Here we have some of the international literature on civic engagement that has come out of countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Although much of the sentiment for why to engage is similar to that coming out of the United States, scholarship overseas tends to focus more on how colleges can increase economic development within their local communities, as well as on the need for increased funding for engaged scholarship. Also included here are links to various college websites which describe civic engagement initiatives on their campuses.

Howard, P., Butcher, J. & Ryan, M. (2005). Community sector partnerships: Critique of practice and mutual learning. Paper presented at the 2005 Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance National Conference, "Universities and Communities: Learning and Engaging through Sustainable Partnership,” Victoria University, Victoria, Australia, July 20-22, 2005.

(Qualitative/case study; description; programmatic)

This is a case study of a collaborative between three community organizations and the Australian Catholic University, which was formed to assess the nature of volunteering and ways of enhancing the volunteer capacity of the volunteers and the organizations. The central question of the study focuses on how the collaboration process enhances each partner’s capacity. Among the challenges to forming collaborative relationships that emerged was the need to find a common language and a common understanding of the learning to be achieved. Thus, communication between all parties was vital to the development of mutual trust and respect.

In addition, the authors contend that a balanced power structure is needed for partnerships to be successful. In this particular case, learning was considered a key reason for partnering. But for learning to occur, reflections on learning were necessary; in other words, the partners needed to be able to critique the partnership process and the balance of power between all members. Likewise, openness to different ways of pursuing research questions or agendas, and openness to differences of opinion were also required. In addition, the partners in this study reported that inclusion of all parties in data analysis was a valued component to the partnership.

The authors propose that in developing collaborative efforts such as the one presented here, there needs to be a recognition that partnerships exist within a set of values that have been established by all members of the collaborative. For instance, in this case presence was seen as an important and complex factor – presence at each meeting, and availability of being present with individual partners as the need arose. And yet, engaging in this type of collaborative effort is worthwhile because partnerships between community and university add credibility and rigor to the project’s outcomes by providing different commodities. From the community partners come insights into their daily realities, and from the university partners come research discipline.

Totikidis, V. (2006). Evaluating a model for engaging multicultural communities in dialogue about community improvement. Paper presented at the 2005 Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance National Conference, "Universities and Communities: Learning and Engaging through Sustainable Partnership,” Victoria University, Victoria, Australia, July 20-22, 2005.

(Qualitative; evaluative; community-based research)

The purpose of this paper is to present the Community Wellness Cycle of Praxis model for engaging multicultural communities in dialogue about community improvement, and to discuss how the model was used in a qualitative study of community residents in St. Albans, a culturally diverse suburb of Brimbank, Victoria, Australia. The study aimed to gain a theoretical and practical understanding of well-being from diverse perspectives. As such, the model posits an interaction of community ideals, needs, and strengths of wellness with actions to promote it. Wellness, as defined by the model, is brought about through a balanced satisfaction of personal, relational, and collective needs. Focus groups and interviews revealed certain themes related to well-being among ethnically and culturally diverse community members:

• Personal wellness: physical and psychological health; positive thoughts and feelings (toward oneself and others); and spirituality.
• Relational wellness: family; friendship and social support; intra-cultural harmony; inter-cultural harmony; and community cohesion and participation.
• Collective wellness: human rights; safety; employment; education; community services; resources and information; community development; and good government.

Among the activities informants reported as necessary to improve well-being in St. Albans were that people should be more interested in politics, that people should participate in protests, that religious activity should continue, and that the elderly needed greater visitation. The study produced a list of recommendations for community improvement which included strengthening mental health services and making them more accessible, increased government implementation of strategies to curb negative inter-cultural attitudes, and adequately supporting and funding elderly clubs. One arguable negative of the study is that it did not result in any new actions being implemented.

Wallis, R. (2006). What do we mean by “community engagement”? Paper presented at the Knowledge Transfer and Engagement Forum, Sydney, Australia, June 15-16, 2006.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

In outlining the role of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance, Wallis focuses on funding for engagement activities, noting that there is a need for alternative funding schemes for this work, what he calls “third stream funding,” beyond that provided by traditional governmental or private-sector funding. In particular, engagement activities are not externally supported in Australia – universities must bear the costs themselves. This trend is especially troubling given the fact that, as Wallis claims, it is “widely acknowledged” that universities are vital in creating civil society and increasing regional and national economic growth. Therefore, there needs to be a greater focus by external powers on the influence universities can and do have on communities. As an example of how governments have valued this work, he points to the U.K., where government funds have been established to support regional and national economic growth through knowledge transfer. On the other hand, university personnel need to focus on the outcomes of community-based work, and thus, Wallis suggests community engagement be defined through reciprocal benefits to both the university and the community.

Websites

Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance (AUCEA): aucea.net.au

“AUCEA is an alliance of 32 Australian universities committed to university-community engagement in order to promote the social, environmental and economic and cultural development of communities. AUCEA promotes direct and mutually beneficial interaction between universities and communities that is essential for the development and application of knowledge and the shaping of our future citizens.” The AUCEA website is a good starting place for civic engagement work in Australia. It provides links to publications on university engagement in Australia, as well as papers presented at AUCEA National Conferences. In addition, there is a “News” page which highlights current engagement work at individual universities and upcoming civic engagement conferences in Australia.