Building a culture of civic engagement within University Continuing Education

Heather McRae, EdDUniversity of Victoria, Victoria, BC Canada

Organization of the presentationA. Case Study Research

• Common space for civic engagement

• Terms used in this study• Theoretical framework• Research questions• Methodology• Findings• Recommendations

B. Asset-based community engagement project

•Purpose•Literature review•Methodology•Findings to date

A. Case Study Research: Finding “common space” for civic engagement

CommunityOrganizations

Community-based

Research

University

Community

Common space

University Continuing Education

Terminology

• University Continuing Education (UCE)• Community-based Research (CBR)• Community Organizations (CO)• Civic Engagement• Community-university partnerships• Common Space• Asset-based community development

Theoretical framework

Based on the work of 2 social theorists:

• Jürgen Habermas (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol.2, lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason

• Charles Taylor (2004). Modern social imaginaries

• Belief that public debate is necessary for social change

• Linguistic communication and the goals of civil society are incorporated into a moral framework

• The concepts of system, lifeworld and seam provide a structure for understanding the tensions between the groups

Habermas:

The development of common space is necessary for building a just and tolerant society (Taylor, 2004,p. 104)

Exchanges between people allows for discussion about what is as well as what could beGoal is to develop mutual understanding

Taylor:

The development of common space for civic engagement

• This space would be recognized as a space for supporting social change

• Group members would establish norms to support discourse, the development of common understanding and conflict resolution

• The outcomes would address social problems of concern in society

System Lifeworld

Common space for dialogue is located at the seam between the system

and lifeworld

Situating common space

Research questions

1. Is there interest in building common space ?

2. What are the gaps and the tensions between the three groups?

3. Are there specific strategies that will develop and improve community-university collaborations ?

4. What would be the role for UCE professionals and what issues or constraints could limit UCE’s participation?

Methodology

• Bounded case study involving a total of 15 participants

• Interviews, survey (UCE participants), review of reports

• Organization of data based on 18 codes relating to system, lifeworld or seam

System: administration, money/resources, organizational support, recognition, accountability, accessibility, legitimacy, system for knowledge mobilization

Seam: changes in practice or policy, new ways of working together

Lifeworld: time, relationship building, personal skills and attributes, sharing of knowledge, commitment, partnerships and collaborations, communication and language, learning and skill acquisition

Findings

1. Only the CBR and CO respondents shared common space as defined in this study

2. The tensions identified by all respondents relate to: resources (money), reciprocity, relationship building and recognition.

3. A number of factors influenced UCE’s participation in developing a common collaborations

4. There is evidence of differentiation between the system requirements and the lifeworld for UCE

A new perspective on the relationship between common space, system and lifeworld

LifeworldSystem

Common space for dialogue involves addressing lifeworld needs and system tensions throughout the

partnership

Recommendations

1. A civic engagement model for UCE2. An asset-based approach to civic engagement3. Involvement from local and national organizations4. Participation in applied research

B. Community Engagement Project

• Development of a working group: Partnerships in Learning and Civic Engagement (PLACE)

• Creation of a “community of practice” to explore the notion of engagement and how to operationalize it within a continuing studies unit

• Decision to focus on a Division-wide asset-based community mapping initiative to better understand and support the human and social capital

Literature Review

• Engagement literature (Boyer; Holland; Furco)• Asset-based development (Kretzmann &

McKnight)• Geographic mapping tools for communities

(Guion & Golder; Parker; Vajjhala,)• Community capacity building (Beaulieu; Fuller,

Guy & Pletsch)• Action research (Lewin; McTaggart)• Organizational management (Bolman & Deal;

Minzberg)

Methodology: Case study using an action research approach

Lewin’s Action Research Model from: Dickens, L. & Watkins, K. (1999). Action Research: Rethinking Lewin. Management Learning, 30, 127-140.

Survey Results: What do you care about?

What assets do you bring to the workplace:

What do you excel at?

What is your ideal workplace?

Definition of “Community”