HIGHEREDUCATIONEXCHANGE

HIGHEREDUCATIONEXCHANGE

2 0 0 8

HIGHEREDUCATIONEXCHANGE

2 0 0 8

Editors David W. BrownDeborah Witte

Assistant to the Editors Sarah DahmCopy Editor Joey Easton O’DonnellArt Director/Production Long’s Graphic Design, Inc.Cover Design, Illustrations and Formatting Long’s Graphic Design, Inc.

The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation, charteredin 1927, that does not make grants but welcomes partnerships with otherinstitutions (or groups of institutions) and individuals who are activelyworking on problems of communities, governing, politics, and education.The interpretations and conclusions contained in the Higher EducationExchange, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of theauthor or authors and not necessarily those of the foundation, its trustees,or officers.

Copyright © 2008 by the Kettering Foundation

The Higher Education Exchange is founded on a thought articulated byThomas Jefferson in 1820:

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society butthe people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enoughto exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy isnot to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

In the tradition of Jefferson, the Higher Education Exchange agrees that a centralgoal of higher education is to help make democracy possible by preparingcitizens for public life. The Higher Education Exchange is part of a movement tostrengthen higher education’s democratic mission and foster a more democraticculture throughout American society. Working in this tradition, the HigherEducation Exchange publishes case studies, analyses, news, and ideas about effortswithin higher education to develop more democratic societies.

CONTENTS

Deborah Witte Foreword 1

David W. Brown The Journey of a “Recovering Professional” 5

Sean Creighton The Scholarship of Community 12Partner Voice

Marguerite S. Shaffer Changing Public Culture: 23and Lourdes Leon An Interview

Laura H. Downey, Partnerships for Supporting Local Health 39Carol L. Ireson, Efforts: The Link Between Rural JournalismF. Douglas Scutchfield, and Public Health in One Rural Communityand Al Cross

Ira Harkavy Democratic Partnerships: An Interview 47

Edith Manosevitch Democracy’s Good Name: The Rise and 59Risks of the World’s Most Popular Formof GovernmentBy Michael Mandelbaum

David Mathews Afterword 64

12

THE SCHOLARSHIP OFCOMMUNITY PARTNER VOICEBy Sean Creighton

I was near the final stages of my doctoral program, determined to pro-duce research that would make a meaningful contribution to the field ofcivic engagement in higher education. I was working with my mentor,Dr. Ned Sifferlen, retired president of Sinclair Community College,participating in a series of discussions with higher education leaders,and researching several civic initiatives and organizations, like CampusCompact, the Fitz Center for Leadership in Community at the Universityof Dayton, and the Center for Information and Research on CivicLearning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at the University of Maryland.The discussions, research, and insights from the literature on civicengagement converged, creating a pathway to my “aha” moment.

On reflection, suddenly it seemed obvious that the scholarshipon campus-community partnerships lacked a deep understanding ofcommunity-partner perspectives. I had read numerous, passing commentsin articles that identified a lack of understanding of community part-ners. For instance, O’Meara and Kilmer in Mapping Civic Engagementconcluded that, while there were many national efforts that engagedinstitutions in university-community partnerships, few of the initiativesreally focused on building relationships with community partners, muchless on projects that increased the civic capacity of those communityorganizations and the individuals they served. In the Pew Partnership forCivic Change’s publication New Directions in Civic Engagement:University Avenue Meets Main Street, one author noted that supportersof university-community partnerships “too often overlook the com-munity’s perspective on the features of effective university engagement.”In another article, Community Involvement in Partnerships withEducational Institutions, Medical Centers, and Utility Companies, theresearchers commented that “much of the literature on partnershipsbetween anchor institutions and communities focus on the institutionsrather than on the community perspective.” Wergin and Braskampnoted in their article Forming Social Partnerships from The ResponsiveUniversity: Restructuring for Higher Performance, that “faculty members

13

often lack experiential knowledge of issues being addressed,” illustratingthat faculty can learn from the surrounding community organizations.

