Community Engagement: Whatʼs the Difference Between Service Learning, Community Service, and Community-Based Research?

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Reynolds
2003 ◽  
Vol os-20 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Cunningham ◽  
Kerry E. Vachta

Brulle (2000) has noted the failure of the recent literature in critical theory to reflect the commitment of its founders to applying their philosophical and theoretical scholarship to create concrete social change. The authors have taken up the challenge to recover critical theory's “forgotten materialist component” and simultaneously responded to the call to reinvigorate the civic mission of the public university through efforts to integrate critical theory with community service learning and community-based research. The paper discusses historical, philosophical and theoretical issues in this effort and some reflections on our attempt to apply them in practice through the revitalization of the Center for Community Action and Research at Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg.


Author(s):  
Francisco Ibáñez-Carrasco ◽  
Catherine Worthington ◽  
Sean Rourke ◽  
Colin Hastings

(1) Background: Although HIV has not diminished in importance in Canada, the field of HIV research remains small, and the graduate students who decide to pursue careers within it feel isolated and uncertain about their professional skills and opportunities. Universities Without Walls (UWW) was created in 2009 to help redress these shortcomings. This paper presents a case study of UWW, a non-credit training program for emerging HIV researchers in Canada. In particular, we focus on the possibilities of experiential learning via online and blended delivery. UWW uses both online and in-person teaching modalities to teach engaged scholarship, interdisciplinarity, community-based research (CBR), intervention research, and ethics. (2) Methods: Using a case study, we elucidated the research question: “What are the factors that make Universities Without Walls a viable training environment in the contemporary HIV/AIDS field?” Focus groups were conducted with 13 UWW key stakeholders in 2012 during a program mid-point evaluation; in 2014, telephone or in-person interviews with the three directors were conducted by a UWW fellow (the 4th author of this paper), and in 2019 the authors analyzed the information and anecdotal evidence, which had been incorporated as thick description. In addition, fellows’ self-assessments via portfolio and results from formal learning assessments were included. We also thematically analyzed 65 student self-reports (2009–2015). (3) Results and Discussion: Each UWW cohort lasted 9 months to one year and was comprised of: a) sustained mentorship from the co-directors (e.g., phone conversations, assistance with grant writing, letters of reference, etc.); b) fortnightly online webinars that aim to develop fellows’ knowledge of community-based research (CBR), research ethics, intervention research, and interdisciplinary research; c) community service learning in the form of a “field mentoring placement”; d) face-to-face engagement with fellows and mentors, most notably at the week-long culminating learning institute; e) a stipend for fellows to carry out their training activities. The UWW pedagogical framework features experiential learning, critical pedagogy, and heutagogy made manifest in the field mentoring placements (community service learning), mentorship mediated by technologies, and in-person learning institutes. Our analysis showed that experiential learning was imparted by UWW’s a) transparency about its “implicit curriculum”, the attitudes, values, character, and professional identity imparted in the program as well as the overarching programmatic elements, such as commitment to diversity, the inclusion of those with lived experience, the flexible admissions policies and procedures, interdisciplinary faculty, flexible team, administrative structure, and valuing of technology in conducting research, learning, and teaching; b) curriculum co-designing and co-teaching, and c) sustaining a community of practice. The main results reported in our case study included significant “soft outcomes” for UWW fellows, such as developing a “social presence” as a precursor to lasting professional connections; learning to experience community-based research, intersectionality, and interdisciplinarity by interacting online with persons living with HIV, leaders in the field, and a variety of stakeholders (including nonprofit staff and policymakers). (4) Limitations: While fellows’ self-evaluation data were collected by an independent assessor and anonymized to the extent this was possible, the co-authors inevitably bring their preconceptions and positive biases to UWW’s assessment. As UWW was developed to function outside of traditional academic structures, it is unlikely that the UWW program could be transferred to a post-secondary environment in its entirety. UWW was also built for the socio-political environment of HIV health research. (5) Conclusions: The experiences of those involved with UWW demonstrate that explicit curricular components—such as interdisciplinarity, community-based research, intervention research, and applied ethics—can be learned through a blended delivery when combined with opportunities to apply the knowledge in ways, such as a field mentoring placement and a learning institute. Related to this outcome, our case study describes that implicit curricular components in the formation of a professional—the sense of self in the field as a researcher, student, and community member—can also be delivered through a blended model. However, the tools and activities need to be tailored to each student for their context, while pushing their disciplinarian and professional boundaries.


