Lina D. Dostilio, Duquesne UniversityNeivin M. Shalabi, University of Denver

Tracy M. Soska, University of Pittsburgh

EXPLORING COMMUNITY- UNIVERSITY

PARTNERSHIPS THROUGH MULTIPLE FRAMEWORKS

How does research assist in crossing boundaries between campus and community partners?

1. Consideration of Enos and Morton’s Theory of University-Community Partnerships

2. Application of Democratic Engagement to Community-University Partnerships

3. Exploration of Pragmatic Community-University Partnerships from Frameworks of Collaborationand Social Capital

CONSIDERATION OF ENOS AND MORTON’S THEORY OF

UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Neivin Shalabi

Campus-Community Partnerships: Enos and Morton’s (2003) Theory Transactional and transformative

relationships Typology for the development of

campus-community partnerships Directions for future research Areas of convergence & divergence

Transactional Relationships Operate within existing structures in

which partners connect together because each has something that the other perceives as useful,

Instrumental and project-based, Characterized by limited commitments

and minimum disruption of the regular work of the parties involved,

By the end, partners feel contented with the outcomes, but not much changed.

Transformative Relationships Progress in less defined manners, Expectations that things may be altered

and order may be disrupted, Characterized by genuine and long-term

commitments, Partners reflect deeply on their

organizations and examine the way they define and comprehend problems,

Lead to the development of new values and identities for partners.

Typology for Development of Campus-Community Partnerships

One-time events and projects

Short-term placements

Ongoing Placements, mutual dependence

Core partnerships, interdependence

Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledgeD

epth

and

Com

plex

ity

Time

Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-Learning (pp. 20-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (p. 27)

Adaptation

Sizes of the levels are reversed to reflect the expected time for each level,

Directions of the axes are reserved to indicate positive signs and growth,

Directions of the levels are reversed to show the development of each level over time.

One-time events and projects

Short-term placements

Ongoing Placements, mutual dependence

Core partnerships, interdependence

Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledge

Time

Dep

th a

nd C

ompl

exity

Shalabi, N. (2010). University-community service-learning partnerships. Paper Presented to the Committee Members of the Doctoral Comprehensive Examination Paper Proposal at the Morgridge College of Education. The University of Denver. (p. 9).

Critical Question? Are transformative relationships

appropriate for all types of university-community engagement???

Research Findings Bushouse’s (2005) study: community

participants explicitly expressed their strong inclination to developing transactional relationships with the partnering universities.

Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison’s (2010) study: faculty repeatedly described their relationships with community partners as transactional, with some hoping for transformational relationships.

Scholarly Arguments Expectations for transformational

relationships—if they are neither desired nor convenient to one partner—may paralyze the relationships which operate successfully at the transactional level (Clayton et al., 2010).

So Now What? Should we give up our aspirations for

transformative partnerships between the academy and the community???

NO, rather We need to be careful not to make broad

generalizations; each partnership is unique.

It is critical that university and community partners discuss the goals and expectations of their partnerships at the initiation phase of their collaborations.

The barriers to developing partnerships must be confronted and addressed.

The goals and aspirations of each partner must be honored.

Critical Questions & Suggestions for Future Research What are the institutional/organizational

factors that facilitate the development of transformative partnerships between universities and community-based organizations?

What hinders the progress toward transformation? Are there logistic, institutional, cultural, or capacity barriers?

Future research should solicit the perspectives of all the parties involved.

APPLICATION OF DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT TO

COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS

Lina D. Dostilio

Democratic Engagement Framework

Collaborative, problem oriented work that yields

knowledge generation and

discovery

Minimized Dichotomy between

C & U

Inclusivity

Reciprocit

y

Respect

Process of Partnering

Democratic Engagement Whitepaper: Saltmarsh et al., 2009

Roles, Processes, and Purposes

Roles

• Community & university stakeholders as equal status solution generators

• All seen as having capability to contribute to knowledge generation and discovery

Processes

• Inclusivity• Collaboration• Reciprocity• Collaborative

knowledge generation

Purposes

• Alleviating public problems

• Building a just and democratic society

• Marshalling transformation within academy’s valued knowledge framework, research, and teaching

Building Out: Making Extensions How do community and

university stakeholders arrive at such roles and processes?

Prilleltensky’s (1994) Empowerment Theory

Friere’s (1970)concept of Dialogic Action

EXPLORING PRAGMATIC COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY

PARTNERSHIPS FROMFRAMEWORKS OF COLLABORATION

AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

Tracy Soska

DEFINITION Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and

well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals

This relationship includes commitment to:Definition of mutual relationship and goalsJointly develop structure and share

responsibilityMutual authority and accountability for successSharing of resources and rewards

DEFINITION SOCIAL CAPITAL (Robert Putnam)

“…social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations.” (Making Democracy Work, 2000, 1993 and reinforced in Bowling Alone, )

Community Practice Theories in Collaborations and Partnerships Systems and Organizational Theory Social Learning Theory Reality Constructionist Social Exchange and Network Theory Inter-organizational Theory Community Building – Assets & Capacities Consensus Organizing strategies

Factors Affecting Collaboration Wilder Foundation Collaboration Research study

(Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey; 2001) Distilled and Benchmarked best practices Identified 20 factors in successful collaborations Dynamic Tensions in Collaborations (Mizrahi and

