government/university partnerships an international perspective: the view from the united states

Government/University Partnerships

An International Perspective: The View from the United States

Community Engagement

Community Engagement describes the collaboration between higher education institutions and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity. (Carnegie Classification Project, 2005)

Engagement requires new language

Move from: To:Apply CollaborateProvide ExchangeTransfer/transmit NetworkDeliver ReciprocateExtend ShareTeach LearnOutcomes BenefitsProject/Program Partnership

Source: Barbara Holland, Convocation presentation to Colorado State University academic staff, April 2007

Research Teaching

Service

Community-Engaged

Community-basedParticipatory action research

Collaborative research on public issues

Problem-based research

Innovation & knowledge transfer

Collaborative community servicesClinical servicesTechnical assistanceIncubators – business or nonprofit

Community-based learningService-learning

Community EngagementAs seen by Higher Educ. CCPH 2007

Not all Partnerships are alike. Some have more impact than others.

• Service relationship – fixed time, fixed task• Exchange relationship – exchange information, get

access for mutual benefit, specific project• Cooperative relationship – joint planning and

shared responsibilities, long-term, multiple projects• Transformative relationship – shared decision-

making/operations/evaluation intended to transform each organization

Hugh Sockett,1998

The World Keeps Changing.

It is one of the paradoxes of success that the things and ways which got you where you are, are seldom those that help you keep moving. (Adapted from Handy 1995)

The DHS/Deakin Partnership is maturing. This is a good time to reflect on what you have learned and what lies ahead.

This paradox leads to the need for

TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE

to deal with complex, ever-changing, sometimes contentious problems for

which there are no well-studied answers.

Transformational Change

Applies adaptive expertise to new challengesRequires leading indicatorsFocuses on innovation and solution-findingRequires buy-in from multiple levelsDisrupts the status quoDepends upon shared leadership

Transformational Change

Crosses organizational boundariesWorks across disciplines and fields and may

require a new conceptual model and vocabulary

Advances through shared responsibilityCan be led by anyoneMay draw strength from surprising sources

Transformational Change requires us to focus on the

future through• Principles rather than practices• Vision rather than environmental scans• Evidence over anecdote• Solution finding rather than fault finding• Leadership rather than

management/control• Continuous over episodic improvement

Transformational Change requires us to focus on the

future through• Honest communication over sound bites• Boundary crossing over silos• Partnership over competition• Leading rather than lagging indicators• Continuous learning over traditional

expertise

Some issues do not require transformative solutions.

Routine Change: correct errors

- Applies routine expertise to well defined problems

– Often focuses on modifying policy or protocols

– Requires little buy-in or learning– Sustains status quo– Discipline focused– Core competency is specialist

thinking– Usually based on correcting

errors, not finding solutions– Can usually be done by one

person

Strategic Change: Processes

– Improves productivity and quality through redesign of processes

– Requires buy-in from upper admin– Sustains the status quo– Requires culture of inquiry– Inter-disciplinary, can open up

new working relationships– Core competency is generalist

thinking– Problems are identified, but

people don’t feel responsible; leads to a “planned change” culture

– Requires a team

What factors shape the course of a particular

partnership?• Differences in the history, mission, research

capacity and priorities of the higher education partner(s) and the nature of their student body.

• The historical relationship between the community and the higher education institutions that serve the community


partnership?• The distribution of power among the

participants• The motivations that have caused the

partners to consider working together—external mandates, opportunities that require a partnership, early successful experiences that are building a strong inclination to work together


partnership?• The funding sources and any expectations

and directives that go with that funding• Whether or not there is public sector support

for the relationships• The capacity and willingness of the partners

to engage with each other and to build a trustworthy relationship.


partnership?• The culture of the higher education institutions and

the agencies that plan to collaborate• The backgrounds, experiences and demographics of

the participants and their experience with each other before, if any

• The pressures that each partner is feeling and the extent to which the partnership addresses or relieves those pressures or diverts attention and resources toward or away from critical priorities.


partnership?• The honesty of communication and the ability of the

partners to learn from their experiences • The ability of the partners to adapt to changing needs

and expectations arising from within the partnership group or from the broader community.

