exploring community- university partnerships through multiple frameworks
DESCRIPTION
Lina D. Dostilio, Duquesne University Neivin M. Shalabi, University of Denver Tracy M. Soska, University of Pittsburgh. Exploring Community- University Partnerships through Multiple Frameworks. How does research assist in crossing boundaries between campus and community partners?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Lina D. Dostilio, Duquesne UniversityNeivin M. Shalabi, University of Denver
Tracy M. Soska, University of Pittsburgh
EXPLORING COMMUNITY- UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIPS THROUGH MULTIPLE FRAMEWORKS
How does research assist in crossing boundaries between campus and community partners?
1. Consideration of Enos and Morton’s Theory of University-Community Partnerships
2. Application of Democratic Engagement to Community-University Partnerships
3. Exploration of Pragmatic Community-University Partnerships from Frameworks of Collaborationand Social Capital
CONSIDERATION OF ENOS AND MORTON’S THEORY OF
UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Neivin Shalabi
Campus-Community Partnerships: Enos and Morton’s (2003) Theory Transactional and transformative
relationships Typology for the development of
campus-community partnerships Directions for future research Areas of convergence & divergence
Transactional Relationships Operate within existing structures in
which partners connect together because each has something that the other perceives as useful,
Instrumental and project-based, Characterized by limited commitments
and minimum disruption of the regular work of the parties involved,
By the end, partners feel contented with the outcomes, but not much changed.
Transformative Relationships Progress in less defined manners, Expectations that things may be altered
and order may be disrupted, Characterized by genuine and long-term
commitments, Partners reflect deeply on their
organizations and examine the way they define and comprehend problems,
Lead to the development of new values and identities for partners.
Typology for Development of Campus-Community Partnerships
One-time events and projects
Short-term placements
Ongoing Placements, mutual dependence
Core partnerships, interdependence
Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledgeD
epth
and
Com
plex
ity
Time
Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-Learning (pp. 20-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (p. 27)
Adaptation
Sizes of the levels are reversed to reflect the expected time for each level,
Directions of the axes are reserved to indicate positive signs and growth,
Directions of the levels are reversed to show the development of each level over time.
One-time events and projects
Short-term placements
Ongoing Placements, mutual dependence
Core partnerships, interdependence
Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledge
Time
Dep
th a
nd C
ompl
exity
Shalabi, N. (2010). University-community service-learning partnerships. Paper Presented to the Committee Members of the Doctoral Comprehensive Examination Paper Proposal at the Morgridge College of Education. The University of Denver. (p. 9).
Critical Question? Are transformative relationships
appropriate for all types of university-community engagement???
Research Findings Bushouse’s (2005) study: community
participants explicitly expressed their strong inclination to developing transactional relationships with the partnering universities.
Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison’s (2010) study: faculty repeatedly described their relationships with community partners as transactional, with some hoping for transformational relationships.
Scholarly Arguments Expectations for transformational
relationships—if they are neither desired nor convenient to one partner—may paralyze the relationships which operate successfully at the transactional level (Clayton et al., 2010).
So Now What? Should we give up our aspirations for
transformative partnerships between the academy and the community???
NO, rather We need to be careful not to make broad
generalizations; each partnership is unique.
It is critical that university and community partners discuss the goals and expectations of their partnerships at the initiation phase of their collaborations.
The barriers to developing partnerships must be confronted and addressed.
The goals and aspirations of each partner must be honored.
Critical Questions & Suggestions for Future Research What are the institutional/organizational
factors that facilitate the development of transformative partnerships between universities and community-based organizations?
What hinders the progress toward transformation? Are there logistic, institutional, cultural, or capacity barriers?
Future research should solicit the perspectives of all the parties involved.
APPLICATION OF DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT TO
COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS
Lina D. Dostilio
Democratic Engagement Framework
Collaborative, problem oriented work that yields
knowledge generation and
discovery
Minimized Dichotomy between
C & U
Inclusivity
Reciprocit
y
Respect
Process of Partnering
Democratic Engagement Whitepaper: Saltmarsh et al., 2009
Roles, Processes, and Purposes
Roles
• Community & university stakeholders as equal status solution generators
• All seen as having capability to contribute to knowledge generation and discovery
Processes
• Inclusivity• Collaboration• Reciprocity• Collaborative
knowledge generation
Purposes
• Alleviating public problems
• Building a just and democratic society
• Marshalling transformation within academy’s valued knowledge framework, research, and teaching
Building Out: Making Extensions How do community and
university stakeholders arrive at such roles and processes?
