{"title":"Teach the Partnership: Critical University Studies and the Future of Service-Learning","authors":"D. Fine","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Edward Zlotkowski's (1995) article \"Does Service-Learning Have a Future?\" challenges the academy to integrate community-engaged learning into the curriculum. As Zlotkowski suggests, students, staff, and faculty ought to engender a culture of civic action and ethical accountability enhanced by rigorous coursework, but this goal necessitates resources: administrators must invest in service-learning to reap its full benefits. Issues arise, however, when one considers this investment in light of the academy's corporatization. Nussbaum (2010) has noted, for instance, how colleges and universities increasingly emphasize vocational training and professional readiness at the expense of humanist inquiry and civic responsibility. The academy's corporatization, she argues, threatens to erode the skills at the heart of democratic citizenship. Williams (2012) likewise censures this market-driven academy \"with research progressively governed more by corporations that fund and benefit from it, with faculty downsized and casualized, and with students reconstituted as consumers subject to escalating tuition and record levels of debt\" (p. 25). He insists that students, staff, and faculty must engage critically with these unsettling trends in higher education--an appeal, I argue, service-learning educators in particular must heed. As higher education, deeply influenced by neoliberalism's pressures to marketize, adopts the structure and value systems of big business, it risks placing private interest before public concern. This danger, even more acute twenty-one years after the publication of Zlotkowski's article, underscores the need for a reassessment of the institutional means by which service-learning happens. \"Perhaps,\" Zlotkowski (2015) wonders in his framing essay for the Future Directions Project, \"there is a fundamental mismatch at the heart of our work that we have not wanted to recognize\" (p. 84). Higher education may not prove the best location, after all, from which to effect progressive democratic change. In what follows, I stay the course with this provocation and argue that service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) educators must teach their partnerships--the specific histories, missions, and stakeholders involved--and thereby contextualize SLCE within the often problematic forces at work within and upon higher education. I thus call on the movement to interrogate, pedagogically, the motivations behind institutional \"commitments\" to SLCE and to account, ethically, for the economic and social privilege animating this service. Consider the Means To look back on the past twenty years and forward to the next is to acknowledge higher education's rapid corporatization and internationalization. I recommend that SLCE educators engage with the academy's globalization--the process whereby higher education assumes a corporate mentality and expands its reach internationally--by designing instruction in the vein of critical university studies (CUS). CUS is an emerging field that examines higher education in light of its history and cultural context. CUS analyzes both historical shifts in conceptions of the academy and contemporary issues such as adjunct labor and student debt, thereby \"examining the university as both a discursive and material reality\" (Williams, 2012, para. 10). CUS is interdisciplinary by nature and gives students the opportunity to analyze both higher education and specific institutions through a lens that is particularly relevant given the current trends toward corporatization and internationalization. Indeed, conversations about their school's history, governance, and endowment position students, staff, faculty, and, especially in the case of SLCE, community members to think about the ethical dimensions of the academy's presence and impact in broader publics. While this sort of dialogue may well happen in SLCE classrooms around the world, the explicit inclusion of CUS in SLCE programming aims to make these conversations more intentional and concrete. …","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"20 1","pages":"107-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan journal of community service learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Edward Zlotkowski's (1995) article "Does Service-Learning Have a Future?" challenges the academy to integrate community-engaged learning into the curriculum. As Zlotkowski suggests, students, staff, and faculty ought to engender a culture of civic action and ethical accountability enhanced by rigorous coursework, but this goal necessitates resources: administrators must invest