• The capacity to expand the collaboration if needed and assist new participants in joining the work.

• The effects of leadership transitions both within the partnership and beyond it.

In Sum…

Many factors influence what kind of relationships will form, what resources they can draw upon, how easily the group can arrive at a common purpose and agenda, how quickly a level of trust will form and whether the relationships can adapt to changing conditions and experiences that might place a strain on the working relationships within the collaboration or offer reasons to adapt the partnership to reflect new lessons learned.

How a partnership can change:

Winona Health and Winona State

• The partnership began as a traditional model for clinical placements for nursing students and a contract for delivery of athletic training services

• The collaboration changed into a reciprocal partnership as a result of leadership changes at both institutions as well as social and economic pressures on both institutions.

• We are on the verge of developing into a transformational partnership.



• We still have clinical placements but now we focus onDevelopment of a new model of health care

in a regional community settingDevelopment of a new approach to

educating a healthcare workforce who can contribute to the emerging model of health care delivery.



• As our collaboration matures, staff are showing greater willingness to explore challenging ideas, work out new forms of delivery of care and new ways of working together. Electronic medical records Lean in health care Redesign of WSU nursing program Wellness/fitness program and integration of health

care services and rehabilitation

An Example of How to Overcome Barriers to

Collaboration The Case: The Center for Community Health

Education Research and Service was established in 1991 with a major award from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to be the mechanism for redirecting medical and nursing education in Boston. It began as a partnership that brought together Boston University School of Medicine, Northeastern University College of Nursing, the Boston Department of Health and Hospitals and four community health centers throughout the city.


Collaboration Goal: To educate health professions students for

careers in primary care in community-based settings through “academic/community health centers;” to integrate service, education and research to influence and change health professions education, improve health care delivery and promote health systems change

Source: S.D. Seifer and C.A. Maurana. (2000) Guest Editorial. Community-Campus partnerships for Health: An Overview, Metropolitan Universities, 11(2)


Collaboration The challenge: A great cultural divide existed

between the faculty and students of Boston’s prestigious health care centers and the people who lived in the neighborhoods in the shadow of these distinguished places.

Understanding the Cultural Divide

University (IHE) Community

• Disrespect for community members Distrust of motives of IHE

• Theoretical expertise Practical orientation• Education mission Service mission• Intellectual rhetoric Concrete action• Analytical framework Political arena• Stagnant culture and resistance Dynamic environment

to change with too much change.

Principles for the Partnership: Bridging the Cultural Divide in

Boston

• Mutual respect for the partners and their representatives.

• Mutual benefit accrual to all participating partners (as expressed in their own terms).

• Shared vision of the mission as a basis for determining strategic goals and objectives.

Principles for the Partnership: Bridging the Cultural Divide in

Boston• Shared decision making regarding the

policies and use of resources available to the partnership and generated by its joint efforts.

• Leadership at various levels and in multiple arenas

• Work across boundaries of organizations, institutions and communities

The challenges of partnership are also the

opportunities.• If you trust people, you earn their trust. • If you give power to others, you gain power. • If you think carefully about how to organize

your collaboration, it will slowly and surely change your own institutional organization because of the experience you gain.

The challenges of partnership are also the

opportunities.As the individual organizations change, the environments created by that change can lead to profound shifts in the systems to which the institutions are linked---in this case, the community health care system in the Boston neighborhoods.

Development of Effective Partnerships

…that can adapt to changing times.

FIRST: What kind of partnership do you want?

• Service relationship – fixed time, fixed task• Exchange relationship – exchange information, get

access for mutual benefit, specific project• Cooperative relationship – joint planning and

shared responsibilities, long-term, multiple projects• Transformative relationship – shared decision-

making/operations/evaluation intended to transform each organization

Hugh Sockett,1998

What kind of partnership do you want?

Learning from Experience

• What are our core values and what is our mission? How do our respective missions complement each other?

• What lessons can we draw from our own history and traditions?

• What new core competencies will we need?• What core competencies must we retain and

enhance?


Learning from Experience

• What organizational values and principles will guide our decision-making?

• What new educational models must we build?

• What new alliances must we form?• What promising programs must we

nurture?