Prilleltensky’s (1994) Empowerment Theory
Friere’s (1970)concept of Dialogic Action
EXPLORING PRAGMATIC COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIPS FROMFRAMEWORKS OF COLLABORATION
AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
Tracy Soska
DEFINITION Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and
well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals
This relationship includes commitment to:Definition of mutual relationship and goalsJointly develop structure and share
responsibilityMutual authority and accountability for successSharing of resources and rewards
DEFINITION SOCIAL CAPITAL (Robert Putnam)
“…social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations.” (Making Democracy Work, 2000, 1993 and reinforced in Bowling Alone, )
Community Practice Theories in Collaborations and Partnerships Systems and Organizational Theory Social Learning Theory Reality Constructionist Social Exchange and Network Theory Inter-organizational Theory Community Building – Assets & Capacities Consensus Organizing strategies
Factors Affecting Collaboration Wilder Foundation Collaboration Research study
(Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey; 2001) Distilled and Benchmarked best practices Identified 20 factors in successful collaborations Dynamic Tensions in Collaborations (Mizrahi and
Rosenthal; 1994) Frameworks for understanding and assessing
university-community partnerships HUD Community Outreach Partnership Centers Community Building and Consensus Organizing
Environmental Factors History of Collaboration or cooperation
in communitycreating a common community narrative, Inter-organizational relations
Collaborative Group seen as leaderOpportunities for social exchangeStrong network
Favorable social/political climate
Membership Factors Mutual Respect, understanding, trust
Lao Tse on TrustOpen Systems - reciprocityDialogues of partnership
Appropriate cross section of communityExchange opportunities and strong network
Collaboration in self-interest Ability to compromise
ReciprocityBalancing power
Process & Structure Factors Stake in both process and outcomes Multiple levels of decision-making Flexibility Clear roles and policies Adaptability
Communications Factors Open and Frequent Communications
Open systemsExchange networks
Formal and informal communicationsOpportunities for exchange across and
within partnersBuilding the common narrative
Factors of Purpose Concrete, attainable goals and
objectivesDoable, winnable
Shared VisionOrganizational domain
Unique purposeInter-organizational work – can do best
jointly
Resource Factors Sufficient support
FundingIn-kind
Skilled ConvenerManaging relations and exchangesCreating powerful narratives
Dynamic Tensions - Challenges Collaboration isn’t a natural act
– Cooperation v. Conflict Mixed Loyalties – Partnership v.
Organization Unity v. Diversity
Goal differences v. ideological differencesManaging power and resource differentialsManaging diversity
Consensus Organizing (Eichler)
Convergence Reciprocity
Power relationships
Transformation
Reciprocity Enos and Morton(2003): - Share one community, - Academic expertise may be challenged by
the collective experience of all the parties, Saltmarsh, Hartley, and Clayton (2009):
“Democratic engagement seeks the public good with the public and not merely for the public as a means to facilitating a more active and engaged democracy” (p. 7).
Reciprocity (Cont.)- Reconceptualization of knowledge
construction: inclusive, collaborative, flows in multi directions
Pragmatic framework:- Social capital is best strengthened when it
is grounded in a network of reciprocal social relationships (Putnam, 1993, 2001).
- partners should share a shared vision and a stake in both the process and outcomes (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001).
Power Enos and Morton (2003): - Community perspective, - Ongoing assessment Saltmarsh et al. (2009): - Called for an “epistemological shift that values not
only expert knowledge that is rational, analytic, and positivist, but also values a different kind of rationality that is relational, localized, and contextualized and favors mutual deference between lay persons and academics” (p. 10).
Pragmatic framework: - Pays explicit attention to the level and amount of
power among all the parties (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1994).
Transformation Enos and Morton (2003): - Implications for students, faculty, and
community members Saltmarsh et al. (2009): - “Second-order” change Pragmatic framework: - Co-learning experience leading to negotiated
change in both the campus and the community.
Divergence
Means to reach ends: - Enos and Morton (2003):
Interdependence - Saltmarsh et al. (2009):
Democracy & Politics - Pragmatic framework:
Capacity building
Activity & Place
Process & Purpose
Collaborative Knowledge Construction (p. 9)
Mutuality vs. Reciprocity (p. 9)
Public Culture of Democracy (p. 10) and Deliberative Democracy (p. 11)
One-time events and projects (p. 26) X Little opportunity to construct knowledge No relationship; no discovery process between
partnersAffirms current perspectives; does not encourage diverse, contested perspectives
Short-term placements (p. 27) X
Used to “affirm existing academic knowledge” (p. 68); simple logistical problems are generated related to the implementation of the activity – unlikely to create new knowledge
Community and university stakeholders are “sympathetic… observers” (p. 28) of one another; puts strain on resources of both community and university;
Politically neutral
Ongoing placements, mutual dependence (p. 28) X
Appreciation of the other’s constituencies, “ethical and existential dilemmas” (p. 28); joint strategy development and joint capacity development; academic expertise and preeminent role as knowledge producer may be challenged
Mutual dependence; exploration of each other’s missions and interest; navigation of expectations of the partnership
Academic neutrality is difficult to maintain because of increasing empathy with partner
Critical moment: domain assumption is challenged (i.e. communities are domain of problems; universities are domain of solutions)
Core partnerships, interdependence (p. 30) X
“Each contributes experience and knowledge…knowledge is held to the test of whether it works in both campus and community arenas.” (p. 30). Knowledge is evaluated in terms of usefulness.
Interdependence; stakeholders understand each other’s interests; risks are taken; mutual learning is an implicit or explicit goal of the partnership.
Partners critically examine how they exist in the world.
Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledge (p. 30)
X Their shared work is likely to change both stakeholders; stakeholders mutually define the issues on which they will work together; joint knowledge creation
Shared context; interested in joint transformation
Potential for transformation of community at large; engaged in the work of civic renewal
Complementary Nature of Enos and Morton’s Typology and Democratic Engagement
Building Social Capital & Partnership A Democratic Participatory Model (Putnam, R.;
Making Democracy Work, 2000, 1993) Supported by Social Exchange Networks Builds and Strengthens Relationships of
Commonality across differences – Consensus Builds on Assets and Capacities of partners Accentuates Collaborative factors for success Reduces adverse dynamic tensions
Thank you & Contact Info. Lina D. Dostilio
Duquesne [email protected]
Neivin M. ShalabiUniversity of Denver [email protected]
Tracy M. Soska University of Pittsburgh