Upload
wind
View
23
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to INSTITUTIONS Julie Hatcher, Barbara Holland, Kevin Kecskes , Lorilee Sandmann. IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research. Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment Vol 2A: Students & Faculty - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to
INSTITUTIONS
Julie Hatcher, Barbara Holland, Kevin Kecskes, Lorilee Sandmann
IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research
Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment
Vol 2A: Students & Faculty Vol 2B: Communities, Institutions, &
Partnerships (Stylus 2013)
Theory
Design
Practice
Measurement
Focusing on theory“Bringle (2003) has advocated for theory from cognate areas to be clearly used as a basis of research. These could include theories from psychology about motivation, interpersonal relationships, and cognitive and moral development; from business about interorganizational relationships, leadership, and change management; from philosophy about value systems and decision-making; from political theory about individual and collective action; from history about social movements; from communication about conflict resolution.”
Focusing on theory
“The theory or conceptual framework might precede the data collection, or it might emerge from or be modified based on data analysis and interpretation. Procedures for measuring quantitative or qualitative aspects of attributes do not stand alone, and their meaningfulness is often a function of how solidly they are situated in theory.”
Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment
• I. STUDENTS• II. FACULTY• III. COMMUNITIES• IV. INSTITUTIONS• V. PARTNERSHIPS
Section: INSTITUTIONS
• Institutionalization• Engaged departments• Institutional leadership
Chapter template• Theoretical / conceptual frameworks• Critical review of past research• Measurement approaches and instruments• Implications for practice• Future research agenda• Recommended reading
Lets do some of this same thinking together ….
Critical review of research to date: INSTITUTIONS
(+) ( )Δ
Participants?Authors?
The Engaged Department:
Research, Theory, and Transformation of the Academic Unit
Kevin KecskesAssociate Professor
Hatfield School of GovernmentPortland State UniversityIARSLCE, Baltimore, MD
September 24, 2012
Institutional Engagement
Departmental Engagement Faculty/Staff
Engagement
Student Engagement
> PSU’s Integrated Approach
PSU Developmental Model: Faculty Development Approaches
Community Service
Service-Learning
CivicEngagement
Individual Faculty
Engagement
DepartmentalLevel
Engagement
Institutional Level
Engagement
Scholarship of Engagement
Community-Based
Research
Community-Based
Learning
Capturing Stories from the Field
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
2006:- Considered nearly 100 departments- Invited 25% to submit abstracts for evaluation- Selected 11 departments for inclusion in book- Performed contextual analysis to identify common themes- Developed “characteristics” framework- Tested framework with PSU departments
Engaging Departments:
http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1933371021.html
Dimensions Components
I. Mission and Culture Supporting Community Engagement
Mission Definition of Community Engaged Teaching Definition of Community Engaged Research Definition of Community Engaged Service Climate and Culture Collective Self-Awareness
II. Faculty Support and Community Engagement
Faculty Knowledge and Awareness Faculty Involvement and Support Curricular Integration of Community Engagement Faculty Incentives Review, Promotion, and Tenure Process
Integration Tenure Track Faculty
III. Community Partner and Partnership Support and Community Engagement
Placement and Partnership Awareness Mutual Understanding and Commitment Community Partner Voice Community Partner Leadership Community Partner Access to Resources Community Partner Incentives and
Recognition
Department Specific Components
Department Specific Components
IV. Student Support and Community Engagement
Student Opportunities Student AwarenessStudent Incentives and RecognitionStudent Voice, Leadership & Departmental Governance
V. Organizational Support for Community Engagement
Administrative SupportFacilitating EntityEvaluation and AssessmentDepartmental PlanningFaculty Recruitment and OrientationMarketingDissemination of Community Engagement Results Budgetary Allocation
VI. Leadership Support for Community Engagement
Department Level LeadershipCampus Level Leadership from Departmental FacultyNational Level Leadership from Departmental Faculty
Testing the Utility and Validity of the Conceptual Framework – Display of Analysis
0
1
2
3
4Level of Support
1=Low 2=Medium-Low 3=Medium-High
4=High
Mis
sion
and
Cul
ture
Facu
ltySu
ppor
t
Com
mun
itySu
ppor
t
Stud
ent
Supp
ort
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Supp
ort
Lead
ersh
ip
Dimensions
Department 1: Levels of Support for Community Engagement
Displayed by Dimensions
Select Findings – Summary Histograms
0
1
2
3
4Level of Support:
1=Low2= Medium-Low 3=Medium-High
4=High
Dep
artm
ent
1
Dep
artm
ent
2
Dep
artm
ent
3
Dep
artm
ent
4
Dep
artm
ent
5
Dep
artm
ent
6
Levels of Departmental Engagement Displayed by Dimensions (Departments 1 - 6)
Mission and Culture Faculty Support Community Support Student Support Organizational Support Leadership
0
1
2
3
4Level of Support:
1=Low2= Medium-Low 3=Medium-High
4=High
Dep
artm
ent
7
Dep
artm
ent
8
Dep
artm
ent
9
Dep
artm
ent
10
Dep
artm
ent
11
Dep
artm
ent
12
Levels of Departmental Engagement Displayed by Dimensions (Departments 7-12)
Mission and Culture Faculty Support Community Support Student Support Organizational Support Leadership
Departmental Engagement Resources Available from PSU on the Web
http://www.pdx.edu/cae/departmental-engagement
• Why departmental engagement• Examples of departments that work• Strategies that work• Measuring departmental engagement
Three Connected Theoretical Frameworks
• Organizational change theory and academic unit transformation (Kotter, 1996, 2008; Kotter and Cohen, 2002)
• Institutional theory and connecting community with academic departments (Cook, 1996; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Scott, 1987; Selznick, 1948, 1992; Sirianni & Friedland, 1995)
• Cultural theory and community-academic unit partnership development (Douglas, 1970, 1982; Thompson et al, 1990; Hood, 1998; Kecskes, 2006)
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
Four conceptual “frames” or “worldviews”
• Individualist• Egalitarian• Fatalist• HierarchistSee:Kecskes, K. (2006). Behind the rhetoric: Applying a cultural theory lens to community-campus partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Spring, pp. 5-14.
