The scholarship of engagement concentrates on assessing the means, methods, and purposes of institutional civic engagement. It includes reflections on doing community-based scholarship, as well as the impact such work can have on all constituencies involved. This section contains pieces on conducting action research, rethinking what we consider to be civic engagement, and taking account of how the college constituency collaborates with community partners.

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), pp. 9-28.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

This editorial from the first issue of Action Research addresses the question of why engage in this form of inquiry. Along with providing a definition of action research, the authors discuss the desire of their colleagues to produce knowledge that is “valid and vital...to the promotion of democratic social change” (p. 11), noting that despite claims made by “hard” scientists, knowledge is not value-free, but rather is socially constructed. The authors posed the question of “why” to members of the journal’s editorial board and found that dissatisfaction with current research practices and a struggle for congruency between personal values and actions lead many to engage in this type of research. As one member put it, the importance of social research is “the improvement of social practice” (p. 13). Key to this methodological approach is collaboration with those most affected by the social changes proposed and the transformative potential of research. Accordingly, the authors suggest that those within the field need to work harder to transform the higher education culture which often rejects action research as a valid form of inquiry.

Gibson, C.M. (2006). Citizens at the center: A new approach to civic engagement. The Case Foundation, accessed at www.casefoundation.org/spotlight/civic_engagement/gibson.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

The author discusses the idea that whereas community service is embedded in American culture, civic engagement is not. Thus, the challenge for those working in the service domain is to change the ethos of service to one of engagement which is sustainable and encompasses a broad spectrum of the population. In order to do that, citizens must define the issues to be addressed, and the actions to be taken. The key question that should lead all civic efforts is “what kind of community do we want?” In suggesting why this type of approach is needed and why it is not happening in great amounts, Gibson focuses on these tenets of a citizen-centered approach: 1) focused on culture change rather than short-term outcomes; 2) representative of a cross-section of the entire community; 3) concerned with a deliberative process to identify issues, no matter how messy it is; and 4) cognizant of the importance of building capacity for civic work.

Harkavy, I. (2004). Service-learning and the development of democratic universities, democratic schools, and democratic good societies in the 21st century. In M. Welch & S.H. Billig (Eds.), New perspectives in service-learning: Research to advance the field (pp. 3-22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

Harkavy begins by questioning whether service-learning has actually fulfilled its promise of enhancing our democratic culture. According to him, service-learning needs to be assessed by its broad educational and societal impact. Without doing so, it will become just another educational technique. “We should, therefore, evaluate service-learning by the extent to which it actually advances democracy in our classrooms, communities, and society” (p. 5). In his view, service-learning should ultimately have a significant effect on the development and sustainability of democratic schools, college campuses, and communities. Doing so means realizing American higher education’s mission of educating students for a democratic society. Unfortunately, however, Harkavy contends that democracy in higher education does not exist at acceptable levels, as the hierarchical and competitive culture on campus demonstrates. Thus, institutions need to do a better job of helping students become responsible citizens, rather than contributing to widespread materialistic and individualistic values and behaviors.

Huber, J. & Harkavy, I. (Eds.) (2007). Higher education and democratic culture: Citizenship, human rights and civic responsibility. Council of Europe Higher Education Series, No. 8. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publications.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

The book is a compilation of essays on democratic culture and the role and responsibility of higher education in promoting such a culture. In his foreword to this volume, series editor Sjur Bergan defines “democratic culture” as “the set of values and beliefs that not only help us identify with democracy as an ideal but also strive to put it into practice” (p. 5). The book’s editors assert that higher education has a strategic responsibility for supporting participatory democracies around the globe. In that vein, postsecondary institutions need not only to be partnering with their local communities as a resource for implementing democratic activity, but need to be functioning in a democratic manner themselves.

In his essay on higher education’s role in creating a sustainable democratic culture, Frank Rhodes argues that in return for the autonomy and academic freedom that postsecondary institutions enjoy, universities must commit their resources and freedom of inquiry in service to the public interest. This is the definition of the social compact. Rhodes goes on to say that institutions which combine a democratic model with a well-rounded education will cause their students to develop a democratic spirit which they will carry forward post-graduation.

Brenda Gourley, in her account of the importance of education in broadening access to democracy in South Africa, notes that a diverse population is often a hallmark of democracy, and that access to education for all citizens is the means by which a true democracy can be achieved. Martin Blank further supports this point in his description of The Coalition for Community Schools. He writes, “The Coalition for Community Schools argues that, to learn how to be citizens, students must act as citizens. Their education must connect their subject matter with the places where they live and the issues that affect them, their communities and the entire world” (p. 97). Accordingly, David Crosier sums up these key issues, arguing for greater responsibility on the part of postsecondary education: “Yet many who have grown up in democratic societies think little about the notion of democratic culture or of the processes required to sustain and develop society. Higher education institutions often reflect this negligent attitude and yet they have an important responsibility, of which they may be more or less conscious, for the quality of democratic society” (p. 145).

