and adult education for knowledge creation and community empowerment and well suited to generating actionable knowledge for social responsibility and individual, community, and organizational development (Sandmann & Watkins, 2017). At the University of Georgia, I was part of the small but dynamic faculty team that developed, taught, recruited, and advised a cohort-based doctoral program on learning, leadership, and organizational development for practicing professionals (University of Georgia College of Education, 2019). A particular feature of the doctoral program is its action-research dissertation, which requires both knowledge to inform action and rigorous data to inform scholarship (Sandmann & Watkins, 2017). The action research leading to the dissertation is implemented through three steps: diagnosis, intervention, and evaluation or inquiry. The high level of skill required to implement these social action research studies remains a challenge, but involving stakeholders in these change efforts develops all participants and leaves the collaborating organization with enhanced problem-solving capacity. Thus action technologies, specifically as community-engaged action research, are worthy processes to enhance commitment to and practice of knowledge creation in support of social, cultural, and organizational change.

Moving Beyond the Plan: Boundary Spanning A serendipitous encounter led me to join forces with David J. Weerts to design a multidimensional, multicase study that examined research universities as they transitioned from a one-way dissemination paradigm (outreach) toward a two-way constructivist model (engagement) in their work with communities. We selected three land-grant and three urban public research institutions. Eighty interviews and extensive document review provided data sources. Interviews explored how outreach and engagement were conceptualized and practiced on these campuses, how knowledge was exchanged with targeted constituencies, and how community partners saw issues of engagement. This research yielded a large data pool that we examined through

Book.indb 136

03-10-2019 12:27:02

building and bridging  

137

several theoretical lenses; it also resulted in publications in tier-one higher education journals (Sandmann & Weerts, 2008; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). After the publication of our two priority articles, we picked up a thread that intrigued both of us: boundary spanning. Although our boundaryspanning frame had not shaped our interview questions, we argued that the frame provided a unique lens to categorize and make sense of the data collected. Our conceptual understandings of boundary spanning in the context of engagement relied heavily on work by Friedman and Podolny (1992), who suggested that spanning is best viewed at both the individual and organizational levels and may exhibit multiple forms to reduce role conflict and facilitate spanning goals. Building on the concepts advocated by these authors, we suggested that boundary-spanning roles may be differentiated by two domains: task orientation and social closeness. We depicted the roles and relationships in a university-community-engagement boundary-spanning model (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). Little did we anticipate the impact of that last publication. The article that emerged from a community engagement leadership and institutional change study and resulted in a conceptual model has been cited, according to Google Scholar, over 170 times. Furthermore, it has since been operationalized as a research and diagnostic instrument, and its constructs confirmed through factor analysis as applied to different sectors (Sandmann, Jordan, Mull, & Valentine, 2014). The model has been used as the basis of numerous dissertations and research projects on several continents. Further, it has served as the topic of an academic journal’s special issue (Paton, 2014) and several conferences. Finally, it has been applied to assess strengths and weaknesses of engagement and spanning behaviors and practice in many professional development events. Its continued use is evidenced in the 2018 Outreach and Engagement Practitioner Network annual workshop titled Expanding the Boundaries of Boundary-Spanning. I could not have anticipated that boundary spanning would become a signature edifice of my building career!

Building the Future of the Scholarship of Engagement: Practical Wisdom Thought leaders and scholars are those who are able to frame, analyze, and address relevant, timely challenges in rigorous, interdisciplinary, and robust ways. However, often-cited limitations in research on service learning and community engagement include a lack of genuine community partnership in all aspects of the enterprise, weak theoretical foundations, and limited generalizability of findings due to small sample sizes. Long-standing institutional

Book.indb 137

03-10-2019 12:27:02

138  

sharing pathways and perspectives

lack of support has sapped programmatic longevity and sustainability, leading to a paucity of longitudinal studies. Moreover, wide variations in service learning and community engagement purposes and practices across programs and sites have limited researchers’ ability to aggregate data. Toward advancing the theory and practice of the field, I offer the following recommendations as building materials and building approaches to address the current scholarly limitations.

Building Materials The status and utility of our field’s scholarship will depend on its rigor and credibility. Patton (2012) offers a model of analytical rigor for research on service learning characterized by “engaging multiple perspectives, deep questioning, and critical thinking” (p. 7) versus strict adherence to analytical protocols. He further argues for “rigor through cumulative, triangulated synthesis of research findings” (p. 7). Promise lies in a future blueprint of rigorous thinking and rigorous methods leading to further conceptualization and meaningful, credible findings that build the field of knowledge and inform theory and practice. Two particular undeveloped areas that I think warrant this type of continued inquiry are institutional leadership and community impact. Institutional Leadership Because of their resources, roles, decision-making authority, and imputed trust, academic institutional leaders are positioned to significantly influence the development of community engagement. Paradigms based on social constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism (including democratization through technology) have emerged in the study of institutional leadership. Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin (2006) particularly noted the emergence of expanding knowledge about transformational leadership, cognitive theories, cultural and symbolic theories, and distributed leadership theory, as well as a better understanding of complexity and chaos theory regarding academic leadership. In a previous volume in this series, William Plater and I (Sandmann & Plater, 2013) proposed a series of research questions to enhance the understanding and assessment of leadership practice around definitional issues, characteristics of leaders and their development, leadership processes and practices—particularly collective leadership—and methodological and usability issues. I recommend revisiting and addressing these. For example, we raised the following questions about succession planning and leadership transitions (modified and updated for this chapter):

Book.indb 138

03-10-2019 12:27:02

building and bridging  

139

• What circumstances indicate that community engagement is associated with a particular institutional leader? What persists and what disappears when that leader leaves? • What aspects of a leader and a leadership style (e.g., highly structured, autocratic, boundary spanner, community oriented) lead service learning and community engagement initiatives and programs to become diffused or embedded? • How do leaders advance engagement beyond their own terms in office? What types of leaders and leadership result in a lasting legacy of organizational change? Community Impact So what? To what end? Related to leadership and institutional accountability is attention to accountability and impact on community members and community organizations—those who dwell in the “house” of community engagement. Many have invested in building community engagement. What have our collective impact efforts achieved? Have communitycampus partnerships buttressed communities’ health, well-being, and civic life? In what ways has the needle moved on wicked persistent community issues? Fundamentally, what have engagement activities changed at the individual, community, and system levels? Do public policies support such community change? Addressing such questions will require social impact measures and approaches as well as the cumulative, triangulated synthesis of research findings—the type of rigor espoused by Patton (2012)—to benchmark, guide, improve, and ultimately provide some assessment of the outcomes.

Construction Approaches To address the previous or other research topics, I offer the following practical wisdom on what I term construction approaches from my engaged scholarly journey. Collaborate: Cultivate Curated Research Partnerships I was able to thrive as part of inventive, unbounded team efforts dedicated to quality processes and products by having a strong commitment to collaborative scholarship—that is, addressing or exploring complex questions or problems in partnership with others, both academic (including students) and nonacademic (community partners). This collaboration served to build all of our capacities and ensure more robust outcomes.

Book.indb 139

03-10-2019 12:27:02

140  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Therefore, I suggest that a scholarly agenda encompass such partnerships with other practitioners and researchers, including community and agency partners. Small teams with diverse abilities, skills, and experiences can synergize and energize a productive research agenda. Consequently, learning to be a good collaborator will serve an engaged researcher well. A good collaborator can initiate action or accommodate the group as needed. Collaborators are forthcoming in making contributions and fulfilling commitments within agreed-upon parameters. Recognizing the great merit in collaborative work, however, does not obviate its challenges, especially communal writing. A good collaborator also accepts and provides constructive criticism, channeling ego toward team production of a well-done grant proposal or finished product. A common pitfall to avoid, especially as a new scholar or practitioner, is overpromising and underdelivering. For novices to research on service learning and community engagement, I advocate apprenticing oneself to more experienced researchers. After an intense doctoral study with a dedicated adviser and an advisory committee providing in-depth feedback on the dissertation research project, an early career practitioner or academic may feel isolated, insecure, and overwhelmed by multiple job expectations. A mentor can help overcome the resultant lack of productivity and drive. Therefore, apprenticing oneself to a researcher or evaluator (other than one’s academic adviser) is invaluable in developing on-the-job research and writing skills as well as project management capacities. No One-Offs: Focus on a Few High-Impact Scholarly Efforts Academics too often fall short of the socially relevant and sustainable scholarly agenda to which they aspire. I recommend developing an agenda focused on select efforts toward programmatic sustainability and scalability via capacitybuilding curricula, peer-to-peer teaching or train-the-trainer, and mentoring, as well as financial viability through contributions from many partners in differing sectors. To add academic relevance, frame these efforts not only as problem-solving but also as scholarly initiatives. Funders like to invest in innovative ideas and people they are confident will bring about change. The challenges of seeking and managing funding for service learning and community engagement activities, though not insignificant, are not insurmountable. In my experience, having such focused, well-grounded programmatic and scholarly activities and involving people with a track record of “delivering” leads to adequate, ongoing institutional and philanthropic support.

Book.indb 140

03-10-2019 12:27:02

building and bridging  

141

Research Methods: Rigor, Not Rigidity As I have confirmed in my own work, the development of a research design and selection of a research methodology should be driven by the research problems, questions, and contexts being studied. Researchers with limited or restricted knowledge of research approaches may apply a suboptimal strategy to understanding a phenomenon or investigating research topics, thereby not realizing the potential of the inquiry and contributing only minimally to the field. Attention to the two points already mentioned—collaborating with others to learn a variety of methods and having a strategic focused research agenda—can facilitate the development of a research method repertoire. A scholar who can draw upon such a repertoire will have the flexibility to apply the most appropriate methodology for an inquiry. The need for rigor lies in the execution of the methods, that is, the procedures used to collect and analyze the data. Doing community-based or community-engaged research does not justify lack of rigor in methods. One of my ­frustrations as a journal editor has been the necessity of rejecting manuscripts that address an important question or population but are marred by poorly executed methods. Common examples include too small a sample size in quantitative studies or superficial analysis in qualitative studies. Only when individual work manifests rigorous thinking, rigorous methods, and ­analytical protocols can our field achieve credible results and, when aggregated, advancements. Further, because methodical and analytical tools continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we need to be continuous learners on this topic. Write and Present: It Is a Professional Responsibility A senior administrator called attention to my deferred publication efforts with her cajoling and counsel, “Don’t be a data hoarder! You have a professional responsibility to write and present.” Now, as a dissertation adviser, I offer the same advice. Relieved and often exhausted, recent graduates begin new positions without taking time or making space for spinning their research into publishable products while their data get cold and dated. If we would progress our scholarly field, it is not enough to conduct relevant, rigorous research and reflective practice; we must also disseminate the results and findings. Possibilities for such dissemination include an array of traditional scholarly products as well as culturally relevant materials and a variety of media formats. The key is being sure they are well produced, appropriately placed, and available as differentiated products tailored to a particular audience,

Book.indb 141

03-10-2019 12:27:02

142  

sharing pathways and perspectives

thereby making the scholarship accessible to many. Recognize the challenges in collaborative writing and presenting, especially between academics and nonacademics, but press on to share the broader interpretations and perspectives and to make available knowledge that is relevant to both the profession and to practice.

Conclusion Knowledge with and in service to society has been my lifelong commitment and quest. Boyte’s (2013) notion of “public works” (p. 2) aptly describes the basic landscape for building and engaging in research, teaching, and service that makes a difference in communities. It has been a privilege to be aligned with and part of the complex, dynamic, and still emerging field and the trans­ disciplinary profession of higher education community engagement. It has also been humbling to work with many others—scholars, practitioners, students, and leaders—worldwide who have dedicated themselves to building social innovation and making the world a better place. I have found immense personal career satisfaction as part of the building crew constructing models and conceptualizations, exploring new materials of theories and practices, and laying a foundation for the next generation of engaged scholars and leaders. With individuals, higher education institutions, and communities contributing adaptive renovations of new and more inclusive ways of learning and working together, these structures hold promise to live on much like the structures my father built.

References Boyte, H. C. (2013). Reinventing citizenship as public work. Civic Engagement, 31. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceciviceng/31 Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98–106. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2008/05/strategy-as-a-wicked-problem Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach. (1996). Points of distinction: A guidebook for planning and evaluating quality outreach. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, University Outreach and Engagement. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Driscoll, A., & Sandmann, L. R. (2004). Roles and responsibilities of academic administrators: Supporting the scholarship of civic engagement. In M. Langseth & W. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning (pp. 51–68). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Book.indb 142

03-10-2019 12:27:03

building and bridging  

143

Fear, F., & Sandmann, L. R. (1995). Unpacking the service category: Reconceptualizing university outreach for the 21st century. Continuing Higher Education Review, 59(3), 110–122. Fear, F., & Sandmann, L. R. (2001/2002). The “new” scholarship of engagement: Implications for engagement and extension. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(1&2), 29–40. Fear, F., Sandmann, L. R., & Lelle, M. (1998). First generation outcomes of the outreach movement: Many voices, multiple paths. Metropolitan Universities, 9(3), 83–91. Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiators and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 28–47. Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership. ASHE Higher Education Report. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Liang, J. G., & Sandmann, L. R. (2015). Leadership for community engagement— A distributive leadership perspective. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(1), 35–64. Paton, V. O. (Ed.). (2014). Boundary spanning across disciplines, communities, and geography [Special issue]. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 23–40. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Patton, M. Q. (2012). Improving rigor in service-learning research. In J. Hatcher & R. Bringle (Eds.), Understanding service-learning and community engagement: Crossing boundaries through research (pp. 3–9). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Peters, S. J. (2010). Democracy and higher education: Traditions and stories of civic engagement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91–104. Sandmann, L. R., Foster-Fishman, P., Lloyd, J., Rauhe, W., & Rosaen, C. (2000). Managing critical tensions: How to strengthen the scholarship component of outreach. Change, 32(1), 44–58. Sandmann, L. R., Jordan, J., Mull, C., & Valentine, T. (2014). Measuring boundary spanning behaviors in community engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 83–104. Sandmann, L. R., & Kliewer, B. W. (2012). Theoretical and applied community perspectives on power: Recognizing processes that undermine effective community-

Book.indb 143

03-10-2019 12:27:03

144  

sharing pathways and perspectives

university partnerships. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 5(2), 18–26. Sandmann, L. R., Kliewer, B.W., Kim, J., & Omerikwa, A. (2010). Toward understanding reciprocity in community-university partnerships: An analysis of select theories of power. In J. Keshen, B. Holland, & B. Moely (Eds.), Advances in service learning: Research for what (pp. 3–23). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Sandmann, L. R., Moore, T. L., & Quinn, J. (2012). Center and periphery in servicelearning and community engagement: A postcolonial approach. In J. Hatcher & R. Bringle (Eds.), Understanding service-learning and community engagement: Crossing boundaries through research (pp. 25–46). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Sandmann, L. R., & Plater, W. M. (2009). Leading the engaged institution. In L. Sandmann, C. Thornton, & A. Jaeger (Eds.), New Directions for Higher Education: No. 147. Institutionalizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions. (pp. 13–24). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass/Wiley. Sandmann, L. R., & Plater, W. M. (2013). Research on institutional leadership for service learning. In P. Clayton, R. Bringle, & J. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on ­service-learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment. (pp. 505–535). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & O’Meara, K. (2008). An integrated model for advancing the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 47–64. Sandmann, L. R., & Simon, L. (1999). Fostering community guardianship: Serving children and families though community-university partnership. In T. Chibucos & R. Lerner (Eds.), Serving children and families through community-university partnerships: Success stories (pp. 211–215). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Sandmann, L. R., Thornton, C. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (Eds.) (2009). New Directions for Higher Education: No. 147. Institutionalizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass/Wiley. Sandmann, L. R., & Watkins, K. (2017). Action technologies: Contemporary community-engaged action research. In A. Knox, S. Conceicao, & L. Martin (Eds.), Mapping the field of adult and continuing education: An international compendium: Vol. 4. Inquiry and Influences (pp. 629–636). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Sandmann, L. R., & Weerts, D. J. (2008). Reshaping institutional boundaries to accommodate an engagement agenda. Innovative Higher Education, 33(3), 181–196. Sandmann, L. R., Williams, J. E., & Abrams, E. D. (2009). Higher education community engagement and accreditation: Activating engagement through innovative accreditation strategies. Planning in Higher Education, 37(3), 15–26. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Book.indb 144

03-10-2019 12:27:03

building and bridging  

145

University of Georgia College of Education. 2019. EdD in learning, leadership, and organization development. Retrieved from https://coe.uga.edu/academics/degrees/ edd/learning-leadership-organization-development Votruba, J. C. (1996). Strengthening the universities alignment with society: Changes and strategies. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 29–36. Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73–106. Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundaryspanning roles at research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–657.

Book.indb 145

03-10-2019 12:27:03

Book.indb 146

03-10-2019 12:27:03

2.7 RESEARCH FOR J U S T, I N C L U S I V E , A N D S U S TA I N A B L E COMMUNITIES Eric Hartman

I

am interested in working with others to support communities that are more just, inclusive, and sustainable. I have long believed that the formal educational system is a space of mostly unrealized potential for contributing to those goals. My work has centered on identifying various approaches and opportunities to do justice work in communities from, through, and in collaboration with higher education institutions. I am deliberately vague in my use of the term justice work. Depending on the context, it may mean clarifying the role of human dignity in democracy (Hartman, 2013); cultivating criticality, systems analysis, and humility in global citizenship work (Hartman & Kiely, 2014); or pushing partnerships and institutions to be more intentional about resource allocation in local and global learning and development of partnerships (Hartman, 2015a; Hartman, Parris, & Blache-Cohen, 2014). Justice work must be capacious, pluralistic, and evolving according to the people, culture, and local institutions involved. This chapter opens with a brief description of the community-campus engagement path that led me to pursue a PhD in public and international affairs. I then employ a framing of four approaches that academic professionals may take to enact the public purposes of higher education (Peters, 2010) to explore my own activities and outputs as a researcher. I close with some lessons learned and reflections for early-career individuals considering choices, challenges, and next steps at the intersection of community and campus, justice work, and research production. 147

Book.indb 147

03-10-2019 12:27:03

148  

sharing pathways and perspectives

“Needing” a PhD My graduate experience began at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the political science program. I was quite interested in pursuing communitybased practice toward justice while considering political theories of justice. I accepted a position with the Office of Service Learning as a graduate assistant and worked with PhD students in political science who were teaching international relations courses. We initiated courses that included literacy tutoring for newly arriving refugees. Those activities humanized international relations theory and leveraged students’ current capacities for immediate application to support a local refugee resettlement initiative. After earning an MA, I was eager to get involved in practice and application. I found a position as an adjunct instructor in American politics at the Community College of Allegheny County, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. During this time, I volunteered, then worked as a part-time staff member, at Amizade, a nonprofit organization founded in 1994 with a vision of connecting people across cultures through community-driven service. At Amizade, our small staff supported college and university interests in service learning and global citizenship. Some folks on campuses treated us as true collaborators, but many saw us merely as logistical service providers rather than community organizers and coeducators. We were a group of dedicated community builders interested in meaningful service and education. Frankly, my decision to pursue a PhD was triggered not by an interest in methodology as much as a sense that I had to have a PhD to be a respected dialogue partner in these spaces. I was fortunate that the University of Pittsburgh had, and continues to have, a strong Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. With an interest in offering undergraduate, community-engaged courses in the public service major, that institution funded my PhD in public and international affairs, specializing in international development, in exchange for my role in developing and teaching community-engaged courses in the undergraduate public service major. Despite the utilitarian origins of my path toward a PhD, I have benefitted greatly from the way in which the process of earning a PhD disciplined my inquiry, thinking, and practice. I also track significant parts of my identity and lessons learned to insights gleaned through practice as a nonprofit administrator and staff member and as a traveler and curious person. Thus, writing this chapter has provoked considerable (and ultimately, I hope, productive) reflection. I will chronicle my navigation of understanding research and my emerging identity as a researcher, while reflecting on how that identity relates to justice work. As expressed in a pointed editorial in the

Book.indb 148

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

149

Guardian, “I became an academic to make a difference not to build a career” (Hope, 2013, p. 1).

Who Is a Researcher? Who Is an Academic Professional? Professional norms are extraordinarily powerful frames for self-policing and disciplining. This insight, which I credit to an advocate who challenges archivists to use their methods to record and organize instances of police violence in real time (Drake, 2016), helps me understand some of my own resistance to academic identity. I prefer to illuminate the existence of multiple ­creative opportunities for academic professionals grappling with their work and q­ uestions of justice. Peters (2010) identified several common answers to the question: To what extent and in what ways should academic professionals be engaged in the public work of democracy? Through conducting and analyzing intensive interviews with 12 practitioners in higher education Peters and colleagues identified the following normative traditions: (a) service intellectual, (b) public intellectual, (c) action researcher/public scholar/educational organizer (AR/PS/EO), and (d) antitradition traditions. A brief description of each tradition follows. The service intellectual tradition “positions academic professionals in a responsive, nonpolitical stance of unbiased and disinterested objectivity” (Peters, 2010, p. 52). Academics in this tradition limit their work to naming and framing an issue and identifying options for what could be done, along with potential implications of each. However, having identified these options, they are not inclined to implement solutions or otherwise be involved in practical application. The public intellectual tradition, alternatively, recognizes academics as individuals involved in inherently political work and proactively intervening in civic life. They “provide the general public with criticism, knowledge, expertise, and ideas that are meant to influence how public issues and problems are discussed, framed, understood, and addressed” (p. 55). The AR/PS/EO tradition has some similarities to the public intellectual tradition, including the combination of an inherently political stance that is meant to be disinterested in partisan politics and financial gain. The difference is that AR/PS/EO academic professionals “form direct, close, reciprocal, and highly collaborative public relationships with their external partners” (p. 58). An AR/PS/EO academic professional is not only “expert, critic, and civic educator, but also leader, organizer, and facilitator of face-to-face, locally contextualized inquiry, learning, problem setting, deliberation, and action” (p. 58).

Book.indb 149

03-10-2019 12:27:03

150  

sharing pathways and perspectives

The antitradition tradition assumes that “academic professionals should not be directly engaged as professionals in any of the four elements of the public work of democracy” (p. 61, emphasis in original). The only legitimate work in the extreme variety of the antitradition is research that is not directly motivated by or closely linked to the current affairs of civic life. The central appeal of the antitradition is that it (allegedly) “protects the academy as a source of objective, trustworthy, autonomous, and disinterested knowledge” (p. 61). Each approach to scholarship comes with its own assumptions, biases, cultures, and traditions that frame scholarly activity. Today, as I serve in a role with demanding administrative responsibilities, teaching, publishing, and knowledge mobilization, I feel fortunate to have Peters’s (2010) framing to draw from and build on. It is helpful in several ways. First, as I will illustrate, it provides me with language to understand some of the moves I have made across my career. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it pushes me to more systematically consider strategies for moving forward with what seems to be the ever-decreasing availability of time. Third, the framework provides me with language to engage off-campus partners and faculty members in dialogue about public purposes in higher education—even if they have not necessarily seen themselves in such work previously. In short, it helps me to frame my academic and research journey.

Theory in Practice: Moving Across Four Traditions Reflecting on one’s career, sense-making in the present, is dangerous business. Across my career, I have employed a number of the scholarly approaches described by Peters (2010). This systematic reflection has helped to elevate two principles that have guided my work: choose appropriate methods for the question (an idea often repeated) and consider the appropriate research and dissemination strategies for the intended audience(s). My sense of my scholarly production is that my methodology responds to a combination of research problem and imagined audience—and that as I continue to work at the challenge of doing justice work well, I continue to evolve in my approach to knowledge generation.

Service Intellectual: Testing the Hypothesis My thesis, dissertation, and related publications (Hartman, 2001; 2008; 2014a) investigated whether particular pedagogical interventions yielded the intended civic learning, using standard social scientific approaches to measure self-reported attitudinal shifts pre- and postexposure. Each of these pieces responded to particular local policy or program evaluation needs. The

Book.indb 150

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

151

University of Nebraska’s Office of Service-Learning oversaw a systematic, continuous cocurricular program for first-year students. We wanted to know if it delivered civic learning gains in a manner that paralleled accredited programs. It did, I think in large part because the scholarship incentive, similar to the power of grading, kept the whole cohort present, participating, and together throughout the year (Hartman, 2001). At Amizade in the early 2000s, we were intrigued by the ongoing assertions so many colleges and universities were making about educating for global citizenship. We deliberated about what the term global citizenship meant, if it could be measured, and how we would know if we were making progress on it through our programs. I investigated sociological, politicaltheoretical, educational, and philosophical literatures on global citizenship, then constructed an adaptation of civic learning measurement scales to determine whether the students we were working with self-reported positive movement toward greater global civic dispositions through global servicelearning (GSL) programs (Hartman, 2008, 2014a). I initiated this GSL work before beginning a PhD program—because the practice problem was of interest to Amizade staff members working to advance understanding across cultures. Our first full-scale program evaluation indicated we were working with extraordinary faculty from a strong institution, self-selected and high performing college students, and community-driven service projects—and yet not seeing gains in global citizenship orientations in the expected direction. Grappling with that initial finding launched a multiyear process of working with a community of educators and activists to cocreate faculty development programming and curricular space in the form of additional course credits to focus on a range of topics (e.g., global citizenship, service critique, cross-cultural communication) and, ultimately, deliver GSL programming that included a transdisciplinary approach to global citizenship education alongside courses in any discipline, at any location. My dissertation explored the concept of global citizenship, explained the process of that curricular development, and tested its efficacy. By comparing students exposed to the curriculum (the Amizade model) with students exposed to similar GSL programming without the curriculum, I found that the curriculum delivered statistically significant, higher, global civic orientations and understanding (Hartman, 2008; 2014a).

Moving Beyond the Service Intellectual Limitations: Mentors and Associations In 2004, I enrolled in the PhD program at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. At Amizade, we

Book.indb 151

03-10-2019 12:27:03

152  

sharing pathways and perspectives

were looking for places to present and share the curricular model we had begun developing and testing. That interest in sharing the Amizade model and connecting with other interested global civic educators, combined with the extraordinary and continuous funding by the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) for graduate students, led me toward that association. I attended my first IARSLCE conference that year. In addition to connecting with numerous civic engagement and service learning pioneers and luminaries, I met Richard Kiely. He was presenting on transformative international service learning and the chameleon complex (Kiely, 2002, 2004, 2005). Soon Kiely, I, and several Amizade colleagues were collaborating regularly. Mentors in my graduate school process were deep-thinking, systematic, theoretically grounded, and quantitatively oriented political scientists (Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and Kevin B. Smith, University of Nebraska) and political theorists (Michael Goodhart, University of Pittsburgh), as well as scholars of international development and human rights (Paul Nelson, University of Pittsburgh). Although I began my PhD journey for utilitarian reasons, thanks to the strength of the work of these and other mentors, I now appreciate the power of focusing tightly on specific methods, questions, paradigms, and theoretical training. These scholars helped me think better, articulate questions more specifically, and identify issues with greater clarity. Theoretically rich graduate training, carefully critical feedback from reviewers, and my Amizade collaborators and book coauthors helped me understand how the work of strong theorization and conceptualization can move research toward justice work. In particular, both my early research on global citizenship and my later article “No Values, No Democracy: The Essential Partisanship of a Civic Engagement Movement” (Hartman, 2013), reflected some of the productive disciplining of PhD processes. I aimed to move practice and scholarship away from vague or general notions of the goodness of service and citizenship and more toward specific, identifiable, assessable, and contestable ideas, practices, and programming. My thesis and the origins of my dissertation were fairly straightforward in terms of conventional social scientific products in a service intellectual tradition. Yet the PhD process expanded my engagement with theoretically rigorous exploration of alternative political, epistemological, and ontological possibilities. That process of inquiry deepened my own awareness of the shortcomings of the service intellectual tradition and led me to delve into public intellectual traditions, marked by values commitments and efforts to influence decision makers with rigorous and relevant intellectual work.

Book.indb 152

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

153

I hasten to add here that it was once again experiential learning (even if unintended in its connection) that drove home the lessons I was reading about the intersections of cultural assumptions, Western ways of knowing, and the construction of objectivity. Spending time, largely through Amizade, in the Navajo (Diné) Nation in the southwest United States; working with indigenous communities in Bolivia and Peru; traveling throughout East Africa; and reading a deep and long history of failed development projects rooted in one culture’s sense of rational assumptions, contextualized my work in research scope and methods courses. These experiences also expanded my capacity to understand textual and theoretical arguments regarding the limits of purportedly objective, unbiased approaches (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997; Yappa, 1996). Part of the story of my own move toward the public intellectual and other traditions is my extraordinary naiveté in believing that confirming the null must lead to some sort of meaningful change. In both cases (thesis and dissertation), we had an interesting question, we had use of resources to make progress on a goal, and we had control groups and statistically significant findings. But statistically significant findings do not change the minds, habits, assumptions, or institutional commitments of any group—and higher education faculty, staff, and administrators are not unique in this respect. Minds change through stories; hopefully sometimes through repeated engagement with facts, data, and rigorous thinking; and certainly through the combination of story with these other tools. In a culturally and temporally contingent world of fundamentally contested worldviews, as a person interested in the construction of just, inclusive, and sustainable communities, these observations led me to the public intellectual tradition.

Public Intellectual: Researching for Just, Inclusive, and Sustainable Communities I worked with Amizade as a volunteer, a staff member, an executive director, an instructor, and a board member from 2001 to 2016. Our mission was to empower individuals and communities through service and learning across cultures. We were unapologetically interested in those values. But we were shocked at the incredible extent of resources utilized to support non- and miseducative, paternalistic, and colonial forms of service learning (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009), study abroad (Ogden, 2007–2008; Reilly & Senders, 2009), and international volunteering (Illich, 1968; Martin, 2016). When getting the research done seemed insufficient to the task of influencing higher education decision makers to take seriously issues such as impact on communities and

Book.indb 153

03-10-2019 12:27:03

154  

sharing pathways and perspectives

robust student learning, my work began to experiment with other forms of dissemination and research. After working with Richard Kiely for several years and witnessing him handing out 50-page citation packets at presentation after presentation, he and I envisioned a new approach. I began to develop a website, globalsl.org, dedicated to knowledge accumulation, curation, and mobilization in relation to ethical community-campus partnerships for global learning. Globalsl.org was founded through our simple observations that many people were interested in quality GSL, a great diversity of fields were engaged in GSL, many of the materials were open access, and they were not gathered together anywhere in a systematic way. A few years after the development of the website, which combines peerreviewed research with practical tools, we began collaborating regularly and eventually merged with the leaders and institutions behind the Global Service-Learning Summit Series, a gathering attended by 330 higher education and community development GSL thought leaders in its fifth year. At the time we merged with the Summit Series, its leading institutions were Duke University, Northwestern University, and Washington University in St. Louis. Eric Mlyn, Brian Hanson, and Amanda Moore McBride, respectively, stewarded thoughtful institutional engagement with local and global community-campus partnerships. Through the process of writing this chapter, I have finally come to pinpoint one of the key differentiating points about the globalsl.org community: research is a means, but—unlike many associations in higher education and for better or for worse—not the end in itself. We are committed to advancing just, inclusive, and sustainable communities and research must serve those goals. Even as we collected and organized the work of scores of other scholars and practitioners, Kiely’s (2002, 2004, 2005) seminal GSL research, the collaborative work that went into my dissertation, and our ongoing work since that time formed the basis of our book, Community-Based Global Learning: The Theory and Practice of Ethical Engagement at Home and Abroad (Hartman, Kiely, Boettcher, & Friedrichs, 2018). Upon reflection, the intent of the book falls in the public intellectual tradition: A basic interrogation of the concept of global citizenship reveals it as a thorny, distant, and complicated ideal. Yet its aspirational qualities—that more of us in this world might learn to live well together, to flourish, to be in harmony with the environment that supports us, and to be at peace in our profound and beautiful diversity—motivates this volume. We see our work as practitioner scholars not in the naming of a final theory of global

Book.indb 154

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

155

citizenship, but in the productive engagement of the process, theories, habits, and partnership commitments that may support more educators, students, and citizens everywhere in the important journey of seeking global citizenship. (Hartman et al., 2018, p. 5)

In addition to the book, the globalsl.org website, and my academic articles, my increasing interest in knowledge mobilization led me to collaborate with colleagues to produce several videos on ethical global engagement (e.g., Hartman et al., 2015). I have authored journalistic pieces for The Stanford Social Review (Hartman, 2016a), International Educator (Hartman, 2015b) and Matador Travel (e.g. Hartman, 2016b), while also producing scores of blog entries at globalsl.org and developing social media engagement both personally (@emhartman) and for globalsl (@buildingbetterw), with the latter delegated to other stakeholders. It is important to be clear here: I have submitted far more op-eds and articles than have been published. The effort to find venues and opportunities to “proactively intervene in civic life,” as Peters (2010, p. 55) suggests is possible, should not be understated. And the implicit desire to shift dialogue, thinking, and practices on a topic imagines a scope of impact that is difficult to achieve and harder to measure than the act of publishing a peerreviewed publication. My work engaging values in the public tradition soon led to different process commitments and demonstrated my move into the AR/PS/EO tradition.