Rosenthal; 1994) Frameworks for understanding and assessing

university-community partnerships HUD Community Outreach Partnership Centers Community Building and Consensus Organizing

Environmental Factors History of Collaboration or cooperation

in communitycreating a common community narrative, Inter-organizational relations

Collaborative Group seen as leaderOpportunities for social exchangeStrong network

Favorable social/political climate

Membership Factors Mutual Respect, understanding, trust

Lao Tse on TrustOpen Systems - reciprocityDialogues of partnership

Appropriate cross section of communityExchange opportunities and strong network

Collaboration in self-interest Ability to compromise

ReciprocityBalancing power

Process & Structure Factors Stake in both process and outcomes Multiple levels of decision-making Flexibility Clear roles and policies Adaptability

Communications Factors Open and Frequent Communications

Open systemsExchange networks

Formal and informal communicationsOpportunities for exchange across and

within partnersBuilding the common narrative

Factors of Purpose Concrete, attainable goals and

objectivesDoable, winnable

Shared VisionOrganizational domain

Unique purposeInter-organizational work – can do best

jointly

Resource Factors Sufficient support

FundingIn-kind

Skilled ConvenerManaging relations and exchangesCreating powerful narratives

Dynamic Tensions - Challenges Collaboration isn’t a natural act

– Cooperation v. Conflict Mixed Loyalties – Partnership v.

Organization Unity v. Diversity

Goal differences v. ideological differencesManaging power and resource differentialsManaging diversity

Consensus Organizing (Eichler)

Convergence Reciprocity

Power relationships

Transformation

Reciprocity Enos and Morton(2003): - Share one community, - Academic expertise may be challenged by

the collective experience of all the parties, Saltmarsh, Hartley, and Clayton (2009):

“Democratic engagement seeks the public good with the public and not merely for the public as a means to facilitating a more active and engaged democracy” (p. 7).

Reciprocity (Cont.)- Reconceptualization of knowledge

construction: inclusive, collaborative, flows in multi directions

Pragmatic framework:- Social capital is best strengthened when it

is grounded in a network of reciprocal social relationships (Putnam, 1993, 2001).

- partners should share a shared vision and a stake in both the process and outcomes (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001).

Power Enos and Morton (2003): - Community perspective, - Ongoing assessment Saltmarsh et al. (2009): - Called for an “epistemological shift that values not

only expert knowledge that is rational, analytic, and positivist, but also values a different kind of rationality that is relational, localized, and contextualized and favors mutual deference between lay persons and academics” (p. 10).

Pragmatic framework: - Pays explicit attention to the level and amount of

power among all the parties (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1994).

Transformation Enos and Morton (2003): - Implications for students, faculty, and

community members Saltmarsh et al. (2009): - “Second-order” change Pragmatic framework: - Co-learning experience leading to negotiated

change in both the campus and the community.

Divergence

Means to reach ends: - Enos and Morton (2003):

Interdependence - Saltmarsh et al. (2009):

Democracy & Politics - Pragmatic framework:

Capacity building

Activity & Place

Process & Purpose

Collaborative Knowledge Construction (p. 9)

Mutuality vs. Reciprocity (p. 9)

Public Culture of Democracy (p. 10) and Deliberative Democracy (p. 11)

One-time events and projects (p. 26) X Little opportunity to construct knowledge No relationship; no discovery process between

partnersAffirms current perspectives; does not encourage diverse, contested perspectives

Short-term placements (p. 27) X

Used to “affirm existing academic knowledge” (p. 68); simple logistical problems are generated related to the implementation of the activity – unlikely to create new knowledge

Community and university stakeholders are “sympathetic… observers” (p. 28) of one another; puts strain on resources of both community and university;

Politically neutral

Ongoing placements, mutual dependence (p. 28) X

Appreciation of the other’s constituencies, “ethical and existential dilemmas” (p. 28); joint strategy development and joint capacity development; academic expertise and preeminent role as knowledge producer may be challenged

Mutual dependence; exploration of each other’s missions and interest; navigation of expectations of the partnership

Academic neutrality is difficult to maintain because of increasing empathy with partner

Critical moment: domain assumption is challenged (i.e. communities are domain of problems; universities are domain of solutions)

Core partnerships, interdependence (p. 30) X

“Each contributes experience and knowledge…knowledge is held to the test of whether it works in both campus and community arenas.” (p. 30). Knowledge is evaluated in terms of usefulness.

Interdependence; stakeholders understand each other’s interests; risks are taken; mutual learning is an implicit or explicit goal of the partnership.

Partners critically examine how they exist in the world.

Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledge (p. 30)

X Their shared work is likely to change both stakeholders; stakeholders mutually define the issues on which they will work together; joint knowledge creation

Shared context; interested in joint transformation

Potential for transformation of community at large; engaged in the work of civic renewal

Complementary Nature of Enos and Morton’s Typology and Democratic Engagement

Building Social Capital & Partnership A Democratic Participatory Model (Putnam, R.;

Making Democracy Work, 2000, 1993) Supported by Social Exchange Networks Builds and Strengthens Relationships of

Commonality across differences – Consensus Builds on Assets and Capacities of partners Accentuates Collaborative factors for success Reduces adverse dynamic tensions

Thank you & Contact Info. Lina D. Dostilio

Duquesne UniversitydostilioL@duq.edu

Neivin M. ShalabiUniversity of Denver nshalabi@du.edu

Tracy M. Soska University of Pittsburgh

tsssw@pitt.edu