Pub Date : 2017-03-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.201
E. Morrison, W. Wagner
While there are various theories about faculty involvement in communityengaged scholarship (CES), there is little understanding of how faculty approach and make meaning of CES for themselves (Morrison & Wagner, 2016). The purpose of this study was (a) to determine if a typology can represent the variety of ways in which faculty approach and make meaning of CES, and if so, then (b) to provide a rich description of the perspective of each “type.” Data analysis using Q Methodology and focus groups of faculty who selfidentified as being engaged in the community revealed a CommunityEngaged Faculty Typology, with five distinct types. Each type is described in detail, followed by a discussion of the emergent typology, its limitations, and its implications for research, theory, and practice. Specifically, the findings from this study suggest that all five approaches to CES should be considered when training, developing programs, supporting, and reviewing the contributions of communityengaged faculty.
{"title":"A Community-Engaged Faculty Typology: A Self-Referent Approach to Understanding Faculty Perspectives","authors":"E. Morrison, W. Wagner","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.201","url":null,"abstract":"While there are various theories about faculty involvement in communityengaged scholarship (CES), there is little understanding of how faculty approach and make meaning of CES for themselves (Morrison & Wagner, 2016). The purpose of this study was (a) to determine if a typology can represent the variety of ways in which faculty approach and make meaning of CES, and if so, then (b) to provide a rich description of the perspective of each “type.” Data analysis using Q Methodology and focus groups of faculty who selfidentified as being engaged in the community revealed a CommunityEngaged Faculty Typology, with five distinct types. Each type is described in detail, followed by a discussion of the emergent typology, its limitations, and its implications for research, theory, and practice. Specifically, the findings from this study suggest that all five approaches to CES should be considered when training, developing programs, supporting, and reviewing the contributions of communityengaged faculty.","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"652 1","pages":"117-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76838981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-03-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.214
J. Miller-Young, P. Felten, Patti H. Clayton
Whether we are nudging the world toward cleaner water, widespread food security, enhanced intercultural understanding, or any other envisioned future, the work of “building a better world” (Hartman, Kiely, friedrichs, & Boettcher, in press) that is at the heart of democratic civic engagement (DCE) is a matter of questioning and learning and acting. We believe the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) – i.e., inquiry into learning – has the potential to further deepen our ability to question, learn, and act together – especially when it is understood and enacted through the values and practices of DCE. By that, we mean when it (a) positions all involved as coteachers, colearners, and cogenerators of knowledge and practice, and (b) takes as a goal the development of civic capacities in those doing the inquiry. This challenges traditional roles and relationships in teaching and learning and the way we study them that too often frame students, community members, and staff merely as objects of study by expert faculty. We believe that SoTL can and should be enacted democratically, with everyone involved cocreating the questions and the processes that help us learn about learning; and we invite everyone involved in servicelearning, civic engagement, and SoTL to move in this direction. What might such SoTL look like? Patti describes a glimpse:
{"title":"Learning about Learning – Together","authors":"J. Miller-Young, P. Felten, Patti H. Clayton","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.214","url":null,"abstract":"Whether we are nudging the world toward cleaner water, widespread food security, enhanced intercultural understanding, or any other envisioned future, the work of “building a better world” (Hartman, Kiely, friedrichs, & Boettcher, in press) that is at the heart of democratic civic engagement (DCE) is a matter of questioning and learning and acting. We believe the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) – i.e., inquiry into learning – has the potential to further deepen our ability to question, learn, and act together – especially when it is understood and enacted through the values and practices of DCE. By that, we mean when it (a) positions all involved as coteachers, colearners, and cogenerators of knowledge and practice, and (b) takes as a goal the development of civic capacities in those doing the inquiry. This challenges traditional roles and relationships in teaching and learning and the way we study them that too often frame students, community members, and staff merely as objects of study by expert faculty. We believe that SoTL can and should be enacted democratically, with everyone involved cocreating the questions and the processes that help us learn about learning; and we invite everyone involved in servicelearning, civic engagement, and SoTL to move in this direction. What might such SoTL look like? Patti describes a glimpse:","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"7 1","pages":"154-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81399348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.105