AR/PS/EO: Cocreating a Fair Trade Learning Approach and Assessing Impact Collaborative relationships with off-campus and on-campus partners, again with Amizade as a nexus, led me to publish the multicontinental, scoresof-stakeholder-insights cocreation that is fair trade learning (Hartman, Paris, & Blache-Cohen, 2014). I have also used this approach to inform work that does not show up as peer-reviewed or a popular publication. For example, I collaborated with Tanzanian women’s rights organizations and students on evaluation and, ultimately, a successful grant application; worked with Rhode Island and Pennsylvanian nonprofit organizations and undergraduates on evaluation and annual report development; and collaborated with systematic inclusive-community-building initiatives and students in Kansas and Rhode Island. As a critical part of these works, I designed mixed methods community impact assessments (Hartman, 2015c). In all cases here, and as exhibited in the fair trade learning popular

Book.indb 155

03-10-2019 12:27:03

156  

sharing pathways and perspectives

articles and video production previously mentioned, my work continues to vacillate between AR/PS/EO and public intellectual work because of an interest in knowledge mobilization, dissemination, and application.

Antitradition: Imaginative World Building I have not done work in the antitradition tradition—yet. But I have come to understand its value clearly, to appreciate it deeply, and to advocate for its essential role in higher education and in community building. To cocreate, we must imagine. And to imagine boldly and beautifully we must engage disinterested dystopia, almost incomprehensible utopia, and continuously humane and critical inquiry into what humans are and may be. We must, in other words, honor and celebrate the liberal arts and humanities as fonts of possibility. I would suggest two addenda to the way that Peters (2010) articulated this antitradition role. First, it is possible to be largely disinterested in and detached from contemporary civic life while contributing to civic imaginings that are purposeful and liberatory. Several of the performers, artists, and humanities scholars at Imagining America’s 2018 Conference modeled this beautifully, with a focus on transformative imaginations, decarceration, and liberatory futures (Imagining America, 2018). Second, as the work of the civic and community engagement movement continues to decenter traditional forms of academic authority and knowledge recognition, the antitradition tradition may, indeed should, include educators located off-campus; educators who may not be formally trained. This is my AR/PS/EO sensibility merging with the antitradition tradition. In my current role as executive director of the Center for Peace and Global Citizenship at Haverford College, a selective liberal arts institution, I regularly support projects and initiatives that seem to be simultaneously disinterested, utopian, and purposeful. Our students learn from incarcerated restorative justice experts as part of their work in coimagining a society without prisons. They consider the rights of the deceased and wonder about historical memory while learning from community activists who are protecting and preserving abandoned cemeteries. They learn from urban-gardenerland-reclamation activists who are fighting for community self-sustainability, while rejecting gentrification and connecting community youth with their food systems. Each of these projects engages work with an ultimate purpose beyond our lifetimes. I have listed here, of course, student and pedagogical projects, but they represent the theoretical emphasis of their faculty leaders, and in turn the

Book.indb 156

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

157

faculty scholarship supported through the center’s funding. We need bold, detached imaginings. We must get beyond incarceration, beyond the market as primary arbiter in life and death, and beyond an era (the Anthropocene) marked by human disconnection with the larger ecosystem. These creatively imaginative and critical spaces, disconnected from project-based work or immediate time lines, are also fundamental to the creative work of building new kinds of systems and ways of being that will ultimately engender more just, inclusive, and sustainable communities.

Just Enough Fit, More Dissatisfaction, Targeting Change I have made an effort to honestly record and critically reflect on my own journey as it relates to research production and to consider that task through the helpful framing provided by Peters (2010). Some lessons are offered in the sections that follow.

Beware the Illusion of the Perfect Role: Find Your Best Fit Research matters, experience matters, and dissemination matters; yet few roles support all three well. Have the courage to find your best fit. I have served in adjunct, visiting, and tenure-line faculty roles. I have served as a small nonprofit executive director and as executive director of a comparatively well-funded, campus-wide center for the promotion of global citizenship through research, education, and action. Most of my written insights came from years of practice, and the practice slowed during my tenure-track faculty years. As an assistant professor, my capacity to make an immediate difference with new information and insights was limited. When one of the most influential members of the committee that would eventually review my tenure commented in my first-year review, regarding my videos, website production, and magazine articles, “He can be creative and innovative, just not here,” I knew it was time to find a better fit rather than to be disciplined by the institution into believing I should effectively limit my approaches to dissemination. Although my current administrative role puts more demands on my time for meetings, policy work, and management broadly construed, the administrative position does value research production and, in my case, encourages application and dissemination as part of the role. Do not let personal fit distract you from your mission fit. For purpose-driven people, the mission fit will lead to the personal fit.

Book.indb 157

03-10-2019 12:27:03

158  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Be Willing to Name, Frame, and Reframe Concepts The field of service learning and community engagement practice is rife with generally positive concepts (e.g., service, community, democratic engagement, student-centered, community-centered, reciprocity, meaningful learning) that are too frequently undertheorized. Our field has made progress when colleagues have taken the time to help others be more systematic in interrogating and illuminating key concepts. This kind of theoretical research work (e.g., Dostilio et al., 2012; Kiely, 2004; Mitchell, 2008) enables rigorous thinking, practice, and improved quantitative and qualitative research. It is impossible to productively critique, contest, discuss, practice, or measure progress when our concepts are squishy, overly broad, or utilized so interchangeably that they are empty of meaning.

Think About Your Audience and Your Target for Change Recognize that academics and higher education administrators are like most humans: Although they would love to believe that facts and logic drive all our decisions, the evidence supporting that notion is scant at best. When the change I needed was to earn a PhD, I developed a dissertation in the service intellectual tradition because my committee was filled primarily with people trained in mainstream social science. When I was interested in pushing the field of service learning around values commitment questions, I published an article in the Michigan Journal for Community Service Learning (Hartman, 2013). As I began to see a need for communication across fields and literatures, I built a website for knowledge dissemination and, with a team of scholars, began to rotate through presentations and engagement at study abroad, civic engagement, and liberal arts conferences. When I was convinced through research by child rights advocates that the relevant need of the moment was to discourage orphanage tourism, I collaborated with colleagues from Save the Children to produce a video that has been viewed thousands of times (Hartman, 2014b), wrote a blog post on the topic that was viewed more than 25,000 times in the first week (Hartman, 2016c), and published a related article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (Hartman, 2016a). Clearly, if your top goal is to earn tenure, your audience is your colleagues in your field, and the colleagues who are tenured may be more likely to have walked a conventional path and to have related conventional sensibilities. If you have provocative justice work in mind with your research and writing, consider who you are attempting to reach, influence, and affect.

Book.indb 158

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

159

Research and Practice Toward Justice Research can and should improve practice; practice can and should improve research. Both should make progress toward justice. Rigorous research that includes continuous questioning, critical reflection, and checking assumptions may—must—improve practice. In our field, that means improving the likelihood that students are educated as whole persons preparing for responsible memberships in just, inclusive, and sustainable communities. That means improving the likelihood that communities and institutions partner ethically, cocreate carefully, develop shared meaning, and make shared progress over time. I hope I have been able to contribute to these efforts with the recent book publication (Hartman, Kiely, Boettcher, & Friedrichs, 2018), the website (Campus Compact, 2019), and the contribution of fair trade learning.

Dissatisfaction Is a Call to Action Soak in the dissatisfaction with the world as it is. Yearning for the creation of better selves, institutions, and communities provides far better fuel for research, writing, and dissemination than forcing oneself into an uncomfortable institutional fit or an identity that does not come naturally. The story I have shared attempts to contribute through research and writing and attempts to find academic role fit with justice work. I have shared some things that could be marked as successes. But my read of the research and contemporary landscape would suggest that (a) most of the considerable resources of higher education continue to be leveraged to recreate mediocre learning environments, when extraordinary learning experiences are possible; (b) most higher education administrators, faculty members, and staff members continue to be uncertain about, afraid of, or confused by the prospect of values engagement in support of contributing to the cocreation of just, inclusive, and sustainable communities; and (c) many and perhaps most international exchange, international volunteering, and immersive community learning programs do little to support deep learning about cultural humility, fail to arm students with any meaningfully critical or actionable conceptions of global citizenship, and—if engaging in service—perform projects that are frequently harmful to communities and community members or at best make little meaningful difference. Higher education need not be this way. We have robust models for experiential, civic, and global learning that contribute to more just, inclusive, and sustainable communities. We can change these practices together, but only through continuously iterative and creative processes of action, research, dissemination, persuasion, reconsideration, and reflection.

Book.indb 159

03-10-2019 12:27:03

160  

sharing pathways and perspectives

References Campus Compact. (2019). GlobalSL. Retrieved from https://compact.org/global-sl/ Dostilio, L. D., Brackmann, S. M., Edwards, K. E., Harrison, B., Kliewer, B. W., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Reciprocity: Saying what we mean and meaning what we say. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 19(1), 17–32. Drake, J. (2016, April). Archiving ideals: The professional work of archivists in a contested world. Haverford, PA: Haverford College Center for Peace and Global ­ Citizenship. Hartman, E. (2001). Serving communities and growing citizens? Cocurricular servicelearning (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Nebraska–Lincoln.  Hartman, E. (2008). Educating for global citizenship through service-learning: A curricular account and theoretical evaluation (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9657/ Hartman, E. (2013). No values, no democracy: The essential partisanship of a civic engagement movement. The Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 19(2), 58–71. Hartman, E. (2014a). Educating for global citizenship: A theoretical account and quantitative analysis. American Democracy Project eJournal of Public Affairs Special Issue on Global Engagement, 3(1). Retrieved from http://ejournal.missouristate .edu/2014/04/educating-global-citizenship/ Hartman, E. (2014b). Why UNICEF and Save the Children are against your shortterm service in orphanages. Campus Compact. Retrieved from https://compact. org/why-unicef-and-save-the-children-are-against-you-caring-for-orphans/ Hartman, E. (2015a). Fair trade learning: A framework for ethical global partnerships. In M. Larsen (Ed.), International service learning: Engaging host communities (pp. 215–234). New York, NY: Routledge. Hartman, E. (2015b, May–June). Global citizenship offers better solutions. International Educator, 74–79. Retrieved from http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ie_ mayjun15_forum.pdf Hartman, E. (2015c). The utility of your students: Community partners’ critique. In V. Jagla, J. Strait, & A. Furco (Eds.), Service-learning pedagogy: How does it measure up? (pp. 231–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hartman, E. (2016a). Malia, the rise of the gap year, and ethical international engagement. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/ entry/malia_the_rise_of_the_gap_year_and_ethical_international_engagement Hartman, E. (2016b, February 15). Stop settling for old, ineffective models of volunteering abroad. Here’s a better way. Matador Network. Retrieved from http://­ matadornetwork.com/bnt/stop-ineffective-models-volunteering-abroad-better-way/ Hartman, E. (2016c). All traveling volunteers should watch this video. #StopOrphanTrips. The Matador Network. Retrieved from https://matadornetwork.com/ life/traveling-volunteers-watch-video-stoporphantrips/ Hartman, E., & Kiely, R. (2014). A critical global citizenship. In M. Johnson & P. Green (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Tension and transformation in international service-learning (pp. 215–242). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Book.indb 160

03-10-2019 12:27:03

research for just, inclusive, and sustainable communities  

161

Hartman, E., Kiely, R., Boettcher, C., & Friedrichs, J. (2018). Community-based global learning: The theory and practice of ethical engagement at home and abroad. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hartman, E., Lough, B., Toms, C., Reynolds, N., & McKeon, A. (2015). Research insights for best practice international volunteering [Video]. Retrieved from https:// vimeo.com/133662301 Hartman, E., Paris, C. M., & Blache-Cohen, B. (2014). Fair trade learning: Ethical standards for international volunteer tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(1–2), 108–116. Hope, A. (2013). The role and place of the academic is changing—and it’s a good thing. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/higher-­educationnetwork/blog/2013/nov/13/academic-job-changing-flexibility-university? CMP=twt_gu Illich, I. (1968). To hell with good intentions. Paper presented at the Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects (CIASP), Cuernavaca, Mexico. Imagining America. (2018). Transformative imaginations: Decarceration and liberatory futures. (2018). Imagining America National Conference. Chicago, IL. Kiely, R. (2002). Toward an expanded conceptualization of transformational learning: A case study of international service-learning in Nicaragua (Doctoral dissertation). Cornell University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(09A), 3083. Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 5–20. Kiely, R. (2005). A transformative learning model for service-learning: A longitudinal case study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12(1), 5–22. Martin, C. (2016, Jan 11). The reductive seduction of other people’s problems. BRIGHT Magazine. Retrieved from https://brightthemag.com/the-reductiveseduction-of-other-people-s-problems-3c07b307732d Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Ogden, A. (2007–2008, Winter). The view from the veranda: Understanding today’s colonial student. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 35–55. Peters, S. J. (2010). Democracy and higher education: Traditions and stories of civic engagement. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (Eds.). (1997). The post-development reader. New York, NY: Zed Books. Reilly, D., & Senders, S. (2009, Fall). Becoming the change we want to see: Critical study abroad for a tumultuous world. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 241–267. Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations and service learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Yappa, L. (1996). What causes poverty? A postmodern view. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86, 707–728.

Book.indb 161

03-10-2019 12:27:03

Book.indb 162

03-10-2019 12:27:03

2.8 THE JOURNEY OF A C O M M U N I T Y- E N G A G E D SCHOLAR Sherril Gelmon

I

am a community-engaged scholar whose research explores frameworks of community engagement and illustrates community-engaged scholarship. My research has addressed creating and sustaining community partnerships, institutionalizing engagement, and assessing teaching and learning strategies to promote engagement among students in higher education. I have generally worked in environments where the term community-based learning (CBL) is used, offering a broader definition and avoiding some of the implications of service that may be challenging in certain organizational or cultural contexts. Throughout this essay, I typically use the terminology of CBL and community-engaged scholarship (CES). My disciplinary background is in public health and health services management. Thus, I bring a conceptual approach grounded in concepts of social justice, population health, equity and access, as well as an organizational theory background. I have worked in community-based program evaluation for over 30 years. I became involved in CBL as a member of the faculty at the University of Toronto. While teaching a program evaluation course in the mid-1980s, I was highly influenced by a senior faculty member who had previously taught the course in a way that reflected his premise that the learning experience would be more relevant and applied if students worked with a community organization to apply the theories and methods covered in the course. I quickly discovered that this type of course design was the most effective way to teach program evaluation.

163

Book.indb 163

03-10-2019 12:27:03

164  

sharing pathways and perspectives

I developed further expertise in educational assessment, accreditation, and improvement science through senior administrative positions with education and accreditation associations in Washington DC from 1988 to 1994. This experience provided a basis for my initial research agenda when I moved to Portland State University (PSU) in 1994 for a faculty position. The timing was ideal for me, as PSU was embarking on a revision of its general education and was just beginning to build capacity in what became CBL and CES. My expertise in assessment and evaluation was identified as an asset to the campus team leading PSU’s work. I was invited to participate on a team designing an assessment and evaluation strategy for a grant PSU had received from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). By coincidence, I was also invited at the same time to be the lead evaluator for the Health Professions Schools in Service to the Nation (HPSISN) project through the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Center for the Health Professions, also funded by external grants from the CNCS and by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The PSU and HPSISN projects evolved together, enabling me (and coauthors) to test and refine CBL assessment materials in two projects simultaneously. These initial activities in community engagement provided the foundation for my subsequent scholarly agenda and ultimately framed my work as a scholar.

Key Developmental Factors My motives derive from an overarching commitment to pursue a research agenda that will result in meaningful and relevant work that both enriches the academy and has value for communities. My commitment derives from my disciplinary training in public health and a commitment to social justice and equity, as well as personal values and familial upbringing to be an engaged and contributing member of my own communities. The values of my field shape my work—in fact, I often comment that those of us in public health can make any issue into a public health issue, and thus the discipline contributes to everyone’s work. My specific niche of health systems management and policy is informed by organizational behavior, public policy, improvement science, and systems thinking, all of which contribute unique perspectives that result in an interdisciplinary approach. The formative experiences that have shaped much of my work as a researcher in the field of community engagement relate to two sets of collaborations. The first came through the work of our PSU team and gave me an opportunity to work with others from outside my discipline in a dynamic working group that was learning, inventing, studying, applying and

Book.indb 164

03-10-2019 12:27:03

the journey of a community-engaged scholar  

165

documenting as we progressed. We were truly “learning by doing,” and Amy Driscoll, in particular, was an important role model for seeking opportunities to disseminate our work early and often, rather than waiting until we had the penultimate report or manuscript. My second formative experience was meeting Sarena Seifer in 1995, when we were both senior fellows at the UCSF Center for the Health Professions, from which arose a collaboration and friendship that continues to this day. In addition to being a powerhouse of an individual with apparently endless energy and enthusiasm, as well as a champion for social justice and authentic attention to community, Seifer also invited me over the years to participate in multiple projects which resulted in a series of products and contributions related to service learning, health professions education, CES, institutional change, faculty development, and peer review. Her contributions as the founder and leader of Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) changed the landscape where many of us do our work, and her impact as a peer and a collaborator has had a profound influence on my research path. Professional associations and networks also have played important roles as the venues for presenting, networking, and generating new ideas and scholarly opportunities. As a community-engaged scholar, I have learned that it is beneficial to be actively engaged in higher education networks nationally as well as disciplinary conferences. In the early years of my fulltime academic work the now defunct American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) was a very important venue for presentations, particularly the Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) has stepped in as a leader in higher education addressing community engagement. The health professions disciplinary meetings have offered similar opportunities (American Public Health Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of University Programs in Health Administration) to more specialized audiences. The annual conference of CCPH became an important meeting for me attend both as a presenter and as a learner because it was one of the few venues where community partners, students, funders, and academics comingled as equals. The egalitarian nature of CCPH created a different atmosphere for a professional meeting, and it was generally characterized by an honesty and openness about the roles of community partners and of students that was often—and sadly—missing from other professional meetings. The annual research conference of what became the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) has also been an important venue for me. I was

Book.indb 165

03-10-2019 12:27:03

166  

sharing pathways and perspectives

delighted when Shelly Billig invited me to chair the sixth research conference in 2006 in Portland, Oregon (Gelmon & Billig, 2007), and thrilled to be the founding chair of IARSLCE, which was launched in conjunction with the 2006 conference (Gelmon, 2007). IARSLCE filled an important niche with its emphasis on research. One of its greatest successes was institutionalizing support of graduate students and junior faculty and facilitating networking of early career scholars with the senior scholars in the field (Gelmon, 2010). Each year at the conference’s graduate student reception a student would delightedly comment that “most of my bibliography is in the room,” reinforcing how small the core field was yet highlighting that most of the researchers were present at the meeting.

Partnerships in Assessment, Scholarship, and Program Evaluation Research I have had deep satisfaction in collaborating with a number of colleagues across my career. In addition to the early work of our PSU team (Gelmon, Driscoll, Holland, & Kerrigan, 1995; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996), my role as someone studying and guiding assessment of the impact of CBL and community engagement positioned me for roles with various PSU assessment activities and resulted in other dissemination opportunities (Kerrigan, Gelmon, & Spring, 2003; Gelmon, Agre-Kippenhan, & Cress, 2005). Probably the most notable was the invitation from Campus Compact in 2000 to create and publish an assessment handbook, commonly referred to in the field as the “red book,” which became a Campus Compact best seller. This handbook has recently been updated and republished in a second edition (Gelmon, Holland, Spring, Kerrigan, & Driscoll, 2018), and it continues to provide a useful framework to guide assessment of CBL at the course, department, and campus level. My first collaboration with Sarena Seifer was the evaluation of the HPSISN program. This first national demonstration project of service learning in the health professions, and still perhaps one of the few (if not the only) demonstration projects testing a model of service learning across multiple institutional contexts. I invited Barbara Holland to join me as coevaluator, and collectively we had a lively and productive time over 3 years working with the 20 sites, crafting a model for multisite evaluation that honored individuality but provided consistent evidence, and exploring different means of implementing service learning. Our work resulted in numerous presentations and workshops, as well as a series of manuscripts and an assessment

Book.indb 166

03-10-2019 12:27:03

the journey of a community-engaged scholar  

167

handbook directed at the health professions (Gelmon, Holland, Morris, & Driscoll, 2000; Gelmon, Holland, Seifer, Shinnamon, & Connors, 1998; Gelmon, Holland, Shinnamon, & Morris, 1998; Shinnamon, Gelmon, & Holland, 1999). An early faculty development activity at PSU related to engaged scholarship was a simple, one-hour presentation that Susan Agre-Kippenhan and I created for a faculty workshop in September 2001. Crafted on a sunny summer day, sitting on Agre-Kippenhan’s front porch with a bottle of Oregon Pinot Noir to stimulate our creativity, we articulated a set of 20 strategies framed as advice for navigating the promotion and tenure process. We presented the content in a wildly successful session at PSU, submitted a written version that appeared in the AAHE Bulletin (Gelmon & AgreKippenhan, 2002b), and repeated the session at AAHE—leading to more “fan mail,” citations, enthusiastic responses, and even a short-lived website (Brag Like Your Mother Would ). We subsequently developed this content into a more formal approach and articulated a model for faculty development that we presented multiple times and published (Gelmon & AgreKippenhan, 2002a). In 2000, I was invited by Liz Hollander at Campus Compact to participate in a new Indicators of Engagement project (Hollander, Saltmarsh, & Zlotkowski, 2002), which led to a series of initiatives. These included the Engaged Disciplines project, which brought together multiple national disciplinary associations to discuss engagement in their disciplines; the Engaged Department initiative, which emerged from the Engaged Disciplines project in recognition of the importance of the academic department as the center for faculty and curriculum development (Battistoni et al., 2003; Saltmarsh & Gelmon, 2006); and two projects on the application of the Indicators of Engagement in different institutional contexts (Zlotkowski et al., 2004; Zlotkowski et al., 2005). This series of projects resulted in invitations to our team to offer multiple workshops to help departments or other groups think through the implications of engagement and related curricular and organizational approaches. The tool kit we published through Campus Compact (Battistoni et al., 2003) enabled departmental teams of faculty that could not attend a workshop to work through these processes on their own. All of this work through Campus Compact sparked interest among others who continued to explore institutionalization of engagement and measurement strategies and apply it in different contexts (e.g., Kecskes, Gelmon, & Spring, 2006). In retrospect, it is very gratifying to have been part of the original team that took Campus Compact’s indicators of engagement and operationalized them in a way that could be understood and applied across multiple

Book.indb 167

03-10-2019 12:27:03

168  

sharing pathways and perspectives

contexts and disciplines—not only studying implementation but also offering practical faculty development through a series of national and regional workshops that made the work real for campus teams and equipped them to immediately implement an action agenda after returning home from the Campus Compact workshops. This national work on the indicators of engagement led to work within my own professional education association as well. I collaborated with colleagues to create health administration education-specific materials for use in programs and departments that were similar to my academic home but unfamiliar with CBL and CES. The Association of University Programs in Health Administration (my former employer) was a willing partner, and we published a health administration monograph that was a companion to the AAHE and Campus Compact series to explore service learning in health management education (Stefl, Gelmon, & Hewitt, 2006; Gelmon & Battistoni, 2006). I have always felt that there is a symbiotic relationship between my work in CBL and CES at the national level and my work to advance these practices within my discipline. I have found it professionally satisfying to advance my field and higher education more broadly through the work that I do. I realize that I have had the double benefit of an academic home at an institution that was one of the earliest adopters of an expanded notion of scholarship that embraced CES as well as a career in an academic discipline that, by its very nature, embraces and engages with community and thus is supportive of the kind of work I care about. At several points in the past two decades I have had the opportunity to reflect on and write about various factors that both promote and obstruct CES (Gelmon, 2000; Gelmon, Stanton, Rudd, & Pacheco-Pinzon, 2009) through program evaluation research. My interest in providing and studying faculty development was sustained through two U.S. Department of Education Funds for Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) projects through CCPH for which I served as the national evaluator. The first, the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative (2004– 2007), focused on understanding mechanisms for institutional change to support CES (Gelmon, Lederer, Seifer, & Wong, 2009; Seifer, Wong, Gelmon, & Lederer, 2009). We developed an institutional self-assessment (Gelmon, Seifer, Kauper-Brown, & Mikkelsen, 2004) which, while broader than simply faculty development, helped institutions to consider multiple perspectives on becoming an engaged institution and has since been replicated on multiple campuses (e.g., Vitale et al., 2017). The second FIPSE-funded CCPH project for which I served as national evaluator was Faculty for the Engaged Campus (2007–2010). This project gave me an opportunity to continue to experiment with and study various

Book.indb 168

03-10-2019 12:27:03

the journey of a community-engaged scholar  

169

faculty development strategies to build capacity for CES (Gelmon & Jordan, 2018; Gelmon, Ryan, Blanchard, & Seifer, 2012). It also was the place for gestation of CES4Health, a novel online portal for the peer review and dissemination of nontraditional products of scholarship. Under the leadership of Cathy Jordan of the University of Minnesota, CES4Health proved a very fruitful scholarly activity for me in terms of multiple workshops and presentations as well as publications (Jordan, Gelmon, Seifer, & Ryan, 2012; Jordan et al., 2011). I have learned more through the CES4Health development, launch, and ongoing implementation than through many other projects in terms of defining CES, considering nontraditional products of scholarship, thinking about how a definition of scholarship about “health” transcends many disciplines, and wrestling with how concepts of peer review need to change in order to be more accepted in an academy that values community engagement. Over the years, I have thought a lot about institutionalizing models of community engagement in terms of both teaching and learning and faculty recognition and rewards. I have also given a lot of thought to institutional investment in infrastructure to support these strategies. My work outside of the United States as a consultant and through sabbatical research in Australia, Canada, and South Africa has expanded my thinking to consider how this is operationalized in other countries. This has resulted in scholarly publications (Gelmon et al., 2004) and invited think pieces (Holland & Gelmon, 1998; Mitchell, Trotter, & Gelmon, 2005) regarding the similarities and differences in approaches to community engagement. Throughout this work, I have not been tied by any specific theories, conceptual frameworks, or measurement strategies; rather, my work as an evaluator has been shaped by approaching every project, problem, or opportunity with a pragmatic perspective, asking what is the context, what is desired, what is relevant, and what is practical. As someone who has done a lot of program evaluations and taught that topic as a graduate course regularly, I rely on pragmatic approaches to evaluation (Gelmon, Foucek, & Waterbury, 2005; Pawson & Tilly, 1997; Wholey, Hatry, & Newcomer, 2010). This ensures that research projects are designed to be not only culturally and organizationally responsive but also practical in terms of the resources available, time commitments, energy, and interest. I am more interested in a practical approach than a pure theoretical approach—valuing and respecting the best of research design and methods, while also ensuring a real-world approach (e.g., Gelmon, 2003). Thus, the use of a model of a conceptual framework, which we initially articulated at PSU and then advanced through HPSISN and other projects, has sustained and been practical to apply in almost every project I have conducted.

Book.indb 169

03-10-2019 12:27:03

170  

sharing pathways and perspectives

As a result, I have not had a structured research agenda with a clear direction and timetable to pursue certain questions in a systematic way. Rather, I have been somewhat opportunistic as well as responsive to the creativity of colleagues and new ideas, and willing to “jump on board” when a new idea was presented that seemed interesting, challenging, and intellectually stimulating. I am often involved in multiple research projects, which requires careful time management and excellent organization, and I have been able to do this work by supporting a cadre of terrific graduate research assistants who collaborate on the work, get excellent experience (and generally paid tuition and stipend), and value the opportunity to become coauthors and copresenters. One of the most important lessons I can share with others is to maintain breadth of vision and invite colleagues and students to collaborate, creating a much richer and more vibrant research environment than working alone.

Learning From Meaningful and Significant Collaborations My collaboration on ideas and practices related to CES is the most substantive illustration of practical wisdom that I can offer. For me, the importance of articulating clear strategies, mechanisms for evaluation, and practical advice came from my own journey through promotion and tenure (P&T) review. PSU had adopted its groundbreaking P&T guidelines in 1996, and it explicitly used the Boyer framework and an expanded notion of scholarship. When I came up for review in 1998, I was the first faculty member at PSU to go forward for P&T to the rank of full professor with a robust dossier including products of CES as well as more traditional disciplinary scholarship. There were no role models to follow for creating a narrative, documenting my work, explaining the unique contexts and partnerships, or packaging a creative dossier that captured the unique elements of my various scholarly projects. After my successful P&T review, I was determined to help others navigate this process. With various PSU colleagues over the years, we tracked faculty adoption of the new P&T criteria and regularly “tested the pulse” of individual faculty, department chairs, and institutional administrators. While we made a number of presentations and conducted workshops both at local events and national meetings, we never published this work. This was a result of our inability to get complete information; P&T decisions are confidential personnel processes, and there was no way to access relevant information. Nevertheless, years of informal tracking of the adoption of the PSU guidelines plus many opportunities to study institutional policies and cultures in

Book.indb 170

03-10-2019 12:27:03

the journey of a community-engaged scholar  

171

the United States, Canada, South Africa, and Australia gave me considerable insights into the continuing challenges faced by many faculty in convincing others of the value of their community-engaged scholarship. Discussions over the years resulted in what may be my favorite unfunded, short-lived but provocative project—Rethinking Peer Review. This collaboration with Sarena Seifer, Cathy Jordan, and Cathy Burack came about over a conversation at a reception at an IARSLCE conference (another research opportunity stimulated by wine). Our intent was to explore what we know about peer review and how we perceive it, and how we might “rethink” the concept to be more expansive, especially in the context of CES. We engaged in multiple intense conversations among our small group and then held two in-depth workshops with a broader set of colleagues in 2012 and 2013 in conjunction with the IARSLCE conference and made a presentation at AAC&U in January 2013. Two manuscripts evolved out of these various conversations, which I consider to be some of the most creative thinking I have been involved with—perhaps because this work, rather than documenting a project and evaluating its impact and outcomes, gave us a place to explore options, challenge our own perceptions, and consider how to break with long held traditions within the academy. We were invited to write the lead article in the first issue of the new International Journal for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement on this project (Gelmon, Jordan, & Seifer, 2013b) and then were invited to author a think piece for Change Magazine on the broader topic of CES (Gelmon, Jordan, & Seifer, 2013a). We did not continue a specific collaborative agenda on peer review and CES, primarily due to the lack of a home for this work, let alone funding or a designated organizer. Each of us had multiple other priorities at the time, and despite our interest, we simply did not have the necessary collective energy to continue the work. However, the conversations and ideas that arose from these two years of activity have continued to inform my work, especially as I offer faculty development workshops and do further writing about recognition of engaged scholarship. This work also informs my ongoing activities as a reviewer of junior faculty at my institution and as an external reviewer for colleagues at other institutions. A key lesson learned here that others may find useful is that, despite excitement and enthusiasm, it is not always possible to keep all trajectories moving forward. Rather than being disappointed at a missed opportunity, we decided to celebrate what we had done, value the dissemination that shared our thoughts with others, and enjoy what we had learned from a short but important project. Another important takeaway was the successful collaboration and the joy of working with colleagues with similar interests, passions, and enthusiasm.

Book.indb 171

03-10-2019 12:27:04

172  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Practical Wisdom for the Future If one accepts that practical wisdom is the integration of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding, then looking forward I can offer the following suggestions based on my own career path and trajectory. I value the opportunities I have had to build on early work and collaborations that can last for years. The work of a community-engaged scholar is the work of collaboration, and successful collaborations recognize the importance of colleagues and the work that we can do together—whether that is mutual admiration or in-depth collaboration, conceptualization, and writing. Cultivate multiple colleagues and collaborators, and seek venues to collectively develop knowledge, share this work and seek others’ opinions, and then disseminate your work in various venues and media. Opportunities sometimes arise in unexpected ways. Take full advantage of conference settings to explore and brainstorm new ideas with colleagues. I continue to be concerned about institutionalizing engagement, and I am still dismayed at the lag among higher education institutions and campus leaders to embrace diverse forms of scholarship. Despite energy at many institutions for over 20 years, the pace of change is still slow for campuses to explicitly integrate engaged scholarship in their P&T guidelines with the simultaneous acceptance of various approaches to, and products of, research. Similarly, many professional associations need to adopt a broader perspective as they invite, review, and accept scholarly works for presentation at their conferences. Likewise, funders need to recognize the value of community partners as peers and collaborators and not limit program funding to academics alone. For this to happen, we need continued attention to differentiating the pedagogies of teaching and learning from scholarship and the production of scholarly work. Higher education needs to continue to evolve to value multiple pedagogies and multiple modes of scholarship. An expanded notion of scholarship also requires new modes and mind-sets of peer review and dissemination to share nontraditional products of scholarship more broadly to nontraditional audiences. Part of this is valuing different kinds of peers in peer review, and valuing different kinds of products and venues to share and generate new knowledge. As the understanding of scholarship expands, individual faculty will need continued support from institutional experts and professional peers to understand how to document one’s work. The presentation of CES in a dossier requires the candidate to tell a compelling story and may require different kinds of presentation. The work of a community-engaged scholar requires clarity of vision and purpose, as well as the ability to articulate the

Book.indb 172

03-10-2019 12:27:04

the journey of a community-engaged scholar  

173

value and worth of one’s work for a range of stakeholders. Thus, my advice for others is to be confident in one’s work; be able to clearly articulate its value and worth; and be strong and resolute in defending the importance of the work and its relevance for individuals, the field, and communities. There is much value in electronic portfolios where one’s approach to scholarship can be illustrated with pictures and other media and easily linked to various forms of impact. This allows scholars to demonstrate how the impact of their work is meaningful and significant within traditional and nontraditional publication outlets. Conceptualizing and doing communityengaged work is important, but the individual faculty member also must find the language and style to frame and articulate CES, which may require new and creative strategies to best inform one’s reviewers about the nature and complexity of community engagement. Regardless of one’s discipline, I highly recommend many resources available through the CCPH website (www.ccphealth.org), as these tools and approaches have been well designed and used by scholars across the disciplines.