Individualist Worldview
• “Rivalry” and “competition” are the watchwords
• Possibilities are boundless• Low group, low grid• Advantage: ability to envision and enact
significant accomplishments. • Achilles’ heel: private self-interest is put
before public or collective interest
Individualist Worldview in Community-University Partnerships
• “We know our objectives, we have our plan, we will be happy to bring this out to the community and show them how and where we intend to move in our development strategy. If they wish to join in, all the better. We are certainly quite open to that kind of collaboration.”
• Personal communication with a senior campus development officer (January 2004)
Egalitarian Worldview
• “Mutual responsibility” are the watchwords• High group, low grid• an active orientation toward the world based on
the collective will of the group• Resources are precarious • Approach to action is often dialogue-focused,
generally based on a “town meeting democracy” process model, and guided by a communal viewpoint
• Bias for decentralized self-governing units
Egalitarian Worldview
• Positive– communal sense of belonging– empowerment– control over ones collective fate– large commitment when consensus is achieved
• Negative– endless debate– unchecked feuding– no higher authority to break deadlocks
Egalitarian Worldview in Community-University Partnerships
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 2006
Fatalist Worldview
• “Resilience” is watchword• Low group (low trust), high grid (feelings of
constraint by externally imposed rules)• Emphasis on unpredictability and unintended
effects• Lack of control over destiny• World as resource poor• Advantage: resilience• Disadvantage: unwilling to plan
Fatalist Worldview in Community-University Partnerships
• Chorus in classical Greek theatre– Sideline commentators
• Randomness 1 (campus side)– Who comes to mind, or called recently
• Randomness 2 (community side)– Who showed up?– Partnership by lot
Hierarchist Worldview• Watchword is “steering”• High group, high grid• Experts use technology to tame the environment• Examples: Traditional Chinese society, American
military• Advantage
– Ability to focus technological and human resources on a challenge
• Disadvantage– Insufficient foundational questions can lead to disaster
Hierarchist Worldview in Community-University Partnerships
• Based on community needs and campus assets• Problems defined by campus• Leadership and authority (including fiscal) at
campus side• Awards bestowed to campus constituents• Community is compliant, mostly passive and
appreciative• Campus = purveyor of services• Community = recipient of services
How does it all fit into place?
A Fatalist WaySkeptical or critical approach, low cooperation, rule-bound, and suspect of planning.Application:Helpful to keep partnership expectations realistic.
A Hierarchist WayRule-bound and organizationally cohesive.Application:Technology transfer by experts.
An Individualist WaySingular approaches emphasizing bargaining for competitive advantage.Application:Creative visioning, market orientation toward growth.
An Egalitarian WayCollective decisions influenced by reciprocity.Application:Community-based learning or research featuring shared agendas.
High “Group” (collective) Tendencies
(Individual will subordinated to collective will)
Low “Group” (collective) Tendencies
(Individual will more important than collective will)
High “Grid” Tendencies(Highly constrained by rules
or social conventions)
Low “Grid” Tendencies(Barely/not constrained by rules or social conventions)
Source: Kecskes, K. (2006). Behind the rhetoric: Applying a cultural theory lens to community-campus partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Spring, pp. 5-14. Adapted from Douglas, 1982; Hood, 1998; and Thompson, Ellis, & Wildavsky, 1990.
Cultural Theory and Community-University Partnership Overlay
Now What?Ellis, R. & Thompson, F. (1997) Cultural theory and the environment. The American Political Science Review, 91, 885-897.
SO THEN…? ????? . (2013) Cultural theory and the university: Building engaged departments. MI Journal of Community Service Learning
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
Institutional LeadershipL. Sandmann & W. Plater
• Leadership may be present in a course, a program, an institution, or a movement
• Administrative leadership is central and occurs at multiple levels
• The context of leadership is increasingly complex
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
• Definitions of leadership:– A process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2013)
• Innovation, change, culture, institutionalization, and technology
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
Range of Theories• Positivist leadership
frameworks– Trait, Behavior, Power and
influence, Contingency, Cognitive, Cultural/symbolic
– Critiques: leader-centered, individualistic, hierarchical, highly structured, universal assumptions about leadership, emphasis on leader’s power over followers, value-neutral assumptions
• New leadership paradigms (Kezar, Carducci & Contreras-McGavin, 2006)– Constructivism: influenced by
experience and background – Critical theory: explore power
dynamics and values– Postmodernism: critique
assumption of leaders as white male elites
– Distributed leadership: mobilizing leadership at all levels of the organization; collective patterns of leadership; focuses on the practice of leadership
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
Distributed Leadership
Accountability
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
• Defining leadership in service learning and community engagement
• Understanding distributed leadership in service learning and community engagement
• Developing leadership accountability in service learning and community engagement
• Effective leadership development practices for service learning and community engagement
• Useful, empirical research into leadership for service learning and community engagement
• More…
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
• Defining leadership in service learning and community engagement
• Understanding distributed leadership in service learning and community engagement
• Developing leadership accountability in service learning and community engagement
• Effective leadership development practices for service learning and community engagement
• Useful, empirical research into leadership for service learning and community engagement
• More…
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
iarslceproceedings2012.wikispaces.com/Framing+a+research+agenda+-
+institutions