D. Richard, C. Keen, Julie A. Hatcher, Heather A. Pease
The current study explores the relationship between participation in college service-learning (SL) experiences, in both academic courses and co-curricular programs, and post-college civic engagement. Using data from a purposeful sample of 1,066 alumni from 30 campuses who participated in the 20th Anniversary Bonner Scholars Study, we explored the extent to which SL experiences during the college years were related to civic outcomes post-graduation, particularly in terms of civic-minded orientations, volunteering, and civic action. When evaluating various attributes of SL programs (e.g., curricular, co-curricular programming, types of reflection, dialogue across difference, interactions with others), two components were particularly salient. Dialogue with others across difference was the strongest predictor of cultivating civic outcomes after college. In addition, both structured and informal reflection independently contributed to civic outcomes (i.e., civic-mindedness, voluntary action, civic action). The results suggested the Pathways to Adult Civic Engagement (PACE) model, which can be used to examine SL programming in higher education and to guide future research to understand how variations in SL program attributes influence civic outcomes years after graduation. The well-being of American democracy is dependent upon the active participation of its citizens and professionals in both political and community life. This voluntary impulse for engagement is shaped, in part, by traditions learned in families, clubs, religious organizations, and schools (Daloz, Keen, Keen, & Parks, 1996; Wilson, 2000). Each of these social organizations is vital to cultivating civic commitments (Kim, Flanagan, & Pykett, 2015). Higher education has a unique responsibility to prepare graduates with the necessary disciplinary knowledge for their careers as well as with the skills and dispositions to be active citizens through both their personal and professional lives (Sullivan & Rosen, 2008). The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) and the Association of American Colleges & Universities (Reich, 2014) recently reiterated to institutions of higher education that their mission should focus on civic engagement. Research suggests that the college years are indeed a crucial period in the development of civic identity and engagement (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003; Kneflekamp, 2008; Mitchell, Richard, Battistoni, Rost-Banik, Netz, & Zakoske, 2015). Civic outcomes for college students include a wide and complex range of dimensions, including civic knowledge, skills, dispositions, and behaviors related to civic identity, sense of social responsibility, and intentions to participate in politics as well as community engagement and voluntary action (Beaumont, 2012; Hatcher, 2011; Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2016). Understanding the conditions under which higher education institutions are best able to support civic outcomes among gradu
{"title":"Pathways to Adult Civic Engagement: Benefits of Reflection and Dialogue across Difference in Higher Education Service-Learning Programs.","authors":"D. Richard, C. Keen, Julie A. Hatcher, Heather A. Pease","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.105","url":null,"abstract":"The current study explores the relationship between participation in college service-learning (SL) experiences, in both academic courses and co-curricular programs, and post-college civic engagement. Using data from a purposeful sample of 1,066 alumni from 30 campuses who participated in the 20th Anniversary Bonner Scholars Study, we explored the extent to which SL experiences during the college years were related to civic outcomes post-graduation, particularly in terms of civic-minded orientations, volunteering, and civic action. When evaluating various attributes of SL programs (e.g., curricular, co-curricular programming, types of reflection, dialogue across difference, interactions with others), two components were particularly salient. Dialogue with others across difference was the strongest predictor of cultivating civic outcomes after college. In addition, both structured and informal reflection independently contributed to civic outcomes (i.e., civic-mindedness, voluntary action, civic action). The results suggested