sharing power or just getting along? byron p. white, ed.d. “engage to learn, learn to engage”...

Sharing Power or Just Getting Along?

Byron P. White, Ed.D.

“Engage to Learn, Learn to Engage”Institute for Teaching and Learning

University of Akron

October 30, 2009

Authentic community partnerships Essential components

Quality processes• Relationship-focused• Commitment to learning

Meaningful outcomes• Specific• Significant to all partners

Transformation• Individual• Institutional• Societal

-- A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus PartnershipsPortland State University, 2008

Authentic community partnerships

Transformation

Quality Processes

Meaningful Outcomes

Quality processes Asset-based orientation toward each other Dialogue among partners Relationship-building strategies Understanding of each other’s culture Two-way problem-framing & problem-solving Recognition of needs and expectations Self assessment and reflection Constant negotiation and modification

-- A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus PartnershipsPortland State University, 2008

True collaboration Shared responsibility Shared accountability Shared authority (or power)

-- Collaboration: What Makes It Work, Mattessich, Monsey, & Murray-Close, 2001

University-Community Engagement

Divisions

Departments

OfficesCenter

s

Institutes

Trustees

Faculty

Students

Administrators

Anatomy of a community

External institutions

Anatomy of a partnership

UniversityCommunity

Byron P. White, 2008


Agent

BrokeringOrganization

University

Community


Agent


Triangles & tambourines


Institutional resistance Deliberation is too risky

Planning is more comfortable Can’t compromise our point of view Deliberation clouds the waters Conflict will reflect poorly on us More work, but no funding to make it worthwhile

Concerns about community orientation Is engagement within our responsibilities? Do we have credibility? Who will lead this work internally? Where is the “community” to engage? Where the proof that this will work?

-- The Organization-First Approach, Harwood & Creighton, 2009


Agent


University

Community


Agent


Community’s dual perspectives Micro-level engagement

Individuals come to be seen as peers “Personalized power” is exerted to influence decisions High potential for authentic collaboration Essential for “quality processes”

Macro-level engagement Institution seen as dominant and a potential threat “Formalized power” is exerted to influence decisions High potential for conflict Essential for “transformation”


Sheltered partnership

Agent


University

Community



Freelance partnership

Agent


University

Community



Balanced partnership

Agent


University

Community


Agent


Balanced partnership University agent is free to fully engage the

community at an interpersonal level. Agent is also fully empowered to act on the

institution’s behalf. Personalized power is generated. Formalized power can be effectively

leveraged.


Four shifts to achieve balance

1. From university representatives to university agents

2. From community trustto community ownership

3. From honest dialogue to institutional transparency

4. From developing leadership to liberating leadership


References Harwood, R. C., & Creighton, J. A., (2009). The organization-first approach:

How programs crowd out community. Bethesda, MD: The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation.

Portland State University. (2008). A guide to reciprocal community-campus partnerships: Proceedings from Portland State University’s Partnership Forum. Portland, OR: Author.

White, B. P. (2008). Bridging the High Street divide: Community power and the pursuit of democratic partnerships between Ohio State University and Weinland Park. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3311543)

sharing power or just getting along? byron p. white, ed.d. “engage to learn, learn to engage”...

Documents