Conclusion The research-to-practice implications of CES are central to the work of service learning and community engagement in higher education. Skeptical colleagues will likely continue to have a lack of respect for community-engaged work, will question the rigor and validity of CES, and will dig in their heels to maintain personal and institutional mind-sets and traditions about what counts in order to demonstrate impact. I encourage readers to harness your creativity, tap into those areas that give you joy and about which you are passionate, identify relevant and interested community partners with whom you can work, and find other excited and interested collaborators (e.g., peers, students, partners)—all of which will put you securely on a similar journey as a community-engaged scholar and help you to contribute to the communities where you work and live.

References Battistoni, R., Gelmon, S., Saltmarsh, J., Wergin, J. & Zlotkowski, E. (2003). The engaged department toolkit. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66–71.

Book.indb 173

03-10-2019 12:27:04

174  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Gelmon, S. B. (2000). Challenges in assessing service-learning research. Special issue. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 84–90. Gelmon, S. B. (2003). Assessing service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby and Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 42–64). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Gelmon, S. B. (2007). The International Association for Research on Service-­ Learning and Community Engagement. In S. Gelmon & S. Billing (Eds), From passion to objectivity: International and cross-disciplinary perspectives on servicelearning research (pp. 255–257). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Gelmon, S. B. (2010). A catalyst for research: The International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement. In H. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Seifer (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions (pp. 393–406). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Gelmon, S. B., & Agre-Kippenhan, S. (2002a). Engaged scholarship: A model and agenda for faculty development. Journal of Public Affairs, 6, 161–182. Gelmon, S. B., & Agre-Kippenhan, S. (2002b). Promotion, tenure, and the engaged scholar: Keeping the scholarship of engagement in the process. AAHE Bulletin, 54(January), 7–11. Gelmon, S. B., Agre-Kippenhan, S., & Cress, C. M. (2005). Beyond a grade: Are we making a difference? The benefits and challenges of evaluating the impact of learning and serving. In C. Cress, P. Collier & V. Reitenauer (Eds), Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across the disciplines, (pp. 125–138). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gelmon, S. B., & Battistoni, R. M. (2006). Civic engagement: Conceptual frameworks for health management. In M. Stefl, S. Gelmon, & A. Hewitt (Eds), Promoting civic engagement in healthcare management education: Concepts and cases (pp. 7–27). Arlington, VA: Association of University Programs in Health Administration. Gelmon, S. B., & Billig, S. H. (Eds.). (2007). From passion to objectivity: International and cross-disciplinary perspectives on service-learning research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Gelmon, S. B., Driscoll, A., Holland, B., & Kerrigan, S. (1995). Community impact of experiential learning: A model for assessment and improvement. In Abstracts of the First International Scientific Symposium on Improving Quality and Value in Health Care. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Gelmon, S. B., Foucek, A., & Waterbury, A. (2005). Program evaluation: Principles and practices (2nd ed). Portland, OR: Northwest Health Foundation. Gelmon, S. B., Gaudet, M., Sherman, A., Mitchell, C., & Trotter, K. (2004). Institutionalizing service-learning across the university: International comparisons. In S. Billig & M. Welch (Eds.), New perspectives in service-learning: Research to advance the field (pp. 195–217). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B., Morris, B., & Driscoll, A. (2000). Evaluating the impact of service learning: Applications for medical education. In S. Seifer, K.

Book.indb 174

03-10-2019 12:27:04

the journey of a community-engaged scholar  

175

Hermanns, & J. Lewis (Eds.), Creating community-responsive physicians: Concepts and models for service-learning in medical education (pp. 139–155). Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education. Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Seifer, S. D., Shinnamon, A. F., & Connors, K. (1998). Community-university partnerships for mutual learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 97–107. Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Shinnamon, A. F., & Morris, B. A. (1998). ­Community-based education and service: The HPSISN experience. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12, 257–272. Gelmon, S. B., Holland, B. A., Spring, A., Kerrigan, S., & Driscoll, A. (2018). Assessing the impact of service-learning and community engagement: Principles and methods (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gelmon, S. B., & Jordan, C. M. (2018). Connecting faculty development to community-engaged scholarship. In P. Green, B. Berkey, E. Eddins, & C. Meixner (Eds.), Reconceptualizing faculty development in service-learning/community engagement: Exploring intersections, frameworks, and models of practice (pp. 265–282). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gelmon, S. B., Jordan, C. M., & Seifer, S. D. (2013a). Community-engaged scholarship in the academy: An action agenda. Change Magazine, 45, 58–66. Gelmon, S. B., Jordan, C. M., & Seifer, S. D. (2013b). Rethinking peer review: Expanding the boundaries for community-engaged scholarship. International Journal of Research on Service-learning and Community Engagement, 1(1), 1–10. Gelmon, S. B., Lederer, M., Seifer, S. D., & Wong, K. (2009). Evaluating the accomplishments of the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative. Metropolitan Universities Journal, 20, 22–45. Gelmon, S. B., Ryan, K., Blanchard, L., & Seifer, S. D. (2012). Building capacity for community engaged scholarship: Evaluation of the faculty development component of the faculty for the engaged campus initiative. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16, 21–46. Gelmon, S. B., Seifer, S. D., Kauper-Brown, J., & Mikkelsen, M. (2004). Building capacity for community engagement: Institutional self-assessment. Seattle, WA: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. Retrieved from http://www.ccph .info Gelmon, S. B., Stanton, T., Rudd, C., & Pacheco-Pinzon, D. (2009). Research for what? New directions for community-engaged scholarship: International perspectives. In B. Moely, S. Billig, & B. Holland (Eds), Creating our identities in service-learning and community engagement (pp. 251–263). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Holland, B. A., & Gelmon, S. B. (1998). The state of the “engaged campus.” AAHE Bulletin, 51, 3–6. Hollander, E. L., Saltmarsh, J., & Zlotkowski, E. (2002). Indicators of engagement. In M. Kenny, L. Simon, K. Kiley-Brabeck, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Learning to serve: Promoting civil society through service-learning (pp. 31–49). Boston, MA: Springer.

Book.indb 175

03-10-2019 12:27:04

176  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Jordan, C., Gelmon, S., Seifer. S., & Ryan, K. (2012). CES4Health.info: A web-based mechanism for disseminating peer-reviewed products of community-engaged scholarship: Reflections on year one. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16, 47–64. Jordan, C., Seifer, S. D., Gelmon, S. B., Ryan, K., & McGinley, P. (2011). CES4Health. info: An online tool for peer reviewed publication and dissemination of diverse products of community-engaged scholarship. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education and Action, 5(2), 188–199. Kecskes, K. J., Gelmon, S. B., & Spring, A. (2006). Creating engaged departments: A program for organizational and faculty development. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D. Robertson (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (Vol. 24, pp. 147–165). Bolton, MA: Anker. Kerrigan, S., Gelmon, S., & Spring, A. (2003). The community as classroom: Multiple perspectives on student learning. Metropolitan Universities, 14(3), 53–67. Mitchell, C., Trotter, K., & Gelmon, S. (2005). A case study of a higher education institutional assessment of service-learning. Acta Academica (South Africa), Supplementum (3), 151–177. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage. Saltmarsh, J., & Gelmon, S. (2006). Characteristics of an engaged department: Design and assessment. In K. Kecskes, (Ed). Engaging departments: Moving faculty culture from private to public, individual to collective focus for the common good (pp. 27–44). Bolton, MA: Anker. Seifer, S. D., Wong, K., Gelmon, S. B., & Lederer, M. (2009). The communityengaged scholarship for health collaborative: A national change initiative focused on faculty roles and rewards. Metropolitan Universities Journal, 20(2), 5–21. Shinnamon, A. F., Gelmon, S. B., & Holland, B. A. (1999). Methods and strategies for assessing service learning in the health professions. San Francisco, CA: CommunityCampus Partnerships for Health. Stefl, M. E., Gelmon S. B., & Hewitt, A. M., (Eds.). (2006). Promoting civic engagement in healthcare management education: Concepts and cases. Arlington, VA: Association of University Programs in Health Administration. Vitale, K., Newton, G. L., Abraido-Lanza, A. F., Aguirre, A. N., Ahmed, S., Esmond, S. L., Evans, J., Gelmon, S. B., Hart, C., Hendricks, D., McClinton-Brown, R., Young, S. N., Stewart, M. K., & Tumiel-Berhalte, L. (2017). Community engagement in academic health centers: A model for capturing and advancing our successes. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 10(1), 64–72. Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Zlotkowski, E., Duffy, D. K., Franco, R., Gelmon, S. B., Norvell, K., Meeropol, J. & Jones, S. (2004). The community’s college: Indicators of engagement at two-year institutions. Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Zlotkowski, E., Jones, R., Lenk, M., Meeropol, J., Gelmon, S. B., & Norvell, K. (2005). One with the community: Indicators of engagement at minority-serving institutions. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

Book.indb 176

03-10-2019 12:27:04

2.9 A S PA C E F O R P R A X I S Engaging in Reflective Practice as a Scholar-Administrator Emily M. Janke

I

n this chapter, I reflect on why we need the scholarship of scholaradministrators if we are to advance research, practice, and practical wisdom in service learning and community engagement. I describe the work of Donald Schön on reflective practice and suggest how it provides a holistic perspective from which to understand the unique space that scholar-administrators occupy—and how this space can be used to advance knowledge and practice in community engagement. I share my own challenge early in my career to envision and articulate an integrated view of how one can, concurrently, seek excellence in scholarship and administrative work. I share my own pathway as a scholar-administrator through the lens of reflective practice to provide a narrative of how administrative work creates a space for praxis; creates a unique environment and platform through which to engage in scholarly practices; and leads to the production of scholarship, enriching personal, institutional, and field-building agendas.

The (False) Dilemma of “Choosing” A dilemma appears any time one feels required to choose a single path when many are possible. In the first years of my now decade-long career, I experienced the dilemma of too often believing that I, as an early career professional, could pursue excellence either as an administrator or as a scholar. My false thinking was likely rooted in my limited notions of administration and scholarship. Early on, I tended to notice, mainly, models of scholaradministrators in which the scholar had come to an administrative position 177

Book.indb 177

03-10-2019 12:27:04

178  

sharing pathways and perspectives

only after achieving tenure and associate professor rank or higher. Hence, I believed that if I wanted to be a scholar-administrator or a person who pursued both excellence in contributing scholarship and administrative leadership, then I would need to plan a staggered approach, first pursuing a faculty position and then an administrative one. My passion and aim in taking an administrative appointment is to help bring about transformations in higher education cultures, structures, and systems such that community engagement is valued as a legitimate approach to serving institutional and community priorities. To my mind, as an early career professional, I would have to delay my pursuit of institutional transformational change if I wanted to also pursue excellence as a scholar. I (falsely) believed that these two activities, administration and scholarship, were not compatible. Accordingly, when I took my first job in 2008 as an assistant director for service learning, an administrative position, I worried about maintaining my newly formed identity and practice as a scholar. My perception of who a scholar is likely came from a false sense of how scholarship is pursued and what constitutes scholarship. My training as a doctoral student in higher education left me (probably unintentionally) with the impression that a scholar was someone who conducted certain types of research and produced certain kinds of scholarship. Although research might be inspired by or applied to practice, it seemed, to me, that scholarship required a very linear path of sequentially identifying partners or collaborators, a research question, a theoretical or conceptual framework, methods for data collection and analysis, and a peer-reviewed venue for the final scholarly product. My early experiences of research assistantships and research methods courses imprinted on me that scholarship was synonymous with research (which I discuss later in this chapter) and that evidence of scholarship was peer-reviewed articles and books written for disciplinary audiences. Since earning my doctorate in 2008, I have served in four different positions across three different units at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNC Greensboro). I came to the university as the assistant director of service learning in an office located in student affairs. I transitioned two years later to serve the vice chancellor for research and economic development (now, for research and engagement) as the special assistant for community engagement. Two years later, I was simultaneously named as the director of the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement and joined the Peace and Conflict Studies department as an associate professor, earning tenure two years later. In this way, a very unexpected thing happened: I earned promotion, and then tenure, for my scholarship that had been produced, almost wholly, as an administrator. Most of the scholarship,

Book.indb 178

03-10-2019 12:27:04

a space for praxis  

179

though not all, was a result of using various methods and creating diverse scholarly products that were developed to achieve both administrative and scholarly aims.

My Scholar-Administrator Path As director of the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement I serve an office that has responsibility for advancing community-engaged scholarship across UNC Greensboro. Housed in the Office of Research and Engagement, my primary responsibility is to encourage and support faculty to pursue community-engaged scholarship. As an associate professor in the Peace and Conflict Studies department, I am considered to be what the School of Health and Human Sciences (2015) promotion and tenure policy refers to as, “a scholar of application . . . a theorist of application and a broker for implementing change through scholarship” (p. 4). UNC Greensboro has served as my primary community for my engaged research; the faculty, staff, administrators, and students have been my primary community partners. Thus, as I stated in my tenure and promotion dossier, “much of my scholarly work is best viewed from the lenses of what it takes for a metropolitan urban-serving institution to engage more authentically in the community for mutual community-university benefit.” As a faculty member, I have expectations for teaching one course each year, as well as producing scholarship and providing service to the department, unit, and institution. Though labeled a scholar of application for the purpose of promotion and tenure review, I consider myself to be a scholaradministrator because it speaks to my positionality as an administrator and my intentional focus on institutional change through administrative leadership. As I share later, I am an advocate for scholar-administrators and the scholarship they produce from their unique and important positions in higher education administration.

Reflective Practitioner As I have refined my earlier understanding of who a scholar-administrator is, and how scholarship is produced, I have sought out the work of others who ask questions about how it is that one comes to know something, or epistemology. Through his writing on reflective practice, Donald Schön has provided me with language, and from that language, a great sense of, and confidence in, myself as a scholar-administrator. Schön was an influential philosopher in developing the theory and practice of reflective professional learning in the twentieth century. Through his life’s work, he introduced

Book.indb 179

03-10-2019 12:27:04

180  

sharing pathways and perspectives

several important organizing concepts about how professionals are trained in their professions to a wide range of applied fields including architecture, engineering, health and education. In his book Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Schön (1987) challenged professionals to reconsider the notion that all valuable professional knowledge is technical knowledge and that the understanding of concepts and skills can be transmitted from instructor to student. Through attention on reflective practice, Schön (1987) brought attention to different forms of knowledge that are generated not through transmission but through one’s own experience and are demonstrated not as a repetition of what has been previously learned, but rather become manifest through the art and craft of improvisation. Applied to my work as an administrator in higher education, I came to understand that there are new paths available for learning and knowing that extend beyond the traditional, more linear and hierarchical models of scholarship than I had envisioned when starting my career. Schön (1983) described two types of reflective practice, both of which require a continual interweaving of thinking and doing. The first type of reflective practice is knowing-in-action. In The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action (1983), Schön described this first type of reflective practice: Often we cannot say what it is we know. When we try to describe it we find ourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are obviously inappropriate. Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our knowing is in our action. (p. 49)

Other common phrases that describe knowing-in-action include the ability to think on one’s feet or the possession of a certain know-how. Skilled professionals, Schön argued, draw from feelings, emotions, and prior experiences to navigate situations and decisions. In some cases, through navigating these situations, new ways of thinking are revealed. The second type of reflective practice is reflection-on-action. It is the concept that one reviews and analyzes actions within a situation to explore the reasons around, and the consequences of, those actions. Echoing John Dewey’s work (1933), Schön (1983) defined reflection-on-action as requiring intentional and critical thinking to make meaning of an experience. It is the “active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it and further conclusion to which it tends” (p. 9). Hence, reflection-on-action involves

Book.indb 180

03-10-2019 12:27:04

a space for praxis  

181

intentional, rational thought, as it occurs when an individual stops to consider and critically examine experience in light of previously held ideas and theories. Put succinctly, there are things one cannot know as a scholar about supporting community-engaged partnerships and institutionalizing communityengaged scholarship in higher education if one is not engaged in each of these practices. Each provides a praxis environment, providing new insights and opportunities through knowing-in-action, and also later, through intentional, critical reflection-on-action. The administrative position provides knowledge (knowledge-in-action) that one cannot possess without the lived experience of administrative practice. As an example, it is the knowing-in-action that helps me to navigate, with a certain level of “know-how,” conversations with faculty members, department chairs, deans, and provosts to support and advocate for community-engaged scholarship in university policies, budgets, structures, and branding messages. Although I have technical knowledge as a result of my doctoral education and continued professional development and disciplinary scholarship, I also navigate those moments by connecting to my intuition, feelings, and previous experiences to develop strategies that will serve my goal to have community engagement understood, valued, and supported by the academic community. Although one may engage in reflection-on-action in a variety of ways, including journaling, reading, and sharing ideas with others in learning communities, I have found that when I focus on creating scholarly products that I intend to share with others publicly, I am most rigorous in my thinking. With the aim to push my ideas out to share with others, I force myself to think more deeply and more critically—as a scholar, connecting, testing, and engaging my ideas with theories, concepts, and experiences that have been shared by others through their own diverse forms of scholarship.

Defining Scholarships A key moment in understanding myself as a scholar-administrator was when I evolved my way of thinking about what constitutes scholarship—the artifacts in which our knowledge becomes manifest. My understanding of scholarship aligns with the work of Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997), who are cited frequently in the community-engagement literature for their descriptions of scholarship and scholarly work. They broadly define scholarship as any product that demonstrates current knowledge of the field/discipline, invites peer collaboration and review, is open to critique, is presented in a

Book.indb 181

03-10-2019 12:27:04

182  

sharing pathways and perspectives

form on which others can build, and involves critical reflection of the work (Glassick, Huber & Maeroff, 1997). At UNC Greensboro the term scholarship is defined inclusively, according to the faculty promotion and tenure policy. It rest[s] on a definition of scholarship that can be applied to all aspects of University work: Scholarship is characterized by creative intellectual work based on a high level of professional expertise, the significance of which can be validated by peers and which enhances the fulfillment of the mission of the University. Scholarship is not considered to be synonymous with research, but can be demonstrated by activities in teaching, research and creative activity, service, and directed professional activity. (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2010, p. 1)

Scholarship, then, is not about specific methods or products, but rather about engaging in one’s work in a scholarly way. Although UNC Greensboro’s definition is written in the context of a faculty governance document, it helped me to imagine my identity as a scholar-administrator before becoming a faculty member because it recognizes that scholarship can be produced through many different roles and in different contexts, as long as it follows the tenets of quality scholarship. My understanding about why an expanded notion of scholarship matters for scholar-administrators is meaningfully influenced and informed by the work and words of Tim Eatman and colleagues, who link expanded notions of knowledge-making to aims for social equity and justice through what they term full participation (Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush, 2011). Eatman (2014) argues for a “‘continuum approach to scholarship [which] expands who is a knowledge maker and what is a knowledge artifact” (p. 5). He explains that by embracing a continuum of understanding scholarship and scholars are defined in ways that are inclusive of many sorts and conditions of knowledge that emanate from and are enacted through diverse traditions, experiences, positions, and cultures. Scholarship resists embedded hierarchies by assigning equal value to inquiry of different kinds. In this conversation about reframing who is a scholar and what constitutes scholarship, I began to see my own work as part of a larger movement to broaden participation and recognition of scholars who have valuable ideas to share through many different types of expressions, including but certainly not limited to peer-reviewed journal articles and books. As Eatman (2014) is careful to point out, an inclusive continuum recognizes that a scholar can be located along the continuum of scholarship at any point and that any “work on the continuum, however various, (may) be judged by common

Book.indb 182

03-10-2019 12:27:04

a space for praxis  

183

principles, standards to which all academic scholarly and creative work is held” (p. 5). Though I have a record of scholarship in the form of articles and book chapters, much of my scholarship is not in the form of scholarly articles. I find that faculty and staff colleagues at other institutions refer to many different forms of my scholarly artifacts, not just the ones that are in peerreviewed or chapter form. I have begun to see similarities between my own administrative-based scholarship and scholarship produced by communityengaged scholars. Both create scholarly artifacts, white papers, reports, reference documents, data sets, digital tools and platforms, curricula, programs, training manuals, performances, designs, and exhibits. All of these artifacts are produced for nondisciplinary audiences and contribute knowledge that has been generated by people who draw from disciplinary, as well as lived experiences.

Personal Reflection: Praxis Facilitating Diverse Forms of Scholarship Praxis is defined as an environment or a setting that provides explicit attempts to learn through reflective practice. When used as a verb, such as to engage in praxis, it is the act of moving, iteratively, between theory and practice. I use the term theory here to broadly mean questions that are related to why or how things happen. Theory, in my use here, is about developing a framework to guide thinking or to provide plausible explanations, which then may be used to examine experiences for deeper understanding and to identify potential implications for research and practice. In this section, I share how sometimes I produce scholarship that is originated and driven by problems of administrative practice, while other times I produce scholarship that emerges as a result of reflecting more deeply on my own practice or the practices of others, such as community-engaged scholars. This approach has led me to actively contribute scholarly approaches and scholarship across many areas, including defining community engagement terms to differentiate them from other forms of community connections; recognizing community engagement in faculty promotion and tenure policies and practice; tracking and measuring community engagement activities across institutions and state university systems; providing communications for internal and external relations, as well as community-university partnerships teams; and developing interpersonal conflict and communication competencies as community engagement professionals. In many instances, my scholarly work and identity are grounded in and driven by issues of administrative practice. As a special assistant for

Book.indb 183

03-10-2019 12:27:04

184  

sharing pathways and perspectives

community engagement, and now as director of the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement (ICEE), my work is focused on issues related to supporting community-engaged scholarship at UNC Greensboro. When I joined the Office of Research and Engagement in 2010, I had the following main and concurrent objectives: (a) support faculty efforts to align promotion and tenure guidelines across the unit and department level with the newly revised university policy, which had then recently integrated support for community-engaged teaching, research and creative activity, and service; (b) track and measure community engagement activities across the institution for the purpose of improving coordination, collaboration, and communication about community-engaged scholarship; and (c) lead a process to articulate a vision and plan for supporting excellence in community engagement at UNC Greensboro. These three areas (supporting faculty rewards, tracking and measuring, and institutionalizing support for community-engaged scholarship) are key threads that have produced the tapestry of scholarship in the first decade of my career. In favor of depth rather than brevity, my reflections here focus on the first track, efforts to support policy and culture change recognizing community-engaged scholarship in promotion and tenure, and my reflective practice. In my first year at UNC Greensboro, I began to support a small movement of faculty who were committed to recognizing and rewarding community-engaged scholarship explicitly in the university promotion and tenure policy. As a result of my graduate training with Carol Colbeck, who studied faculty motivations to engage in public scholarship, I had read deeply on the topic of faculty culture and the issue of recognitions and rewards. I was, therefore, eager to partner with the faculty champions of this movement, sharing articles and resources from the community engagement and higher education literatures. I collaborated with a service learning faculty fellow to design a study in which we interviewed 15 tenured and tenure-track faculty to understand the perceptions and experiences of community-engaged scholars at UNC Greensboro (Hayes & Janke, 2010). Our findings were reported to the Faculty Senate as well as at academic conferences. In this way, I presented myself as a scholar of engagement to the faculty and executive leadership at UNC Greensboro. Later, and in part because of my ongoing support of connecting faculty champions and conversations to scholarly literature, I was asked to more formally support faculty discussions and professional development related to issues of promotion and tenure as the director of the ICEE. In my second year, I was asked by the provost to develop an institutional glossary that provided definitions of community-engaged terms used in the promotion and tenure policy (Janke, Clayton, Lucas, & Shelton, 2011). The

Book.indb 184

03-10-2019 12:27:04

a space for praxis  

185

terms community-engaged teaching, community-engaged research and creative activity, and community-engaged service were named in the policy but not fully or clearly defined. As a result, I coproduced with Patti Clayton, a senior scholar invited to support our community engagement visioning and planning process, a service learning faculty fellow, and the vice chancellor for research and engagement, a document of definitions in the form of a letter to the faculty, and later as part of a volume published by ICEE, Excellence in Community Engagement and Community-Engaged Scholarship: Advancing the Discourse at UNCG (Janke & Clayton, 2012). In the letter and volume, we shared the context in which the definitions were requested, the grounding of the definitions in the scholarly community engagement literature and definition in the Carnegie Foundation’s Elective Community Engagement Classification, and the full definitions of the terms used in the policy. We also discussed terms that required clarification, such as what constitutes community and how community engagement differs from public service or outreach. Within a year of the university promotion and tenure policy being revised to include community-engaged teaching, community-engaged research and creative activity, and community-engaged service, I codesigned with Barbara Holland, who also served as a senior scholar at UNC Greensboro to support our work in community engagement, an intensive series of meetings and dialogues with faculty members and administrators. The sessions were to help faculty to recognize and evaluate community-engaged scholarship as they revised their unit and department level policies to align with the university policy. Over the course of 5 days, we held dialogues with 113 faculty and administrative leaders from 42 academic departments about a common and rigorous approach to assessing the quality and impact of all forms of scholarly activities and products. We listened carefully, crafted responses, and asked a colleague to keep verbatim records of the conversations and dialogues for our later, continued reflection. The provost requested via the dean’s council that all faculty who served as department heads and reviewers of faculty candidates at both the department and unit levels participate. A key goal was to listen to faculty members’ perceptions about the barriers that prevent the full acceptance of community-­engaged scholarship and its equitable treatment as a scholarly method, particularly in promotion and tenure mentoring, documentation, and committee decisions. Faculty participants were informed that the notes taken of each meeting would be used to develop a report to be shared broadly and particularly with faculty and administrative leadership. Faculty participants also completed a survey of their self-reported abilities across a variety of community engagement activities. The surveys were designed to help us

Book.indb 185

03-10-2019 12:27:04

186  

sharing pathways and perspectives

understand what issues needed to be addressed through future professional development. In these ways, my colleague and I advanced our careful exploration of faculty cultural change as it relates to promotion and tenure policy and practice. However, our inquiry did not start as a research question in the way that, as a graduate student or early career professional, I had imagined it would. It started with an administrative challenge, or as Schön (1987) might describe, in the “swampy lowland, [where] messy, confusing problems defy technical solution” (p. 3). We were immersed in myriad conversations as we spoke to different groupings of deans, department chairs, promotion and tenure committee chairs, and faculty members more generally across units and disciplines. Each meeting was replete with uncertainty and uniqueness and required us, as scholar-administrators, to bring to bear not only our technical knowledge that we had prepared for in advance but also our creative artistry as we responded to the situation in the moment (Schön, 1983). Later, for the purpose of advancing our understanding of how best to lead change efforts at our university, we identified four persistent and common challenges through open coding analysis of the university-wide meetings. Soon after the dialogues, I wrote and distributed a follow-up letter (Janke, 2012) that was shared by e-mail with faculty and administrative leadership. In the letter, we shared information about who attended the dialogues as well as key themes that arose. We wanted to share these themes to facilitate an ongoing dialogue about the perceived opportunities and lingering challenges related to operationalizing UNC Greensboro’s collective commitment to recognize and reward community-engaged scholarship. The dialogues were also instructive as I prepared a presentation at an open forum held by the Faculty Senate Scholarly Communications Committee as well as individual meetings and consultations with faculty and department chairs who were in the process of revising department guidelines. Each of these meetings facilitated a rich praxis environment that provided a valuable, insider opportunity to learn through practice. Further, the process of reflecting-on-action helped generate new insights as we prepared the scholarly products, such as the letter and the faculty senate committee presentation. We continued in our reflection-on-action to produce lengthier and more comprehensive publications, including a volume titled Honoring the Mosaic of Talents and Stewarding the Standards of High Quality CommunityEngaged Scholarship (Janke, Medlin, & Holland, 2014). The second volume in the Excellence in Community Engagement and Community-Engaged Scholarship series published by the ICEE, it provided not only the findings from the dialogues but also additional resources drawn from community

Book.indb 186

03-10-2019 12:27:04

a space for praxis  

187

engagement fields. We decided to produce volumes within a series as a strategy to ensure institutional sharing and institutional memory as faculty and administrators made efforts to recognize community engagement as valued academic work. The first volume, Advancing the Discourse at UNCG (Janke & Clayton, 2012), shared definitions of community engagement, summaries of talks given by five nationally recognized experts on community engagement, and recommendations for continuing campus dialogues on issues related to recognizing community engagement as valued and legitimate academic work. The third volume, Aligning University and Community Strengths and Priorities (Janke & Medin, 2016), provides a guide for enacting the university’s strategic plan via community-­engaged pathways. We approached writing the volumes in a scholarly way. We identified the key issue to be addressed for the publication; collected and presented ideas and findings; and shared our interpretations of the ideas, connecting them to and building on current scholarship. Thus, as I worked administratively, I developed scholarship—my results were scholarly artifacts that built upon current literature, extended it to a new context, expanded the ideas, and disseminated in a publicly available way for others to access, critique, and build upon. Producing scholarship that others may access, critique, and build on ultimately not only benefited my own understanding but also allowed me to contribute to a larger body of scholarship, such as faculty rewards systems. Two years after the dialogues, I coauthored a peer-reviewed article titled “Intense, Pervasive and Shared Faculty Dialogue: Generating Understanding and Identifying ‘Hotspots’ in Five Days” (Janke, Medline, & Holland, 2016). This deeply reflective practice of writing about our experiences helped to deepen understanding about strategy, how to design the process itself (who to invite, who to help champion the process, the value of doing it all in an intense period of time), the so-called hotspots revealed throughout the course of the dialogues, and examples of how units addressed the task of policy alignment. Ultimately, at least four types of scholarly products came from my administrative activities to support community engagement in faculty promotion and tenure policy and practice: one letter, one volume, one peerreviewed journal article, and several presentations at academic conferences. I continue to study the way in which community engagement was integrated into promotion and tenure policies at the unit and department level. I do this through reflection-in-action as I consult with faculty and department chairs who are planning for or preparing faculty candidate’s dossiers for promotion and/or tenure. I also advance my study through reflection-on-action as I collaborate with colleagues on a qualitative study that examines how UNC Greensboro promotion and tenure policies were revised in response

Book.indb 187

03-10-2019 12:27:04

188  

sharing pathways and perspectives

to updates made to the 2010 university policy (Saltmarsh, Janke, Jenkins, & Quan, 2018; 2019).

Supporting Alignment and Synergy for Scholar-Administrators Administrative positions provide important praxis opportunities for scholaradministrators who wish to pursue scholarly agendas, particularly in areas that relate to institutional change. Although not all administrative work rises (or should rise) to the level of scholarship, as defined by some seminal works (e.g., Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997), important insights and scholarly contributions have emerged, becoming manifest in diverse forms, from administrative work. Therefore, it is helpful to reorient the narrative taken about what it means to engage in and produce scholarship. Scholarship can be driven and shaped by work that has an administrative purpose, such as creating faculty culture change, or developed around the valuation of community engagement in promotion and tenure policy and practice. Scholarship can take diverse forms that not only include but also extend beyond, peerreviewed journal articles, books, and academic presentations. If one considers scholarship as residing along a continuum of approaches and artifacts that uphold the standards of scholarship, then scholar-administrators can situate their unique contributions of diverse forms of scholarship, such as reports, white papers, curated websites, and other artifacts to the larger field of practice and research.

References Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Heath. Eatman, T. K. (2014). Afterword: Reflections on the center of the civic. In A. Finley (Ed.), Civic learning and teaching: A bridge to civic life and a life of learning (pp. 69–77). Washington DC: Bringing Theory to Practice. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maerof, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hayes, S., & Janke, E. (February 17, 2010). Community engagement, scholarship, and promotion and tenure at UNCG. Greensboro, NC: Presented to the UNCG Faculty Senate Forum. Janke, E. M. (2012). Documenting and evaluating the mosaic of faculty scholarly talents and contributions. Greensboro, NC: Institute for Community and Economic Engagement. Retrieved from https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Documenting-and-Evaluating-the-Mosaic-of-FacultyScholarly-Talents-and-Contributions.pdf

Book.indb 188

03-10-2019 12:27:04

a space for praxis  

189

Janke, E. M., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Excellence in community engagement and ­community-engaged scholarship: Vol. 1. Advancing the discourse at UNCG. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Janke, E. M., Clayton, P. H., Lucas, P. L., & Shelton, T. L. (2011). Definitions. Retrieved from https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2014/07/here.pdf Janke, E. M., & Medlin, K. B. (2016). Aligning university and community strengths and priorities: Vol. 3. Excellence in community engagement and community-engaged scholarship. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Institute for Community and Economic Engagement. Janke, E. M., Medlin, K. B, & Holland, B. A. (2014). Honoring the mosaic of talents and stewarding the standards of high quality community-engaged scholarship: Vol. 2. Excellence in community engagement & community-engaged scholarship. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Institute for Community and Economic Engagement. Janke, E. M., Medlin, K. B, & Holland, B. A. (2016). Intense, pervasive and shared faculty dialogue: Generating understanding and identifying “hotspots” in five days. Metropolitan Journal 27(2), 19–35. Saltmarsh, J., Janke, E. M., Jenkins, I., & Quan, M. (2018, July). Community engaged faculty: Incorporating community engagement in faculty reward policies across a university: Similarities and variation across units. International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement Conference, New Orleans, LA. Saltmarsh, J., Janke, E. M., Jenkins, I., & Quan, M. (2019, March). Incorporating community engagement in faculty reward policies across a university: Similarities and variation across units. Eastern Region Campus Compact, Providence, RI. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. School of Health and Human Sciences. (2015). School of Health and Human Sciences promotion, tenure and reappointment: Evaluation policies, guidelines, and procedures. Retrieved from https://www.uncg.edu/hhs/docs/hhs-promotion-andtenure-policies-guidelines-2015.pdf Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for diversity and public engagement in higher education. New York, NY: Columbia University Law School, Center for Institutional and Social Change. University of North Carolina at Greensboro (2010). University-wide evaluation guidelines for promotions and tenure. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/ file/d/0B3_J3Uix1B4UZGhreWVPcFI2NWM/view

Book.indb 189

03-10-2019 12:27:04

Book.indb 190

03-10-2019 12:27:04

2.10 AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY T O WA R D R E S E A R C H Julie A. Hatcher

I

love to travel and explore new places with others. The shared experience of travel broadens my perspective and deepens my understanding of living life. I value the importance of getting out of one’s backyard, seeing the ordinary and the extraordinary with fresh eyes, and learning from the simple yet fundamental differences that exist across locales and cultures. I often bring home a small rock as a reminder of my adventures in a particular place. A number of years ago, I read that our five senses work overtime when we travel, as everything we encounter is new and different. Thus, I take it in stride that I typically return from a trip quite tired, yet inspired and already looking ahead to the next trip with family and friends. I liken my journey in research on service learning to traveling. Through research on service learning, I have broadened my perspective and deepened my understanding. Service learning, for all participants including faculty and community partners, takes extra energy and attention as one is exploring the unexpected challenges of encountering difference, navigating ambiguity, and crossing boundaries both physically and metaphorically. Research on service learning is similar in nature, for researchers often encounter differences in terminology and invariably need to cross new boundaries that lie beyond the normative understanding of one’s field or discipline. Each completed research study or publication requires significant time and energy, far more energy than one might expect. Yet most research and scholarly projects leave me inspired to continue to learn more. My career as an educator and a scholar has been at IUPUI, a metropolitan university with a long-standing commitment to service learning and community engagement (SLCE). This chapter charts my journey by describing four distinct yet integrated phases of my career in terms of my 191

Book.indb 191

03-10-2019 12:27:04

192  

sharing pathways and perspectives

development as a researcher. Within each phase, I highlight particular theories that fueled my curiosity and guided my inquiry, and I share ideas for future research to deepen understanding of service learning. I then highlight, from my current vantage point, implications for other scholars to consider, particularly those faculty who also have administrative responsibilities within a campus unit to advance both the practice and research on SLCE. Balancing these competing demands can be very challenging, yet collectively the intersection between practice and research has enriched my career and strengthened our campus culture in terms of supporting this work. I believe that it is through scholarly products that, regardless of one’s appointment type, individuals are far better positioned to gain voice and perspective on how to take new action and improve the field of SLCE domestically and beyond.