the Pathways to Adult Civic Engagement (PACE) model, which can be used to examine SL programming in higher education and to guide future research to understand how variations in SL program attributes influence civic outcomes years after graduation. The well-being of American democracy is dependent upon the active participation of its citizens and professionals in both political and community life. This voluntary impulse for engagement is shaped, in part, by traditions learned in families, clubs, religious organizations, and schools (Daloz, Keen, Keen, & Parks, 1996; Wilson, 2000). Each of these social organizations is vital to cultivating civic commitments (Kim, Flanagan, & Pykett, 2015). Higher education has a unique responsibility to prepare graduates with the necessary disciplinary knowledge for their careers as well as with the skills and dispositions to be active citizens through both their personal and professional lives (Sullivan & Rosen, 2008). The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) and the Association of American Colleges & Universities (Reich, 2014) recently reiterated to institutions of higher education that their mission should focus on civic engagement. Research suggests that the college years are indeed a crucial period in the development of civic identity and engagement (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003; Kneflekamp, 2008; Mitchell, Richard, Battistoni, Rost-Banik, Netz, & Zakoske, 2015). Civic outcomes for college students include a wide and complex range of dimensions, including civic knowledge, skills, dispositions, and behaviors related to civic identity, sense of social responsibility, and intentions to participate in politics as well as community engagement and voluntary action (Beaumont, 2012; Hatcher, 2011; Hatcher, Bringle, & Hahn, 2016). Understanding the conditions under which higher education institutions are best able to support civic outcomes among gradu","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"22 1","pages":"60-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88819046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.113
Lori E. Kniffin, J. Howard
The Service-Learning and Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP) was launched in 2015. Since then approximately 40 individuals from a wide range of perspectives have come together as contributors of thought pieces that issue bold calls to guide the future of SLCE. In an essay accompanying the ten thought pieces in Fall 2015, Howard and Stanlick (2015) called for the "development and implementation of a U.S. national SLCE strategic plan" (p. 128). Their essay provides one answer to the question of how all of the ideas about the future of SLCE being assembled by the SLCE-FDP--and also being articulated in other publications over the last few years--can become more than individual thoughts, questions, and actions. In this essay we review the highlights of the call for a national plan and then share some of the responses to it as a basis for ongoing engagement with the proposal. Howard and Stanlick (2015) have in mind "an intentional organizing effort broadly developed by multiple stakeholders...[to] move us beyond the current prevalence of independent, individuals efforts ... to a more coherent nationwide collective endeavor" (p. 128). Although the SLCE movement has made strides in the last twenty years, it has primarily occurred at the individual level: individual students, individual faculty and staff, individual courses, individual programs and centers, individual institutions, individual community organizations, individual disciplinary associations, individual regional and national organizations. Howard and Stanlick wonder "what collaborations might evolve if there were a platform to which many SLCE stakeholders and entities could contribute their voices," and they offer the metaphor of a compass that "not only guides individuals...but also synergizes across all levels of organizations...and all stakeholders...for more lasting civic engagement that has greater impact on social justice" (p. 129). Their rationale for a national plan for SLCE includes the sheer growth of the movement within higher education, the recent calls among many thought leaders for new ways to think about and implement SLCE, the innovation and synergy that a national conversation can engender, and the value of greater clarity regarding our ultimate purposes as a movement and how best to advance them. Their sense is that a national planning process is needed to leverage the bold calls for enhancing SLCE being gathered by the SLCE-FDP, providing "the impetus, the structure, and the focus to bring each of them into conversation with other visions and strategies within and beyond this project" (p. 129). Their essay acknowledges several challenges: that the "very idea of a national strategic plan is likely to be contested," that inevitably some voices will not be at the table, and that reaching consensus on either general directions of or specific elements in a national plan will be difficult (p. 130). It asks: "What is the critical mass needed to move forward c