Learning from Experience • Who may oppose our plans and what can

we do to win them over, or, if necessary, what can we do to keep their influence from derailing our plans?

• What new clients must we serve?• How will we generate the resources to

invest in new competencies? If we cannot expect any new funding, what assets can we redirect to fund this work?

SECOND: Understand how to introduce intentional change

Stage One: Choosing the Target.Stage Two: Setting Goals.Stage Three: Initiating Action.Stage Four: Making Connections.Stage Five: Rebalancing to Accommodate the

Change (i.e. learn from the experience).Stage Six: Consolidating the Learning.Stage Seven: Moving to the Next Cycle.

Promoting Deep Organizational Change

adapted from Rogers 1995The innovation-diffusion process is the pattern through which an individual or a group of people move– From first knowledge of an innovation or idea– To forming an attitude about that innovation– To deciding whether to adopt it or reject it– To implementing the new idea and perhaps adapting it to

their particular situation or challenges– To confirming their decision and building it into their

repertoire of practices and habits.

What influences the rate of adoption of ideas and strategies in good times

or bad? (adapted from Rogers 1995)• Relative advantage: Is this way better?• Compatibility: Is this consistent with the values,

experiences and needs of people who will use it?• Complexity: Is this easy to understand?• Scalability: Can you start small and grow?• Observability: Are the result visible and

compelling?• Adaptability: Can this way be adjusted to different

settings, disciplines/perspectives and situations?

Promoting Deep Organizational Change

adapted from Rogers 1995The institutional response to change can be confusing especially if more than one organization is involved. Some of the stages can be co-mingled or may occur at different rates throughout an organization, affected by multiple mini-cultures and environments characterized by different decision-making conventions, time frames and sense of urgency, priorities, and constituencies.

Resisters [1] Skeptics [2] Cautious [3] Committed

[1] Risk Management

[2] Culture of Evidence Barrier

[3] Disciplinary Barrier and Definitions of Scholarship or Professional Practice

Barriers to ChangeBarriers to Change

Diffusion of Change Across an Institution: A Bell-Shaped Curve of

Barriers

• The Committed: Support and reward them.• The Cautious: Provide infrastructure,

leadership behavior and incentives that make it safe to experiment.

• The Skeptics: Offer visible and compelling evidence.

• The Resisters: Do not let them dominate the scene.

THIRD:Think of change as a form of participatory action

research and apply a theory of change.

• Build a compelling case.• Create clarity of purpose.• Work at a significant scale and in a mode

consistent with both academic and professional values.

• Develop a conducive shared environment.• Create the capacity to continue the process

over time and to learn from the experience.

Getting Started: Building the Case

– Who names the problems/asks the questions?– Who identifies and evaluates the options?– Who shares resources to advance the agenda?– Who cares about the choices made?– Who bears the risk and who enjoys the benefits?– Who interprets the results and defines success?

Adapted from David Mathews (2006)Reclaiming Public Education by Reclaiming our Democracy

Elements of a warrant Building a compelling Case

• clear goals firmly grounded in knowledge about our disciplines, our students, their experience and the context in which we operate (adequate preparation).

• built upon a solid body of evidence gathered and interpreted in a disciplined and principled way (appropriate methods) and shown to be significantly related to the challenges at hand (significant results).

Elements of a Warrant Building a Compelling Case

The case must be presented effectively (effective presentation) and be studied reflectively (reflective critique), with a clear and compelling sense of responsibility for the effects of the ideas and proposed actions on the community that will be affected, both inside and outside the University (ethical and social responsibility).[After Glassick et al 1997]

Creating Clarity of Purpose: How close are you to a transformative

partnership?

A common agenda and sharing of responsibility as well as shared risk and benefit among the partners.

Strong executive leadership and visible support throughout the partner organizations.

An ability to share power and resources equitably within the collaboration.


partnership?

A clear sense of self-interest and comparable benefits to each partner.

The creation of a shared learning environment in which knowledge is created from both explicit and tacit sources of all.

The ability to reflect upon, learn from and adjust to challenges and mistakes.


partnership?