Along with the insights from the literature, there was also thefollowing pivotal moment during an ethnographic case study I wasconducting. A group of students was developing a shared vision for localneighborhoods as part of a community-building project. During a publicpresentation of the shared vision, a community member stood andthanked the students for their work and commitment to strengtheningthe neighborhoods. He then asked, “What now? You’ve worked with us

to develop the shared vision —how will you stay involved?”The students replied that the semester was over

and, essentially, their work was done. In thatmoment, I understood that the students did

not realize the expectations communitymembers had for sustained

engagement. I had foundmy dissertation researchquestion: What do com-munity organizations look

for (and expect) in a successful civic engagement partnership with highereducation institutions?

Engaging the community partnersThe finished dissertation is entitled Community Partner Indicators of

Engagement: An Action Research Study on Campus-Community Partnership.The research design and process sought to understand the expectations,needs, desires, and perceptions of community organizations that hadpartnered with several colleges and universities in the Greater Daytonregion of Ohio. The unique aspect of this study was that the indicatorswere generated by the community organizations participating as stake-holders in campus-community partnerships. The conversations with theparticipating community organization leaders were candid, raw, and real.I engaged participants in a collaborative process of critical inquiry thatresulted in truth-telling sessions on how community organizations feltabout their higher education partners. The study has made a relevantcontribution to the scholarship on campus-community partnershipsby giving voice to different perspectives of civic engagement.

The participants developed ten community-partner indicators ofengagement to be used in negotiating and assessing their campus-commu-nity partnerships (download the complete Community Partner Indicatorsof Engagement at www.soche.org/councils/scholarship.asp). They did this

through a process that included individual interviews and multiplegroup conferencing sessions. To ensure the indicators reflected anaccurate and fair representation of the community-partner perspectives,the participants reviewed the language at every stage of development.

For each indicator, the participants developed associated effectiveand ineffective descriptors. For example, the participants discussedextensively their experience with service-learning programs, whichresulted in the indicator usefulness of service learning. While servicelearning was revered in the literature and was becoming a commonlyadopted pedagogy, the participants in the study exposed a differentperspective on service learning. While they supported its impact onstudent learning and development, they also perceived serious issuesand “felt used by service-learning programs.” One participant from asmall nonprofit that serves teenagers drew nods from the others whenshe said:

Yesterday when I got back to the office … one of my staffcame in and said they got sixteen calls from interns—studentsfrom University B. It was a class of social workers. They cameto class and were given a list of agencies to call for a 32-hourplacement … my assistant called the professor and said,“Stop it.” … That’s just rude and lazy on the part of the fac-ulty. There’s no preparation for the students or advanceddiscussion with the agencies. While we want to assist, wecannot do 32-hour placements … we need to do policebackground checks on anyone that works in our programs.

Another participant from an organization that worked withwomen added that the universities rarely reimburse the communitypartners for the cost of the background checks, which adds a finan-cial burden to the community partner. Yet another participant from asocial service agency identified student entitlement as a commonproblem, adding:

The students, especially the undergraduate students, comein and they have this entitlement … and I know this frommy own children, who are very successful, but they do havethis certain entitlement mentality and, for better or for worse,whatever the generation is called, I think that’s part of it.

There were positive comments as well from participants regard-ing the relationships, and the importance of building relationshipswith faculty to ensure a valuable experience for students:

What I see working for me is the relationship I have withUniversity B. But, it’s Professor A and not the university …he calls me and says, “I’ve got this student who’s great incommunity building and that’s all she wants to do” … and

14

• Mandates fair distribu-tion of service-learningplacements to all neigh-borhoods that are partof the community

• Organizes a system forinstructing studentsabout service and forcoordinating effectiveplacement in coopera-tion with communitypartner

• Provides helpful andtypically low-cost laborby undergraduate stu-dents

• Provides graduatestudent expertise toaddress community-partner needs and sharenew academic knowl-edge with community-partner staff

• Views students as rolemodels for the con-stituencies being servedby community partner

• Hires students tobecome employees ofthe community partner

Usefulness ofService Learning

then I get a call from Professor B, who’s a wonderful indi-vidual, and she hand picks students for us. So, it’s truly thoserelationships, then, that begin to work, in terms of under-standing what’s expected and the matching that we talkabout … those are personal relationships with individualswho know the agency, who know what we do, who knowthe quality of supervision and the kind of supervision that’savailable, and the university is kind of almost out of the picture.

