Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to PARTNERSHIPS
description
Transcript of Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to PARTNERSHIPS
Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to
PARTNERSHIPS
Patti H. Clayton, Bob Bringle, & Barbara Jacoby
IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research
Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment
Vol 2A: Students & Faculty Vol 2B: Communities, Institutions, &
Partnerships (Stylus 2013)
Theory
Design
Practice
Measurement
Focusing on theory“Bringle (2003) has advocated for theory from cognate areas to be clearly used as a basis of research. These could include theories from psychology about motivation, interpersonal relationships, and cognitive and moral development; from business about interorganizational relationships, leadership, and change management; from philosophy about value systems and decision-making; from political theory about individual and collective action; from history about social movements; from communication about conflict resolution.”
Focusing on theory
“The theory or conceptual framework might precede the data collection, or it might emerge from or be modified based on data analysis and interpretation. Procedures for measuring quantitative or qualitative aspects of attributes do not stand alone, and their meaningfulness is often a function of how solidly they are situated in theory.”
Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment
• I. STUDENTS• II. FACULTY• III. COMMUNITIES• IV. INSTITUTIONS• V. PARTNERSHIPS
Section: PARTNERSHIPS• Conceptual frameworks• Organizational partnerships• Student partnerships
Chapter template• Theoretical / conceptual frameworks• Critical review of past research• Measurement approaches and instruments• Implications for practice• Future research agenda• Recommended reading
Lets do some of this same thinking together ….
Critical review of research to date: PARTNERSHIPS
(+) ( )Δ
Participants?Authors?
Conceptual Frameworks for Partnerships in Service Learning
Robert G. Bringle, Ph.D., Phil.D.Appalachian State University
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Patti Clayton, Ph.D.PHC Ventures
Indiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro
New England Resource Center for Higher Education, UMass-Boston
Gaps/Issues in Research/Theory• Neglect of partnerships• Campus-Community: Unit of Analysis• “Relationships” vs. “Partnerships”• Outcomes must be “equal”• LOTS of descriptive research• Can they be measured?• Can they be analyze?• Can they be improved (is that
desirable, always?)?
Relationship > Partnership
Theoretical Perspectives• Exchange Theory (Bringle & Hatcher)• Transactional/Transformational (Enos &
Morton)• Identity and Relationships (Social
Psychology)• Negotiated Order Theory (Dorado & Giles)
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
Theoretical Lens: Exchange Theory
• Relationships: Between persons• Outcomes = fn( Rewards – Costs)• Categories of Outcomes: Trust & Respect• Attraction = fn( Outcomes – Comparison Level)• Dependency = fn( Outcomes – Comparison Level for
Alternatives)• Closeness = fn(Frequency of interaction, Diversity of
interaction, Interdependency)• Equity: Similarity in ratio of outcomes/inputs• Transition from “My Outcomes” to “Our Outcomes”• Mini-Max Principle• Relationship Phases: (a) “shopping” (b) initiation, (c)
development, (d) maintenance, (e) dissolution
Recommendations for Future Research: Relationships
• Expand perspective of relationships beyond “campus-community partnership”
• SOFAR model
–Student
–Organizational staff
–Faculty
–Administrators on campus
–Residents or clients
SOFAR
Students
Faculty Administrators
Community Organizatio
n
Community Residents
10
1
2
3
4
5
678
9
SOFAR
Recommendations for Future Research: Measurement
TRES-I: 9-item self-report– Content
• outcomes, • common goals, • decision making, • resources, • conflict• management, • identity formation, • power, significance, • satisfaction and• change for the better
-Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010, MJCSL
Recommendations for Future Research: Measurement
TRES-I (Faculty respondents only)
• r = .63 with Venn measure of closeness
• r = .56 with composite measure of closeness
• Desired > Current
-Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010, MJCSL
Research: Additional Directions
• Need to collect data from the rest of SOFAR’s relationships
• Need longitudinal studies
• Need to consider perspective
Partnership Analysis
Person 1Person 2
Actual Similarity
P1 perception of P2 P2 perception of P1
Perceived Similarity
Perceived Similarity
Understanding
Research: Additional Directions• Can use SOFAR to analyze partnership qualities and deliberative dialog
about improvement, if appropriate– Dewey emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interactions in
building relationships and a sense of community, but how critical are they in a world of increasing technology-assisted communication?
• Can compare quality of relationship(s) to other data sources– archival– records of communications– decisions about the distribution
of resources
Research: Additional Directions• Compare networks (more extensive vs.
less extensive)• Study relationships over time• Compare to evidence of success and
regression– performance indicators– program outcomes– student learning– constituency satisfaction– quality of life indicators
Research: Additional Directions
• Waller’s Principle of Least Interest• Focus on “casualties”• Regression and growth• TransactionTransformation• Differences in expectations• Measurement as an intervention– Network mapping by constituencies
Student Partnerships in Service Learning: More Questions than
Answers
Barbara Jacoby, [email protected]
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
• The Foundational Work of Dewey and Freire• Student Development Theories and Frameworks
*Musil’s 6 Phases of Citizenship*Social Change Model of Leadership Development*Peer Education/Leadership*Youth Empowerment
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
• Community-Campus Partnerships as Models for Student Partnerships
*SOFAR, TRES*Campus Compact’s Benchmarks for
Campus/Community Partnerships*CCPH’s Principles of Good Community- Campus
Partnerships.
Social Change Model of Leadership Development
Individual
• Consciousness of self • Congruence• Commitment
Social Change Model of Leadership Development
Group• Collaboration• Common purpose• Controversy with civility
Community• Citizenship
Social Change Model of Leadership Development
Ultimate goal: CHANGE
SCM Potential Research Questions• What is it about student partnerships in SL that leads to
these desired outcomes? Is it the type of activity, the duration, the intensity, the reflection?
• Do students who serve as partners in SL achieve any of these outcomes to a greater extent than students who are only participants?
• Do student participants advance in the 7 Cs to a greater extent if student partners serve as peer leaders?
• Questions?• Ideas?• Implications?