Preparation Through Practice I became intrigued with research on service learning early in my career. In 1987, after completing a masters in college student personnel and administration, I was hired as an adjunct instructor in the School of Education at IUPUI. This part-time position worked well, as my growing family now included three young children. I taught four sections of a two-credit Study Skills course for underprepared students who were accepted to IUPUI on the condition that they complete remedial course work. Unenthused students were the norm that first semester, and I quickly discovered that I needed to switch things up with a more active learning strategy. The next year, I worked in partnership with teachers from Crispus Attucks Middle School to design a new approach to the course. I was not familiar with the term service learning at the time; rather, we thought of the design as a type of laboratory experience in which college students could apply what they were learning about study skills by teaching study skills to middle school students. Class met on campus on Tuesdays, and on Thursdays we ventured a half mile from campus for the laboratory portion of the course at Crispus Attucks Middle School. This new three-credit course, Study Skills: Project Excel, reinforced the learning outcomes of excelling academically for both college students and eighth graders. I was inspired by what a difference the community context, tutoring roles and responsibilities, and a half mile drive could make in terms of activating student learning. I continued to teach both types of Study Skills courses, and I readily observed a number of differences in the college students enrolled in the Project Excel sections compared to those in the traditional course sections.

Book.indb 192

03-10-2019 12:27:04

an unexpected journey toward research  

193

Those in Project Excel asked me more questions, lingered after class to clarify assignments, attended class more regularly, and interacted more and more productively with their peers than the traditional sections. I was familiar with a number of theories from college student development (Long, 2012) that helped me interpret the differences that I observed, and I explored new concepts from psychology related to internal and extrinsic motivations for learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and academic self-efficacy (e.g., Elias & Loomis, 2002). These theories helped me to understand why this active learning strategy appeared to be working. My first scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) project, in 1992, was an analysis of Project Excel student narratives completed at the end of the semester. The student narratives were two to three pages long and based on journal entries and activity logs maintained throughout the semester. At the time, I knew very little about qualitative research methodology, but by highlighting key phrases, then cutting and pasting student statements onto index cards, I sorted the index cards into categories. I then asked a colleague in the School of Education to do the same. We compared our approaches and together identified five distinct student outcomes. Our analysis of college student narratives on their involvement in Project Excel showed gains in academic self-esteem, academic goals, active learning, peer interaction, and persistence to course completion. I was proud of this work and pleased to see that this innovative teaching approach led to such outcomes. From a SoTL perspective, this early study was weak. It was not explicitly tied to theory, there was no comparison group, I used only data from an end-of-course measure, and it was based on a self-selected sample of students who chose to enroll in the Project Excel sections. I did not ask about or take into account any prior experiences of the students. There are many ways to improve this study based on what I now know about research design. If I were to conduct a research study on Project Excel today, I would lean on new theories from positive psychology, particularly theories related to hope and optimism (Rand & Cheavens, 2009), because I observed that the college students indeed exhibited both academic hope and a resiliency to navigate their own academic path with success. I would also explore how various types of structured and unstructured reflection throughout the semester deepens student learning of civic knowledge, and engagement (Hatcher, 2011a). I would want to see if participation in Project Excel actually resulted in persistence and retention of college students. I could also gather data from the eighth graders to understand how Project Excel contributed to their academic motivations and identity. I learned a great deal from this first SoTL endeavor, and it helped to confirm what I was seeing and experiencing as

Book.indb 193

03-10-2019 12:27:04

194  

sharing pathways and perspectives

an instructor. Little did I know that my innovative work with Project Excel would be the catalyst for a very satisfying and meaningful career focused on SLCE. In summer of 1993, I received an invitation to be part of a six-member campus team to attend a Campus Compact Summer Institute in Boulder, Colorado. Amidst the beauty of the mountains, our goal was to create a campus plan for integrating service into academic study. Including a parttime instructor on such a campus team was highly unusual; however, I was one of only a few instructors on campus with experience in teaching a service learning course. It was an inspiring week, in large part because of the vision put forth by faculty and facilitators such as Ira Harkavy, Keith Morton, Tim Stanton, and Marie Troppe. Our team participated in service learning activities, reflected on our experiences in the community, and generated ideas for how other faculty from IUPUI could be inspired to design service learning courses. I now realize that conducting research on service learning was not even mentioned at this summer institute. The IUPUI campus plan included starting an Office of Service Learning within academic affairs, a centralized unit with responsibilities for faculty development across all 18 schools. I was hired as the part-time assistant director, and a few months later, Bob Bringle was appointed as faculty director, with 25% FTE focused on service learning. His research expertise as a social psychologist, coupled with his knowledge and positionality as a tenured faculty member, were critical to the success of this new undertaking. My responsibilities focused on faculty and curriculum development. My job description did not include scholarship or research; however, I quickly came to appreciate the value and rewards of taking a scholarly approach to our work.

Scholarship and Research as Public Work Under the academic leadership of Executive Dean(s) William Plater (see Series Preface, this volume), Uday Sukhatme, Nasser Paydar, and currently Kathy Johnson, for the past 25 years Bob Bringle and I have worked collectively with others in the Center for Service and Learning (CSL) and across IUPUI to create a campus culture supportive of both the practice of and the research on SLCE. This emphasis on scholarship and research has been an important rudder in guiding and stabilizing the trajectory of my career. After attending my first national conference on higher education with Dean Plater in November 1994, Plater said, “Next time you will need to present so others can understand the excellent work we are doing at IUPUI.” Thus, I have always assumed a sense of professional responsibility to share our work

Book.indb 194

03-10-2019 12:27:04

an unexpected journey toward research  

195

through conference presentations and publications. Together, Bob Bringle and I have cultivated and supported this norm among CSL program directors. Our collaborative and productive working relationship set the foundation for supporting the practice of and conducting research on service learning pedagogy. In early 1994, when I told Bringle that Campus Compact did not have any materials to use in our faculty development workshops, he said, “Great, that means there’s a gap in the field that we can fill.” We did just that by creating Service Learning Tip Sheets: A Faculty Resource Guide (Hatcher, 1998), Service Learning Curriculum Guide for Campus-Based Workshops (Foos & Hatcher, 1999), and a framework for supporting faculty development (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). After offering my first workshop on reflection, Bringle said, “That was great, but now you need to write an article so that others who are not on our campus can learn about reflection” (Hatcher & Bringle, 1997). He was very intrigued with the Project Excel course, and he adapted many of the approaches I recommended as he integrated service learning in his Introduction to Psychology course. One of our initial, and perhaps strongest, research studies was generated by what we both had observed through teaching first-year students. Informed by Tinto’s (1998) theoretical understanding of persistence and retention, we, along with a talented graduate student, used a multicampus approach to conduct a study, which was supported by Indiana Campus Compact, that explored the relationship of first-year student participation in service learning courses to higher persistence and retention rates across the state of Indiana (Bringle, Hatcher, & Muthiah, 2010). In the early 2000s, IUPUI was 1 of 12 campuses from the United States selected to be part of the Ford Foundation–funded Community Higher Education Service Program (CHESP) initiative with South African universities. We initially hosted a visiting team from University of the Free State (UFS) at IUPUI for a week in 1999 and then traveled to South Africa to plan and offer a series of workshops in 2001. Travel indeed broadens perspectives. Through CHESP and subsequent travel to South Africa, I gained a deeper understanding of the importance of the scholarly work we were doing at IUPUI. Upon our arrival at the community center in the settlement just outside of Bloemfontein, our host, Basie Wessels, greeted us with copies of the Service Learning Curriculum Guide for Campus-Based Workshops (Foos & Hatcher, 1999) that he had ordered for all workshop participants including both faculty and community partners. This guidebook, supported by Indiana Campus Compact, provided PowerPoint templates to conduct workshops on topics such as reflection, community partnerships, and assessment. “Liquid gold,” Wessels said as he waved the spiral bound guidebook in his hand,

Book.indb 195

03-10-2019 12:27:04

196  

sharing pathways and perspectives

“Liquid gold.” That was a very significant experience for me, because for the first time I felt a deep sense of the public purpose in my scholarly work. Within the postapartheid South African context, education and democracy were inextricably intertwined. Just as John Dewey (1916) had argued in the American context nearly a century earlier, colleagues from South Africa helped me to understand the vital importance of higher education and community engagement within an emerging democracy. The South African model for service learning placed far more emphasis on civic outcomes for communities than on academic outcomes for college students, and it also included far deeper participation and voice by community organizations and residents in designing service learning course modules than our approach at that point in time. I became intrigued with these differences and was inspired to collaborate with Mabel Erasmus, a colleague from UFS to do a comparative analysis of the philosophical and definitional approaches to service learning in the United States and South Africa (Hatcher & Erasmus, 2008). Cross-cultural comparative analysis is an important direction for future research on SLCE, and it is a wide open area for scholars to systematically study similarities and differences. I returned from South Africa with a deeper sense of civic responsibility in my work and also with a mud brick that resides on the corner of my desk to this day. As with other rocks from my travels, this brick is a tangible reminder of place and my adventures. A UFS faculty member from engineering and technology worked with community members to create an improved type of brick for housing construction. This brick remains a symbol for me that community engagement should result in knowledge generation and deliverables that support change in both participants and communities. I had come to value scholarship and research on SLCE as a form of brick-making because it had the potential to change perspectives, influence new action, and contribute to community building. This was a contributing factor in my decision to pursue a PhD in philanthropic studies from 2004 to 2008, and my statement of purpose when I applied to the program focused on a desire to understand the concept of the civic-minded professional (CMP).

Civic Outcomes John Dewey has always been a muse to me in this work. It was in a graduate course, Philosophy and Philanthropy, that I was first introduced to Dewey’s work (1916, 1927, 1957). Dewey elevated for me the value of ambiguity and clarified that learning begins in a forked road when one does not know whether to go to the left or right. According to Dewey, such learning is essential for education in a democracy. I have not yet tried to measure

Book.indb 196

03-10-2019 12:27:04

an unexpected journey toward research  

197

constructs such as ambiguity or forked roads; however, I know from experience that these dimensions contribute to deeper learning for college students. Dewey’s work is expansive and fully inspirational, spanning a range of disciplines (e.g., art, ethics, philosophy, political science, psychology). The complexity of his narrative is very challenging, and I was most fortunate to have a professor who helped to illuminate his wisdom through class discussions and advised me in a subsequent independent readings course. Educators can indeed influence the pathway of others. This was a rich and illuminating time in terms of my scholarly formation and curiosity. I could readily identify the relevance of Dewey’s philosophy of education to the practice of service learning. I reworked a research paper into my first peer-reviewed article, “The Moral Dimensions of John Dewey’s Philosophy: Implications for Service Learning in Undergraduate Education” (Hatcher, 1997). I still hold firm to the five principles of good practice in undergraduate education that I identified from Dewey’s work (i.e., includes structured opportunities for reflection, is inquiry-based, facilitates face-to-face interaction with others, is connected to the community, advances democratic practice) when I design courses and programs. I have not examined the validity of these five principles through empirical research, but I hope that others will do so. Most relevant to my research interests was Dewey’s (1927) articulation of the public purposes of education and the roles and responsibilities of professionals to work in and with communities to address community issues. A short reading by William Sullivan (1988) based on Dewey’s philosophy of the role of professionals in a democracy, Calling or Career: The Tensions of Modern Professional Life, informed the direction of my dissertation. Sullivan, a philosopher and contributing author to Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Bellah et al., 1985), remains an important voice regarding the public purposes of American higher education. He illuminated concepts such as “civic professionalism” (Sullivan, 2005, p. 9) and “social trustee of knowledge” (p. 165), and his work confirmed my goal to explore the relationship between service learning and the development of CMPs. My most significant research contribution has been my work on developing and evaluating the Civic-Minded Professional scale (Hatcher, 2008, 2011b, 2018). Prior qualitative research studies on civic professionals (e.g., Daloz, Keen, Keen, & Parks, 1996; Peters, 2004) provided the necessary foundation for my quantitative dissertation. A CMP is defined as one who is (a) skillfully trained through formal education, (b) with the ethical disposition as a social trustee of knowledge and (c) the capacity to work with others in a democratic way (d) to achieve public goods (Hatcher, 2008).

Book.indb 197

03-10-2019 12:27:04

198  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Developing a scale to measure this construct was an intensive and rigorous process that examined the validity and usefulness of the CMP scale. Through limited research to date, the CMP 23-item scale has been used to explore the longitudinal impact of service-based scholarship programs (Richard, Keen, Hatcher, & Pease, 2016), the development of civic-mindedness of physical therapy students (Palombaro et al., 2017), and civic attitudes of librarians (Barry, Lowe, & Twill, 2017). Evaluating the validity of this measure in various contexts is important, and I trust that others will move this area of research forward. The CMP scale could be used to measure civic-mindedness as either a moderator variable to understand preexisting differences among groups or as a dependent variable to understand the effects of various conditions and experiences on participant outcomes. I am intrigued with the potential for future research related to faculty in higher education, such as examining what conditions support and sustain the development of civic-minded faculty. Are there particular ways to attract, support, and retain CMPs in higher education? How might CMPs in higher education differ by demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, race, discipline), prior experiences (e.g., discipline, faith orientation, family background, role models, service learning in college), or campus culture (e.g., mission, faculty development programs, promotion and tenure guidelines, recognition, resources)? Is there a relatively consistent developmental across CMPs’ careers? We are currently conducting a program evaluation of faculty development programs sponsored by the CSL, exploring relationships among measures of faculty agency (Campbell & O’Meara, 2014), civic agency, and a five-item short-form measure of CMP. Our sense is that faculty who have participated in faculty learning communities through the CSL develop a stronger sense of both faculty agency and civic agency to work collectively toward change on campus and in the community. This is a new area of inquiry in our work. The theories that undergird the CMP construct also framed important and ongoing work with CSL colleagues to conceptualize the construct “civic-minded graduate” (CMG; Steinberg, Hatcher & Bringle, 2011). Across time, we have collectively worked to develop a range of tools to measure and evaluate this construct (i.e., CMG scale, CMG narrative prompt, CMG 2.0 rubric, CMG interview protocol). IUPUI’s Center for Service and Learning (n.d.) website has additional resources. These two constructs have shaped and informed a wide range of programming and scholarship within CSL across time, such that the CSL tagline is “developing civic-minded graduates and professionals (J. Hatcher, personal communication, May 2019)” and this is very satisfying indeed.

Book.indb 198

03-10-2019 12:27:05

an unexpected journey toward research  

199

Research and Tenure In 2010, after completing my PhD in philanthropic studies, I was hired as an associate professor, without tenure, within the newly established Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (LFSP) on the IUPUI campus. Although it is unusual to be hired by one’s home institution into a tenure-track position, my professional and academic preparation made me well suited to be the first director of undergraduate programs in this emerging field of study. Along with other faculty, I designed and implemented the first undergraduate degree program of its kind and set the course for faculty development within this new program (Hatcher, Shaker, & Freeman, 2016). Upon Bringle’s retirement in 2012, I applied for the CSL executive director position. I enjoyed the curricular and program design work in LFSP, but I missed the collaborative environment of CSL, the central role that CSL played in campus-level initiatives, and the clear alignment of the breadth of CSL work with my professional values and commitment to the public purposes of higher education. With my current appointment (CSL 90%; LFSP 10%) and level of administrative responsibilities, I have an extended 12-year tenure clock rather than a traditional 6-year time line. Nonetheless, I feel the constant pressure of tenure. It is challenging to balance the dual set of expectations as an untenured academic administrator, particularly in terms of research productivity. One might think that given my solid record of scholarship and research going into my appointment as an associate professor midcareer, I would have been able to take the promotion and tenure process in stride. But I, perhaps like other junior faculty, have found it very difficult to explain who I am as a scholar and the contributions I am making. The majority of my colleagues in LFSP focus on either charitable giving patterns or issues related to nonprofit management. I have had to work hard to explain how my work fits within the field of philanthropic studies rather than higher education (Hatcher, 2017), and to demonstrate my independence as a scholar given the level of collaboration I am accustomed to within the CSL context. My research agenda, consistent with the research goals of CSL as well as the multidisciplinary field of philanthropic studies, is to understand how philanthropic dispositions, commitments, and actions are developed and strengthened during the college years and how they continue within professional life (Hatcher, 2017). This research agenda draws on theories from education (e.g., college student development, learning theory), nonprofit studies (e.g., volunteer management, social return on investment), political science (e.g., associations, civic learning, civic responsibility), and psychology (e.g., identity development, volunteer motivations). The

Book.indb 199

03-10-2019 12:27:05

200  

sharing pathways and perspectives

following specific questions guide my choices on research projects at this point in my career: • How can research on service learning pedagogy be improved to understand civic outcomes (i.e., knowledge, skills, dispositions, behaviors) for college students? • How does involvement during the college years contribute to the developmental trajectory of CMGs and CMPs? I have presented on CSL research (i.e., CMG, CMP, episodic service days, service scholarships, service learning) and philanthropy education at annual conferences of the Association for Research on Nonprofits and Voluntary Action, International Society for Third Sector Research, and Nonprofit Academic Centers Council. Each of these associations has a scholarly journal, and I hope others will follow up on this foundational work, for there is much common ground in terms of theory and practice between SLCE and the emerging field of philanthropic studies. I served as lead editor on Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods (Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2017). This presented an opportunity to write a chapter on “Philanthropic Studies and Student Civic Outcomes” (Hatcher, 2017). I used three stages of volunteering (i.e., antecedents, experiences, consequences; see Wilson, 2012) to generate relevant questions to improve research on service learning (Hatcher, 2017), and this was the first time that I used theories on volunteering to advance research on service learning. I also collaborated with a CSL colleague on an invited book chapter, “Service-Learning and Philanthropy: Implications for Course Design” (Hatcher & Studer, 2015) to illustrate how understanding of nonprofits and voluntary action can improve SL course design. An important backstory in terms of my research as a tenure-track faculty member is also one of my greatest regrets as a scholar. To date, I have yet to publish a solo-authored peer-reviewed article on the development of the CMP scale. Turning a dissertation into an article is actually very challenging . . . as I came to learn the hard way. After presenting on the CMP scale at an annual meeting (Hatcher, 2011b), I was asked by a colleague to submit a paper on CMP to a special issue of a journal focused on professionalism in public affairs. Unfortunately, the paper was flatly rejected—no revise and resubmit, only rejected. The only other time one of my submissions was flatly rejected was in 1998, an article we reworked and then submitted to the Journal of Higher Education for publication (Bringle & Hatcher, 2000). It is interesting to note that this article became one of our most widely cited articles, according to Google Scholar. So one might think that I should not have

Book.indb 200

03-10-2019 12:27:05

an unexpected journey toward research  

201

been so discouraged by the strength of the critique and rejection by both reviewers—but the wind went out of my sails, given my other responsibilities and endeavors at the time. My advice to newly minted PhDs is to seek ­guidance on best approaches to translate sections of your dissertation into journal article(s) or a book and to do this work in an effective and a timely way. It is necessary to differentiate your research and publication record from that of your mentor(s), and it is too easy for other administrative responsibilities to intervene along the way.

Recommendations This chapter provides a summary of four phases of my unexpected journey into conducting research. I share the following recommendations, particularly for those academic administrators who have leadership responsibilities within a central campus unit to support SLCE initiatives. As I have reflected on each phase of my career, the following 10 recommendations are offered to assist in the journey.

Preparation Through Practice 1. Start with what you are observing in the course, program, office, or on campus. What are you most curious about? Are there patterns that you are seeing as a result of your efforts in teaching, program design, or administration? Consider how others could learn from your systematic analysis and reporting on what is happening. Invest the time to gather data and write up the results of your analysis within the context of the existing literature. These are the first steps in scholarly work. 2. Recognize that there is both a similarity and a distinction between assessment, program evaluation, scholarship, and research. Each requires a systematic approach to gathering and analyzing data, and each requires closing the loop in terms of sharing findings with others. But methods vary, particularly in terms of the emphasis on theory testing or generating theory. Regardless of your approach, keep a high standard for sharing results about your SLCE course or program in systematic ways, for this is the habit and practice necessary to conduct research. 3. Research is not for everyone. It is a time-intensive task, regardless of your appointment type. There are many responsibilities in work and in life that get in the way of conceptualizing and implementing a research project, and there are even more obstacles along the path to a completed manuscript. A completed article or book takes far longer than

Book.indb 201

03-10-2019 12:27:05

202  

sharing pathways and perspectives

one would ever imagine, and it typically requires nights, weekends, or devoted periods of time to push through the completion of an article, chapter, or presentation. So it is important to be realistic in your research goals.

Scholarship and Research as Public Work 4. Research need not be a solo endeavor. Others test our thoughts, debate the details, question our approach, wordsmith definitions, create new ideas, and perhaps most importantly hold us accountable to deadlines. Work with others on your own campus to find connections both in terms of scholarship and research. Think of it as working toward the collective good and identify the collective aims that you can agree on for deliverables. Learn to pass the baton back and forth, both efficiently and effectively. 5. Start with a book chapter or a special issues journal that aligns with your research goals. There are many benefits to a book chapter. There is a time line, a timekeeper, an editor giving guidance and critique, and a word limit. Each of these boundaries tends to reinforce productivity. Otherwise, we become our own timekeeper and that inherently requires far more self-discipline to complete the project in a timely way. 6. CSL program directors understand that taking a scholarly approach is an expectation in terms of how they do their work. Yet, it is not easy, for it takes additional time and energy to complete deliverables such as poster presentations or research briefs. Supporting alternative work schedules to work from home one day per week has been beneficial, as well as collaboration to complete scholarly products. These normative expectations for scholarly work within CSL, coupled with campus resources and support, have advanced both my research and my ability to support others to conduct research.

Civic Outcomes 7. What matters to you? What is the “so what” or the “to what end” that you care deeply about? What floats your boat? For me, it was discovering and focusing on the civic outcomes of service learning and community engagement in higher education. For you, it is likely a different motivation that animates and fuels your curiosity as a scholar. Your motivation is an integral aspect of your scholarly identity, for it helps to create meaningful networks with others, it helps to draw boundaries and give you guidance on when to say yes or no to research

Book.indb 202

03-10-2019 12:27:05

an unexpected journey toward research  

203

opportunities, and in the end it helps to sustain your well-being as a scholar.

Research and Tenure 8. It may be very likely that research on SLCE is not common among your disciplinary peers; therefore, you will need to educate others about the relationship between SLCE and your discipline/field. Talk with your mentors and chair about your motivations for this work and seek their feedback on the choices you are making as a scholar. These conversations are not only helpful in the short run in terms of prioritizing research choices but also pave the way for a more solid understanding among your colleagues about your research agenda. Lean into mentoring. 9. Be clear about your overarching research agenda by identifying two to three key questions that you want to pursue. These questions should serve as guides along the journey, directing you toward or away from potential projects and collaborations. Take every opportunity as a pretenured faculty member to articulate these goals, whether that is in annual reports, third-year review, or informal conversations. 10. Focus on finishing the product, on making the bricks. Yes, every researcher has the “bottom file drawer syndrome,” where projects, data, and rejected articles get put away. Motivation wanes, a new more interesting project beckons, or we simply do not have the oomph it takes to care about the project anymore. A colleague recently mentioned that her strategy to clear out that metaphorical bottom drawer, which has been very successful, is to invite a graduate student to become involved in the unfinished product. She has a greater motivation to mentor others than to finish an unfinished article, and in the end both she and a graduate student benefit.

Conclusion I ventured into teaching a service learning course as a way to create a more active learning environment for first-year college students. Little did I know that this experience would fuel and sustain a lengthy career dedicated to understanding how higher education supports the development of CMGs and CMPs. Service learning is based on the premise that extending learning beyond the classroom into community-based settings deepens learning, opens up unexpected pathways, and offers insights and inspirations for new

Book.indb 203

03-10-2019 12:27:05

204  

sharing pathways and perspectives

action. I have come to believe that research on service learning offers the same outcomes for faculty. There was a common phrase used by colleagues in the early years of service learning: We will find our way by walking. I have come to believe that we will find our way by writing. Across my career, I have learned from and with a number of highly dedicated colleagues from a wide range of disciplines and perspectives. I have gained a deep sense of satisfaction in this work. Together, we have worked to establish pathways so that others who join in on this journey can more easily find their way. Better yet, we have created pathways so that others will divert from the trail and climb mountains that we have yet to encounter. Travel on in this good work and be well on your journey!

References Barry, M., Lowe, L., & Twill, S. (2017). Academic librarians’ attitudes about civicmindedness and service learning. Library Quarterly, 87(1), 1–16 Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 112–122. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273–290. Bringle, R. G., Hatcher, J. A., & Muthiah, R. (2010). The role of service-learning on retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 38–49. Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 49–74. Daloz, L. A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996). Common fire: Lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Dewey, J. (1957). Reconstruction in philosophy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self‐efficacy to predict academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1687–1702. Foos, C., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Service learning curriculum guide for campus-based workshops. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Campus Compact. Hatcher, J. A. (1997). The moral dimensions of John Dewey’s philosophy: Implication for service learning in undergraduate education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 22–29.

Book.indb 204

03-10-2019 12:27:05

an unexpected journey toward research  

205

Hatcher, J. A. (Ed.). (1998). Service learning tip sheets: A faculty resource guide. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Campus Compact. Hatcher, J. A. (2008). The public role of professionals: Developing and evaluating the Civic-Minded Professional scale. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Pro Quest Dissertation and Theses, AAT 3331248. Hatcher, J. A. (2011a). Civic knowledge and engagement. In J. Penn (Ed.) Measuring complex general education learning outcomes (pp. 81–92). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hatcher, J. A. (2011b, November). Civic-Minded Professional Scale: Developing and evaluating a quantitative measure to advance research. Paper presented at the annual meeting, Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Associations, Toronto, Canada. Hatcher, J. A. (2017). Philanthropic studies and student civic outcomes. In J. Hatcher, R. Bringle, & T. Hahn (Eds.), Research on service learning and student civic outcomes: Conceptual frameworks and methods (pp. 135–154). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hatcher, J. A., (2018, December 15). Civic-minded professional scale. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/17469 Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (1997). Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teaching, 45(4), 153–157. Hatcher, J. A., Bringle, R. G., & Hahn, T. W. (2017). Research on service learning and student civic outcomes: Conceptual frameworks and methods. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hatcher, J. A., & Erasmus, M. (2008). Service-learning in the United States and South Africa: A comparative analysis informed by John Dewey and Julius Nyerere. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(1), 49–61. Hatcher, J. A., Shaker, G. & Freeman, T. (2016). Faculty learning communities: Taking collective action to improve teaching and learning in Nonprofit and Philanthropic Studies. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 6, 254–272. Hatcher, J. A., & Studer, M. L. (2015). Service-learning and philanthropy: Implications for course design. Theory into Practice, 54(1), 11–19. IUPUI Center for Service and Learning. (n.d.). ScholarWorks. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/2613 Long, D. (2012). Theories and models of student development. In L. Hinchliffe & M. Wong (Eds.), Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student affairs in collaboration (pp. 41–55). Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. Palombaro, K. M., Black, J. D., Dole, R. L., Pierce, J. L., Santiago, M. R., & Sabara, E. J. (2017). Assessing the development of civic mindedness in a cohort of physical therapy students.  Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,  17(4), 31–43. Peters, S. J. (2004). Educating the civic professional: Reconfigurations and resistances. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 47–58.

Book.indb 205

03-10-2019 12:27:05

206  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Rand, K. L. & Cheavens, J. S. (2009). Hope theory. In S. Lopez & C. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 323–334), New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Richard, D., Keen, C., Hatcher, J. & Pease, H. (2016). Pathways to adult civic engagement: Benefits of reflection and dialogue across difference in college service-learning programs. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1), 64–70. Ryan R. M., & Deci, E. L. & (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definition and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. Steinberg, K., Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). A north star: Civic-minded graduate. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(1), 19–33. Sullivan, W. M. (1988). Calling or career: The tensions of modern professional life. In A. Flores (Ed.), Professional ideals (pp. 40–46). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sullivan, W. M. (2005). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher Education 21(2), 167–177. Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212.

Book.indb 206

03-10-2019 12:27:05

2.11 S U P P O RT I N G OT H E R S IN RESEARCH Practical Wisdom From Emerging and Accomplished Scholars Dan Richard

T

he first time I used community-based learning I was in a graduate research design and statistics course. Although I had been teaching research design and statistics for eight years prior and had used community-­based instruction in introductory social science courses, I was a bit nervous as to whether the community engagement strategy would work in a course where one main focus area was understanding statistical analysis. My approach for the course was to work with a community partner/organization that had a strong data set and some potential questions, guide student teams in analyzing the data to answer questions and generate new insights, and support graduate students in presenting a formal report on their findings to community partners. I was willing to be patient until the end of the semester to see if the strategy worked. My initial concerns about using community-based learning in a graduate research methods and statistics course were relieved when I realized the tremendous benefit project-based learning and community-based research projects had on student learning outcomes. To this day, I refuse to teach the course any other way. However, Hanna, a first-year graduate student enrolled in the course, was affected by a very specific phobia. When her professor was discussing statistics, she was fine, but as soon as she opened the statistical software and looked at the computer screen, she would freeze in terror. Her heart would race, and her mind would shut down. The thought of actually doing quantitative analysis was paralyzing to her. Over time, Hanna was able to overcome 207

Book.indb 207

03-10-2019 12:27:05

208  

sharing pathways and perspectives

her phobia and gained confidence as she collaborated with others. Eventually, she became quite interested in quantitative analysis and research design. In fact, she recently graduated with her PhD in research methodology and now teaches students about her love for research design and statistics. The initial fear Hanna felt in doing something new is not uncommon, although rarely to the extreme she initially experienced. Learning new ways of doing research and developing new learning approaches can be challenging for the teacher and student alike. In addition, our community partners had to trust that the students would deliver on their research projects. Over time, we all learned to pursue real answers to real questions through research design and statistical analysis. During the past five years, I have worked with graduate and undergraduate students who felt challenged by different ways of doing research and analyzing results. In addition, I have had the pleasure of working with several beginning and seasoned researchers across a number of disciplines as part of the IUPUI Research Academy. The Research Academy uses formal presentations as well as informal learning communities to support participants in clarifying their research design. Through several examples, as well as drawing on the practical wisdom of the scholars in this volume, I will address main themes that have emerged in my support of others in developing research ideas across these contexts. The themes serve as guideposts along the journey to finding substance rather than statistical significance in research design and analysis.

A Journey From Statistical Significance to Substance In many ways, I can identify with Hanna and the anxiety that many emerging researchers feel as they approach complex research designs and statistical analyses. When I look back at my first graduate course in statistics, I struggled initially. The main concept of what a p-value tells the researcher (and what it does not tell the researcher) seemed to be unclear. No matter how much I tried to grasp the concept, and no matter how many times my professor explained the concept, some key piece of the puzzle was missing. After the first exam, I had undeniable evidence that my understanding was unclear—I received a grade of a low C. “Cs don’t get degrees” in graduate school. By the second exam, I could apply the concept of p-values to a host of other tests. The story of that first graduate-level statistics course ended well for me, but those early experiences with failure help me empathize with those who struggle with research design and statistics and allow me to be persistent in helping others along the way.