In developing the indicators, participants tried to balance theirexperiences to portray a constructive perspective. For example, theindicator usefulness of service learning detailed the positive and thenegative descriptors:

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE

• Discriminates againstproviding student ser-vice in areas based onrace, class, and safetyconcerns

• Permits sense of studententitlement

• Fails to recognize thatunder-prepared under-graduate students taxcommunity partner per-sonnel, placing anincreased strain on theinfrastructure

• Shifts service-learningpurpose from commu-nity-centered tostudent-centered

• Treats communitypartners as merely alaboratory

• Depends on com-munity partnerexcessively, resultingin too many studentscalling for interviews,information, andplacement

15

16

During the study, the participants discussed in detail theirfeelings about relationships with local colleges and universitiesand, in particular, faculty. Participants felt “disrespected” by highereducation partners, expressing the opinion that higher education hadan “elitist attitude.” The participants recognized that faculty andhigher education leaders might not have intentionally sought tocreate ill will or instill negative feelings in their community part-ners. In fact, these feelings “may stem from a misunderstandingbetween differing professional cultures,” a participant commented.Consequently, they saw the remedy being a process that engagescampuses and their community partners in discussions that allevi-

ate feelings of mistrust, disrespect, andinferiority.

Further, the participants viewedinstitutions of higher education aswell funded, powerful, and uniquelysituated community assets that hadsignificant leverage. In comparison,

the participants viewed their ownorganizations as similarly critical assets

to the community, yet struggling, in somecases, to survive. The participants expected higher

education to help address community-wide issues more overtly.As one participant said:

It is like you have these huge institutions that are viewedas great community assets, but as a university and as aninstitution, they don’t see any part of that role. Yes, theymake in-kind contributions, but they do not truly applytheir knowledge, research, and financial leverage to broad-er community initiatives. They think, “We’re a university… by nature of being a university, we are giving to thecommunity.” That is not enough.

While the participants held, in their own words, “a deeprespect and appreciation for academic rigor,” they also felt thathigher education did not, also in their own words, “have a deepappreciation for practice and for application.” There was an expressedconcern from participants that “there’s not a real intentionality toensure that the academic knowledge is applied in a sustainable wayin communities of need that will impact the quality of life.” Theseexperiences were reflected in several of the indicators, for examplerelevance of research:

Participants felt"disrespected" byhigher educationpartners, expressingthe opinion thathigher educationhad an "elitistattitude."

17

The participants commented frequently that the long-term effectiveness of campus-community engagement would

be significantly enhanced if higher education approachedpartnerships from a standpoint of equality. Unfor-

tunately, they felt “ignored” by higher education,noting, “there has to be fair acknowledgement

of the value of each partner.” Participantsexpressed their sincere gratitude towardcampuses that included them in the entireprocess. For the participants, a productive

process provides the opportunity to dia-logue with peers, reflect on the meaning of

effective campus-community partnerships,and agree on action steps that improve

• Reflects the priorities ofthe community partner’sresearch needs

• Produces applicableresearch outcomes andtrend data, increasing acommunity partner’sknowledge of its directservice to constituents

• Provides research as apartnership, waivingoverhead rates and asso-ciated fees

• Partners on funding forresearch on communityhealth and wellness thatimproves direct serviceprograms regionally

• Integrates existing mod-els of practice andacademic knowledge,enriching relevancy ofboth theoretical scholar-ship and direct service

Relevanceof Research

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE

• Produces research thatplaces stress on com-munity partnerinfrastructure

• Strains the already lim-ited resources of thecommunity partnerthrough an exhaustiveresearch process

• Redirects substantialfunds toward evalua-tion research that couldotherwise supportdirect service programs

• Impacts negatively acommunity partner’sconstituency by charg-ing for research when itcould otherwise be pro-vided in-kind

• Perpetuates ignoranceabout a communitypartner’s constituencythrough shallowresearch

!e participantscommented thatthe long-terme"ectivenessof campus-communityengagementwould besignificantlyenhanced ifhigher educationapproachedpartnershipsfrom astandpointof equality.