2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 384-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl Keen ◽  
Elizabeth Baldwin

Community‐based research has been suggested as a particularly effective form of service learning in college‐community collaborations. This paper reviews findings from interviews with alumni/ae and community partners of an environmental and economic sustainability center at Allegheny College in Northwest Pennsylvania, the Center for Economic and Environmental Development (CEED). CEED's community‐based research projects have spanned the natural and social sciences to analyze water quality, reduce waste streams and local energy consumption, identify environmental problems and enhance forest management. Interviews with alumni/ae point to the valued real world experience, enhanced cognitive development, and improved communication skills for students. Community partners valued new information and networks resulting from research and stressed the contribution they were making to college students' learning. Community‐based research projects can benefit from interviewees' recommendations to increase continuity, clarity of purpose, and follow‐through in projects, while maximizing opportunities for dialogue between community partners and students. Community‐based research may have a strong contribution to make to students' cognitive, academic, social, civic and career development.


Author(s):  
Susan Haarman ◽  
Patrick M Green

One of the fundamental questions of power in the pedagogy of community-based research (CBR) is who gets to decide what is research worthy and what is the focus of CBR questions? The reality of the power imbalance in community-based research and learning is often reflective of a systemic disengagement with the broader community. Even when instructors and administrators are intentional in how they solicit feedback or think through the impact of their work, they may not know the neighbourhood. Prioritising the voice of community partners does not provide a simple solution, as the individuals we work with to organise community-based learning opportunities may not be residents of the neighbourhood. This article adopts a theory-building approach to this crucial question. Building on the work of Boyte (2014) and Honig (2017), community-based research is reoriented as ‘public work for public things’ (Haarman 2020). After establishing the ‘public work for public things’ framework, the article explores how this new framework impacts collaborative research by addressing the power differential and creating new lines of inquiry – specifically the practice of ‘elicitation of concerns’. Through the lens of critical service-learning pedagogy (Mitchell 2008) and a practitioner-scholar framework (Lytle 2008; Ravitch 2013; Salipante & Aram 2003), we then interrogate two community-based research courses we have recently taught, examining how a ‘public work for public things’ approach would have altered the course and its methods.


Author(s):  
Christopher Hrynkow ◽  
Maria Power

In the Exchanges, we present conversations with scholars and practitioners of community engagement, responses to previously published material, and other reflections on various aspects of community-engaged scholarship meant to provoke further dialogue and discussion. In this issue Christopher Hrynkow talks to Maria C. Power about her community-based research and her vision for engaged scholarship as undertaken by religious historians. Dr. Maria Power, PhD (History, Royal Holloway), is a lecturer in Religion and Peace Building at the Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool. Her research focuses on the relationship of faith to politics, especially in areas of conflict, and the role that religious organisations play in peacebuilding


2015 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Botha

Does the current community engagement project, of the Department of Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology at the University of South Africa (UNISA), respond to the conceptual discourse on community engagement? Informed by this question this article’s objective is two-pronged. Firstly, an attempt is made to locate the project’s beginning in a proper historical perspective by engaging the initial ministry of the Department with homeless people. The narrative about the work of a Mennonite couple is told by structuring it around the dimensions of agency (identification or insertion), context analysis, strategies for mission and theological reflection or in simple terms, the reading of the Bible. Secondly, this article proceeds by subjecting both the initial ministry with homeless people and the community engagement project, in its current form, to the scrutiny of three high ranking publications from the Higher Education Quality Committee in collaboration with JET Education Services, the Council on Higher Education and a handbook on service learning in South Africa on the conceptual clarification of service learning and community engagement. As the documents reveal some difference of opinion amongst the experts, the bottom-line is that unless the interaction between the academy and the community (homeless people) is a consistent, sustainable, reciprocal and mutual process aimed at creating a genuine learning community, the project is called into question. A further issue is that the engagement between the parties must find reflection in what is taught – students or learners are to benefit from this – and researched.


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Nandan

This article describes a service learning project implemented jointly by undergraduate and high school students during summer.  The service learning project was designed through a Summer Research Institute hosted at a Midwestern University; the institute encouraged faculty to recruit undergraduate students who would partner with area high school students to conduct a community-based research project in their field of interest.  The article describes the partnership between students, as well as the experiential learning that occurred during: research topic identification, literature analysis, planning and implementing a mixed-methodology community-based research project, and during the qualitative and quantitative data analysis, by students.  Using a mosaic theory, the students inferred relationships between three apparently unrelated spheres of their research: challenges faced by youth in the community, financial health of social services for youth, and corporate philanthropy for youth services.  Recommendations for designing creative academic, experiential and service learning projects are offered for all educators. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document