Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to

PARTNERSHIPS

Patti H. Clayton, Bob Bringle, & Barbara Jacoby

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: PARTNERSHIPS• Conceptual frameworks• Organizational partnerships• Student partnerships

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: PARTNERSHIPS

(+) ( )Δ

Participants?Authors?

Conceptual Frameworks for Partnerships in Service Learning

Robert G. Bringle, Ph.D., Phil.D.Appalachian State University

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Patti Clayton, Ph.D.PHC Ventures

Indiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro

New England Resource Center for Higher Education, UMass-Boston

Gaps/Issues in Research/Theory• Neglect of partnerships• Campus-Community: Unit of Analysis• “Relationships” vs. “Partnerships”• Outcomes must be “equal”• LOTS of descriptive research• Can they be measured?• Can they be analyze?• Can they be improved (is that

desirable, always?)?

Relationship > Partnership

Theoretical Perspectives• Exchange Theory (Bringle & Hatcher)• Transactional/Transformational (Enos &

Morton)• Identity and Relationships (Social

Psychology)• Negotiated Order Theory (Dorado & Giles)

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

Theoretical Lens: Exchange Theory

• Relationships: Between persons• Outcomes = fn( Rewards – Costs)• Categories of Outcomes: Trust & Respect• Attraction = fn( Outcomes – Comparison Level)• Dependency = fn( Outcomes – Comparison Level for

Alternatives)• Closeness = fn(Frequency of interaction, Diversity of

interaction, Interdependency)• Equity: Similarity in ratio of outcomes/inputs• Transition from “My Outcomes” to “Our Outcomes”• Mini-Max Principle• Relationship Phases: (a) “shopping” (b) initiation, (c)

development, (d) maintenance, (e) dissolution

Recommendations for Future Research: Relationships

• Expand perspective of relationships beyond “campus-community partnership”

• SOFAR model

–Student

–Organizational staff

–Faculty

–Administrators on campus

–Residents or clients

SOFAR

Students

Faculty Administrators

Community Organizatio

n

Community Residents

10

1

2

3

4

5

678

9

SOFAR

Recommendations for Future Research: Measurement

TRES-I: 9-item self-report– Content

• outcomes, • common goals, • decision making, • resources, • conflict• management, • identity formation, • power, significance, • satisfaction and• change for the better

-Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010, MJCSL

Recommendations for Future Research: Measurement

TRES-I (Faculty respondents only)

• r = .63 with Venn measure of closeness

• r = .56 with composite measure of closeness

• Desired > Current

-Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010, MJCSL

Research: Additional Directions

• Need to collect data from the rest of SOFAR’s relationships

• Need longitudinal studies

• Need to consider perspective

Partnership Analysis

Person 1Person 2

Actual Similarity

P1 perception of P2 P2 perception of P1

Perceived Similarity

Perceived Similarity

Understanding

Research: Additional Directions• Can use SOFAR to analyze partnership qualities and deliberative dialog

about improvement, if appropriate– Dewey emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interactions in

building relationships and a sense of community, but how critical are they in a world of increasing technology-assisted communication?

• Can compare quality of relationship(s) to other data sources– archival– records of communications– decisions about the distribution

of resources

Research: Additional Directions• Compare networks (more extensive vs.

less extensive)• Study relationships over time• Compare to evidence of success and

regression– performance indicators– program outcomes– student learning– constituency satisfaction– quality of life indicators

Research: Additional Directions

• Waller’s Principle of Least Interest• Focus on “casualties”• Regression and growth• TransactionTransformation• Differences in expectations• Measurement as an intervention– Network mapping by constituencies

Student Partnerships in Service Learning: More Questions than

Answers

Barbara Jacoby, Ph.D.bjacoby@umd.edu

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

• The Foundational Work of Dewey and Freire• Student Development Theories and Frameworks

*Musil’s 6 Phases of Citizenship*Social Change Model of Leadership Development*Peer Education/Leadership*Youth Empowerment

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

• Community-Campus Partnerships as Models for Student Partnerships

*SOFAR, TRES*Campus Compact’s Benchmarks for

Campus/Community Partnerships*CCPH’s Principles of Good Community- Campus

Partnerships.

Social Change Model of Leadership Development

Individual

• Consciousness of self • Congruence• Commitment

Social Change Model of Leadership Development

Group• Collaboration• Common purpose• Controversy with civility

Community• Citizenship

Social Change Model of Leadership Development

Ultimate goal: CHANGE

SCM Potential Research Questions• What is it about student partnerships in SL that leads to

these desired outcomes? Is it the type of activity, the duration, the intensity, the reflection?

• Do students who serve as partners in SL achieve any of these outcomes to a greater extent than students who are only participants?

• Do student participants advance in the 7 Cs to a greater extent if student partners serve as peer leaders?

• Questions?• Ideas?• Implications?