{"title":"Responses to the Call for a National Strategic Plan","authors":"Lori E. Kniffin, J. Howard","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.113","url":null,"abstract":"The Service-Learning and Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP) was launched in 2015. Since then approximately 40 individuals from a wide range of perspectives have come together as contributors of thought pieces that issue bold calls to guide the future of SLCE. In an essay accompanying the ten thought pieces in Fall 2015, Howard and Stanlick (2015) called for the \"development and implementation of a U.S. national SLCE strategic plan\" (p. 128). Their essay provides one answer to the question of how all of the ideas about the future of SLCE being assembled by the SLCE-FDP--and also being articulated in other publications over the last few years--can become more than individual thoughts, questions, and actions. In this essay we review the highlights of the call for a national plan and then share some of the responses to it as a basis for ongoing engagement with the proposal. Howard and Stanlick (2015) have in mind \"an intentional organizing effort broadly developed by multiple stakeholders...[to] move us beyond the current prevalence of independent, individuals efforts ... to a more coherent nationwide collective endeavor\" (p. 128). Although the SLCE movement has made strides in the last twenty years, it has primarily occurred at the individual level: individual students, individual faculty and staff, individual courses, individual programs and centers, individual institutions, individual community organizations, individual disciplinary associations, individual regional and national organizations. Howard and Stanlick wonder \"what collaborations might evolve if there were a platform to which many SLCE stakeholders and entities could contribute their voices,\" and they offer the metaphor of a compass that \"not only guides individuals...but also synergizes across all levels of organizations...and all stakeholders...for more lasting civic engagement that has greater impact on social justice\" (p. 129). Their rationale for a national plan for SLCE includes the sheer growth of the movement within higher education, the recent calls among many thought leaders for new ways to think about and implement SLCE, the innovation and synergy that a national conversation can engender, and the value of greater clarity regarding our ultimate purposes as a movement and how best to advance them. Their sense is that a national planning process is needed to leverage the bold calls for enhancing SLCE being gathered by the SLCE-FDP, providing \"the impetus, the structure, and the focus to bring each of them into conversation with other visions and strategies within and beyond this project\" (p. 129). Their essay acknowledges several challenges: that the \"very idea of a national strategic plan is likely to be contested,\" that inevitably some voices will not be at the table, and that reaching consensus on either general directions of or specific elements in a national plan will be difficult (p. 130). It asks: \"What is the critical mass needed to move forward c","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"3 1","pages":"111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75474350","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.114
Dick Cone, S. Harris
{"title":"Review Essay: Scholarship Redefined","authors":"Dick Cone, S. Harris","doi":"10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.114","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81828896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.112
D. Fine
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
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。…
{"title":"Teach the Partnership: Critical University Studies and the Future of Service-Learning","authors":"D. Fine","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.112","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","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"20 1","pages":"107-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77175268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.103
Margaret A. Brown, J. Wymer, Cierra S. Cooper