Book.indb 208

03-10-2019 12:27:05

supporting others in research  

209

My next adventure was the multivariate statistics course offered in the same program. It was in this class that I truly understood the power of statistical analysis. I learned about multivariate dimensions and factor analysis through many educational psychology examples. When I entered my PhD program at Texas Christian University, I retook the introductory statistics and research methods classes, and I am so glad I did. Through Maxwell and Delaney (2003), I learned that practically all statistics use a model comparison process. This concept changed how I viewed all statistics from that point on. Further, I discovered the concept of Euclidean distance and clustering in multivariate techniques as well as linear and nonlinear data transformations through Stevens (2012). With these concepts and techniques firmly in place, I took a position as a research analyst at a consulting and software development firm. Applying statistical concepts to many real-world examples taught me that practical solutions were far more useful and elegant than technically accurate ones, and that simplicity wins arguments. Through these educational and practical experiences, I developed a broad appreciation for causal modeling, statistical design, and the nuance that is required in complex, real-world applications of research design and statistics. The next big challenge for me was teaching students about these concepts. When I started as an assistant professor at the University of North Florida in 2001, I had taught undergraduate research methods but not graduate research design and statistics. I felt up to the challenge, but I completely underestimated the challenge. In preparation for my first graduate course, a colleague suggested Cook and Campbell’s (1979) classic research design textbook. At the time, a new edition of the book had been published by Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002). The new edition expanded on a number of topics and included recent developments in thinking about ethics and validity in design. The comprehensive nature of Shadish and colleagues, as well as its careful consideration of the practical side of conducting research in applied and educational contexts, led me to make it an indispensable component of helping graduate students grapple with the interplay among internal, external, construct, and statistical conclusion validity. The approach by the authors helps students understand how their choices in research design can have consequences across these different types of validity. Over the years, I have supplemented this primary text with some essential ideas about statistical inference from Abelson’s (2012) Statistics as Principled Argument; practical guidance in using statistical software from Green, Salkind, and Jones (1996); and always wise and creative explanations of research design and statistical concepts in the (open access) Research Methods Knowledge Base by Trochim (2006).

Book.indb 209

03-10-2019 12:27:05

210  

sharing pathways and perspectives

As I grew in my teaching practice, I realized that project-based and community-based learning were the most effective ways for students to learn research design and statistics, to apply what they had learned to different contexts, and to succeed in their professional careers long-term. My background and training gave me an appreciation for complexity in research design and statistical approaches. As I have helped graduate students and researchers at the IUPUI Research Academy, I continue to find value in listening carefully, discovering what their true research questions are, understanding the theory behind those questions, and considering the practical limitations of their various research contexts. As I partner with these students and researchers to find what is true and what is real through research practice, we experience several stumbling blocks along the journey. Often, traditions of research practice can hinder the selection of the appropriate method to answer specific types of questions because the focus can be too broad to ask the right questions, the relevance of theory regarding those research questions is not clear, and finding the right comparisons to address those specific research questions is challenging. I will address these challenges in turn by relating some examples from my students and fellow researchers at the IUPUI Research Academy and will draw on the wisdom of stories from accomplished scholars in this volume. These illustrations will provide practical wisdom for researchers interested in this field of research.

What’s Your Research Tradition? Sherry attended the IUPUI Research Academy (IRA, pronounced EYE-rah) at a time when she was finalizing her plans for her dissertation. As we discussed her research questions, it was obvious that she was interested in comparisons. She wanted to know how effective her service learning program was in generating a specific type of student learning compared to traditional models. Further, she wondered about the magnitude of the difference; that is, how strong was the impact of service learning compared to the strength of the traditional model? I explained to Sherry that she was asking a quantitative question, one of magnitude and effect size, and asked if she had considered a quantitative (i.e., experimental or quasi-experimental) research design. She responded that she was not at all comfortable with statistics and would not consider such a design, and that she would much prefer a qualitative approach for her dissertation. The more I nudged her in the direction of the research design best suited to her research question, the more she pushed back on the idea of quantitative research.

Book.indb 210

03-10-2019 12:27:05

supporting others in research  

211

Sherry’s discomfort with quantitative methods and statistics mirrors the apprehension that many researchers experience as they consider methods that differ from the methods they learned as graduate students and have likely practiced for many years following their dissertation. Early in my career, I too pushed back against qualitative research, mostly because I did not understand research quality and rigor of qualitative design. Patton (2012) challenged us to reconsider research rigor not as practicing a single research paradigm to its singular culminating clarity but as bringing a diversity of research approaches over time to address complex research problems. In line with Patton’s suggestion, and in part inspired by it, I proposed a research design continuum (Richard, 2017), which recommends that research design should respond to the different demands of various research questions as researchers progress through different stages in a program of research. Instead of the researcher beginning with a method and asking questions that fit that methodology, researchers should ask the next logical question within a program of research, then use the appropriate method to best answer that next relevant question. To achieve this end, researchers will need to move past their discomfort with methods that do not fit their traditional model and pursue training in a broad array of research methods. Eric Hartman (chapter 2.7) noted the gravity of one’s research traditions when selecting methods of study. He noted that the quantitative training in political science led him in that direction early in his career. Robert G. Bringle (chapter 2.5) also noted the influence of his quantitative background in psychology as influential in pursuing research designs early in his career. Barbara E. Moely (chapter 2.2) noted that her colleagues in psychology did not appreciate the value of her program evaluation research and suggested she focus on traditional academic psychological research. Yet, her research on the civic attitudes and skills questionnaire (Moely et al., 2002) has been one of the most highly cited and used measures in the field. As Bringle (chapter 2.5) noted, researchers must “be ready to leave your comfort zone” (p. 117, this volume) when pursuing service learning research.

What’s Your Conceptual Model? Makaila explained her research focus. She was interested in how service learning experiences build empathy among students and community members. During her learning community discussions at the IRA, she kept explaining how faculty tend to be unprepared to teach for empathy. After several questions and helping Makaila clarify her research question, we discovered that she was interested in faculty preparedness and how the lack of preparation to

Book.indb 211

03-10-2019 12:27:05

212  

sharing pathways and perspectives

teach empathy could influence student and community outcomes. Although it was a surprise to Makaila, the conclusion of the group was that she really was interested in the process of faculty development as opposed to student or community outcomes. Makaila’s shift in focus is common among researchers as we pursue different questions about service learning and community engagement research. Much of the existing research focuses on student outcomes, but there is a growing awareness that other aspects of the entire process, such as faculty, community partners, and institutional issues are equally relevant to achieving desired outcomes. Bringle, Clayton, and Price (2012) provide a useful structural framework for identifying the different potential focus areas within service learning and community engagement research, the SOFAR model. The acronym refers to the different potential focus areas for research on process and outcomes including students (S), community organizations (O), faculty (F), administrators (A), and community residents (R). The SOFAR framework is particularly helpful for researchers as they develop their research questions to identify what aspects of the process are their main focus. The conceptual model also helps clarify what aspects are assumed to be in place in order to help make the other processes work properly. Sherril Gelmon (chapter 2.8) reflected on the importance and power of conceptual models in summarizing perspectives in the field and in framing research agendas. Her early work with colleagues at Portland State University (Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996) identified the key outcome variables for students, faculty, community partners, and institutions and set the stage for decades of scholarly dialogue around the impact of service learning and community engagement. Conceptual frameworks help to identify key dimensions, important distinctions among concepts, and interrelationships among those concepts that help researchers target critical dimensions and develop clear research questions to advance theory.

What Is Your Theory and How Is It Made Practical? Reginald had expert knowledge about the impact of his international service learning program in Guatemala. He could explain all the pieces and how they were organized, but he wanted to evaluate the impact of different aspects of the program. During one of the break-out sessions during IRA, I asked Reginald to draw out a conceptual model of his program and the impacts he thought were relevant. He drew out the components and connections between components on a large, wall-mounted sticky note–type pad. As we explored the variables of interest, Reginald discovered that one key

Book.indb 212

03-10-2019 12:27:05

supporting others in research  

213

component to the connection between specific forms of reflective practice and student outcomes was the development of the student’s ability to engage in perspective taking. He then realized that with the program assessment measures employed to date, he had never measured the development of perspective taking among students over time. Reginald discovered a key variable in his model that he had previously not evaluated. He was able to look for measures of perspective taking and plan for its assessment going forward. Reginald’s discovery is not unique to researchers investigating complex models such as human learning in community contexts. Often there are hidden variables or attributes that researchers do not clearly explore unless they are articulated and identified, as Reginald did in this concept-mapping exercise. For example, Mitchell (2008) used a conceptual model to highlight the unique aspects of critical service learning (e.g., social justice motives, dealing with power differences) that separate it from traditional forms of service learning. Frameworks lead to questions about theoretical underpinnings of one’s research agenda. Shadish et al. (2002) identified internal validity as the sine qua non (must not do without) of research design. In the same way, theory is the sine qua non of scholarly progress. Bringle (2003) notes the important role of theory in advancing the field of service learning and community engagement. Many of the authors in the current volume address the critical role that theory had in shaping their research agendas. Jay W. Brandenberger (chapter 1.3) and Furco (chapter 2.4) noted the importance of developmental theorists such as Piaget and Kohlberg in their scholarly pursuits in identifying the processes of student learning in the service learning context. Julie A. Hatcher (chapter 2.10) used theories about extrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in conceptualizations of student engagement and learning. Theories inform research about human behavior as well as research about how organizations function. Both KerryAnn O’Meara (chapter 2.3) and Emily M. Janke (chapter 2.9) indicated that organizational theories such as organizational culture (O’Meara) and organizational image theory (Janke) shaped their scholarly work. As one considers the practical wisdom of these accomplished scholars, another important dimension emerges—the value of practical questions related to service learning in fueling research questions and advancements. John Saltmarsh (chapter 2.12) noted that practical concerns regarding questions that emerge from engaging in service learning in higher education fueled much of his later work in the field. Julie A. Hatcher (chapter 2.10) expressed the motivation for developing resources and a framework for faculty development in the context of service learning as the practical concern that one did not exist, yet IUPUI was encouraging faculty to pursue this teaching strategy. This resulted in a highly cited work in the field on faculty

Book.indb 213

03-10-2019 12:27:05

214  

sharing pathways and perspectives

development (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995). Nick Longo (chapter 2.1) identified the need to develop deliberative pedagogy (Longo, 2013) as a strategy given the importance of deliberation to education, but the lack of explication in the field as to its role in the teaching and learning process. Thus, both theory underpinnings and practical gaps in the literature fuel new research questions and provide new avenues for research programs.

Research With Whom? James was excited about the new approach to reflection during service learning experiences developed in collaboration with several scholars at his university. The approach incorporated a multistage revision process with feedback given by fellow students, faculty, community partners, and residents. He had seen the impact on student learning and the development of civic commitment among the students. He wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach to demonstrate its significant impact on learning. During our learning community discussions at the IRA, the other members of the group had many questions for James. For example, does the specific person providing feedback to students make a difference in student learning (e.g., does receiving feedback from community residents have more impact than feedback from faculty members), and how might the form and quality of the feedback differ based on who was giving it? The discussion within the group helped James question his methods and pursue additional input from other researchers as well as his community partners in the project. Often, different perspectives strengthen and add value to initial research questions. Collaboration is foundational to quality research. Different partners bring different perspectives and shape theoretical frameworks, research questions, and methods. During IRA, the facilitators use the power of collaboration to support researchers in generating these perspectives, theories, and methods. Using the SOFAR model (Bringle et al., 2012), facilitators divided researchers into focused discussion groups, one for each element of the model (Students, Community Organizations, Faculty, University Administration, and Community Residents), based on the research questions expressed as an interest. Then, on a scratch pad, researchers in each group supported each other by identifying theories, frameworks, previous researchers, and methodologies that might be relevant to the research questions posed by the group. This collaborative idea generation session at IRA represents the value of collaboration, where ideas are shared within a generous, supportive environment.

Book.indb 214

03-10-2019 12:27:05

supporting others in research  

215

The contributors to this volume have shared their practical wisdom on the importance of collaboration. Many times, those collaborations functioned as stable partnerships that produced many collaborative works. Eric Hartman (chapter 2.7) noted his continued collaboration with Richard Kiely as a significant formative period of his career. Both Robert G. Bringle (chapter 2.5) and Julie A. Hatcher (2.10) expressed the importance of the scholarly partnership they developed in the Center for Service and Learning in IUPUI. Sherril Gelmon (chapter 2.8) described the tremendous value that the Portland State University team collaborations had in shaping her perspective and encouraging continued and significant work in the field, especially her partnership with Sarena Seifer as a fellow researcher and thought partner. In addition to these long-term partnerships, other researchers in this volume expressed the importance of making new key partnerships along the pathway in their research trajectory. John Saltmarsh (chapter 2.12), for example, noted working with many researchers at different institutions and organizations (i.e., Campus Compact, Imagining America, Kettering Foundation), resulting in works that span a broad landscape of service learning practice in higher education. KerryAnn O’Meara (chapter 2.3) also cited the many collaborations she has had throughout the years as contributing significantly to the different perspectives involved in her career of service learning research effort. Whether it be deep partnerships that are sustained over many years, or many substantial partnerships, collaboration in research supports diversity, quality, and impactful scholarship in the careers of many.

The Search for Impact By creating and analyzing example data, I often demonstrate to my students that, given a large enough sample, even small and inconsequential effects can be statistically significant. Understanding the research design and the clarity of research questions, counterfactuals, as well as theoretical and conceptual frameworks, help the researcher determine the meaning of statistical results. Recent replication studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) have helped researchers reach a new level of humility around the research findings they publish. Researchers are recognizing more and more that just because a result is statistically significant does not indicate its importance to the field or its ability to be replicated and generalized across contexts and settings. The valuable substance of research comes from pursuing multiple methods, multiple replications across different settings, and working with multiple partners and collaborators.

Book.indb 215

03-10-2019 12:27:05

216  

sharing pathways and perspectives

In 2017, after serving two years as section editor, I became the coeditor of the International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement. Reading through the stories and practical wisdom of our most accomplished scholars in the field of service learning, I am struck by the value of having a place, a forum, for scholarly dialogue, scholarly evidence, and fieldchallenging research. The Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning has played a significant role in providing such a venue, as will other journals in the field. Also striking are the number of centers and organizations that helped bring researchers and practitioners together around common themes and that supported the research of so many accomplished scholars. These centers and organizations will continue to support scholarship in the field of service learning and community engagement. As I continue on my journey, I find these organizations, centers, and annual meetings a place of rest, a place of true scholarly reflection, where ideas can be challenged, where partnerships can be formed, and where research can flourish. I hope to see you there.

References Abelson, R. P. (2012). Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bringle, R. G. (2003). Enhancing theory-based research on service-learning. In S. Billig & J. Eyler (Eds.), Deconstructing service-learning: Research exploring context, participation, and impacts (pp. 3–21). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bringle, R. C., Clayton, P., & Price, M. (2012). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1–20. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 112–122. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3(1), 66–71. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Jones, T. M. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Longo, N. V. (2013). Deliberative pedagogy in the community: Connecting deliberative dialogue, community engagement, and democratic education. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(2), 16. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2003). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.

Book.indb 216

03-10-2019 12:27:05

supporting others in research  

217

Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65. Moely, B. E., Mercer, S. H., Ilustre, V., Miron, D., & McFarland, M. (2002). Psychometric properties and correlates of the Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ): A measure of students’ attitudes related to service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(2), 18–26. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. Patton, M. Q. (2012). Improving rigor in service-learning research. In J. Hatcher & R. Bringle (Eds.),  Understanding Service-Learning and Community Engagement: Crossing Boundaries through Research (pp. 3–10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Richard, F. D. (2017). Quantitative research on civic outcomes and service learning. In R. Bringle & J. Hatcher, & T. Hahn (Eds.), Research on student civic outcomes in service learning (p. 221–240). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Independence, KY: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Stevens, J. P. (1996, 2012).  Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. ­Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge. Trochim, W. M. (2006). The research methods knowledge base. Retrieved from http:// www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/

Book.indb 217

03-10-2019 12:27:05

Book.indb 218

03-10-2019 12:27:05

2.12 RESEARCH TO INFLUENCE CHANGE John Saltmarsh

I

n the early 1990s, as an assistant professor at Northeastern University in Boston, I learned about service learning through experimenting with practice. I started writing about service learning as a way to better understand what I was doing. My publications at the time were a mix of history scholarship (my academic training is as a historian) and pieces on service learning, experiential education, and John Dewey. I wrote a piece titled “Becoming a Reflective Historian Through Community Service-Learning” (Saltmarsh, 1996a). I researched Dewey for the piece “Education for Critical Citizenship: John Dewey’s Contribution to the Pedagogy of Service Learning” (Saltmarsh, 1996b). These early contributions laid a firm foundation for my research agenda focused on the public purposes of higher education. My experience with practice was intensified when I taught a required methods course in the history department and used the course to implement service learning. This experiment with redesigning curriculum to incorporate service learning led to my first foray into the scholarship of teaching and learning. I carefully documented and assessed the course, learned a great deal about my pedagogical practice, interrogated that practice through theoretical lenses, and disseminated the findings. An essay about the course appeared as a chapter, “Emerson’s Prophesy,” in the book Connecting Past and Present: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in History, part of the 21-volume series on service learning in the disciplines edited by Edward Zlotkowski (Saltmarsh, 2000). My research on service learning emerged from practice. At the same time that I was studying my service learning practice and researching the intellectual roots of service learning, I was also facing the kind of ethical dilemmas that follow from the logic behind community-engaged 219

Book.indb 219

03-10-2019 12:27:05

220  

sharing pathways and perspectives

teaching and learning. What did it mean for an individual faculty member to build deep partnerships with those in the community and then complete the project at the end of the term? Were the benefits of student learning the result of taking advantage of (i.e., exploiting) marginalized communities? Was this simply a matter of pedagogy and curriculum, or were there other kinds of campus commitments that needed to be considered? As I shared in an interview with Harry Boyte, the more I got involved in taking course work into the community, the more I understood that service-learning compelled institutional change. From the inside, we as faculty see the question as about us as individuals, teaching. Communities see [our arrival] as about the institution. Stepping out into the community can’t simply be done individually. It requires a larger institutional response. (Boyte, 2004, p. 14)

My teaching practice was leading to new lines of inquiry and beyond a focus on service learning. After being offered tenure in history at Northeastern University, I accepted an invitation from Rick Battistoni and Keith Morton to spend my sabbatical year at Providence College. The college had, in the prior year, started the Feinstein Institute for Public Service and instituted a new undergraduate major and minor in public and community service studies. My year at the Feinstein Institute provided an extraordinary opportunity to both deepen practice and to deepen research in the company of insightful, critically reflective colleagues. While there I wrote a piece on “Ethics, Reflection, Purpose, and Compassion: Community Service Learning” (Saltmarsh, 1997); an article on “Exploring the Meaning of University/ Community Partnerships” (Saltmarsh, 1998); and based on a course cotaught with Morton, we wrote “Addams, Day, and Dewey: The Emergence of Community Service in American Culture” (Morton & Saltmarsh, 1997). These were philosophical, theoretical, and historical explorations driven by questions about reciprocity, justice, and democratic practices in community engagement. If the previous few years had been immersion in practice, while that immersion continued, my time with colleagues at the Feinstein Institute was an immersion in collaborative thought, research, and writing within an environment that catalyzed reflection and inquiry. My research agenda was shaped by practice and driven by areas in the field needing deeper exploration—ethical considerations, partnerships, and the origins and influences on our practice. At the same time, my research home was shifting away from disciplinary conferences in history to higher education conferences on

Book.indb 220

03-10-2019 12:27:05

research to influence change  

221

experiential education and service learning. I published less in disciplinary journals and thought more about the reach and impact of my research. I could do this in part because this was where the questions were taking me, but also because I had received tenure at Northeastern University. I could use tenure to try to create change aimed at the democratic purposes of higher education and for public scholarship.

From the University to Higher Education I had been back at Northeastern University for nine months when I requested and was allowed to take a two-year leave to work at the national office of Campus Compact. I was recruited to direct the Integrating Service With Academic Study project. With my position at Campus Compact, we were having an impact on higher education nationally, and the two-year leave ended up becoming an almost eight-year stint. I ultimately gave up a tenured position and was provided an opportunity to think carefully about research and impact with a new set of colleagues. Stepping outside of a campus context was a major shift for me. I became what Harry Boyte termed a scholar in residence at Campus Compact. In the interview I did with him, I explained, The transition from academia helped me to see academic culture in ways that I hadn’t seen so clearly before. I never quite appreciated the degree to which academics live in a world of their own. I never quite appreciated how we are socialized to be accountable only to ourselves. I was socialized to believe that my first loyalty was to my profession (a loyalty that was fairly undefined but meant something about my scholarship adhering to the standards of the craft) and after that there were no loyalties, not to institution, department, colleagues, or students. This deep socialization fostering the privatization of the faculty role led to inherent disengagement in social and political affairs. My work at [Campus Compact] has public accountability . . . I am much more conscious of an audience. I write not for a small group of academics but for as wide a group as possible. There is also a shift in the realm of impact, from my home institution and a few students and the neighborhood, to working with colleagues around the country to try to shape the future, to build a democracy. (Boyte, 2004, p. 15)

During my time at Campus Compact, my research focused more directly on institutional change. We hired Edward Zlotkowski as a senior scholar, and the two of us directed the scholarly agenda advanced by Campus Compact. Zlotkowski was also a humanities scholar, so our biases regarding methods tended toward stories and narrative rather than social science and

Book.indb 221

03-10-2019 12:27:05

222  

sharing pathways and perspectives

quantitative studies. We gravitated toward case studies, analyzing what we were seeing in the field. In choosing publication outlets, we aimed for practitioners and leaders and ways to reach a wide audience. We were intentional about what data and evidence matter to which constituencies, and we tailored our writing to reach targeted audiences—presidents, provosts, faculty, staff, and community partners. With either Zlotkowski or Campus Compact’s executive director, Liz Hollander, or both, we published, as examples, “The Engaged University” (Hollander & Saltmarsh, 2000); “Creating a Personal and Political Culture of Engagement in Higher Education” (Saltmarsh, 2001); “Indicators of Engagement” (Hollander, Zlotkowski, & Saltmarsh, 2001); and “Service Learning as a Fulcrum of Institutional Reform” (Zlotkowski & Saltmarsh, 2004). Based on an analysis of a service learning database of syllabi collected, I wrote “The Civic Promise of Service Learning” (Saltmarsh, 2005). This research was aimed at pushing the field to deeper engagement and institutional change. The methods were aligned with ways to make visible exemplary practice and provide accessible models to a range of stakeholders. My research was focused on questions of institutional culture, policy, and practice. I wanted to explore what Eckel, Hill, and Green (1998) talked about as “the common set of beliefs and values that creates a shared interpretation and understanding of events and actions” (p. 3) related to civic engagement. This meant trying to understand “institution-wide patterns of perceiving, thinking, and feeling; shared understandings; collective assumptions; and common interpretive frameworks” (p. 3). The focus of my research was higher education organizations’ artifacts, espoused values, and underlying assumptions to understand better how to bring about change to advance civic engagement as a way of colleges and universities better fulfilling their democratic purpose. By the time I left Campus Compact in 2005, I had learned a great deal about higher education, institutional change, and civic engagement from my work with colleagues across the country and from serving as a consultant on campuses across the United States. Certain things had crystalized in a way that they previously had not. It was now much clearer that at the core of my thinking about higher education is the belief, drawing on the educational philosopher John Dewey, that democracy is a learned activity, that education is essential to a healthy and functioning democracy, and that education should allow students to learn democracy by practicing it through their education. This, of course, would mean that higher education, as it is traditionally practiced, would have to change dramatically and be much more publicly engaged and connected to local communities.

Book.indb 222

03-10-2019 12:27:05

research to influence change  

223

Power, Politics, and Positionality in the University In 2005, I was hired as the director of the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) at the University of Massachusetts–Boston. My position was as half-time director and half-time faculty member in the higher education doctoral program, where I had an appointment as a tenured full professor in the Department of Leadership in Education. I was now in a position where I could study change in higher education, continue to work to advance civic engagement in higher education, and work to effect change both on my own campus and externally. My research agenda was driven by problems and changes in civic engagement and in higher education, and in some ways shaped by my tenured status, in the sense that I was not compelled to produce in ways that junior faculty would be. I could continue to focus on problems, audiences, approaches, impacts, and scholarly artifacts— and I could decide how best to have an influence. In 2008, through NERCHE, I collaborated with Matthew Hartley, a colleague at the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues at the Kettering Foundation to pull together a meeting at the Kettering Foundation. The problem we were trying to understand was “the sense of drift and stalled momentum in civic engagement work” (Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009, p. 1), and our inquiry was guided by some key questions, including the following: • Are current civic engagement efforts transforming higher education or have they been adopted in ways that do not fundamentally challenge the dominant cultures of higher education institutions and American society? • How can the movement best navigate the inherent tension between challenging the status quo and securing legitimacy through accommodation? • How can colleges and universities cultivate caring and creative democratic citizens and advance democracy in schools, universities, communities, and society? • What sort of institutional commitments are needed to foster civic engagement among students and among academics in order to advance participatory democracy on campus, in the community, and the wider society? (Saltmarsh et al., 2009, p. 12) One outcome of the meeting at the Kettering Foundation was a paper capturing the wisdom of attendees—our data were the discussion and insights of the participants in conversation with the literature and our own knowledge and experiences (Saltmarsh et al., 2009).

Book.indb 223

03-10-2019 12:27:05

224  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Our goal was to deliberately try to influence the field in ways that provided a more secure foundation and grounding for practice and identify the kinds of changes needed on campuses. We thought carefully about influence—what would be the best way to have the greatest impact on the field? We did not want the piece to be shaped by any organization’s agenda, so we chose not to do it as a Kettering Foundation publication. We wanted a broad audience, both inside academia and outside, so we did not see great value in an academic journal article. We arrived at doing an electronic publication that would be open access. We valued peer review, so we sent drafts to participants at the Kettering Foundation meeting and experts in the field who were not in attendance. The Democratic Engagement White Paper (Saltmarsh et al., 2009) accomplished two objectives. First, it made the distinction “between civic engagement as it is widely manifested in higher education” and what we called “democratic engagement” (p. 7). Engagement in a “democratic-centered framework” had “an explicit and intentional democratic dimension framed as inclusive, collaborative, and problem-oriented work in which academics share knowledge-generating tasks with the public and involve community partners as participants in public problem-solving” (p. 9). Second, it linked engagement practices to significant cultural and organizational change on campus. Democratic engagement could not happen in higher education institutions as they were; it required fundamental and transformative change. In a short time, we were getting feedback from across the country and around the globe, from within higher education and from outside the sector. The paper resonated deeply with a wide audience. The editor of a British education journal read the paper and asked if we would do a piece in the journal. In 2010, we published “Is the Civic Engagement Movement Changing Higher Education?” (Hartley & Saltmarsh, 2010). George Mehaffy, vice president at the American Association of State College and Universities, told us that he really appreciated the paper, but that he could not use it because it did not tell his members what to do—it was not practical enough. That fueled our thinking about an edited volume in which we asked participants from the Kettering Foundation meeting to write about concrete democratic engagement practices on their campuses, and we could provide a set of recommendations: To Serve a Larger Purpose: Engagement for Democracy and the Transformation of Higher Education (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011). I think about our approach here relative to the culture of higher education, my positionality within it, and the question of the impact of research. Of all the products that came out of our research, the one most traditionally valued through promotion and tenure review would have been the peerreviewed journal article. The edited book would also have been valued, but

Book.indb 224

03-10-2019 12:27:05

research to influence change  

225

less so. The virtual publication of the white paper would have had little, if any, value—it would not have been considered peer reviewed; it did not have a publisher; and it certainly did not have a traditional measure of impact, like a journal’s impact factor. Yet it has proven to be the most widely read piece that I have produced and had a far greater impact on the field—on practice, on theory, on institutional change—than the journal article or the book that followed. The Democratic Engagement White Paper, and the responses and feedback to it, catalyzed new lines of inquiry and further research. The Canadian scholar Jennifer Simpson uses the third chapter of her 2014 book, Longing for Justice: Higher Education and Democracy’s Agenda, to offer a critique of our white paper (and the civic engagement movement more broadly) in the following ways: (a) it fails to identify that all scholarship has a political agenda; (b) it does not articulate explicit democratic values; (c) it has not addressed the role of power and “obscures the workings of privilege and power” (Simpson, 2014, p. 95); (d) it does not tie norms of democratic culture to concrete practices of injustice at the individual and institutional level (“refusal to name injustice,” Simpson, 2014, p. 95); and (e) the suggestion that democratic norms have been beneficent to all in equitable ways represents a dismissal of history and radical denial of current practices (“uncritically accepting democratic norms,” Simpson, 2014, p. 95). Simpson’s critique, which she shared with me in conversations in the years before her book was published, along with discussions from a wide group of colleagues, was completely fair, accurate, and critically insightful—and pushed my thinking in new ways. Democratic engagement would need to be more explicit about questions of power, privilege, politics, positionality, identity, and implication. I was thinking about democratic engagement in light of insights and feedback colleagues were providing when I connected with scholars through Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life, a consortium launched in 1999 by the White House Millennium Council. Together with Susan Sturm, a professor at Columbia School of Law, as well as Timothy Eatman, the research director from Imagining America, and Adam Bush at Imagining America, we wrote “Full Participation: Building the Architecture for Diversity and Public Engagement in Higher Education” (Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush, 2011). We followed the playbook from the Democratic Engagement White Paper and published a virtual paper that was open access. In “Full Participation” we drew on a law review article written by Sturm called “The Architecture of Inclusion” (2006). This allowed us to crack open ways of thinking about institutional culture beyond the confines of the ways diversity was playing out on college campuses. Sturm had been pushed to expand her thinking as a legal scholar in the context of the attacks on affirmative action

Book.indb 225

03-10-2019 12:27:06

226  

sharing pathways and perspectives

in higher education. Full participation is about integrating the priorities of diversity and inclusion, public engagement, and the success of underserved students—or, said somewhat differently, it is about integrating collaborative ways of generating knowledge, active and collaborative teaching and learning, and student success. We found that a growing body of research has demonstrated that women and faculty of color are more likely to engage in both interdisciplinary and community-service-related behaviors, including community-engaged and inclusive pedagogical practice in teaching and learning and building research agendas related to public problem-solving in local communities. Research indicates that faculty roles and rewards—criteria for research, scholarship, and creative activity—either (a) reward community engagement as service (counting little in promotion and tenure) or (b) do not specifically reward community engagement as either teaching, research and creative activity, or service. We also found that research indicates that the academic success of systematically and traditionally underserved students is enhanced by increased opportunities to participate in high-impact teaching and learning practices—practices that involve greater engagement in learning. One of these practices is community-based teaching and learning (often referred to as service learning or community engagement tied to the curriculum). Research also suggested that the academic success of underserved students is enhanced by increased opportunities to identify with faculty and staff who represent ethnic, racial, gender, and cultural diversity. One aspect of the Full Participation study was that the literature revealed the emergence of what we called in the paper “next generation academic professionals” (Sturm et al., 2011, p. 11). The Full Participation study and the Democratic Engagement White Paper fed into a loosely formed research collective we then called the Next Generation Engagement Project that involved scholars from around the country ranging from graduate students to senior academics, exploring a problem that was described in this way: While large-scale change has  been slow to emerge, there are indications that the next generation of students and scholars has already committed itself to balancing the cosmopolitan with the local in a way that fosters a more socially responsive stance within higher education. (Next Generation Engagement Project, 2018)

The next-generation inquiry culminated in a book (Post, Longo, Ward, & Saltmarsh, 2016). The Next Generation Engagement Project and the book brought together the democratic engagement, full participation, and culture change in higher education lines of inquiry into a focused research project.

Book.indb 226

03-10-2019 12:27:06

research to influence change  

227

My contributions to the project were as a member of the research collective and coeditor of the book. In addition Matthew Hartley and I contributed two chapters on the history of the civic engagement movement in relation to the next generation of engaged scholars. The second chapter of the book was a brief metahistory of the civic engagement movement in American higher education since the 1970s that examined key events and stages in the movement leading to the present moment (Hartley & Saltmarsh, 2016). With these two chapters, I drew on my academic roots as a historian, examining evidence and placing it in conversation with a historical narrative. This was also a historical study where both the evidence and the narrative were in conversation with the historians, since both Hartley and I were very much participants to the history we were writing about. The democratic engagement, full participation, next generation, and historical inquiry into the movement has fed a new research agenda that I describe as retheorizing the public good in higher education (Rice, Saltmarsh, & Plater, 2015). The meaning of the public good purposes of higher education in an age of neoliberalism decimates commitments to the public. I developed this inquiry with a paper delivered as a keynote for the 2016 annual conference of the Western Association of Schools and College, the regional accrediting body for western states (Saltmarsh, 2016). I explored three versions of higher education’s commitment to the public good, what I called thin, transformational, and thick. This research is still in progress, but it is aimed at probing the formulations of higher education’s historic commitments to the public good and examining those formulations in the context of the neoliberal university. Using community-engaged scholarship, a particular kind of scholarly activity that has as its essential purpose public commitments and relationships, I want to examine those commitments and relationships in the context of a neoliberal logic as a way of retheorizing higher education’s relationship to the public good. The lens of community engagement as an epistemological orientation with implications for the ethics of knowledge-making allows for a framing of the public good that is imbued with ethical considerations and bringing explicit justice commitments into conceptions of the public good. Thus, this line of inquiry is tied to the concept of epistemic justice (and epistemic injustice) and its implications for the work of new scholars in higher education. Epistemic justice is a philosophical frame developed by the British philosopher Miranda Fricker. Its relevance for faculty work in higher education, in particular the practice of pedagogy and research, is in (a) focusing on an epistemological orientation (How do we know what we know? How is knowledge constructed? What is considered legitimate knowledge?), (b) treating epistemology as having not only an intellectual dimension but also

Book.indb 227

03-10-2019 12:27:06

228  

sharing pathways and perspectives

an ethical dimension, and (c) foregrounding identity and power in analysis of ethics in considering systems that silence and delegitimize knowers and ways of knowing (Fricker, 2007). I want to use the philosophical framework of epistemic justice to explore the construction of pedagogical practices and faculty rewards as fundamentally a cultural artifact, which at its core is shaped by epistemic assumptions and values. The examination is conducted through the case of culturally relevant pedagogical practices and emerging forms of scholarship (inter- and transdisciplinary scholarship, digital scholarship, community-engaged scholarship), which, while exhibiting certain methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks, express a particular epistemological orientation. This orientation is then examined in the context of both the identity of new scholars and the historical traditions within the cultures of higher education as a way of understanding its relation to the dominant cultural norms. Using a lens of epistemic justice provides a way to examine the formulations of higher education’s historic commitments to the public good and understand those formulations in the context of the neoliberal university.