in service-learning to reap its full benefits. Issues arise, however, when one considers this investment in light of the academy's corporatization. Nussbaum (2010) has noted, for instance, how colleges and universities increasingly emphasize vocational training and professional readiness at the expense of humanist inquiry and civic responsibility. The academy's corporatization, she argues, threatens to erode the skills at the heart of democratic citizenship. Williams (2012) likewise censures this market-driven academy "with research progressively governed more by corporations that fund and benefit from it, with faculty downsized and casualized, and with students reconstituted as consumers subject to escalating tuition and record levels of debt" (p. 25). He insists that students, staff, and faculty must engage critically with these unsettling trends in higher education--an appeal, I argue, service-learning educators in particular must heed. As higher education, deeply influenced by neoliberalism's pressures to marketize, adopts the structure and value systems of big business, it risks placing private interest before public concern. This danger, even more acute twenty-one years after the publication of Zlotkowski's article, underscores the need for a reassessment of the institutional means by which service-learning happens. "Perhaps," Zlotkowski (2015) wonders in his framing essay for the Future Directions Project, "there is a fundamental mismatch at the heart of our work that we have not wanted to recognize" (p. 84). Higher education may not prove the best location, after all, from which to effect progressive democratic change. In what follows, I stay the course with this provocation and argue that service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) educators must teach their partnerships--the specific histories, missions, and stakeholders involved--and thereby contextualize SLCE within the often problematic forces at work within and upon higher education. I thus call on the movement to interrogate, pedagogically, the motivations behind institutional "commitments" to SLCE and to account, ethically, for the economic and social privilege animating this service. Consider the Means To look back on the past twenty years and forward to the next is to acknowledge higher education's rapid corporatization and internationalization. I recommend that SLCE educators engage with the academy's globalization--the process whereby higher education assumes a corporate mentality and expands its reach internationally--by designing instruction in the vein of critical university studies (CUS). CUS is an emerging field that examines higher education in light of its history and cultural context. CUS analyzes both historical shifts in conceptions of the academy and contemporary issues such as adjunct labor and student debt, thereby "examining the university as both a discursive and material reality" (Williams, 2012, para. 10). CUS is interdisciplinary by nature and gives students the opportunity to analyze both higher education and specific institutions through a lens that is particularly relevant given the current trends toward corporatization and internationalization. Indeed, conversations about their school's history, governance, and endowment position students, staff, faculty, and, especially in the case of SLCE, community members to think about the ethical dimensions of the academy's presence and impact in broader publics. While this sort of dialogue may well happen in SLCE classrooms around the world, the explicit inclusion of CUS in SLCE programming aims to make these conversations more intentional and concrete. …
Edward Zlotkowski(1995)的文章“服务学习有未来吗?”挑战学院将社区参与式学习整合到课程中。正如兹洛特科夫斯基所建议的那样,学生、教职员工和教师应该创造一种公民行动和道德责任的文化,通过严格的课程来加强,但这一目标需要资源:管理者必须投资于服务学习,以获得其全部收益。然而,当人们考虑到学院的公司化时,问题就出现了。例如,努斯鲍姆(2010)注意到,高校如何越来越多地强调职业培训和职业准备,而牺牲人文主义探究和公民责任。她认为,学院的公司化可能会侵蚀民主公民的核心技能。威廉姆斯(2012)同样谴责这种以市场为导向的学院,“研究越来越多地由资助并从中受益的公司控制,教师被裁员和下岗,学生被重组为消费者,受制于不断上涨的学费和创纪录的债务水平”(第25页)。他坚持认为,学生、教职员工和教师必须批判性地参与高等教育中这些令人不安的趋势——我认为,服务学习教育者尤其必须注意这一呼吁。由于高等教育深受新自由主义市场化压力的影响,采用了大企业的结构和价值体系,它有将私人利益置于公众利益之上的风险。在Zlotkowski的文章发表21年后,这种危险甚至更加尖锐,强调了重新评估服务学习发生的制度手段的必要性。“也许,”Zlotkowski(2015)在他为《未来方向项目》撰写的框架文章中想知道,“在我们工作的核心,有一种根本的不匹配,我们一直不想认识到”(第84页)。毕竟,高等教育可能不是实现渐进式民主变革的最佳场所。在接下来的文章中,我将继续这一挑衅,并认为服务学习和社区参与(SLCE)教育者必须教授他们的伙伴关系——具体的历史、使命和所涉及的利益相关者——从而将SLCE置于高等教育内部和外部经常出现问题的力量中。因此,我呼吁这一运动从教学的角度,对社会教育机构“承诺”背后的动机进行质询,并从道德上解释这种服务的经济和社会特权。回顾过去二十年,展望未来,必须承认高等教育的快速公司化和国际化。我建议SLCE的教育工作者通过设计关键大学研究(CUS)的教学来参与学院的全球化——高等教育采用企业思维并扩大其国际影响力的过程。CUS是一个新兴的领域,它根据高等教育的历史和文化背景来研究高等教育。CUS分析了学院概念的历史转变和当代问题,如兼职劳动和学生债务,从而“将大学作为话语和物质现实进行研究”(Williams, 2012,第18段)。10)。CUS本质上是跨学科的,为学生提供了通过当前公司化和国际化趋势特别相关的镜头来分析高等教育和特定机构的机会。事实上,关于学校历史、治理和捐赠的对话使学生、教职员工,尤其是SLCE的社区成员,思考学院存在的道德层面和对更广泛公众的影响。虽然这种对话很可能发生在世界各地的SLCE课堂上,但在SLCE编程中明确包含CUS旨在使这些对话更加有意和具体。…