Power dynamics are implicated in intergroup prosocial behavior (Nadler & Halabi, 2015). This research investigated two factors that influence the effect of intergroup prosocial behavior on views of social equality: amount of direct intergroup contact and type of helping. Students in a social psychology course (N = 93) were randomly assigned to a service-learning group or to a control group. The service-learning group was further subdivided into an autonomy-oriented helping group or a dependency-oriented helping group. After participating in approximately 19 hours of community service over nine weeks, service-learners had more positive views of social equality compared to the control group. This effect was strongest in autonomy-oriented helpers who had high levels of direct intergroup contact. The implications and mechanisms of service-learning as a form of counter-normative intergroup prosocial behavior are discussed. Prosocial behavior is an integral, adaptive component of human functioning. Prosocial behavior can take many forms, including spontaneous assistance offered in emergencies, sustained community service, and the billions of dollars given each year in philanthropy. Communities richly benefit from the time, resources, and talents of prosocial people. Prosocial behavior also benefits helpers. Prosocial people become happier, healthier, and experience a greater sense of purpose in life through their service to others (Piliavin, 2003; Smith & Davidson, 2014). Prosocial behavior that is "intergroup" (i.e., that occurs across different social groups) has the added potential benefit of increasing people's exposure to diverse group members and may result in an increased preference for social equality. Brown (2011a, 2011b) found that participating in service-learning, a form of intergroup prosocial behavior (IPB), reduced social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stall worth, & Malle, 1994). Social dominance orientation is an anti-egalitarian attitude that includes one's preference for group-based social hierarchy and support for discrimination against lower status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The conditions under which these benefits of intergroup prosocial behavior are most likely to accrue have not yet been explored. The present study examines two variables hypothesized to influence the relationship between IPB and attitudes toward social equality: the amount of direct, personal contact that groups have with one another and the type of assistance offered. We begin with a brief review of the literature to provide the theoretical context for this study's design and hypotheses, focusing on the intimate relationship between IPB and power. Power dynamics are frequently implicated in IPB. The group offering assistance (i.e., the "helpers") may possess some resource that the other group (i.e., the "recipients") lacks, and thus the transaction is founded on a status differential. The Intergroup Helping as Status Relations Model (IHSR; Nad
{"title":"The Counter-Normative Effects of Service-Learning: Fostering Attitudes toward Social Equality through Contact and Autonomy.","authors":"Margaret A. Brown, J. Wymer, Cierra S. Cooper","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.103","url":null,"abstract":"Power dynamics are implicated in intergroup prosocial behavior (Nadler & Halabi, 2015). This research investigated two factors that influence the effect of intergroup prosocial behavior on views of social equality: amount of direct intergroup contact and type of helping. Students in a social psychology course (N = 93) were randomly assigned to a service-learning group or to a control group. The service-learning group was further subdivided into an autonomy-oriented helping group or a dependency-oriented helping group. After participating in approximately 19 hours of community service over nine weeks, service-learners had more positive views of social equality compared to the control group. This effect was strongest in autonomy-oriented helpers who had high levels of direct intergroup contact. The implications and mechanisms of service-learning as a form of counter-normative intergroup prosocial behavior are discussed. Prosocial behavior is an integral, adaptive component of human functioning. Prosocial behavior can take many forms, including spontaneous assistance offered in emergencies, sustained community service, and the billions of dollars given each year in philanthropy. Communities richly benefit from the time, resources, and talents of prosocial people. Prosocial behavior also benefits helpers. Prosocial people become happier, healthier, and experience a greater sense of purpose in life through their service to others (Piliavin, 2003; Smith & Davidson, 2014). Prosocial behavior that is \"intergroup\" (i.e., that occurs across different social groups) has the added potential benefit of increasing people's exposure to diverse group members and may result in an increased preference for social equality. Brown (2011a, 2011b) found that participating in service-learning, a form of intergroup prosocial behavior (IPB), reduced social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stall worth, & Malle, 1994). Social dominance orientation is an anti-egalitarian attitude that includes one's preference for group-based social hierarchy and support for discrimination against lower status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The conditions under which these benefits of intergroup prosocial behavior are most likely to accrue have not yet been explored. The present study examines two variables hypothesized to influence the relationship between IPB and attitudes toward social equality: the amount of direct, personal contact that groups have with one another and the type of assistance offered. We begin with a brief review of the literature to provide the theoretical context for this study's design and hypotheses, focusing on the intimate relationship between IPB and power. Power dynamics are frequently implicated in IPB. The group offering assistance (i.e., the \"helpers\") may possess some resource that the other group (i.e., the \"recipients\") lacks, and thus the transaction is founded on a status differential. The Intergroup Helping as Status Relations Model (IHSR; Nad","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"33 1","pages":"37-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73452105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.115