Lessons Learned As I reflect on this research narrative, I am also working on a new project that, in many ways, encapsulates the lessons I can draw from it. I am currently a part of a research team that includes 2 of my graduate students. The subject of our study is reward policies that create incentives for faculty to undertake community-engaged scholarship. It is a study that emerged out of practice: The university we are studying has revised its institutional faculty reward policies to include community engagement across the faculty roles (i.e., teaching, research, and service). Once this change had been adopted at the university level, each college and department was charged with revising their promotion and tenure policies to align with the institutional policies. Experience in the field and familiarity with the literature suggested that little was known about how departments frame incentives for community engagement out of different disciplinary orientations. We could examine 54 departments at this institution to see how revised policies were constructed. The significance of the study is that it could provide insight to support other departments, colleges, and campuses revising their guidelines. One lesson that emerges is to do research that makes a difference in changing higher education. As you design research projects, be intentional about the purpose of the research, how you would like it to be used, and to

Book.indb 228

03-10-2019 12:27:06

research to influence change  

229

what end. This kind of intentionality can influence methodology, and it can influence the kinds of products that you create to disseminate your research. This also means being deliberative about the audiences that you want to reach and why. These choices are neither dogmatic nor dichotomous, but they are choices that you should be intentional about in order to achieve intended influence. The second lesson is to design research projects that emerge from practice. As a community partner once reminded me, instead of evidence-based practice, it would be more valuable to have practice-based evidence. All of my community-engaged research emerged out of problems that I encountered through practice. They were not hypothetical or theoretical topics. My research on practice aligns with what Tony Chambers, in the foreword to the 2016 book Engaged Research and Practice, calls scholarship on or about engagement (Chambers, 2016). Scholarship on or about engagement involves the study of the processes and/or outcomes of collaboration, decision-making, research, and action within the relationship between scholars and communities. The focus of my research has been higher education organizations’ artifacts, espoused values, and underlying assumptions to understand better how to bring about change to advance civic engagement as a way for colleges and universities to fulfill their democratic purposes. The third lesson that emerges is the importance of doing scholarship collaboratively. As my career progressed, I increasingly collaborated with other scholars on my research projects. My approach to research has not been collaborative in the sense of mutually beneficial relationships between those in the university and those outside the university. Rather, it has been collaborative in the sense of working with other scholars in transdisciplinary ways to understand community engagement within higher education. Such collaboration allowed for gaining varied perspectives, insights, and understandings from across disciplines. It offered the possibilities of deep learning with colleagues and students. Fundamentally, it led to better scholarship; scholarship on community engagement practice aimed at impacting transformational change in higher education.

References Boyte, H. C. (2004). Going public: Academics and public life  [Occasional paper]. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation. Chambers, T. (2016). Foreword. In B. Overton, P. Pasque, J. Burkhardt, & T. Chambers (Eds.) Engaged research and practice: Higher education and the pursuit of the public good (pp. xv–xx). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Book.indb 229

03-10-2019 12:27:06

230  

sharing pathways and perspectives

Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). En route to transformation. On change. Occasional papers of the ACE Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation. Washington DC: American Council on Education. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hartley, M., & Saltmarsh, J. (2010). Is the civic engagement movement changing higher education? British Journal of Education Studies, 58, 391–406. Hartley, M., & Saltmarsh, J. (2016). A brief history of the civic engagement movement. In M. Post, E. Ward, N. Longo, & J. Saltmarsh (Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 34–60). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hollander, E., & Saltmarsh, J. (2000). The engaged university. Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, 86(4), 29–32. Hollander, E., Zlotkowski, E., & Saltmarsh, J. (2001). Indicators of engagement. In M. Kenny, L. Simon, K. Kiley-Brabeck, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Learning to serve: Promoting civil society through service-learning (pp. 31–49). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Morton, K., & Saltmarsh, J. (1997). The emergence of community service in American culture. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 137–149. Next Generation Engagement Project. 2018. Boston, MA: New England Research Center on Higher Education. Retrieved from http://nerche.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=355&Itemid=96 Post, M., Ward, E., Longo, N., & Saltmarsh, J. (Eds.) (2016). Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Rice, E. R., Saltmarsh, J., & Plater W. M. (2015). Reflections on the public good and academic professionalism. In G. Shaker (Ed.), Faculty work and the public good: Philanthropy, engagement, and academic professionalism (pp. 251–266). New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Saltmarsh, J. (1996a). Becoming a reflective historian through community servicelearning. Organization of American Historians Council of Chairs Newsletter, 49, 1–7. Saltmarsh, J. (1996b). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey’s contribution to the pedagogy of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 13–21. Saltmarsh, J. (1997). Ethics, reflection, purpose, and compassion: Community service learning. In J. Fried (Ed.), Ethics for today’s campus: New perspectives on education, student development, and institutional management (pp. 81–94). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Saltmarsh, J. (1998). Exploring the meaning of university/community partnerships. National Society for Experiential Education Quarterly, Summer(6–7), 21–22. Saltmarsh, J. (2000). Emerson’s prophesy. In I. Harkavy & W. Donovan (Eds.), Connecting Past and present: Concepts and models for service-learning in history (pp. 43–60). Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Book.indb 230

03-10-2019 12:27:06

research to influence change  

231

Saltmarsh, J. (2001). Creating a personal and political culture of engagement in higher education. In H. Boyte (Ed.), Intellectual workbench: A collection of essays commissioned by the Kettering Foundation that are part of the Civic Mission Project of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship. Retrieved from https://www .kettering.org/catalog/product/going-public-academics-and-public-life Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The civic promise of service learning. Liberal Education, 91(2), 50–55. Saltmarsh, J. (2016, April). Higher education’s accountability for the public good. Keynote address at the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Academic Resources Academic Resource Conference, Garden Grove, CA. Saltmarsh J., & Hartley, M. (Eds.). (2011). To serve a larger purpose: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2016). The inheritance of next generation engagement scholars. In M. Post, E. Ward, N. Longo, & J. Saltmarsh (Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 15–33). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Democratic engagement white paper. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Simpson, J. S. (2014). Longing for justice: Higher education and democracy’s agenda. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Sturm, S. (2006). The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 29, 247. Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for diversity and public engagement in higher education [White paper]. New York, NY: Center for Institutional and Social Change. Zlotkowski, E., & Saltmarsh, J. (2004). Service learning as a fulcrum of institutional reform. In M. Langseth & W. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service-learning (pp. 41–50). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Book.indb 231

03-10-2019 12:27:06

Book.indb 232

03-10-2019 12:27:06

PA RT T H R E E D E E P E N I N G C O L L A B O R AT I V E R E S E A RC H

Book.indb 233

03-10-2019 12:27:06

Book.indb 234

03-10-2019 12:27:06

3.1 PRACTICAL WISDOM ON C O - I N QU I RY I N R E S E A RC H O N S E RV I C E L E A R N I N G Patti H. Clayton, Stephanie Stokamer, Leslie Garvin, Deanna Shoemaker, Stacey Muse, and Katrina Norvell

A

s a group of service learning and community engagement (SLCE) practitioner-scholars from within and beyond the academy, we are working together and separately to understand and advance ­co-creation in the practice of and research on SLCE. We have talked, read, thought, and written with colleagues along these lines for years. Most recently, we have had the opportunity to look, critically and appreciatively, at a rich collection of stories about research on SLCE to see what insights and questions they offer to help guide the SLCE movement and associated research in this important direction. The narratives are those of ­established scholars, compiled into Part Two of this volume. The contributors reflect on the past, present, and future of their work with the intent to document lessons learned and generate recommendations for improving research on SLCE. The role of this chapter is to synthesize some of the key ideas shared in those narratives and examine them with an eye to implications. The six of us have critically reflected on these stories through the lens of our own positionalities, commitments, and experiences to further envision and refine co-creation—framed here as co-inquiry or co-, more simply—as a way of “walking our talk” in research on SLCE. We intend this chapter to encourage and enable SLCE practitioner-scholars—by which we mean all who partner in the process with a spirit of inquiry, connect their learning with that of others, and thereby advance knowledge and practice—to see themselves as co-inquirers, to conduct their work as co-inquiry, and to 235

Book.indb 235

03-10-2019 12:27:06

236  

deepening collaborative research

join with us in advancing knowledge and practice related to this important dynamic in research on SLCE. To us, the “talk” that is most central to SLCE practice and research is expressed in the paradigm of democratic engagement (Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009), which positions all partners in SLCE as co-educators, co-learners, and co-generators of knowledge and practice. In contrast with the dominant technocratic paradigm in community-campus engagement— a deficit-based, hierarchical privileging of academic expertise—democratic engagement calls for asset-based, power-shared integration of ideas and questions across multiple centers of knowledge and experience. It recognizes that knowledge generation is “a process of co-creation” (Saltmarsh et al., 2009, p. 10) and calls our attention to the necessary link between democratic purposes and democratic processes. Accordingly, we are interested in how the full range of SLCE activities, including research, can be conducted in ways that enact commitment to co-creation as part of the process. We have thus read the chapters that comprise Part Two of this volume with an eye to what the contributors have to say about co- and asked: What can we take from the journeys of the established SLCE researchers whose stories are assembled in this volume to help inform our co-inquiry into co-inquiry and our—and our readers’—future practice of co-inquiry in SLCE and associated scholarship? All of the chapter contributors use the term collaboration; they share examples of it, recommend structures for it, and encourage readers to create opportunities for it in their own work. Collectively, they share experiences of more than a dozen modes of collaboration, including studies with students, graduate research assistantships, adviser-advisee relationships, centerwide scholarship, multi- and interdisciplinary working groups on campus, team-hosted conferences, co-authoring and co-presenting, communityengaged evaluation and research, tool refinement, phone-a-friend, exchange of feedback, apprenticeships, learning communities, spaces for multipartner deliberation, mentoring, and professional networks. We ourselves—a veteran SLCE practitioner-scholar and consultant (Clayton), a civic engagement center director (Stokamer), a former community partner and current executive director of a state chapter of Campus Compact (Garvin), a faculty member new to research on SLCE (Shoemaker), a current community organization director and recent doctoral student (Muse), and a faculty member who has provided leadership to an international SLCE research association (Norvell)—bring a diverse set of experiences with and perspectives on co-creation in SLCE practice and research. We write as a community of colleagues who have engaged with the chapters in Part Two through an intense process of co-inquiry: reading the chapters together, posing questions to them and to one another,

Book.indb 236

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

237

looking for commonalities and points of tension across the chapters and between them and our own stories, and co-generating the meanings we find in them and the key ideas and questions we share here. We involved participants in a concurrent session we facilitated at the 2018 conference of the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) in this co-inquiry process. And as we have drawn heavily on our own experiences of co- across many settings, our thinking here is also deeply informed by the many student, community, staff, and faculty colleagues around the world who have co-created with each of us through the years. The SLCE scholars whose journeys we engage with here may not share with one another—or with us—a common understanding of co-, but they certainly have us bouncing their ideas off our own thoughts on, questions about, and experiences with it. To clarify, we do not start with the assumption that collaboration—the term these contributors consistently use—and co-inquiry or co-creation—the practice we are ultimately most interested in— are the same thing. Thus, as we explore examples, implications, and key considerations in the sections that follow, we ask ourselves what in the work of these contributors resonates with us as the essence of co-, what seems to us to need nuancing or troubling, and what may be missing.

Examples The SLCE scholars brought together in this volume share practical wisdom from collaborating with a range of people, including faculty and staff from other disciplines and areas of expertise, students, and community members as well as with and through intermediary organizations. The similarities and differences we see between their experiences and ours help us further examine co-.

With Faculty and Staff Across Disciplines and Areas of Expertise Almost all of the chapters include stories of collaboration with faculty or staff who have complementary knowledge, skills, and perspectives, from both other disciplines and other professional roles. Saltmarsh (chapter 2.12) shares multiple examples of collaboration with faculty colleagues in disciplines other than his own (history): co-authoring essays with professors of law and of American studies, undertaking a sabbatical with a professor of political science, co-convening the gathering that led to the Democratic Engagement White Paper with a professor of education, and co-authoring multiple products with a professor of English and media studies, to name a

Book.indb 237

03-10-2019 12:27:06

238  

deepening collaborative research

few. Bringle and Hatcher (chapters 2.5 and 2.10) each share stories in which collaboration with the other at IUPUI played a key role in their scholarly output (he was a tenured faculty member in psychology and executive director, and she served as associate director during most of the period of their shared leadership of the Center for Service and Learning). Both of their chapters also speak to the role of the center’s staff in collaborative scholarship (e.g., the co-creation of the Civic-Minded Graduate framework; see Steinberg, Hatcher, & Bringle, 2011). In the early days of her research related to critical reflection and assessment, Clayton frequently found her philosophical and ecological leanings at odds with the hard science orientation of her primary faculty partner (Sarah Ash). They were usually able to leverage this tension to improve the quality of their work and expand the range of disciplines it could speak effectively to. Almost all of their materials related to the DEAL (describe, examine, and articulate learning) model for critical reflection (see Ash & Clayton, 2009) included examples from both of their courses, in part because they valued the differences between their disciplinary/interdisciplinary assumptions about and experiences with student learning and motivation. Part of their resolution of sometimes seemingly incompatible interpretations was to make them visible in their writing, acknowledging the lack of consensus and using it to generate new frameworks and questions. Garvin’s experience as executive director of North Carolina Campus Compact involves bringing faculty and staff together both within and across disciplines through scholarly gatherings that are mostly intended to be crossdisciplinary—grounded in the conviction that processes and lessons learned are usually transferable and applicable to establishing or maintaining partnerships in any discipline—but that often include poorly attended disciplinespecific sessions. She wrestles with whether the key to enhancing the field is encouraging deeper engagement within or across disciplines, especially when it proves difficult to do both at once. Ultimately, co- across disciplines and roles is a valuable, perhaps even defining, element of SLCE practice and research that enhances the knowledge of everyone involved. However, it may hinder opportunities to strengthen the practice and the scholarship within disciplines that are newer to it or that have not adopted some of the best practices related to democratic engagement. Garvin’s experience raises the question of whether the field has become so cross-disciplinary in its approach that it fails to achieve depth anywhere—the two miles wide, one inch deep problem—and whether this concern ­manifests differently in research on SLCE than it often seems to when it comes to curricular and program development.

Book.indb 238

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

239

With Students There is little evidence of collaboration with undergraduate students in these chapters. In one of the few examples, Moely (chapter 2.2) mentions working with an undergraduate on a senior honors thesis that was later published in the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. We know of some examples in their work that the contributors did not opt to include in their narratives and wish they had as a way of lending their support to such collaboration. In her own work, Shoemaker has been thinking about the value of strategically scaffolding curricular structures and support systems to facilitate progressive levels of co-inquiry between undergraduates and their faculty and community partners—as when students take a SLCE-enhanced course with a particular faculty member and community partner, then deepen their relationships and knowledge through an internship or other practice-based experience with the same community partner supervised by the same faculty member, and eventually co-develop with them a thesis research project. In contrast, Stokamer’s experience as a center director has been that it takes time and a lot of cultivation (and sometimes just good luck) for students to be interested, ready, available, and committed to co-inquiry around SLCE—in part because the very concept of co-inquiry by and with undergraduates still runs counter to the dominant approaches to education (into which faculty, staff, and students alike have been socialized) that consider students as empty vessels to be filled with the wisdom of faculty. It seems particularly important to us, then, that SLCE ­practitioner-scholars tap and contribute to work on students as colleagues in SLCE (Zlotkowski, Longo, & Williams, 2006) and students as partners in the scholarship of teaching and learning (Miller-Young, Felten, & Clayton, 2017). If undergraduates are to be full partners in co-inquiry, we may need to work together to scaffold opportunities for capacity ­building—among all of us. The contributors share more examples of collaborating with graduate students, in the form of research assistantships, co-authored studies, and conference presentations. Norvell’s experience as a graduate student was one of being co- with other scholars of community engagement more so than with faculty and students in her own department. Muse’s experience adds another possibility: collaboration in spaces provided by external intermediary organizations, especially when opportunities on one’s own campus are scarce. Through her involvement with the Graduate Student Network affiliated with IARSLCE, she joined a group of 20 graduate students from around the world (and 2 senior scholars) who co-produced an interactive wiki-based conference Proceedings (a publication IARSLCE had not previously had); as

Book.indb 239

03-10-2019 12:27:06

240  

deepening collaborative research

an IARSLCE editorial fellow she became more deeply connected to other graduate students and senior scholars, which created more opportunities to engage in co-inquiry in later years. We take from both of their examples that it is important for graduate students to know about and seek out spaces beyond their academic departments where they can find and create meaningful opportunities for co-inquiry.

With Community Members At least half of the contributors in Part Two write about collaboration with individuals who are not professionally based primarily in the academy (i.e., community partners, community members), some briefly by way of a recommendation and some in more depth to illustrate part of their journey with SLCE research. As an especially well-developed example, Furco (chapter 2.4) discusses a study of service learning’s role in character education that involved K–12 teachers in all phases of the process (i.e., design, implementation, interpretation of findings, dissemination). Reflecting on a recent event that brought to life this spirit of co- in scholarship by and with community members (the Black Communities Conference in Durham, North Carolina), Garvin was delighted and proud to see her community colleagues being welcomed and, further, seeing themselves as full and equal contributors. The conference’s Request for Proposals explicitly foregrounded community members. In addition to traditional formats such as workshops and panel discussions, there were other presentation options, including working groups for 6 to 12 people to explore a very specific shared concern and pop-up presentations showcasing posters, photo­ graphy, artist performances, and videos. Because of these diverse spaces for co-inquiry among a broader than usual mix of individuals, she learned more at this event than in other conference settings. Clayton co-authored a book chapter about a local community engagement partnership (Hess et al., 2011) with four community members (three of whom were on the staff of local community organizations and one of whom was a local resident), two graduate students, and three faculty members—an experience that involved developing creative, if limited, ways to incorporate community (and all other) voices directly. Although the entire team had functioned in very democratic, co-creative, power-shared ways in the development of the partnership and continued to do so in its day-to-day internal operations and external engagement with the broader community, they found it difficult to engage equitably in writing, review, and revision tasks. The work-arounds they settled on included a type of inset in the chapter called “Varied Voices” in which the individual voices of the full set of

Book.indb 240

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

241

co-authors were made visible by attaching their names and affiliations to quotes. The examples shared in the chapters and our own experiences along these lines lead us to think that the perceptions of community members with whom academics collaborate need to be elevated. Is there sufficient exploration with those individuals of how these co- processes work and do not work for them, particularly given the reality that academic scholarship is not typically part of their jobs? What are the best ways to involve community members in co-inquiry? We need to pay attention to the quality of these corelationships from the perspectives of all co-inquirers.

With and Through Intermediaries All but one of the contributors to this volume mentions receiving support from organizations such as the National Society for Experiential Education, Campus Compact, IARSLCE, the National Youth Leadership Council, Community Campus Partnerships for Health, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, and the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, to name a few examples. These intermediaries—organizations and networks, professional associations, governmental initiatives, and dissemination outlets—are entities outside of higher education institutions that create linkages within and beyond the SLCE field in order to establish, strengthen, and sustain it. Based on the stories in this volume, such intermediaries have played a critical role in the development of SLCE research and can continue to push the field through, for example, calling for and enabling participation and contributions from the full range of SLCE partners and stakeholders. Shoemaker, conversely, has relied on supportive mechanisms within her own institution, such as one center that provided a grant for a SLCE project and research. Another center brings Clayton in to facilitate professional development related to community-engaged learning, partnerships, and scholarship. Shoemaker thus suggests that entities on campus also function as important intermediaries, helping to advance SLCE and related research in some of the same ways that journals and associations do. At the same time, she wonders if she has been too narrowly focused on conferences and journals in her home discipline. Similarly, Stokamer recently attended a conference oriented toward government agency personnel and nonprofit service providers in Oregon around housing and homelessness and left wondering why she does not go to such practitioner- and partner-focused conferences more often. She found it incredibly valuable in informing her communityengaged teaching around affordable housing and in recentering community

Book.indb 241

03-10-2019 12:27:06

242  

deepening collaborative research

in her work. Finally, Norvell’s work with IARSLCE when she was at Portland State University sensitized her to the ways in which higher education institutions not only receive value from partnerships with intermediaries but also can be instrumental in shaping their mission and function. The experiences shared by the contributors to this volume and our own confirm that intermediaries can indeed play a valuable role in co-inquiry work. We see the potential for intermediaries both within and beyond academia to facilitate co-, especially through decentering higher education in research on SLCE. Although interdependence with intermediaries may pose challenges when their personnel or scope change, it holds promise for maximizing opportunities for co- in ways that leverage existing structures and networks.

Implications Our examination of the chapters in Part Two reveals a landscape rich with opportunities for collaboration, the importance of structures and organizational supports for it, and ways it can be challenging. The practical wisdom related to collaboration articulated by the contributors and the intersection of their and our experiences suggest a way forward in understanding how co-inquiry can advance research on SLCE. The R-P-R triangle developed by the Interaction Institute for Social Change (Ogden, 2009)—which positions relationships and process as equally important as results while also establishing their interdependence—is a useful heuristic for conceptualizing the possibilities for improving research on SLCE.

Improving Research Quality: Results Many of the contributors highlight improved research outcomes as their primary reason for collaboration. Results are improved, they suggest, when others test our thoughts, question our approaches, hold us accountable to time lines, contribute theoretical perspectives and technical assistance, and synergize research agendas. Their experience leads them to conclude that collaboration can enhance research results with diversity of thought, methods, and skills. One important implication of co-inquiry within the domain of results has to do with broadening the range of questions under investigation, particularly to encompass questions related to the community dimensions of SLCE more substantially than we have to date. Several of the contributors note the persistent dearth of research on community impacts. Although establishing the link between community-engaged pedagogies and student

Book.indb 242

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

243

learning has been critical to the sustainability of SLCE as a field, Hatcher (chapter 2.10) notes that it does not have to be an either-or proposition: “Community engagement should result in knowledge generation and deliverables that support change in both participants and communities” (p. 196, this volume). Co-inquiry can encourage and enable more and better research on community impacts by integrating community voices. We find the work of Bandy et al. (2018) helpful as we consider the prospects for this important future direction: Partners who may not have the status of credentialed experts have deep reservoirs of their own expertise about the social contexts in which they live and the challenges and opportunities they encounter. . . . [T]his base of knowledge has profound legitimacy and utility due to its historical and social rootedness in context and its nuanced and hard-won insights into relationships of social power, ones credentialed experts sometimes do not see. (p. 66)

We do not know if co- consistently produces empirically better results than not co- (noting that what “better” means will vary from context to context). We do, however, have specific examples from our own experience of how we believe co-inquiry improved the results of our scholarship. Some years ago, Stokamer worked with community members, faculty, staff, and students in a process of co-inquiry to articulate principles of quality academic civic engagement at her institution. The involvement of the full range of partners from the beginning—as opposed to her writing such principles based only on available literature on best practices—ensured that elements such as partner participation in reflection processes and experiences that were both meaningful and relevant to students’ interests were included in these principles. Similarly, as she and her co-authors Christine Cress and Joyce Kaufman embarked on a project to create a guide for community partners about campus collaborations (Cress, Stokamer, & Kaufman, 2015), they knew that, because they were all academics, they needed to do some co-inquiry with community partners to ensure that what they were offering would be useful and have integrity. The process was not as deeply co- as it could have been in that partners were not involved in directly shaping the project from the beginning, yet they did improve its structure and content in ways the three academics would not have come up with themselves. Clayton was involved in research for many years on student learning in SLCE. The DEAL model of critical reflection was developed and refined through several years of co-inquiry by students, staff, and faculty, with clear (if anecdotal) evidence of the value of that process to SLCE practice

Book.indb 243

03-10-2019 12:27:06

244  

deepening collaborative research

and research (their own and others’ around the world). The first version of the model came into existence when undergraduates Nick Haltom and Gretchen Lindner asked Clayton to work with them to design an international capstone SLCE project, co-created with her a set of critical reflection prompts aligned with their particular learning goals, and launched the role of SLCE reflection leader. Reflection leader Jason Grissom developed the structure for the articulated learnings that are the last step in the DEAL model and thereby formalized the (usually) written product that enabled cross-course and multi-institutional research. The small research team that semester-by-semester refined DEAL and its associated tools through an intense process of applying rubrics they developed together to student’s written critical reflection products always included at least one undergraduate and at least one staff member in addition to two instructors. In his capacity as a research associate, senior Brandon Whitney insisted—in the face of faculty resistance—on retaining DEAL’s prompting of learners to set goals for themselves related to their learning; without this element, iterative use of the model to improve practice, generate questions, and change patterns of thought and behavior would have been compromised. All members of the DEAL research teams shared responsibility for scoring student products, resolving variation among scorers, proposing refinements to the tools and rubrics, facilitating professional development among students and instructors to integrate critical reflection into courses, and sharing their work on other campuses and at conferences. Haltom, Linder, Grissom, and Whitney are four among many students whose central role in this team’s co-inquiry made DEAL and the research it supports an internationally respected and used body of work.

Improving Research Quality: Process These two examples demonstrate the value added to research products and results, which is often where the conversation about improving research ends. In the R-P-R model, however, research process (which is not the same as method) is equally significant. The contributors to Part Two provide some guidance related to collaborative research processes. We are struck by the mix of structures—time set aside, learning communities, deliberative spaces—and organic dynamics that underlie collaborative process as these scholars have experienced it. Sandmann (chapter 2.6) discusses the importance of scholars learning to give, receive, and use feedback from others. Gelmon (chapter 2.8) notes the value of openness to new and unexpected opportunities to work with colleagues. Many contributors value the formation of learning communities as a strategy to foster collaborative work; Richard (chapter 2.11), for example,

Book.indb 244

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

245

shares specific instances of improved questions and methods resulting from “collaborative idea generation” (p. 214, this volume) during small group learning community discussions at the annual IUPUI Research Academy— which brings practitioner-scholars from multiple institutions together for three days in early May to refine a SLCE research question and study design. Longo (chapter 2.1) offers a specific process for co-creation of knowledge that “challenges [our] ideas about what it means to be a scholar” (p. 56, this volume). He names that process as “deliberative pedagogy [which] involves conversations about real-world issues with a wide range of actors, [including] . . . professor[s] and students . . . [and] those in the larger community affected by an issue” (p. 56, this volume). Some of the contributors share stories of collaboration operating over significant geographic distances—around the United States and in other countries. Hartman (chapter 2.7), for instance, highlights his collaboration with colleagues around the United States to develop globalsl.org, which brings together the wide range of publicly available work on global service learning and curates new scholarship from around the world related to ethical partnerships. We were surprised that none of the contributors discussed in any depth the possibilities and challenges of virtual collaboration. As noted previously, there is great potential for co-inquiry that involves community members to expand research on community impacts; a similar broadening of questions and methods can be enabled when online technologies are used to connect practitioner-scholars from multiple geographic contexts. And, of course, such technologies can also simply make co-inquiry less resource intensive in terms of the time and travel required for much in-person interaction. The six of us have many experiences with work co-created by individuals who rarely, if ever, see each other during the process and who sometimes do not know each other before entering into virtual communities or ever meet outside of them—work that we believe would not happen except for such technology-mediated processes. This chapter is an example. The six of us live in five different states spanning three time zones, and all of our work sessions have been virtual, taking place in Google Docs, online spreadsheets, and conference calls. The session we held at the 2018 IARSLCE conference to gather others’ responses to ideas in the chapters was co-facilitated by three of us in person and three of us remotely. Similarly, Muse’s co-creative work as an IARSLCE editorial fellow several years ago involved regular Skype calls— strategically planned to accommodate varying schedules and multiple time zones—to discuss process and products. Initial calls were about grounding the group as a community: getting to know each other and setting the vision for our work together. Sometimes calls were technical in nature (e.g., How do we cite this alternative format? What publication platform should we

Book.indb 245

03-10-2019 12:27:06

246  

deepening collaborative research

use?), and sometimes they were process oriented (e.g., Is the project going in the direction we each want it to? What changes should we make to how we are working together?). The use of various technologies made their co­possible. Strategies such as these provide the mechanisms that enable the co- we think improves research processes. Conceptualizing research on SLCE as co-inquiry can also contribute to enhancing the quality of that research by broadening the field’s sense of what processes can be deemed rigorous, valid, and legitimate. Research, in any arena, tends to be an expert-centric activity—with expertise usually defined narrowly as involving academic credentials; co-inquiry challenges such assumptions and provides alternative starting points. The contributors in Part Two encourage improving rigor as fairly traditionally construed; O’Meara (chapter 2.3) and Furco (chapter 2.4), for example, speak to the importance of using well-established methods and large sample sizes. Bandy et al. (2018) explore how co-creation (and other democratic values) can inform a reimagining of assessment. We find their thinking about rigor equally relevant to research on SLCE. Dominant notions of rigor in inquiry related to SLCE (and beyond that particular domain of practice and research), they suggest, lead to a “myopic” focus on “measures that are most efficiently gathered and analyzed and not on more complex indicators that may help determine whether our most cherished values of community engagement are being realized” (p. 70). Commitment to co-creation, however, encourages consideration of other meanings of high-quality research processes. Anderson, Herr, and Nighlen (2007) sketch potential framings of validity that seem particularly relevant to co-inquiry: democratic validity (the extent to which “research is done in collaboration with all parties who have a stake in the problem under investigation,” Anderson et al., 2007, p. 41); catalytic validity (the extent to which “all involved in the research deepen their understanding of the social reality under study and [are] moved to some action to change it (or to reaffirm their support of it),” Anderson et al., 2007, p. 42); and dialogic validity (the extent to which “the experiences and beliefs that come into play as [researchers] think about the issues or problems under study . . . [are] critically examined rather than ignored,” p. 43). Bandy et al. (2018) draw on this work as they explore meanings of rigor in co-created assessment or research. They conclude that commitment to rigor should push beyond traditional criteria and take into account such factors as “what perspectives were (and were not) considered” in the development of methods and tools and whether “language used reinforce[s] problematic assumptions (e.g., [about] expertise) or interpretations” (p. 44). It should also ask, “Are the methods contextually and culturally appropriate? . . . Does the process

Book.indb 246

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

247

for interpreting and making meanings from results invite critique from multiple standpoints? . . . How are the results designed to encourage all stakeholders to take action?” (p. 37). Finally, process as a domain of improvement in research on SLCE through co- is key because the means are not subsumed within the ends in co-inquiry. We do not get to a more just and democratic society—a paramount goal for many practitioner-scholars in SLCE—by coming to new conclusions based on processes that are not democratic or just: “The ends of democracy and justice become more likely in a process of [research] that is itself democratic and just [and thereby] model[s] democratic and just engagement and help[s] to build . . . citizenship capacity” (Bandy et al., 2018, p. 74). By attending to identity and power, as we will discuss, co-inquiry can move research toward a more equitable and inclusive process in line with a more just and democratic society.