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (April 2008). Partnerships for public purposes: Engaging higher education in societal challenges of the 21st century. Accessed at http://www.highereducation.org/reports/wegner/index.shtml.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

Given the challenges of a shift to a knowledge-based economy and the continued lack of accessibility to higher education for many students, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (henceforth referred to as the National Center) suggests that postsecondary institutions have two fundamental responsibilities to help ensure the success of the nation:

• To provide graduates the skills to be effective in a global economy; and
• To close the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

The National Center calls for a focus on “optimized learning,” which extends education beyond the classroom to include a concentration on higher education’s impact on society and all of its organizations. In other words, there must be a greater societal responsibility on the part of institutions. Among the traits of such a concentration includes stronger cooperation between higher education and K-12 schools. States can also promote optimized learning by identifying “where the confluence of public purposes and individual interests occurs” (p. 5), whereas business leaders can contribute to the discussion on how to train a larger range of students to be competitive in the global economy.

The National Center offers a number of recommendations on ways to demonstrate leadership on these issues. Among the suggestions is a call to the federal government to consider creating tax incentives for individuals who want to continue their education and for employers who want to support their employees in this endeavor. In addition, they appeal to university and college governing boards to “hold their institutions accountable to the public purposes they need to fulfill” (p. 8-9). All of this is important, say the authors, if the nation is to continue to thrive and remain vital.

Nyden, P. (2003). Partnerships for collaborative action research. In Jacoby, B. & Associates (Ed.),Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 213-233.

(Qualitative/case study; description)

This chapter presents a collaborative university-community action research model that complements and supplements traditional research. In addition to distinguishing the collaborative research model from traditional, discipline-based research, it also draws finer distinctions between collaborative university-community action research and other participatory action research models. The author argues that as a form of service-learning, collaborative action research can help students understand the connections among knowledge, service, and social change. A case study of the Loyola University Chicago Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL) provides the foundation for a discussion of the challenges and opportunities of collaborative research.

Ostrander, S.A. (March 2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33 (1), pp. 74-93.

(Qualitative/case study; evaluation)

This article reports the findings of a comparative empirical study which set out to understand what different universities are doing in the realm of civic engagement, how they are doing it, and why. Four themes emerged from the study:

• The main components of engagement change as the work progresses and circumstances change;
• Local context affects civic engagement efforts and therefore must be understood and taken into consideration;
• An intellectual rationale and various intellectual projects are the way to involve faculty in this work; and
• New organizational structures are needed to develop and sustain reciprocal campus-community partnerships.

According to Ostrander, one motivation for faculty involvement in public work is the feeling of isolation and a loss of public meaning for what they do. They feel disconnected from pressing social issues and wish to incorporate relevance into their scholarly work. Among her findings, she found that different components of civic engagement (student learning, curriculum transformation, community-defined priorities, and knowledge production) emerge from the changing contexts both inside and outside of the university. In addition, local factors may facilitate or inhibit an institution’s ability to engage the community. Components that can mediate local factors include a mission statement containing clear civic engagement directives and a compelling reason to change the curriculum.

Ostrander’s third finding was that engagement must be integrated within the intellectual purpose of the institution, in particular knowledge creation. In other words, engagement must not be seen as separate from the scholarly work of the university, but must become a part of it. Without this integration, civic engagement will have difficulty establishing a foothold within the university and will not likely sustain. And last, campus-community partnerships must reflect shared power and material resources, and therefore may benefit from an intermediary organization, or a bridge person, that connects the school to the community. Thus, three rationales generally drive this work on campus: theories of pedagogy and personal transformation; theories of citizenship and democracy; and theories of institutional and social change through applied knowledge generated through community-campus partnerships.

Smith, W.D. (Summer 2003). Higher education, democracy, and the public sphere. Thought & Action, pp. 61-73.

(Scholarly; persuasive)

Smith contends that the financial troubles facing most colleges and universities are largely the result of a diminishing public sphere in America, noting that this decline has seen a corresponding disregard for those institutions that are most vital in creating the sphere. He states that the central feature of the public sphere is an ongoing set of conversations, and that institutions of higher education provide a venue for public conversations that are unlikely to take place elsewhere. In fact, the development of the public university was meant to create a population of educated citizens who would engage in public discourse, and therefore the continued vibrancy of public higher education is increasingly dependent on its responsibility for the public sphere. He goes on to say that a vibrant public sphere is essential to the health of the country, and therefore the higher education community needs to do a better job of establishing its importance for our democracy. Therefore, he argues that those within higher education should focus on preparing students for public participation and should orient research toward publicly relevant matters.

Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R. & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

(Scholarly, with examples of CBR; descriptive/persuasive)

The purpose of the book is to provide a how and why to incorporate community-based research (CBR) into the academic setting, which the authors contend provides an avenue for faculty to address the public events and conditions around them and “offers students adult responsibilities with real stakes” (p. xv). In defining CBR, the authors categorize it as “research that is conducted with and for, not on, members of a community” (p. xx). It is a collaborative form of research, in which research questions are defined through the needs of the community (which often does not have the resources or time to obtain such information), and with the purpose of affecting change. In essence, CBR combines traditional learning and skill development with social action that aims to empower community groups to become more entrepreneurial toward their needs. At the same time, CBR differs from most pedagogy in its concentration on the development of knowledge and skills that prepare students to be agents of civic activity.

The authors put forth three core tenets of CBR (p. 8):

• CBR is a collaborative enterprise between academic researchers (professors and students) and community members.
• CBR validates multiple sources of knowledge and promotes the use of multiple methods of discovery and dissemination of the knowledge produced.
• CBR has as its goal social action and social change for the purpose of achieving social justice.

In fact, the authors state, CBR places members of underserved communities at the heart of the knowledge discovery process: the research focus derives from the needs of the community instead of from the theoretical interests of the academic discipline. As such, “…some of what the community stands to gain from the project lies not only in the research results but also in the process through which the community members increase their capacity to undertake research independent of outside experts as well as stronger organizational, strategic, and other skills that empower the community” (p. 77).

The authors go on to identify five steps included in a social change project (p. 85): 1) choose a problem; 2) identify resources and solutions; 3) develop a plan; 4) implement the plan; 5) evaluate, and perhaps return to step one. At each of these steps, complete research projects can be completed. However, there are certain considerations that must be accounted for when designing the research project, such as the amount of training in research skills and methods among students and community members that will be required, and the constraints of the academic schedule. In addition, flexibility is key, as plans for collecting data or the type and size of the sample may need to be changed. One way of incorporating flexibility is by utilizing mixed methods, which may ensure that data can still be collected even when one predetermined method does not work out. But the important thing to remember, according to the authors, is that the focus of CBR must be on lived experiences and action that empowers both students and community members as researchers, something that rarely happens in conventional academic contexts. Thus, traditional “methodological orthodoxies are far less important here than using methods that are sensitive to the special characteristics of the people and situations being studied” (p. 140).

Sullivan, M., Kone, A., Senturia, K.D., Chrisman, N.J., Ciske, S.J., & Krieger, J.W.
(2001). Researcher and researched-community perspectives: Toward bridging the gap.
Health Education & Behavior, 28 (2), pp. 130-149.

(Qualitative; community-based research)

The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between those who do community-based research (CBR) and the communities they research. For this study, the authors examined CBR public health projects in the Seattle area, focusing on interview data from a sample composed of community members, community-based agency representatives who served as advisors to research projects, project staff (which included community organizers, research assistants and faculty), and principal investigators. As the authors state, there is a need to understand that CBR can result in harm done to communities, not just individuals within those communities. Therefore, in order to develop meaningful collaboration with communities, researchers first need to acknowledge the history of exploitive relationships between institutions and communities of color. In fact, informants believe that CBR projects are often based on pre-existing stereotypes about communities of color, which can include racist assumptions. Those in the sample suggested that researchers often misinterpret the cultural context of a community, which leads to further stigmatizing. Projects are strongly criticized for placing too much focus on the outcomes of disadvantage, rather than the root causes. Compounding this, projects often approach communities with a deficit model, rather than concentrating on building on the strengths that exist within the community.

In addition, power imbalances often interfere with the collaboration process, which can adversely affect the development of trust. When representatives of the community are only in the role of advisors, rather than decision-makers, it demonstrates a lack of respect. There needs to be a sharing of the expertise related to the project. Similarly, it is difficult for partnerships to emerge when funding for the projects, and control of the projects, are only in the hands of those coming from the institutions. Thus, projects should be community-driven, with members of the community included in the design of the project from the beginning. This also helps ensure the sustainability of collaborations.