The inclusion of community concerns as a legitimate set of expectations about what the goals should be and how success should be measured, as well as openness to community involvement in the collaboration.

Are you working at a significant scale and in a manner consistent with both

academic and professional values?

What projects are you working on now? What portion of your respective organizations

are actively involved in the work? How well are you drawing upon the strengths

of both Deakin and DHS to build your partnership and accomplish your goals?

What kinds of results are you getting? How visible and compelling are your outcomes?

To create a conducive environment remember the bell-shaped curve.

Barrier Three: Expand beyond the usual governance structure or “usual suspects” by developing ways to engage the broader community in discussion.

Barrier Three: Approach the task of building a budget as a scholarly act.

Barrier Two: The Golden Rule---Pay attention to, celebrate and invest in what you most want your community to value.

Barrier Two: Accountability: Introduce a culture of evidence and measurement. Hold skeptics to the same standards of proof as the change agents as you decide how to protect your core integrity and your institutional capacity.

Barrier One: Treat nay-sayers with respect but remember that some people cannot be convinced, no matter what!

Are you creating the capacity to continue to build your collaboration over time and to learn from the

experience? • Establish a theory of action.• Frame the question and exploring assumptions.• Select the next set of targets carefully and work on meaningful

goals.• Identify and use available capacity effectively.• Use the budget as an instrument of policy. Your budget is

your investment portfolio. Invest in your future! • Make connections that reinforce and expand the effort and its

impact.• Learn from the experience and apply what you have learned as

the next phase begins, revising your theory of action if necessary.

FOURTH: Keep a few simple principles in mind

• Allow a shared vision to drive change rather than management directives; do this by developing clear principles and tests for deciding which options to pursue.

• Involve everyone, including the doubters and nay-sayers, in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the effects of change—This is the power of a culture of evidence.


• Design policies and infrastructure that support our shared mission and goals;

• Encourage common sense (Nordstrom’s instructions to employees posted on a bulletin board in the mid 1990’s: “Don’t chew gum and always do the best you can.”)


• Encourage experimentation; make sure that any institutional planning is really a learning process; provide a safe environment for taking on risk.

• Encourage informal networks and a sense of community; trust people to be intelligent, to care about their organization and the partnership and to do their best. Your trust will almost always be rewarded.

FIFTH: Remember that in difficult times partnerships matter more than

ever!Engagement in all of its forms (individual, campus-wide, campus-community, regional and beyond) can

Create a richer context for learning that we could not afford to build into our own environments.

Expand resources available Assist partners through tough times Enhance the capacity to move from “recovery” to

economic and social sustainability

The Many Facets of Engagement: The View from Higher Education

• Volunteerism• Curricular Design and Pedagogies• The Engaged Institution: Community Engagement

describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity. (Carnegie Classification)

• Regional Partnerships and Innovation

The Investment Approach

Investment model Conservation model

Budget as an investment portfolio Focus on cutting the budget

Capitalize on gains Cut losses

Try new approaches Stick to the familiar

Take calculated risks (up the ante) Reduce risks; add moremanagement controls

SIXTH: Things to keep in mind if you are leading change in challenging

times. Understand your institutional and partnership history

and the lessons this offers about how you have responded to external threats or change initiatives in the past.

Avoid decision traps. Take time to frame the questions, assess your situation, use the tools of scholarship and learn from your experiences.

Remember that you are part of a community of learners. Approach your task as an opportunity to learn and explore fresh solutions.

SIXTH: Things to keep in mind if you are leading change in challenging

times. Be clear about your shared philosophy and goals

and link your response to that agenda. Do not approach change as an administrative act or as a budget cutting exercise.

Take time to learn about the process of change itself. Hold yourself to high standards of proof and conduct.

Listen to how people talk about what is happening and be ready to respond to rumors and confusion. Be open, be clear, communicate frequently.

How so these ideas apply to your own work?

What kind of partnership do you want to create?

What do want to accomplish? What conditions in your context may shape

the course of your partnership? How will you get started? Who should be involved? What will success look like?

government/university partnerships an international perspective: the view from the united states

Documents

community slide

team slide

shared leadership slide

traditional expertise

particular partnership

routine change

silos partnership

context of partnership