Improving Research Quality: Relationships Numerous contributors in Part Two discuss the significance of interpersonal and group relationships in their work and provide guidance on how to maintain relationships in shared work. Examples include focusing on the team over individual egos, setting aside time each week to engage with colleagues, being realistic about what one can contribute so as to avoid underdelivering, and upholding professional regard while working through differences. We are struck by a generosity of spirit among these scholars that values the time and attention devoted to relationships as much as (and as part of ) the research itself. The contributors’ experiences reflect the significance of relationships and the implicit risk that co-inquiry entails of jeopardizing the relationship, the product, or both if relationships are neglected. We acknowledge and have experienced that this work is hard, and we believe that if we do not find ways to develop and nurture relationships beyond the context of the work itself, we may never get to the place of co-creation in research on SLCE. Indeed, our experience has been that attending to relationships as key to group dynamics is an essential strategy for c­ o-inquiry. As with any team effort, differences in personality and work style can frustrate and challenge co-inquiry. We have to know what we are getting into with co-inquiry and not be afraid to name the relationshiprelated impediments we anticipate and encounter. Using our own work on this chapter as an example, it was very clear from the start that having six coauthors, half of whom had not written with any of the others before, would bring with it many interpersonal and group challenges. Before we looked at early drafts of the chapters we would be engaging with, we shared with

Book.indb 247

03-10-2019 12:27:06

248  

deepening collaborative research

one another in a Google Doc about ourselves, personally and professionally; and when we met for the first time, in that Google Doc, we considered— separately and then collectively—what we believed would be important to speak to in our chapter. Taking that time together before jumping into the task of reviewing the chapters and establishing two complementary spaces for our co- (in Google Docs and through an online audiovisual platform) proved helpful throughout the process in many ways, especially during difficult periods when relationships could easily have been strained. Establishing and using multiple mechanisms that kept everyone reflecting on not only the products and the processes of co-inquiry but also the relationships involved and keeping open opportunities for relating with one another as full human beings rather than only in the context of the particular project at hand were important to the process and the product. Garvin’s experience with North Carolina Campus Compact’s Commu­ nity of Practice, Inquiry, and Learning (COPIL) illustrates complexities of high-quality processes of co-inquiry, especially the central role of ongoing, candid communication. Ten members of COPIL recently wrote a reflective piece together on social justice in SLCE over a six-week period, but little attention was given before they began to the assumptions individuals brought that, as it turned out, complicated interpersonal relationships and group dynamics overall. For example, members of the group who had more experience with publishing were more likely to edit and distill text; this made a few of the members with less of this experience feel that their voices and those of others they were bringing into the chapter were being lost or undervalued. Unfortunately, group members did not communicate about this dynamic until very late in the process. Also, because they did not surface potential schedule conflicts at the beginning, the fact that some folks who engaged early on in the process were unable to remain involved toward the end meant that a small group had to finish the piece on their own (some of them having to work late into the night for several days) when they had not intended to or planned their own schedules accordingly. This jeopardized the trust in one another the group needed both for future projects and for their shared work in the state more generally. Although the experience was challenging, after submitting the chapter they did all feel accomplished while also recognizing how important ongoing, transparent communication is in co-inquiry. Shoemaker’s experience, in contrast, highlights the positive value of community-building in co-. She finds that eating together is an important structure for co-inquiry: Meeting over food makes a real difference in navigating the ups and downs of group relationships. Her team co-facilitates immersive workshops in prisons that take the form of rigorous and embodied co-inquiry into what constitutes interpersonal and structural violence; these

Book.indb 248

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

249

activities have led to various forms of community-engaged research. Inside the prison, when “outmates” share lunch and dinner with inmates during weekend intensive workshops, and outside the prison, when after a long day of workshops some of the co-facilitators grab a late-night meal at the local diner, she sees the group making meaning together through critically reflecting on shared experiences over food. When breaking bread together we get to share bits and pieces of our personal lives and swap stories (e.g., about loved ones, favorite books, music). Working hard and going deep into co- together requires sustenance, moments of levity, and time to be together in casual ways. As a result, co-inquiry builds community—which is not necessarily an outcome of projects in which contributors simply add individual pieces to a collective work, especially when the depth of interaction that comes with rooting work in identity or playful bouncing of ideas is missing. Co- elevates relationships in what could otherwise be solitary or transactional achievements. Stronger community can then feed back into the research process and results by facilitating future co-inquiry. We notice that across all of these chapters, only one author (Bringle, chapter 2.5) uses the word fun in reference to a collaborative project. Although research can certainly be frustrating at times, we often use the word play to characterize our processes of co-inquiry; we play not only with ideas but also with one another. We are a bit saddened not to see mention in these chapters of the joy that one of our other SLCE colleagues insists be part of this work and are reminded thereby to keep this in the forefront of the co- we are part of going forward. Finding the playfulness and joy within co- is a key way to fuel relationships for improving the quality of research on SLCE.

Considerations As we have seen, the contributors in Part Two have collaborated with quite a range of individuals and organizations in a variety of ways, and their work has laid a foundation for other SLCE research enhanced by co-­ creation. The potential to improve research results, processes, and relationships alone is a significant rationale for adopting practices of co-inquiry in research on SLCE. We believe, however, that authentic co-inquiry runs even more deeply, tugging at issues of identity, power, and transformation. These are not themes that emerged from the contributors’ work directly, but we raise them here as key considerations in co-inquiry and as propositions for further exploration. Fundamentally, we see co-inquiry as a process that acknowledges, cultivates, and supports the identities collaborators bring to or develop through

Book.indb 249

03-10-2019 12:27:06

250  

deepening collaborative research

the process. In other words, we may work with one another from identities—as any of us see them—that maintain hierarchy among us. If one of us sees herself as—or is seen by others of us as—“just” a student or staff person or community partner then we are not likely to fully share responsibility, and the full range of perspectives and questions is not likely to receive equal attention in the process. Thus, co-inquiry will not really be happening unless we recognize this default to presumed hierarchy as a problem and deliberately work to change it. Co- requires explicit engagement with power. A recent blog post about students as co-creators of SLCE by Clayton and then-undergraduate Stout (2017) draws on the co-authors’ experiences as well as select work by other practitioner-scholars (e.g., Zlotkowski et al., 2006) to posit a few features of co-. Most relevant here—and by no means limited to inquiry that involves students—they suggest that coneither denies nor ignores differences in power [but rather] assumes that everyone involved in SLCE has their own forms of and sources of power (some personal, some organizational, some cultural, etc.) and is committed to power being shared by all . . . does not mean “same” [but rather] means that everyone brings their own particular gifts and goals and together we figure out how best to integrate them . . . [and] is a way of being together we have to learn and work at (or perhaps we have to unlearn the ingrained patterns). (Clayton & Stout, para. 7)

Co-inquiry, then, involves attending not only to who is and is not engaged but also to both implicit and explicit hierarchies as a way to problematize and dismantle them and thereby make space for identities—including sense of self and of others—that enable those seeking to be co- to enter as their full, undiminished selves and to continue growing as such. We would like to have read recommendations from contributors related to overcoming the challenges of initiating and maintaining sincerely cocreative relationships between them and their student, community, staff, and faculty colleagues given the significant hierarchies that characterize much of higher education, community-campus engagement, and our society more generally. The examples shared in Part Two rarely if ever critically examine power dynamics, and we often detect a one-way dimension in the experiences the contributors share. Many, not all, express how they learned from and with colleagues while using that word to distinguish a particular category of collaborators; they speak of colleagues and students and colleagues and community partners, suggesting that they do not view students and community partners as colleagues—which surprises us given the commitment

Book.indb 250

03-10-2019 12:27:06

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

251

to students as colleagues and to co-teaching, co-learning, and co-generating knowledge that we see as on the leading edge of thinking, practice, and research in SLCE. Our own experiences suggest pathways for cultivating and supporting such broadly construed colleagueship. For instance we do not think that coinquiry involves the one-way mentoring to which some of the contributors refer (e.g., between themselves and graduate students) but rather what we call mentoring community, in which everyone involved is invested in and supports the learning and growth of others involved. At minimum, such a community consists of a set of two-way, mutual-mentoring relationships, but we also envision and sometimes experience a sort of metamentoring of all by all that emerges synergistically as a dimension of the team of co-­inquirers functioning as a mentoring community. In addition, although we have observed increasing recognition of the role of community engagement professionals (CEPs) as the backbone of building, strengthening, and sustaining SLCE within higher education, we know that CEPs often express feelings of intimidation related to expectations that they produce scholarship as well as reservations about their contributions being valued, especially when they do not have faculty appointments or PhDs (McReynolds & Shields, 2015). Designing processes and structures to support CEPs in broadening their work to include practitioner-scholarship is important to their professional development (not to mention the ongoing growth of SLCE) and can help make what can be a difficult transition in their work and identity a bit easier. Several state affiliates in the Campus Compact network—including North Carolina, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Campus Compact of the Mountain West—have formed communities of practice or learning communities to bring SLCE faculty and staff together in spaces that promote co-inquiry and shared learning. At the same time, a primary challenge to research on SLCE that includes community members and students as co-inquirers is the anchored centrality of the academy within partnerships and within research. As long as institutions of higher education tend to hold more power—or are thought to hold more important forms of power—than the organizations and individuals based in communities they partner with, co-inquiry seems unlikely. We wonder what can be done, including by institutions of higher education, to shift and balance power dynamics and what community partners can do to express their own power and interests more fully. Perhaps with some effort along these lines by all concerned, community members, students, staff, and faculty members can come closer to having partnerships that encourage and enable co-inquiry.

Book.indb 251

03-10-2019 12:27:07

252  

deepening collaborative research

Indeed, many of the contributors give voice to the potential of SLCE research to transform higher education through integrating research, teaching, and service around SLCE and recognizing alternative artifacts of research as valuable products. We have a particular interest in the prospects for coinquiry to generate transformation, including through resistance to neoliberalism within and beyond higher education. Neoliberalism takes many forms: the years-long decline in funding for programs that support intellectual inquiry and the public good; the growth of so-called cash cow programs; the hiring of outside business consultants to improve rankings, marketing campaigns, and retention plans; and the investment in high profile research over undergraduate and graduate education. Demands of the market, bottom lines, competition, and the rhetoric of customer service overwhelm the democratic mission of higher education and our shared interest in understanding and addressing wicked problems on our campuses, in our c­ ommunities, and around the world. Inspired by Gloria Steinem’s idea that hope can be an organizing strategy, O’Meara (chapter 2.3) shares that she finds research to be a way to hope and to make change. Research provides a way to imagine the kind of society and institutions we want to build, understand where they fall short of that vision, and build and test new ways of being. (p. 90, this volume)

Co-inquiry acknowledges deep and often marginalized funds of knowledge, generates hope in what can feel like a hopeless environment, and tests our purported commitment to full participation and co-creation as democratic and ethical imperatives. Co-inquiry blurs the presumed distinction between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers. It also calls on us to integrate what might otherwise be separate aspects of our professional roles, as when faculty are expected to separate their teaching, research and service into three separate categories, which falsely parses integrated work (Janke, this volume). More complex and radically inclusive expressions of co- in SLCE research may be a powerful way for us to embrace more authentic enactments of democratic engagement. In this moment of historical, political, and social crisis around the world, it seems increasingly urgent for SLCE practitioner-scholars to integrate socially engaged commitments and work to better support transformation within and beyond higher education and to provide an alternative vision with which to resist the rise of neoliberalism.

Book.indb 252

03-10-2019 12:27:07

practical wisdom on co-inquiry in research on service learning  

253

Conclusion The integration of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding that constitutes practical wisdom in the overarching framework for this volume is, we believe, best supported, facilitated, refined, and used when we inquire into questions we generate together and build on what we learn as we act in the world together. The narratives of the scholars in Part Two and our own raise hope for deep, sustainable, and equitable relationships through practicebased research within an established and evolving SLCE community, a hope that is rejuvenating for us as co-inquirers. We offer this chapter in the service of building our individual and collective capacities as practitioner-scholars to find, share, and use the co-created practical wisdom of the SLCE research community as, together, we learn and act to build a better world.

References Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nighlen, A. S. (2007). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to practitioner action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection for applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25–48. Bandy, J., Price, M. F., Clayton, P. H., Metzker, J., Nigro, G., Stanlick, S., Woodson, S., Bartel, A., & Gale, S. (2018). Democratically engaged assessment: Reimagining the purposes and practices of assessment in community engagement. Davis, CA: Imagining America. Clayton, P. H., & Stout, A. (2017, May 2). Students as cocreators of SLCE. [Blog post]. Elon, NC: Center for Engaged Learning, Elon University. Retrieved from https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/students-as-co-creators-of-slce/ Cress, C. M., Stokamer, S. T., & Kaufman, J. T. (2015). Community partner guide to campus collaborations: Enhance your community by becoming a coeducator with colleges and universities. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hess, G., Blank, G., Clayton, P. H., Connors, J., Holombe, K., Ramsey, J., Reis, K., Snow, C., Steelman, T., & Wallace, J. (2011). Perspectives on partnership evolution: From passionate people to committed organizations. In L. Harter, J. Hamel-Lambert, & J. Millesen (Eds.), Participatory partnerships for social action and research (pp. 349–376). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. McReynolds, M., & Shields, E. (2015). Diving deep in community engagement: A model for professional development. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Campus Compact. Miller-Young, J., Felten, P., & Clayton, P. H. (2017). Learning about learning, together. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 24(1), 154–158. Ogden, C. (2009, November 5). Means and ends. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http:// interactioninstitute.org/means-and-ends/

Book.indb 253

03-10-2019 12:27:07

254  

deepening collaborative research

Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). The democratic engagement white paper. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Steinberg, K, Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (2011). Civic-minded graduate: A north star. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(1), 19–33. Zlotkowski, E., Longo, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Students as colleagues: Expanding the circle of service-learning leadership. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.

Book.indb 254

03-10-2019 12:27:07

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Jay W. Brandenberger serves as the director of research and graduate initiatives at the Center for Social Concerns, as concurrent associate professor of psychology, and as director of academic community engagement in the Office of the Provost at the University of Notre Dame. He received his PhD in developmental and educational psychology from the University of Pittsburgh and has been a member of the faculty at Notre Dame since 1992. His research interests include moral/ethical development and social justice in the context of higher education. His research explores the longitudinal impacts of college experience on social purpose, civic engagement, practical wisdom, and well-being. He works with graduate students and faculty to foster the scholarship of engagement toward social impact. Robert G. Bringle is currently Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus of psychology and philanthropic studies and senior scholar in the Center for Service and Learning at IUPUI. From 2012 to 2015, he was the Kulynych/Cline Visiting Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Appalachian State University. He was the executive director of the IUPUI Center for Service and Learning from 1994 to 2012. He has been awarded the Thomas Ehrlich Faculty Award for Service Learning, the IUPUI Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching, and the Legacy of Service Award from Indiana Campus Compact. In 2004, he was recognized at the fourth annual International Service-Learning Research Conference for his outstanding contributions to the service learning research field. The University of the Free State, South Africa, awarded him an honorary doctorate for his scholarly work on civic engagement and service learning. Patti H. Clayton is an independent consultant (PHC Ventures) with 20 years of experience as a practitioner-scholar and educational developer in service learning/community engagement (SLCE) and experiential education. She serves as a senior scholar with the Center for Service and Learning at IUPUI and with the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. She has consulted with well over 100 colleges, universities, and higher education organizations in the United States, Canada, and Ireland. She guides interdisciplinary and interinstitutional scholarly collaborations, facilitates curriculum development

255

Book.indb 255

03-10-2019 12:27:07

256  

about the contributors

and professional development across all partners in SLCE, and supports institution-wide visioning and planning processes for community-campus engagement. She facilitates retreats to support graduate students, professional staff, and faculty in formulating and advancing their scholarly agendas and projects. Clayton was coeditor with Bringle and Hatcher of the 2-volume set Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment (Stylus Publishing, 2013) and coauthored the Democratic Engagement White Paper with Saltmarsh and Hartley (GSE Publications, 2009). She received her PhD from the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill. Andrew Furco is associate vice president for public engagement at the University of Minnesota, where he also serves as professor of higher education. His scholarly work focuses on examining the role of community engagement in primary, secondary, and higher education systems in the United States and abroad. From 1994 to 2007, he worked at the University of California– Berkeley as the founding director of the Service-Learning Research and Development Center and as a faculty member in the Graduate School of Education. His publications include the books Service-Learning: The Essence of the Pedagogy (Information Age Publishing, 2001), Service-Learning Through a Multidisciplinary Lens (Information Age Publishing, 2002), and ServiceLearning: How Does It Measure Up? (Information Age Publishing, 2015) and more than 100 journal articles and book chapters that explore the study and practice of service learning and community engagement. Leslie Garvin is the executive director of North Carolina Campus Compact, a collaborative network of colleges and universities committed to educating students for civic and social responsibility, partnering with communities for positive change, and strengthening democracy. Garvin has helped launch several programs focused on growing the scholarship of engagement in North Carolina, including the Engaged Faculty Scholars initiative in 2015 and the Community of Practice, Inquiry, and Learning in 2018. She also oversees Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, North Carolina Campus Compact’s peer-reviewed online journal. Garvin received her master’s of social work, with a concentration in social and economic development, from Washington University in St. Louis. Sherril Gelmon is professor in the Oregon Health Sciences University– Portland State University School of Public Health and directs the PhD program in health systems and policy. She teaches graduate courses in health systems management and policy. Her research addresses improving health services delivery, health workforce development, and community engagement.

Book.indb 256

03-10-2019 12:27:07

about the contributors  

257

Through her research and teaching, Gelmon works with community agencies, providers, and graduate students to develop evidence of the impact of educational and health improvement interventions and to assist in program improvement and policy development. She was the 2011 recipient of the Thomas Ehrlich Civically Engaged Faculty award from Campus Compact and was founding chair of the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement. She received her doctorate in health policy from University of Michigan; her master’s degree in health administration from University of Toronto; and her undergraduate ­physiotherapy degrees from the Universities of Toronto and Saskatchewan. Thomas W. Hahn is the director of research and program evaluation at the Center for Service and Learning and Institute for Engaged Learning at IUPUI. He is responsible for assessment, evaluation, and research in the areas of student civic learning, experiential learning, and success. Hahn has more than 20 years of experience in assessment and program improvement in higher education. He oversees the annual IUPUI Research Academy on Community Engagement and Engaged Learning and chairs the campus subcommittee for the Experiential and Applied Learning Record. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Eric Hartman  has dedicated his career to improving the ways in which educational institutions are part of and contribute to just, inclusive, and sustainable communities. He is lead author of  Community-Based Global Learning: The Theory and Practice of Ethical Engagement at Home and Abroad (Stylus Publishing, 2018) and has written on critical global citizenship and ethical community engagement for  numerous  peer reviewed and popular publications. He cofounded both  globalsl.org  and the global engagement survey (GES), initiatives that advance  best practices in community-based global learning. Hartman is currently executive director of the Haverford College Center for Peace and Global Citizenship, where he also teaches in the interdisciplinary concentration in peace, justice, and human rights. He credits much of his own education to crosscultural exchange, learning, and project-based collaboration in Bolivia, Ecuador, Ghana, Jamaica, Northern Ireland, Tanzania, and throughout the United States Julie A. Hatcher is currently associate professor emeritus of philanthropic studies in the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI. From 2012 to 2018, she was executive director of the Center for Service and Learning and

Book.indb 257

03-10-2019 12:27:07

258  

about the contributors

associate professor. Hatcher serves as coeditor of the IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research (Stylus, 2011, 2013, 2016). Her research focuses on the role of higher education in democracy and civil society, civic learning outcomes in higher education, philanthropic studies, and civic-minded professionals. She serves on the national advisory board for the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement elective classification. Hatcher is the 2017 International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement Distinguished Career Award recipient, and the 2008 Dissertation Award recipient. She earned her PhD in philanthropic studies with a minor in higher education at Indiana University. Emily M. Janke is the director of the Institute for Community and Economic Engagement and an associate professor in the Peace and Conflict Studies Department at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. Janke’s scholar-administrative work addresses multiple aspects of community engagement with a focus on community-university partnerships, and institutional culture and change strategies. In particular, she focuses on tracking and measuring community engagement and public service within and across institutions of higher education; the recognition of communityengaged scholarship in reappointment, promotion, and tenure policies; the role of conflict management and transformation in community-university partnerships; institutional support for community engagement; innovations in scholarly communications; and reciprocity, collaborative communication, and restorative practices as aspects of high quality, ethical community engagement. Nicholas V. Longo is a professor in the departments of public and community service studies and global studies and a faculty fellow for engaged scholarship with the Center for Teaching Excellence at Providence College. Longo is author of a number of books, articles, and reports on issues of youth civic education, engaged scholarship, deliberative pedagogy, global citizenship, and service learning. His publications include Why Community Matters: Connecting Education with Civic Life (SUNY Press, 2007) and, most recently, the coedited book Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Engagement (Michigan State University Press, 2017). Longo was awarded the Early Career Research Award from the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement in 2009 and is an adjunct faculty and board member for College Unbound, which is working to reinvent higher education in collaboration with adult learners. He lives in Providence, Rhode Island, with his wife Aleida. Together, they

Book.indb 258

03-10-2019 12:27:07

about the contributors  

259

have a great passion for educating the next generation of democratic citizens, starting with their children Maya and Noah. Barbara E. Moely is professor emerita in psychology at Tulane University and has been a research affiliate of Tulane’s Center for Public Service. She was instrumental in founding Tulane’s Office of Service Learning, the precursor to the present Center for Public Service. She has published research on service learning in higher education and has served as principal investigator for grants supporting service learning program development. She is a coeditor of two volumes in Information Age Publishing’s Advances in Service-Learning Research series: Creating Our Identities in Service-Learning and Community Engagement (2009) and Research for What? Making Engaged Scholarship Matter (2010). In 2005, she received the Gulf South Summit’s Award for Outstanding Contributions to Service-Learning Research. She received the Distinguished Research Award in 2010 from the International Association for Research in Service Learning and Community Engagement. At present, she is enjoying retirement and new experiences in Southern California. Stacey Muse is the executive director for Nevada Volunteers, the state’s commission on service. In this role, Muse leads efforts in fulfilling the organization’s mission of strengthening Nevada through national service and volunteerism. Her work is centered on increasing civic engagement and building the capacity of nonprofit organizations. She holds an MA in nonprofit management and a PhD in higher education. Her research focuses on understanding and elevating the voice of community-based organizations partnering with institutions of higher education, building the capacity of nonprofit organizations, and cocreating democratically engaged partnerships.  Katrina Norvell is an assistant professor of public administration and leadership in the School of Justice Studies at Roger Williams University (RWU) in Rhode Island. She holds an MBA and a PhD in public administration and policy from Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, and was a corecipient of the 2010 International Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) Dissertation Award. Norvell’s research interests and areas of specialization include communityengaged leadership, public and nonprofit management and governance, program evaluation, ethical leadership, and organizational theory and behavior. Prior to joining the faculty at RWU, she served as a faculty member at Providence College, Seattle University, and Portland State University. As a public service practitioner-scholar, she served in leadership positions at several

Book.indb 259

03-10-2019 12:27:07

260  

about the contributors

nonprofit organizations in Florida and Oregon. She most recently completed a second consecutive term on the board of IARSLCE, where she served as board chair and member of the executive committee. She is currently a section editor of the International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement and is an active member of the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA) and vice president of its Rhode Island chapter. KerryAnn O’Meara is professor of higher education, director of the ADVANCE Program for Inclusive Excellence, and associate dean for faculty affairs and graduate studies in the College of Education at the  University of Maryland, College Park. O’Meara’s research examines faculty careers and academic rewards systems with a particular focus on organizational practices that support and limit the full participation of women and underrepresented minority faculty and the legitimacy of diverse forms of scholarship in the academy. Her work has been published in the Journal of Higher Education, Gender and Education, American Educational Research Journal, Review of Higher Education, and Research in Higher Education, among other venues. Her work has been supported by the National Science Foundation, Kettering Foundation, Luce Foundation, College Board, TIAA-CREF, and Teagle Foundation. O’Meara consults with higher education institutions on promotion and tenure policy reform, faculty development programs, and organizational practices that sustain equitable workloads. William M. Plater served as the chief academic officer at IUPUI for 19 years (1987–2006); director of the Office of International and Community Development (2006–2010); and retired as Indiana University Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs, Philanthropic Studies, and English in 2010. Earlier, he served as dean of liberal arts at IUPUI (1983–1987); associate director of the School of Humanities (1977–1983) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC); and as director of Unit One, a residential living-learning program he helped create in 1971, also at UIUC. He served as research director for Civic Learning and Community Engagement for the Global Common Good at Laureate Education, Inc., a global network of more than 70 campus-based and online universities in 25 countries, from 2016 to 2018. He currently serves as senior scholar at The Quality Assurance Commons for Postsecondary and Higher Education. Dan Richard is an associate professor in the department of psychology and the director of the Office of Faculty Enhancement at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida. He received his PhD in experimental social

Book.indb 260

03-10-2019 12:27:07

about the contributors  

261

psychology from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. He has maintained several multi-institutional collaborative research projects focusing on the long-term impacts of service learning and civic engagement. He has served as coeditor of the International Journal of Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement and has published research on how service learning program alumni continue their reflection after graduation and how dialogue across perceived difference during service learning programs impacts the lives of program alumni after graduation. He has taught community-based learning courses for eight years. He is cofounding director of the Florida Data Science for Social Good program, a summer internship program for data scientists with a social conscience who work with community partners on data science projects that support community impact. John Saltmarsh  is professor of higher education in the Department of Leadership in Education in the College of Education and Human Develop­ ment at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. He has a PhD in history from Boston University. He has published widely on community-engaged teaching, learning, and research and organizational change in higher education, including, most recently, a book coedited with Mathew Johnson, The Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification: Constructing a Successful Application for First-Time and Re-Classification Applicants (Stylus Publishing, 2018), and the coedited book Publicly Engaged Scholars: Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education (Stylus Publishing, 2016). He is the coauthor of the Democratic Engagement White Paper (NERCHE, 2009) and Full Participation: Building the Architecture for Diversity and Public Engagement in Higher Education (Columbia University Law School: Center for Institutional and Social Change, 2011). He is a Distinguished Engaged Scholar at the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University and a visiting scholar with College Unbound in Providence, Rhode Island. From 2005 to 2016 he served as the director of the New England Resource Center for Higher Education. From 1998 to 2005 he was the director of the national program on Integrating Service with Academic Study at Campus Compact. Lorilee R. Sandmann is professor emeritus in the College of Education at the University of Georgia (UGA). She has held administrative, faculty, extension, and outreach positions at University of Minnesota, Michigan State University, and Cleveland State University, as well as UGA. She is also editor emeritus of the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. Sandmann’s research, teaching, and consulting focus on leadership and organizational change in higher education with special emphasis on the institutionalization of community engagement, as well as faculty roles and rewards

Book.indb 261

03-10-2019 12:27:07

262  

about the contributors

related to community-engaged scholarship. Her latest book is Building the Field of Higher Education Engagement: Foundational Ideas and Future Directions (Stylus Publishing, 2019). She has been inducted into the Academy of Community Engagement Scholarship and the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame. She is recipient of the Distinguished Researcher Award by the International Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement. She directed the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement as well as the Engagement Academy for University Leaders. She serves as a core reviewer and is on the National Advisory Panel for the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement. Sandmann holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Deanna Shoemaker  is associate professor of communication and  performance studies and the director of the master’s program in communication at Monmouth University in New Jersey, where she is a service learning faculty fellow.  Her research and teaching primarily focus on feminist and critical performance pedagogies, ethnographic methods, critical cultural studies, prison studies, and community-engaged learning. Her work has been published in Text and Performance Quarterly; Liminalities; Cultural Studies ´ Critical Methodologies; and The Handbook of Autoethnography. She is an artistscholar whose solo and collaboratively devised performances and print scholarship critically interrogate dominant  discourses of gender, race, and class in the United States. Shoemaker has seven years of experience as a certified volunteer facilitator of Alternatives to Violence Project workshops in prison and community settings. She earned her PhD in communication and performance studies at The University of Texas at Austin. Stephanie Stokamer is the director of the McCall Center for Civic Engagement and an associate professor at Pacific University. She has a doctorate in educational leadership from Portland State University. Her scholarship focuses on service learning and civic engagement, particularly with respect to pedagogical practices and faculty development. She is the recipient of the International Association for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement 2011 Dissertation Award and 2016 Early Career Recognition. She is a coauthor of Community Partner Guide to Campus Collaborations: Enhance Your Community by Becoming a Co-Educator With Colleges and Universities (Stylus Publishing, 2015) and several other publications. She is an AmeriCorps*VISTA alum and former national service fellow for the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Book.indb 262

03-10-2019 12:27:07

INDEX

AAC&U. See Association American Colleges and Universities AAHE. See American Association of Higher Education AAHE Bulletin, 167 AASCU. See American Association of State Colleges and Universities Abelson, R. P., 209 academic professionals, 130, 147, 149–50, 226 Academy of Community Engagement Scholarship, 132 acknowledgment of uncertainty, 10, 34 Addams, Jane, 58 “Addams, Day, and Dewey: The Emergence of Community Service in American Culture” (Morton and Saltmarsh), 220 Advances in Service Learning Research, 98 Agre-Kippenhan, Susan, 167 Allen, M., 4 ambiguity, 191, 196–97 Ambrosi-Randic, N., 40 Amel, E. L., 4 American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, 132, 135 American Association of Community Colleges, 24 American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), 118, 123, 165 American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), xvi– xvii, 24, 89, 224 American Psychological Association, 118 American Public Health Association, 165

Amizade, 148, 151–55 analytical rigor, 138, 141, 158 Anderson, G. L., 246 antisocial behavior, 119 antitradition tradition, 150, 156–57 Aquinas, Thomas, 44 architecture of engagement, 60–61 “The Architecture of Inclusion” (Sturm), 225 Aristotle, 33–34, 37, 42 AR/PS/EO tradition, 149–50, 155–56 Ash, Sarah, 238 Association American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), 3, 21, 24, 89, 165, 171 Association for Gerontology, 115 Association for Research on Nonprofits and Voluntary Action, 200 Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement, 24 Association for the Study of Higher Education, 132 Association of American Medical Colleges, 165 Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, 135 Association of University Programs in Health Administration, 165, 168 attitudes, 119 civic attitudes, xvi, 4, 55, 68, 73–74, 198, 211 prosocial, 10, 34 social justice, 74 audience, 23–24 authentic engagement, 131

263

Book.indb 263

03-10-2019 12:27:07

264  

index

backstory approach, 10, 13, 27–29, 200 Baizerman, Mike, 54 Bandy, J., 243, 246–47 Bangen, K. J., 34 Bates, Paul, 34 Battistoni, Rick, 53, 220 Beaumont, E., 39 “Becoming a Reflective Historian Through Community ServiceLearning” (Saltmarsh), 219 behavior antisocial, 119 group, 119 human, 213 organizational, 83, 164 prosocial, 119 Bellah, R. N., 197 Billig, Shelley, 76, 165 Birnbaum, Robert, 83 Birren, J. E., 35, 43–44 Black Communities Conference, 240 Bloomgarden, A. H., 41 book template, 11–12 bottom file drawer syndrome, 203 boundary spanning research, 136–37 Bowman, N. A., 4 Boyer, Ernest, 24, 32, 123 Boyer framework, 170 Boyte, Harry, 53, 54, 142, 220, 221 Brandenberger, Jay, 213 Bringing Theory to Practice National Initiative on Well-being, xvii, 43 Bringle, Robert, 194–95, 199, 211, 212, 213, 215, 237–38 Brown, Tim, 82 Burack, Cathy, 171 Bush, Adam, 56, 225–26 Butin, D. W., xiii Calling or Career (Sullivan), 197 Campbell, Corbin, 87 Campbell, D. T., 209 campus-community partnerships, xiii, 25, 53

Book.indb 264

Campus Compact, xiii, 21, 24, 54, 89, 215 communities of practice, 251 conferences, 103 red book of, 166 scholar in residence, 221–22 summer institutes, 194 support from, 241 toolkit, 167 workshops, 167–68 Campus Engage Ireland, 3 Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL), 56 CAP. See Tulane-Xavier Campus Affiliates Program CAPSL. See Comprehensive Action Plan for Service Learning Carducci, R., 138 Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, xiii, 3–4, 185 CASQ. See Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire catalytic validity, 246 causal modeling, 209 CBL. See community-based learning CCPH. See Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Celio, C. I., 4 Center for Democracy and Citizenship, 53 Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), 55 Center for Peace and Global Citizenship, Haverford College, 156–57 Center for Service and Learning (CSL), xv–xvi, 123, 194, 198–200, 202, 215 Center for Values and Service, 82 Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario, 3 CEPs. See community engagement professionals

03-10-2019 12:27:07

index  

CES. See community-engaged scholarship CES4Health web portal, 169 Chambers, Tony, 229 Change Magazine, 171 chaos theory, 138 character education, 240 charity-oriented service, 70–71 CHESP. See Community Higher Education Service Program CIRCLE. See Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement citizen politics, 52, 54–55 civic attitudes, xvi, 4, 55, 68, 73–74, 198, 211 Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire (CASQ), 73 civic engagement, 28 changes from, xiv higher education and, xiii–xiv, 6, 54, 117, 163, 173, 222 institutional progress in, xv momentum in, 223 principles of, 243 recognition of, xvii service learning and social psychology in, 115–18 civic good, 34. See also public good civic identity, 15, 119–20 civic knowledge, xvi, 52, 193 civic learning, xvi–xvii, 23, 52, 199 CIRCLE, 55 domain of, 116 enhancement of, 120–23 focus on, 5 measurement scales, 151 civic life, 51, 61, 139, 149–50, 155–56 civic-minded graduate (CMG), 116, 122, 198, 200, 203–4, 238 civic-mindedness, 198 Civic-Minded Professional (CMP), 197–98, 200

Book.indb 265

265

civic outcomes, 120, 196–98, 200, 202–3 civic professionalism, 197 civic responsibility, 5, 101, 196, 199 civic youth work, 54 Clayton, Patti, 116, 185, 212, 240–42, 244, 250 climate change, 62 CMG. See civic-minded graduate CMP. See Civic-Minded Professional CNCS. See Corporation for National and Community Service co-across disciplines, 238 cocreation process, 236, 245–46, 249–50 coeducators, 236 cogenerators, 236–37 cognitive theory, 138 coinquiry, 14. See also service learning research, coinquiry in Colbeck, Carol, 184 Colby, A., 39 colearners, 236 collaborations, 14, 25, 53, 236. See also mentoring; partnerships; service learning research, coinquiry in collaborative idea generation, 215, 245 of community-engaged scholars, 170–72 Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, 168 curated research partnerships, 139–40 next-gen collaboratories, 61 research design and, 214–15 in scholarship, 229 in service learning research, 60 colleagueship, 251 collective good, 202 common good, 10, 21, 26, 40, 43–44 orientation toward, 34 service learning and, 29 work toward, 31

03-10-2019 12:27:07

266  

index

communications, 120, 248 communities of practice, 59–60, 251 community, 24, 185 building, 148, 155, 156, 196, 249 educative based, 52 impact, 139 mentoring community, 251 partners, 172, 212, 243, 251–52 power in, 70 practice, 15, 51, 53 of writers and readers, 25–26 Community-based Global Learning (Hartman), 154–55 community-based learning (CBL), 27, 42, 163–64, 207 advancement of, 168 impact of, 166 research design and, 210 Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), 165, 168, 173, 241 community-engaged action research, 136–37 community-engaged research and creative activity, 184–85, 226 community-engaged scholars assessment, scholarship, program evaluation partnerships of, 166–70 collaborations of, 170–72 conclusion, 173 developmental factors for, 164–66 overview, 163–64 practical wisdom for future, 172–73 recorded experiences of, 9 community-engaged scholarship (CES), 43, 97, 104, 129, 132, 164 presentations of, 172–73 products of, 170 projects for defining, 169 promotion and obstruction of, 168 rigor and validity of, 173 terminology of, 163 value of, 86