G. Perry, Lane
{"title":"Review Essay: The Confluence of Rivers","authors":"G. Perry, Lane","doi":"10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.115","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.115","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73977627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.109
Lori E. Kniffin, T. Shaffer, M. Tolar
Service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) practitioner-scholars--meaning all who do the work of SLCE with a commitment to integrating practice and study--find avenues to this work in a variety of ways. Many of the thought leaders in this movement started as traditional scholars in their disciplines and, only in their later careers, focused on creating and enhancing SLCE on their own campuses and across the academy. Others first learned about SLCE as an epistemological framework and a pedagogy in graduate programs such as Curriculum and Instruction or Higher Education Leadership. Others came across it during their academic careers somewhat randomly in conversations with colleagues, at conferences, or in the literature. And still others began their journey to SLCE by working in the public sector (as did co-author Mary Tolar) with community organizations, as community organizers, or as social justice advocates. Members of a younger generation of practitioner-scholars have now experienced SLCE in undergraduate or graduate education and seek ways to integrate it into their academic or professional lives from the very beginning. The edited volume Publicly Engaged Scholars: Next Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education (Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh, 2016) highlights the emergence of this "next generation" of SLCE practitioner-scholars. It offers an intriguing contrast to the question raised twenty years ago by Edward Zlotkowski (1995) of whether SLCE had a future and, if so, what it would need to flourish. Looking back to that moment twenty years ago in his 2015 framing essay for the Service-Learning and Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP), Zlotkowski notes that it was "a good time to dream of a new era" (p. 82); and he ponders what the forces currently shaping the academy and democracy in the U.S. mean for the SLCE movement. Publicly Engaged Scholars strongly suggests there is currently considerable momentum and excitement around a reimagined future for SLCE. The narratives of 22 engaged scholars from both the academy and the broader community (including co-author Timothy Shaffer) make clear the progress of SLCE in recent decades. And yet, they also reveal dissatisfaction with where we are today and call for continued evolution of the movement. The stories of these next generation practitioner-scholars, including their winding paths into SLCE, suggest to us the importance of supporting the ongoing development of the SLCE movement through more explicit, direct, formalized, and institutionalized points of entry into the work. Many of them went through the academy as graduate students and now work either on campuses or in communities across wide ranging professions. Indeed, graduate-level education is an increasingly common component of such journeys. It is not, however, an unambiguous point of entry to SLCE-related careers. Therefore, in this essay we call for increased attention to the potential of graduate
{"title":"Winding Pathways to Engagement: Creating a Front Door","authors":"Lori E. Kniffin, T. Shaffer, M. Tolar","doi":"10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.109","url":null,"abstract":"Service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) practitioner-scholars--meaning all who do the work of SLCE with a commitment to integrating practice and study--find avenues to this work in a variety of ways. Many of the thought leaders in this movement started as traditional scholars in their disciplines and, only in their later careers, focused on creating and enhancing SLCE on their own campuses and across the academy. Others first learned about SLCE as an epistemological framework and a pedagogy in graduate programs such as Curriculum and Instruction or Higher Education Leadership. Others came across it during their academic careers somewhat randomly in conversations with colleagues, at conferences, or in the literature. And still others began