18

campus-community relationships. In somecases, they felt that it was critical to makeexplicit from each perspective the purposefor forming the partnership and to spendsubstantial time working on communica-tions. One participant thought the “wholekey is getting everything in writing” and

another believed that “you trust yourpartners, but you also make sure thateverybody understands the ground rules.Once everybody understands the groundrules, you write them down.” One partici-

pant suggested creating a manifesto:We need a manifesto—a bill of rights; something that sayswe have come together, we have looked at partnerships, whatwe expect, and here it is. Now, we want you to be a partner,we want you to play, but we’ve got to be on equal footingor it does not equal a partnership. We want to make thepartnership real, and it is not real now.

To ensure that faculty and administrators understood theimportance of these observations, the participants decided it wasnecessary to develop the indicators clarity of expectations and rolesand effectiveness of communication:

One participantsuggested: “Weneed a manifesto,a bill of rights,something thatsays we havecome together,we have lookedat partnerships,what we expect,and here it is.”

• Outlines expectations andoutcomes in writing, in-cluding specific check-inpoints to assess progress

• Identifies and commits toequal sharing of resources

• Provides explicit docu-mentation necessary tosustain the process

Clarity ofExpectations

and Roles

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE

• Fails to recognize thatcommunity partner hasexpectations

Advocating for community partnersToo often, participants voiced a concern that there was a

“fundamental communication gap” and that a “lack of under-standing drives the universities’ inability to organize themselves tomake better use of what we have to offer in the community.” One

participant said, “We needcommon forums where wecan talk and arrive at somemutual understanding, and

then drive some changes overtime.” Unsatisfied with merely developing the

indicators of engagement, the participants moved on to creatingsolutions to several issues that emerged from the research process.This reflected the action-oriented nature of these leaders. Oneparticipant put it succinctly, “Alright, I guess I’ve been sitting heretrying to figure out how this is all going to be perceived by theacademic community. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity tobring resolutions about.” While another one echoed, “Well, maybe. Ithink, perhaps, there’s another section that talks about resolution… (or) what we, as nonprofit leaders, would like to see happen.”

INDICATOR EFFECTIVE INEFFECTIVE

• Values honesty, trans-parency, openness, andsustained communication

• Identifies decision makersfor achieving goals that arecentral to partnership

• Develops personal rela-tionships betweenparticipating individuals

• Creates a forum for con-versations between bothparties to engage in a dia-logue that helps establishmutualism

• Communicates and adheresto best practices, resultingin improved collaborationand a better understandingof each other’s needs, per-spectives, and effect on thecommunity

Effectiveness ofCommunications

• Ignores communitypartner’s opinions, cre-ating a fundamentalcommunication gap

• Makes it difficult forcommunity partner todetermine with whomor what department todiscuss and plan forpartnerships

• Operates in bureaucrat-ic systems that preventcollaboration and/ormake working togetherdifficult, creatingunwarranted interfer-ence, challenges, andbarriers

19

20

After hearing these calls for improvements, we added a section tothe document called “resolutions.” This final part of the researchprocess turned the passion and voice of the participants into actionto improve their relationships with higher education institutions.The seven resolutions included:

PartnerConstituency

BuildingDialogue

Coeducation

Community-Partner

Collaboration

RESOLUTIONS

Memorandum ofUnderstanding

Service Learning

AcademicResearch

• Form community-partner collaborative that developspolicy, procedures, actions, and outcomes for highereducation to adhere to when doing business with com-munity partners; begin by exploring the concept of thecollaborative by working with the Southwestern OhioCouncil for Higher Education and Alliance ofExecutives