Book.indb 266

Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, 168 community-engaged service, 185 community-engaged teaching, 185, 219–20 community engagement professionals (CEPs), 251 Community Higher Education Service Program (CHESP), 195 Community of Practice, Inquiry, and Learning (COPIL), 248 competing values, 120 complete scholar, 24, 123–24 complexity theory, 138 Comprehensive Action Plan for Service Learning (CAPSL), xiv, 116, 119 concept-mapping, 213 conceptual model, 137, 211–13 Cone, Dick, 58 Confucius, 33 connected scholar, 24, 123–24 Connecting Past and Present: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in History, 219 contemplation, 34 Contreras-McGavin, M., 138 Conway, J. M., 4 Cook, T. D., 209 COOL. See Campus Outreach Opportunity League Cooperative Extension Service, 129 COPIL. See Community of Practice, Inquiry, and Learning Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), 164, 241 Council of Europe, 3 counternormative pedagogy, xi, 94 course design, 5–6, 8, 29, 66, 69–71, 163, 200. See also curriculum Cowen, Scott, 72 “Creating a Personal and Political Culture of Engagement in Higher Education” (Saltmarsh), 222

03-10-2019 12:27:07

index  

Cress, Christine, 243 critical reflection, 6, 159, 181–82 DEAL model, 122, 238, 244 critical theory, 138 Cross, K. Patricia, 97 Cruz, Nadine, 9, 58 CSL. See Center for Service and Learning cultural theories, 138 curriculum development, 167, 194–95 GSL and, 151–52 public service in, 72 for service learning, xiv, 5–6, 94, 219, 226 Dalton, J. C., 40 data transformations, 209 DEAL model, 122, 238, 244 decision-making, 32, 120, 138, 153 in higher education, 154 outcomes, 229 social, 10, 34 Delaney, H. D., 209 deliberative pedagogy, 51, 55–56, 214, 245 Deming, N., 41 Democracy and Higher Education: Traditions and Stories of Civic Engagement (Peters), 9 democratic engagement, 224–25, 227, 236 Democratic Engagement White Paper, 224–25, 237 democratic validity, 246 Dempsey, Margaret, 65 developmental psychology, 67 Dewey, John, 19–20, 26, 37, 130, 180, 219, 222 on learning, 196–97 on role of professionals, 197 dialogic validity, 246 disabled students, 105 disciplinary peers, 203

Book.indb 267

267

discrimination, 119 dissemination expansion of, 172 of justice work, 159 modalities, 131 one-way paradigms, 136 opportunities, 166 outlets, 241 of service learning research, 75–76 strategies, 150 distributed leadership theory, 138 distribution of resources, 84, 120 diversity experiences, 4, 120 Driscoll, Amy, 133, 164–65 Durlak, J., 4 Dynmicki, A., 4 Eatman, Timothy, 56, 87, 225–26 Eby, J. W., 69 Educating the Reflective Practitioner (Schön), 180 educationally meaningful service, 116 “Education for Critical Citizenship: John Dewey’s Contribution to the Pedagogy of Service Learning” (Saltmarsh), 219 Ehrlich, T., 39 electronic portfolios, 173 emotional homeostasis, 10, 34 empathy, 38, 39, 211–12 Engaged Department initiative, 167 Engaged Disciplines project, 167 engaged learning. See engaged scholarship engaged scholars, 81. See also publicly engaged scholarship architecture of practice and research for, 132–36 background and agenda of, 129 boundary spanning research of, 136–37 conclusion, 142 construction approaches from, 139–42

03-10-2019 12:27:07

268  

index

evaluation of, 83 higher education actors, processes, structures for, 135 methods of, 135–36 overview, 129–30 practical wisdom from, 137–42 scholarship of engagement and, 133–35 theoretical and practical foundations for, 130–32 engaged scholarship grounded in practical wisdom, 40–42 implications for researchers, 42–44 overview, 31–32 pedagogical applications, 40 as reflective practice, 32 wisdom across lifespan, 35–39 wisdom of experience and, 39–40 wisdom’s journey in, 33–35 Engagement Scholarship Consortium, 132 Enlightenment, 34 epistemic justice, 227–28 equity issues, 81 Erasmus, Mabel, 196 ethical partnerships, 245 “Ethics, Reflection, Purpose, and Compassion: Community Service Learning” (Saltmarsh), 220 Euclidean distance, 209 Excellence in Community Engagement and Community Engaged Scholarship (Janke and Clayton), 185 exchange theory, 119 Experience and Education (Dewey), 19–20 expertise, 14, 75, 84, 149 areas of, 237–38 in coinquiry service learning research, 246 faculty, 66 levels of, 182 reappraisal of, 25

Book.indb 268

exploratory survey design, 84 “Exploring the Meaning of University/ Community Partnerships” (Saltmarsh), 220 external legitimacy, 99–102, 107 Eyer, J., 68 factor analysis, 104, 137, 209 faculty agency, 85, 198 in coinquiry service learning research, 237–38 culture, 184 development, 15, 70, 198, 214 expertise, 66 preparedness, 212 as research audience, 23 reward systems, 84–86 scholarship of, 24 SOFAR, 119–20, 212, 214 Faculty for the Engaged Campus, 168–69 false dilemma of choosing, 177–79 familial estrangement, 114, 117 feedback, 8, 10, 34, 86–88, 116–17, 203 constructive, 106 across contexts, 37 critical, 24, 59, 152 on dissertations, 148 from peers, 76 positive, 67 research design and, 214–15 Feinstein Institute for Public Service, 220 FIPSE. See Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education First in the World program, 6 forgiveness, 34 Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, 165 Fricker, Miranda, 227 Friedman, R. A., 137 full participation, 182 advance through scholarship, 83–86

03-10-2019 12:27:07

index  

commitment to, 252 conclusion, 89–90 contribution to others, 86–89 Next Generation Project and, 226–27 overview, 81–82 “Full Participation: Building the Architecture for Diversity and Public Engagement in Higher Education” (Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, Bush), 225–26 fun, 119, 249 “The Function of a University” (Peirce), 20 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), 66, 168 Furco, Andy, 76, 101, 213, 240, 246 Gallini, Sarah, 67, 69 Garvin, Leslie, 238, 240, 248 Gelmon, Sherril, 212, 215, 245 gentrification, 156 Gerwien, D. P., 4 Giles, Dwight, 9, 58, 68 Gillespie, M. L., 40 Gleason, T., 35 global citizenship, 147, 151, 157 global service learning (GSL), 151–52, 154 Global Service Learning Summit Series, 154 globalsl.org, 154–55, 245 Glück, J., 43 Goodhart, Michael, 152 Google.docs, 245, 248 Google Groups, 76 Google Scholar, 137, 201 Graduate Student Network, 239 Grande, S., 68 Grissom, Jason, 244 group behavior, 119 GSL. See global service learning Guardian, 149

Book.indb 269

269

Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Bellah), 197 Haltom, Nick, 244 Hanson, Brian, 154 Harkavy, Ira, 59, 194 Hartley, Matthew, 223–24 Hartman, Eric, 211, 215 Hatcher, Julie, 116–17, 213–14, 215, 238, 243 Health Professions Schools in Service to the Nation (HPSISN), 164, 166, 169 Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, 28–29 Herr, K., 246 higher education AAHE, 118, 123, 165 administrators, 133 Association for the Study of Higher Education, 132 changes in, 44, 90, 117 CHESP, 195 civic engagement and, xiii–xiv, 6, 54, 117, 163, 173, 222 competition in, 59 decision-makers, 154 for engaged scholars, 135 evolution of, 172 Higher Education Commission, 28 landscape changes in, 13, 33 Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education, 9 politics in, 22, 223–28 power in, 57, 223–28 practical wisdom in, 40 public good and, 227–28 purposes of, 10, 31, 147, 150, 197–99 research in, 59 scholarship in, 56–57 service learning in, 15, 213 service learning research in, 4 SLCE in, xi, 3

03-10-2019 12:27:07

270  

index

transformations in, 82, 178 higher-order functioning, 32, 37 Highlander Folk School, 57–58 Holland, Barbara, 121, 166, 185, 186, 187 Hollander, Liz, 167, 222 honesty, 34, 165 Honoring the Mosaic of Talents and Stewarding the Standards of High Quality Community-Engaged Scholarship (Janke, Medlin, Holland), 186 hope, 90, 193, 252 Horton, Myles, 57–59 Howard, Jeff, 75 Howard, J. P. F., 68 How Colleges Work (Birnbaum), 83 HPSISN. See Health Professions Schools in Service to the Nation Huber, M. T., 181 Hull House, 57–58 human behavior, 213 humility, 9, 147, 159, 215 Hurricane Katrina, 71–73 IARSLCE. See International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement ICC. See Indiana Campus Compact ICEE. See Institute for Community and Economic Engagement identity development, 15, 199 Ilustre, Vincent, 66, 67, 68, 72, 73 Imagining America Conference, 156, 215, 225 implicit bias, 86 improvement science, 163, 164 Indiana Campus Compact (ICC), 117 “Indicators of Engagement” (Hollander, Zlotkowski, Saltmarsh), 222 indigenous community students, 105 inequality regimes, 85–86 injustice, 39, 225, 227

Book.indb 270

Institute for Community and Economic Engagement (ICEE), 184–86 institutional leadership, 138–39 institutional transformational change, 96, 178, 229 integration, 118, 123–24 Interaction Institute for Social Change, 242 intergroup social dominance theory, 119 internal legitimacy, 99–102, 107 internal validity, 213 International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE), x–xi, 4, 24, 89, 98, 132, 237 anniversary of, 104 conferences, 103, 165–66, 171, 245 funding of, 152 Graduate Student Network affiliation, 239 presentations to, 121 successes of, 166 support from, 241–42 International Educator, 155 International Journal for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement, 171, 216 international relations theory, 148 International Society for Third Sector Research, 200 international volunteering, 154, 159 interpersonal relationships, 119 Invisible College, 56 “Is the Civic Engagement Movement Changing Higher Education?” (Hartley and Saltmarsh), 224 IUPI Service Learning Taxonomy, 6 Jaeger, Audrey, 87 James, William, 20 Jane Addams School for Democracy, 53, 56, 60

03-10-2019 12:27:07

index  

Janke, Emily, 56, 186, 213 jealousy, 114, 117 Jeste, D. V., 34, 38 Johnson, Kathy, 194 Jordan, Cathy, 171 Journal of Higher Education, 88, 200 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 88, 133, 241 joy, 249 justice, 34, 39, 40, 225. See also social justice context of, 147 epistemic, 227–28 justice work antitradition tradition, 150, 156–57 AR/PS/EO tradition, 149–50, 155–56 audience in, 158 background and PhD for, 148–49 changes in, 157–59 concept changes in, 158 dissatisfaction and, 159 dissemination of, 159 overview, 147 perfect role illusion in, 157 public intellectual tradition, 149, 153–55 research and practice in, 159 researchers and academic professionals in, 149–50 service intellectual tradition, 149, 151–53 Karelitz, T. M., 40 Kaufman, Joyce, 243 Kellogg Foundation, 132 Kettering Foundation, 54–55, 89, 215, 223–24 Kezar, A. J., 138 Kiely, Richard, 154, 215 kindness, 34 King, D. C., 68 knowing-in-action, 180–81 Kohlberg, Lawrence, 213

Book.indb 271

271

Kolb, D., 37 Kozol, Jonathon, 70 Kremer, John, 113, 114, 116 leadership distributed leadership theory, 138 institutional, 138–39 National Youth Leadership Council, 98, 241 transformational, 138 Learn and Serve America program, 95 learning. See also civic learning; service learning; service learning, social psychology and; service learning research; service learning research, coinquiry in in context, 130 CSL, xv–xvi, 123, 194, 198–200, 202 Dewey on, 196–97 by doing, 130, 164 meaningful, 51, 158 motivations for, 193 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, 21 SoTL, 113–15, 193 theory, 199 Lefton, Lester, 69 “Legitimizing Community Engagement In K-12 Schools” (Furco), 101 Lewin, Kurt, 42 Lily Family School of Philanthropy (LFSP), 199 Lindner, Gretchen, 244 Long, S., 54 Longing for Justice (Simpson), 225 longitudinal research, 121 Longo, Nick, 214, 245 The Long Haul (Horton), 58 Ludvik, M. J. B., 38 Ma’an Arab University Alliance for Civic Engagement, 3 Maeroff, G. I., 181

03-10-2019 12:27:07

272  

index

Maipuche community, 240 Markey, V., 4 Markus, G. B., 68 Matador Travel, 155 Matthews, P. H., 6 Maxwell, S. E., 209 McBride, Amanda Moore, 154 McClinton, M., 40 McFarland, Megan, 68 meaningful learning, 51, 158 Medlin, K. B., 186, 187 Meeks, T. W., 34, 38 Mehaffy, George, 87, 224 mentoring, 15, 25, 52, 88, 140, 152–53, 203 mentoring community, 251 reciprocal relationships in, 59 Mercer, Sterett, 67, 68 Mertens, D. M., 99 metacognition, 37, 43 methods, 88–89, 200, 210 for community-engaged action research, 136–37 complex, 75–76 development of, 247 of engaged scholars, 135–36 participatory methodologies, 101–2, 104 qualitative, 84, 103, 121 quantitative, 87, 211 rigorous, 138, 141 Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning (MJCSL), ix–x, 75, 88, 158, 216, 239, 241 Millennials Talk Politics, 55 Miron, Devi, 67, 68, 70 Mitchell, C., 35 Mitchell, T., 213 MJCSL. See Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Mlyn, Eric, 154 Moely, Barbara E., 211, 239 morality moral cognition, 35

Book.indb 272

moral compass, 41 moral identity, 36 moral imagination, 36–37, 42 moral judgments, 39 moral reasoning, 34, 36 Morton, Keith, 53, 69–70, 194, 220 Mulgan, G., 43 multivariate statistics, 209 Muse, Stacy, 239–40, 245–46 Muthiah, R. N., 69 myopic focus, 246 narratives, 235, 239, 253 analysis of, 193 to improve research, 8–15 as scholarship, 52 Narvaez, D., 35, 38 National and Community Service Act (1990), 98 National Council on Aging, 114 National Demonstration Project on Intergenerational ServiceLearning, 114 National Forum for the Public Good, 132 National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, 21 National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement, 133 National Science Foundation, 114 National Society for Experimental Education (NSEE), ix, 241 National Survey of Student Engagement, 21 National Youth Leadership Council, 98, 241 Navajo Nation, 153 Nelson, Paul, 152 neoliberalism, 227–28, 252 NERCHE. See New England Resource Center for Higher Education Neumann, Anna, 87 neuroscience, 37–38

03-10-2019 12:27:07

index  

New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE), 56, 89, 223 The New Student Politics (Long), 54 next-gen collaboratories, 61 Next-Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education, 9 Next Generation Engagement Project, 226–27 Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), 33 Nighlen, A. S., 246 Noah Principle, 59 Nonprofit Academic Centers Council, 200 Norvell, Katrina, 239, 241 Novak, J. M., 4 “No Values, No Democracy: The Essential Partisanship of a Civic Engagement Movement” (Hartman), 152 NSEE. See National Society for Experimental Education observation, 34, 67, 68, 84, 154 Olney, C., 68 O’Meara, KerryAnn, 213, 215, 252 one-offs, 140 openness, 34, 40, 165, 245 optimism, 193 organizational behavior, 83, 164 organizational theory, 130, 163, 213 Orphan, Cecilia, 56 Overstreet, Stacy, 65 participatory methodologies, 101–2, 104 partnerships, 119 campus-community, xiii, 25, 53 CCPH, 165 of community-engaged scholars, 166–70 community partners, 172, 212, 243, 251–52 curated research, 139–40

Book.indb 273

273

ethical partnerships, 245 in research design, 215 Pasupathi, M., 35, 36 Patton, Michael Quinn, 131–32, 138, 211 Paydar, Nasser, 194 peers, 193 community partners as, 172 contributions from, 23 disciplinary, 203 feedback from, 76 peer review, 41, 172, 178 resources for, 25 validation from, 182 Peirce, Charles Sanders, 20–21, 28–29 persistence, 75, 82, 123, 124, 180, 193, 209 role of, 115 in service learning research, 26 theoretical understanding of, 195 perspective taking, 34, 36, 213 persuasion, 119, 159 Peters, S., 9, 130, 149, 150, 155, 156, 157 Pew Charitable Trusts (PSU), 164 philanthropy education, 200 phronesis, 31, 33, 39, 40 Piaget, J., 37, 43, 213 Plater, William, 115, 122, 138, 194 Plavsic, M., 40 playfulness, 249 Podolny, J., 137 Points of Distinction, 133 politics citizen politics, 52, 54–55 in higher education, 22, 223–28 partisan, 149 polarization of, 22 scholarship and, 52–57, 61 student, 54 positive psychology, 193 positivistic research frame, 102 Post, Margaret, 56 postmodernism, 138

03-10-2019 12:27:07

274  

index

power, 22, 120 in coinquiry service learning research, 250–51 in community, 70 differences, 213 distribution of, 84 in higher education, 57, 223–28 of service learning, 123 practical wisdom, 10 Aristotle on, 33 coinquiry service learning research and, 253 for community-engaged scholars, 172–73 defined, 31, 34 elements of, 36–37 from engaged scholars, 137–42 engaged scholarship grounded in, 40–42 in higher education, 40 need for, 32–33 persistence and, 26 for research design, 213 summary, 38–39 Practical Wisdom (Schwartz and Sharpe), 32 practice, 7 Bringing Theory to Practice National Initiative on Well-being, xvii, 43 communities of, 59–60, 251 community, 15, 51, 53 COPIL, 248 in justice work, 159 research design from, 229 service learning as high-impact, 15, 21 service learning research and, 192–94, 201–2 of teaching, 220 practitioner-scholarship, 251 pragmatism, 9, 20, 28, 130 praxis scholar-administrators and, 183–88 service learning and, 8

Book.indb 274

theory and, 129 prejudice, 119 Price, M. F., 212 primary education, 93–94 prison workshops, 249 process cocreation process, 236, 245–46, 249–50 in coinquiry service learning research, 244–47 for engaged scholars, 135 r-p-r model, 242, 244 technology-mediated, 245 professional networks, 87–88 Project Excel, 192–94, 195 promotion and tenure (P&T), 170, 172 prosocial attitudes, 10, 34 prosocial behavior, 119 PSU. See Pew Charitable Trusts P&T. See promotion and tenure public accountability, 221 public good, xvi, 6, 27, 252 higher education and, 227–28 National Forum for the Public Good, 132 service learning research and, 15 public intellectual tradition, 149, 153–55 publicly engaged scholarship, 52, 54 cogeneration and, 25 in service learning, 56–57, 62 public policy, 164 public service, 71, 73–74, 148, 185 Feinstein Institute for Public Service, 220 public works, 51, 53, 57, 61, 142, 149 scholarship and research as, 194–95, 202 service learning research and, 194–96, 202–3 punctuated equilibrium, 133, 135 p-values, 208

03-10-2019 12:27:08

index  

QEP. See Quality Enhancement Plan qualitative methods, 84, 103, 121 qualitative research, 7, 41, 136, 193, 197 improved, 158 launch of, 55 need for, 120 promotion of, 121 rigor of, 211 in SLCE, x truth in, 27 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), 75 quality of life, xiii, xv quantitative methods, 87, 211 quantitative research, x, xvi, 7, 103, 104, 136, 211 improved, 158 need for, 120 truth in, 27 racial inequality, 62 Raise Your Voice Campaign, 54 randomized controlled research, 96, 98, 102, 103 reading circles, 15 reciprocity, 31, 40, 158 reconsideration, 24, 159 red book, 166 reflection, 5, 27, 159. See also critical reflection; self-reflection criteria for good, 116 reflection-on-action, 180–81 reflectivity, 40 research as, 8 structured, 40 reflective practice, 32–33, 130 knowing-in-action, 180–81 reflection-on-action, 180–81 for scholar-administrators, 179–81 Schön on, 179–80 types of, 180 The Reflective Practitioner (Schön), 180 regard systems, 85 Reich, Robert, 29

Book.indb 275

275

relationships in coinquiry service learning research, 247–49 interpersonal, 119 reciprocal, in mentoring, 59 relationships-process-results (r-p-r), 242 Renaissance, 34 research. See also qualitative research; quantitative research; service learning research; service learning research, coinquiry in boundary spanning, 136–37 community-engaged action, 135–36 community-engaged research and creative activity, 184–85, 226 discovery in, 28–29 in higher education, 59 International Society for Third Sector Research, 200 in justice work, 159 longitudinal, 121 narratives for improvement, 8–15 positivistic frame, 102 publication, 141–42 as public works, 194–95, 202 randomized controlled, 96, 98, 102, 103 as reflection, 8 theory-based, 121 tradition, 210–11 research design CBL and, 210 collaboration and, 214–15 comfort design in, 211 conceptual model in, 211–13 feedback and, 214–15 impact and, 215–16 overview, 207–8 partnerships in, 215 practical wisdom for, 213 from practice, 229 research design continuum, 211 Research Design Continuum, 14 research tradition and, 210–11

03-10-2019 12:27:08

276  

index

from statistical significance to substance, 208–10 theory in, 210, 212–14 Research Methods Knowledge Base (Trochim), 210 Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods, 200 resiliency, 193 resources allocation, 147 distribution of, 84, 120 for peers, 25 Service Learning Tip Sheets: A Faculty Resource Guide, 195 Rethinking Peer Review, 171 retrospective approach, 8, 13–14, 134 reward systems, 84–86, 165, 226, 228 Rice, Dale, 66 Rice, Eugene, 123 Rice, Gene, 24, 87 Richard, Dan, 14, 245 rigor analytical, 138, 141, 158 of CES, 173 commitment to, 246–47 improvement of, 246 of qualitative research, 211 rigorous methods, 138, 141 r-p-r. See relationships-process-results Sagaria, Mary Ann, 82 Saltmarsh, John, 213, 215, 219, 220, 222, 224–26, 237 sample sizes, 98, 138, 141, 246 Sandmann, Lorilee R., 41, 245 Schein, E, 83 scholar-administrators alignment and synergy for, 188 false dilemma of choosing and, 177–79 overview, 177 paths of, 179 praxis and, 183–88

Book.indb 276

reflective practice for, 179–81 scholarship of, 181–83 scholars. See also community-engaged scholars; engaged scholars; faculty scholar in residence, 221–22 scholar of application, 179 scholarship. See also communityengaged scholarship; engaged scholarship; publicly engaged scholarship collaborations in, 229 defined, 182 of faculty, 24 full participation and, 83–86 in higher education, 56–57 narratives as, 52 politics and, 52–57, 61 practitioner-scholarship, 251 as public works, 194–95, 202 of scholar-administrators, 181–83 scholarship of engagement, 133–35 service learning research and, 10 scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), 113–15, 193 Schön, Donald, 130, 177 on reflective practice, 179–80 on swampy lowland, 186 Schwartz, Barry, 32–34, 39–40, 42 Science, 20 scientific inquiry, 28, 34, 95, 102, 107 secondary education, 93–94 Seifer, Sarena, 165, 166, 171, 215 self-absorption, 19 self-doubt, 26 self-reflection, 8, 10, 19, 34, 41, 43, 121 self-report measures, 94, 98, 121–22, 151, 185 sense of humor, 10, 34, 75 service intellectual tradition, 149, 151–53 service learning academic learning and, 100

03-10-2019 12:27:08

index  

Association for Research on ServiceLearning and Community Engagement, 24 CAPSL, xiv, 116, 119 changes from, xiv character education and, 240 civic attitude and skill development in, 73–74 common good and, 29 community voice approach to, 65–66 as counternormative pedagogy, 94 course design and, 69–71 criticism of, 94–95 curriculum for, xiv, 5–6, 94, 219, 226 defined, 5–6 as fad, 96–97 gains from, 4 GSL, 151–52, 154 in higher education, 15, 213 as high-impact practice, 15, 21 ideas challenged by, 56 influence of, xiii institutionalization of, 93 institutional progress in, xv international, 105 International Journal for Research on Service Learning and Community Engagement, 171 pedagogy, 10 positive learning outcomes in, 4–5 power of, 123 praxis and, 8 publications, 219 publicly engaged scholarship in, 56–57 role of, xvii student benefits in, 68–69 student reaction to, 71–72 Service-learning (Stanton, Giles and Cruz), 9 service learning, social psychology and civic engagement and, 115–18

Book.indb 277

277

conclusion, 123–24 overview, 113–15 past and future of, 121–23 research and, 118–20 service learning and community engagement (SLCE), 191–92 careers in, 194 civic life and, 51 community dimensions in, 243 conferences, 75–76 future in, 196 growth and strength of, 251 in higher education, xi, 3 maturation of, 43 motivations for, 203 practitioners of, 235–36, 238–39, 247, 252 qualitative research in, x social justice in, 248 stakeholders, 241 standards for, 201 transformation from, 252 “Service Learning as a Fulcrum of Institutional Reform,” (Zlotkowski and Saltmarsh), 222 Service-Learning Asia Network, 3 Service Learning Curriculum Guide for Campus-Based Workshops, 195 Service-Learning Quality Assessment Tool (SLQAT), 6, 106 service learning research Advances in Service Learning Research, 98 architecture of engagement in, 60–61 backstory approach in, 10, 13, 27–29, 200 call for evidence in, 97–99 campus-community partnership in, 25 across careers, 14 changes in, 22 civic outcomes, 196–98 collaboration in, 60 communities of practice for, 59–60

03-10-2019 12:27:08

278  

index

with context of theory, measurement, design, practice, 7 criticism of, 107 eligibility requirements for, 104 external and internal legitimacy in, 99–102, 107 for field building, 95–97 future insights, 22 in global contexts, 105–7 gold standard and, 102–5 in higher education, 4 improvements for, 121 information dissemination, 75–76 learning in, 29 negative outcomes in, 104 overview, 191–92 persistence in, 26 preparation through practice, 192–94, 201–2 projects, 199–201 public good and, 15 public work and, 194–96, 202–3 questions addressed in, 67–74 recommendations for, 57–61, 74–75, 201–3 as reflection, 8 research design, 100, 102 retrospective approach, 13 scholarship and, 10 social psychology and, 118–20 travel and, 191 for underrepresented, disabled, indigenous students, 105 value of, 26–27 service learning research, coinquiry in with community members, 240–41 conclusion, 253 considerations for, 249–53 examples of, 237–42 expertise and, 246 with faculty and staff, 237–38 hope in, 252 with intermediaries, 241–42 overview, 235–37

Book.indb 278

playfulness in, 249 power in, 250–51 practical wisdom and, 253 process in, 244–47 questions in, 243 relationships in, 247–49 results in, 242–43 with students, 239–40 Service Learning Tip Sheets: A Faculty Resource Guide, 195 Shadish, W. R., 209, 213 Sharpe, Ken, 32–34, 39–40, 42 Shoemaker, Deanna, 239, 241, 249 Shumer, Rob, 9, 58 Simpson, Jennifer, 225 Skelton, Nan, 54 SLCE. See service learning and community engagement SLQAT. See Service-Learning Quality Assessment Tool Smith, Kevin B., 152 social-change-oriented service, 70–71 social constructivism, 138 social decision-making, 10, 34 social justice, 82, 130, 213 attitudes, 74 commitment to, 164–65 concepts, 69, 163 perspectives, 68 in SLCE, 248 social-change-oriented service, 71 social perception and cognition, 119 social psychology. See also service learning, social psychology and of aging, 114 defined, 119 SoTL and, 113–15 social return on investment, 199 social trustee of knowledge, 197 Socrates, 33 SOFAR. See student, community organizations, faculty, administrators and community residents model

03-10-2019 12:27:08

index  

SoTL. See scholarship of teaching and learning Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 74–75 Spanish speakers, 101 spirituality, 10, 34 Stanford Social Innovation Review, 158 The Stanford Social Review, 155 Stanton, T. K., 9, 58, 194 statistical design, 209 statistical significance, 208–10 Statistics as Principled Argument (Abelson), 209 Staudinger, U. M., 36 Stein, Jerry, 54 Steinem, Gloria, 90, 252 Stephens, J., 39 Sternberg, R., 34, 44 Stevens, J. P., 209 sticks and carrots, 32 Stokamer, Stephanie, 239, 242, 243 Stout, A., 250 Strategic Directions for Service-Learning Research, ix student, community organizations, faculty, administrators and community residents model (SOFAR), 119–20, 212, 214 students benefits in service learning, 68–69 coinquiry in service learning research with, 239–40 as colleagues, 239, 251 college development, 199 disabled, 105 engagement, 213 Graduate Student Network, 239 indigenous community, 105 outcomes, 212, 213 performance, xvi politics, 54 reaction to service learning, 71–72 underrepresented, 105 underserved, 226

Book.indb 279

279

Sturm, Susan, 225–26 succession planning, 138 Sukhatme, Uday, 194 Sullivan, William, 197 Svensson, C. M., 35, 43–44 Swezey, Erin, 82 symbolic theories, 138 systems thinking, 164 Talloires Network, 3, 24 Tatum, Beverly, 70 teaching. See also faculty; learning; students community-engaged, 185, 219–20 practice of, 220 SoTL, 113–15, 193 strategy, 22, 214 technocratic solutions, 32, 236 technology-mediated process, 245 telos, 33 Terosky, Aimee, 87 “The Engaged University” (Hollander and Saltmarsh), 222 Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, 152 theory, 193, 200, 225 Bringing Theory to Practice National Initiative on Well-being, xvii, 43 chaos theory, 138 cognitive theory, 138 complexity theory, 138 context of, 7 critical theory, 138 defined, 183 distributed leadership theory, 138 exchange theory, 119 generation of, 201 intergroup social dominance theory, 119 international relations theory, 148 learning theory, 199 organizational theory, 130, 163, 213 praxis and, 129 in research design, 210, 212–14 theory-based research, 121

03-10-2019 12:27:08

280  

index

time lag design, 73 Tinto, V., 195 transformational leadership, 138 Trochim, W. M., 210 Troppe, Marie, 194 Tulane-Xavier Campus Affiliates Program (CAP), 65–66 underrepresented students, 105 underserved students, 226 unrequited love, 117 urban-gardener-land-reclamation, 156 validity catalytic, 246 of CES, 173 democratic, 246 dialogic, 246 internal, 213 from peers, 182 value relativism, 10, 34 violence, 149, 249 volunteers hours, 52 international volunteering, 154, 159 management, 199 motivations, 199 volunteering stages, 200 volunteerism, 94 Votruba, James C., 131–32

Book.indb 280

Wallace, John, 54, 56 Ward, Elaine, 56 Warren, J. L., 4 ways of knowing, 36, 37, 107, 153, 228 Weerts, David J., 137 Wessels, Basie, 195–96 Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 227 Where’s the Wisdom in Service-learning (Shumer), 9 White House Millennium Council, 225 Whitney, Brandon, 244 Wilson, E. O., 42 Wingspread Conference, 54, 89 wisdom. See also practical wisdom components of, 34 of experience, 39–40 journey of, 33–35 across lifespan, 35–39 morality and, 38 neuroscience and, 37–38 world building, 156–57 Wright, James D., 66, 67 Ye, F., 4 Yorio, P. L., 4 Zlotkowski, Edward, 118, 219, 221–22

03-10-2019 12:27:08

wide variety of disciplines as they critically review past research, describe assessment methods and instruments, develop future research agendas, and consider implications of theory-based research for enhanced practice.

Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning Conceptual Frameworks and Methods Edited by Julie A. Hatcher, Robert G. Bringle, and Thomas W. Hahn Research on Student Civic Outcomes in Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods is the third volume in a series dedicated to research on service learning. This volume, with its timely focus on civic outcomes, is divided into three parts. It begins with an introduction to how student learning outcomes are embedded in service learning, then moves on to various theoretical frameworks by which one can situate research. It concludes with some nuts-and-bolts aspects of conducting research on student civic outcomes in service learning, defined as a course or competency-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in mutually identified service activities that benefit the community, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal values and civic responsibility. (Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2016, p. 10)

The volume is worthwhile for teachers and researchers who want to improve students’ service learning as a site for civic engagement.—Reflective Teaching (Wabash Center)

22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, VA 20166-2019

Book.indb 281

Subscribe to our e-mail alerts: www.Styluspub.com

03-10-2019 12:27:09

Also available from Stylus International Service Learning Conceptual Frameworks and Research Edited by Robert G. Bringle, Julie A. Hatcher, and Steven G. Jones This book focuses on conducting research on international service learning (ISL), which includes developing and evaluating hypotheses about ISL outcomes and measuring its impact on students, faculty, and communities. This book argues that rigorous research is essential to improving the quality of ISL’s implementation and delivery and providing the evidence that will lead to wider support and adoption by the academy, funders, and partners. It is intended for both practitioners and scholars, providing guidance and commentary on good practice. The volume provides a pioneering analysis of and understanding of why and under what conditions ISL is an effective pedagogy.

Research on Service Learning  onceptual Frameworks and C Assessments Edited by Patti H. Clayton, Robert G. Bringle, and Julie A. Hatcher Volume 2A: Students and Faculty Volume 2B: Communities, Institutions, and Partnerships The purpose of this set is to improve service learning research and practice through strengthening its theoretical base. Contributors include well-known and emerging service learning and community engagement scholars, as well as scholars from other fields. The contributors bring to bear theoretical perspectives from a (Continues on preceding page)

Book.indb 282

03-10-2019 12:27:11