their journey to SLCE by working in the public sector (as did co-author Mary Tolar) with community organizations, as community organizers, or as social justice advocates. Members of a younger generation of practitioner-scholars have now experienced SLCE in undergraduate or graduate education and seek ways to integrate it into their academic or professional lives from the very beginning. The edited volume Publicly Engaged Scholars: Next Generation Engagement and the Future of Higher Education (Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh, 2016) highlights the emergence of this \"next generation\" of SLCE practitioner-scholars. It offers an intriguing contrast to the question raised twenty years ago by Edward Zlotkowski (1995) of whether SLCE had a future and, if so, what it would need to flourish. Looking back to that moment twenty years ago in his 2015 framing essay for the Service-Learning and Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP), Zlotkowski notes that it was \"a good time to dream of a new era\" (p. 82); and he ponders what the forces currently shaping the academy and democracy in the U.S. mean for the SLCE movement. Publicly Engaged Scholars strongly suggests there is currently considerable momentum and excitement around a reimagined future for SLCE. The narratives of 22 engaged scholars from both the academy and the broader community (including co-author Timothy Shaffer) make clear the progress of SLCE in recent decades. And yet, they also reveal dissatisfaction with where we are today and call for continued evolution of the movement. The stories of these next generation practitioner-scholars, including their winding paths into SLCE, suggest to us the importance of supporting the ongoing development of the SLCE movement through more explicit, direct, formalized, and institutionalized points of entry into the work. Many of them went through the academy as graduate students and now work either on campuses or in communities across wide ranging professions. Indeed, graduate-level education is an increasingly common component of such journeys. It is not, however, an unambiguous point of entry to SLCE-related careers. Therefore, in this essay we call for increased attention to the potential of graduate","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"89 1","pages":"91-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79919279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-02-22DOI: 10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.111
Joe Blosser
Edward Zlotkowski's (1995) concern over 20 years ago was that without institutionalization in the academic structures of colleges and universities, service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) might fade away or be co-opted into "still another academic specialty" (p. 129). Fortunately, many heeded his call, and SLCE has become a central and defining feature of many higher education institutions. SLCE leaders on campuses worked hard to build coalitions of stakeholders in the past decades, but many of these stakeholders were enticed to support SLCE for their own ends: Public relations offices needed human relations stories for the media, business offices needed an easy way to ensure they met the 7% minimum threshold for federal work-study students serving in the community, student life offices wanted volunteer structures in place to make it easier to sentence students to community service for disciplinary violations, advancement offices wanted to lure donors based on the institution's service commitments, admissions offices wanted to tout volunteer opportunities, and so on. As an institutionalized movement, SLCE now must find a way to live and thrive within these neoliberal incentive structures that make its continued existence on campuses possible. SLCE lives within the dominant neoliberal structure of American colleges and universities. Simply put, the neoliberal frameworks that infuse American life today strive to monetize all human interactions, turning institutions of higher education into sites of efficiency, productivity, revenue production, and customer service. More than just restricting the range of possible ends, neoliberalism produces within people a desire to conform and promote neoliberal ends. Some scholars are optimistic that SLCE can turn the tide on neoliberalism (Orphan & O'Meara, 2016), and others see SLCE as too wrapped up in a liberal agenda to be an adequate force for transformation (Simpson, 2014). I fall somewhere in the middle, believing that SLCE can create a powerful and transformative sub-culture through which students, faculty, and community members can create structures for justice within a neoliberal framework. But if we are not aware of the incentives driving our stakeholders, we may succumb to them. As Kliewer (2013) warns, "by maintaining a civic engagement movement that does not account for neoliberalism, we could potentially be undermining the very democratic sentiments and institutions that the movement attempts to revive" (p. 73). The future of the movement will depend on the ability of SLCE leaders to recognize and navigate the neoliberal incentives on our work, using them to further our objectives but resisting the urge to let the work be co-opted. Influence of Incentives on SLCE To see if my impressions of the movement were shared by other SLCE leaders, I spent the better part of my time at the North Carolina Campus Compact Pathways to Achieving Civic Engagement Conference and the Campus Compact 30th An