Overcoming a lack of trust is difficult, given the awareness of historical mistreatment toward community members on the part of institutions. However, overcoming this lack of trust is paramount. Accordingly, building true partnerships takes time. In fact, those collaborations that reported the most success attributed the success in part to pre-existing, good relationships. One way to develop trust is for constant and sincere communication between the parties, including feedback on the results of the project. Another means to the development of trust is for the community to gain something tangible from the research project. In other words, the researchers must give back to the communities. Additionally, researchers cannot ignore issues of race, class, gender, and power that exist within the communities and between the institutions and the communities. These issues must be addressed if successful collaboration is to emerge.

Thornton, C.H. & Jaeger, A.J. (2007). A new context for understanding civic responsibility: Relating culture to action at a research university. Research in Higher Education, 48 (8), pp. 993-1020.

(Ethnography; description)

The purpose of this study is to identify institution-wide ideologies toward civic responsibility at a research university; to understand how organizational culture serves as a bridge between ideology and action; and to evaluate how ideology and culture can be used to compare institutional variations toward civic responsibility. The authors utilize Swidler’s (1986) theory of ideology and action as their conceptual framework to assess the civic culture at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Although this study is not a true ethnography, ethnographic methods were used.

Thornton and Jaeger found that “University of the people” was a slogan cited by most informants as a cultural tool that helps to link the university to the public. It alludes both to the university’s responsibility to the people of North Carolina, and to the sense of egalitarianism between those on and off campus. The culture on campus is also seen as supporting activism – many informants pointed to the choice of controversial books for the school’s summer reading program as being emblematic of this. Accordingly, the democratic values most often highlighted by informants were free inquiry and expression. However, the institution was critiqued for a number of factors that do not align with a sense of democratic responsibility, such as not developing students’ social justice orientation. In addition, some question whether the public ideology of civic responsibility on campus is genuine when the student population is predominantly white and access to admission is highly restrictive.

In speeches, the Chancellor frequently mentioned that the university has a duty to model responsible citizenship. However, many perceived that the university rarely acted as such a model. For instance, although students are passionate about their engagement work, they rarely become community advocates for the issues they are concerned about. Overall, the study revealed that civic responsibility was identified typically in two ways by informants: helping out the community and speaking up on issues. These two dimensions align with the cultural tools available at the university.

Other: Downloads and Links

Learning Power: Organizing for Education and Justice. A 2006 book by Jeannie Oakes and John Rogers, with Martin Lipton documenting a radical approach to school reform. Oakes is Presidential Professor in Educational Equity and Director of UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (IDEA). Rogers is Associate Director of IDEA and founding editor of the online journal Teaching to Change LA. Lipton is Communications Analyst at IDEA and a former public high school teacher. Chapter 3: Participatory Social Inquiry: What John Dewey Offers Equity Reformers [download pg. 34] [pg. 35] [pg. 36] [pg. 37] [pg. 38] [pg. 39] [pg. 40] [pg. 41] [pg. 42]

Community-Engaged Scholarship: Is Faculty Work in Communities a True Academic Enterprise? [download article]

Community-Engaged Scholarship in Higher Education: Have We Reached the Tipping Point? Presented at the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative Invitational Symposium By Judith A. Ramaley, Winona State University. [download article]

Scholarship and Mission in the 21st Century University: The Role of Engagement. By Barbara A. Holland, Senior Scholar, Center for Service and Learning, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. [download article]

A Conference Report: A Collective Initiative of Representatives of Research Universities and Campus Compact to Renew the Civic Mission of Higher Education. Published by Tufts University and Campus Compact.
• Research Universities and Civic Engagement: A New Voice for Leadership [download article]
• New Times Demand New Scholarship [download article]
• Engaged Scholarship: A Powerful Force for Civic Engagement [download article]
• Why Engaged Scholarship is Important [download article]
• What Individual Research Universities Can Do [download article]
• What Leaders at Research Universities Can Do [download article]

Do It for Dewey: Daily Princetonian op-ed piece on Civic Engagement [download article]< /p>

The Ginsberg Center at the University of Michigan Forum on Community Learning for a Diverse Democracy. Below are several of the lectures presented during that session.
• Provost Seminar on Teaching, Ginsberg Center, January 2001 [view article]
• First John Dewey Lecture by Dr. Ira Harkavy, Univ. of Pennsylvania [view article]
• Second John Dewey Lecture by Dr. Judith Ramaley, Univ. of Vermont [view article]
• Third John Dewey Lecture by Dr. Harry Boyte, University of Minnesota [view article]
• Fifth John Dewey Lecture (2006) by Dr. George Sanchez, USC [view article]
• Sixth John Dewey Lecture by Dr. Charles Payne, Duke University [view article]