• Establish unified community-partner memorandum ofunderstanding addressing community partner’s expec-tations and benefits, outlining meaningful expectationsof student service, including quid pro quo for educa-tional services rendered by community partner

• Create clearinghouse database that shares service-learn-ing opportunities available to students and promotesfair distribution of student service throughout theentire community

• Create clearinghouse database that promotes commu-nity partner’s specific research needs, consequentlyincreasing relevancy of research

• Improve faculty relations and student placement tohelp situate the dignity and humanity of the peoplebeing served by the community partners so future pro-fessionals will understand their value and worth andresearchers will exhibit their humanness

• Distribute Community-Partner Indicators ofEngagement to faculty and nonprofit leaders, bringingthem together to discuss gaps in perception and howthe differences can be addressed; and/or program aconference on “What Makes Community PartnershipWork?” in an effort to engage higher education in lis-tening and understanding the community-partnerperspective as well as establish a dialogue that bridgescampus and community

• Approach a nontraditional college/university to partnerin the cocreation of a curriculum for a graduate degreeprogram specifically designed for nonprofit leaders andcoinstructed by community partners and higher educa-tion faculty

21

These resolutions represented agreed-upon actions to addressthe key challenges that emerged from the process. The resolutionsessentially provided steps for progressive changes aimed at improv-ing civic partnerships between community partners and highereducation. Specifically, they indicated the participants' willingnessto give time, energy, and intellectual capacity to work collabora-tively with one another and with higher education leaders. Theresolutions reiterated the participants' belief in the value of civicengagement and campus-community partnerships. As much as theparticipants felt undervalued or misunderstood, they believedprogress would only be achieved if they could work together withcolleges and universities to address perceived challenges.

I came to this study firmly valuing colleges and universitiesthat practice civic engagement over institutions that do not considercivic engagement as part of their mission, purpose, teaching, andresearch. As much as I wished that the results reinforced only posi-tive perceptions of higher education’s civic-engagement efforts, I hadto remain faithful to the perspectives of the community partners.Hence, I shared the Community Partner Indicators of Engagementwith the higher education community, believing campus leaderswould accept the research and make improvements as a result. Ipromoted the findings to a broad network of leadership in highereducation. When I presented the research at several conferencesand submitted articles based on the research to a highly respectedacademic journal, I encountered new obstacles. While my disserta-tion chair and committee, as well as other respected authors andresearchers in the field of civic engagement, applauded the work,other faculty questioned the results and the validity, wonderingwhat types of organizations participated. At one conference, a per-son asked if I worked with religious organizations. Other scholarsquestioned the size of the sample and the overall research design;still others raised concerns regarding the role of the researcher andthe jointly-derived results. Some even challenged whether actionresearch was appropriate, saying it didn’t provide a “theoreticalframework.”

I am not shaken by the reluctance of some to accept thisresearch. The study raises legitimate concerns regarding civicengagement practices as perceived by community partners.Knowing that community organizations are vital local assets thathave existed, in some cases, for as long as many of our nation’s col-leges and universities, it is, therefore, important to continue to

22

advocate for a deeper understanding of community partners. Ifhigher education seeks to make long lasting, valuable contribu-tions in their communities, then campus leaders must listenclosely to their community partners. Kent Keith, editor of TheResponsive University: Restructuring for Higher Performance, wrotein the conclusion, “it is when the activities of our colleges anduniversities are aligned with the highest-priority needs of societythat we will have the greatest positive impact.” Such an alignmentcomes from a place of complete engagement. One of the commu-nity participants in this study similarly commented, “you’ve gotto have, I think, some sort of commonality in your mission, orat least be complementary in your mission, for your partnershipto be given a chance to succeed.” This notion is illustrated bythe indicator mission compatibility, which states that an effectivepartnership "flourishes because of compatibility of missions,creating a meaningful and complementary intersect."

It is importantto continueto advocatefor a deeperunderstandingof communitypartners.

200 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-2799 (937) 434-7300; (800) 221-3657444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 393-44786 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016 (212) 686-7016 www.kettering.org