Edward Zlotkowski(1995)在20多年前所关注的是，如果高校的学术结构没有制度化，服务学习和社区参与(SLCE)可能会逐渐消失或被“另一个学术专业”所吸纳(第129页)。幸运的是，许多人听从了他的呼吁，SLCE已经成为许多高等教育机构的核心和定义特征。在过去的几十年里，校园SLCE的领导者努力建立利益相关者联盟，但这些利益相关者中的许多人为了自己的目的而被引诱支持SLCE:公共关系办公室需要媒体的人际关系故事，商业办公室需要一种简单的方法来确保他们达到联邦勤工俭学学生在社区服务的最低门槛7%，学生生活办公室希望建立志愿者结构，以便更容易地判处违反纪律的学生社区服务，发展办公室希望根据机构的服务承诺来吸引捐助者。招生办公室想要兜售志愿者机会，等等。作为一个制度化的运动，SLCE现在必须找到一种方法，在这些新自由主义的激励结构中生存和发展，使其在校园中继续存在成为可能。SLCE生活在美国学院和大学中占主导地位的新自由主义结构中。简而言之，今天融入美国生活的新自由主义框架努力将所有人类互动货币化，将高等教育机构变成效率、生产力、收入生产和客户服务的场所。新自由主义不仅限制了可能的目标范围，而且在人们内部产生了一种顺应和促进新自由主义目标的愿望。一些学者乐观地认为，SLCE可以扭转新自由主义的趋势(Orphan & O’meara, 2016)，而其他人则认为SLCE过于沉迷于自由主义议程，无法成为变革的充分力量(Simpson, 2014)。我落在中间的某个地方，相信SLCE可以创造一个强大的和变革性的亚文化，通过它，学生，教师和社区成员可以在新自由主义框架内创建正义的结构。但如果我们没有意识到驱动利益相关者的动机，我们可能会屈服于它们。正如Kliewer(2013)警告的那样，“通过维持一个不考虑新自由主义的公民参与运动，我们可能会潜在地破坏运动试图复兴的民主情绪和制度”(第73页)。运动的未来将取决于SLCE领导人认识和驾驭新自由主义激励我们工作的能力，利用它们来推进我们的目标，但抵制让工作被吸收的冲动。为了了解我对SLCE运动的印象是否与其他SLCE领导人分享，我花了大部分时间参加北卡罗来纳州校园契约实现公民参与会议的途径和校园契约30周年会议，这两个会议都在2016年春季举行，征求与会者关于激励其利益相关者支持SLCE的故事。他们讲述了校园公关办公室需要一个“感觉良好”的服务故事，以转移人们对学校负面新闻的注意力。他们讲述了教师希望为学生提供温暖人心的服务项目，以获得良好的课程评价的故事。他们讲述了学生们想要通过启动另一个校园辅导项目来改变世界的故事——他们从未咨询过无数现存的校园辅导项目中的任何一个。就像优秀的即兴演员一样，与我交谈过的SLCE专业人员和合作伙伴对每种情况的反应都是，“是的，然后……”他们试图鼓励这些利益相关者的精力、金钱、热情和学习，但在这个过程中，推动他们远离更偏向新自由主义的冲动，转向更可持续、更以正义为导向的项目。…
{"title":"Resisting the Siren Song: Charting a Course for Justice","authors":"Joe Blosser","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.111","url":null,"abstract":"Edward Zlotkowski's (1995) concern over 20 years ago was that without institutionalization in the academic structures of colleges and universities, service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) might fade away or be co-opted into \"still another academic specialty\" (p. 129). Fortunately, many heeded his call, and SLCE has become a central and defining feature of many higher education institutions. SLCE leaders on campuses worked hard to build coalitions of stakeholders in the past decades, but many of these stakeholders were enticed to support SLCE for their own ends: Public relations offices needed human relations stories for the media, business offices needed an easy way to ensure they met the 7% minimum threshold for federal work-study students serving in the community, student life offices wanted volunteer structures in place to make it easier to sentence students to community service for disciplinary violations, advancement offices wanted to lure donors based on the institution's service commitments, admissions offices wanted to tout volunteer opportunities, and so on. As an institutionalized movement, SLCE now must find a way to live and thrive within these neoliberal incentive structures that make its continued existence on campuses possible. SLCE lives within the dominant neoliberal structure of American colleges and universities. Simply put, the neoliberal frameworks that infuse American life today strive to monetize all human interactions, turning institutions of higher education into sites of efficiency, productivity, revenue production, and customer service. More than just restricting the range of possible ends, neoliberalism produces within people a desire to conform and promote neoliberal ends. Some scholars are optimistic that SLCE can turn the tide on neoliberalism (Orphan & O'Meara, 2016), and others see SLCE as too wrapped up in a liberal agenda to be an adequate force for transformation (Simpson, 2014). I fall somewhere in the middle, believing that SLCE can create a powerful and transformative sub-culture through which students, faculty, and community members can create structures for justice within a neoliberal framework. But if we are not aware of the incentives driving our stakeholders, we may succumb to them. As Kliewer (2013) warns, \"by maintaining a civic engagement movement that does not account for neoliberalism, we could potentially be undermining the very democratic sentiments and institutions that the movement attempts to revive\" (p. 73). The future of the movement will depend on the ability of SLCE leaders to recognize and navigate the neoliberal incentives on our work, using them to further our objectives but resisting the urge to let the work be co-opted. Influence of Incentives on SLCE To see if my impressions of the movement were shared by other SLCE leaders, I spent the better part of my time at the North Carolina Campus Compact Pathways to Achieving Civic Engagement Conference and the Campus Compact 30th An","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"1 1","pages":"102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80607258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：