向社区组织学习,并与社区组织一起应对民主参与的紧张局势

Brandon C. Whitney, Barbara Harrison, Patti H. Clayton, Stacey D. Muse, K. Edwards
{"title":"向社区组织学习,并与社区组织一起应对民主参与的紧张局势","authors":"Brandon C. Whitney, Barbara Harrison, Patti H. Clayton, Stacey D. Muse, K. Edwards","doi":"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his 2015 framing essay for the Service-Learning & Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP), Edward Zlotkowski challenges the movement to think carefully about \"where we locate the center of our efforts\" (p. 84) and reconsiders whether the focus on academic legitimacy and institutional transformation he called for in his 1995 essay \"Does Service-Learning Have a Future?\" ought still to be the priority 20 years later. He also commends several of the 2015 SLCE-FDP thought pieces for calling attention to \"voices often unrepresented or underrepresented\" (p. 84). In this essay, we try to further deepen the role of community members and organizations in the movement's efforts to understand and address the opportunities and challenges of the present and future. Specifically, we call on our campus-based colleagues to seek out and learn from examples of community organizations that, in their day-to-day work, enact the principles of democratic engagement; and we call on our community-based colleagues to share and critique their own efforts. We envision the future of SLCE as bringing to life the commitments of democratic engagement and thereby nurturing shared responsibility for and shared power in nudging the world toward peace and justice. And we believe the SLCE movement as a whole can learn much from what may prove to be more democratic and cutting edge approaches in the broader community than are often found in the academy. We have first-hand experience as leaders, staff, partners, and volunteers with community organizations that work diligently to achieve democratic ends through democratic means in social and cultural contexts that make doing so difficult. We find in candid examination of two of our organizations' efforts some illumination of the tensions associated with democratic engagement: asset-oriented norms and co-creation (as they occur within the Interactive Resource Center, described below by Kathleen) and place-based partnerships and a process orientation toward impact (as they occur within ioby, described below by Brandon). We offer these examples not as success stories full of lessons learned and words of wisdom but rather as demonstrations of both challenges and possibilities--attempting in this way to shine light on the complexities of democratic engagement as experienced in communities. Interactive Resource Center The Interactive Resource Center (IRC, hup://gsodaycenter.org/) in Greensboro, North Carolina, is a daytime center for people experiencing homelessness. The IRC's mission is to \"assist people who are homeless, recently homeless, or facing homelessness [in reconnecting] with their own lives and with the community at large.\" We offer practical services: laundry, showers, access to computers and Internet, case management, and referrals. We also partner with other nonprofits and grassroots organizations, sharing our space as an incubator for multiple services and activities (e.g., medical services, art therapy, gardening, transportation via refurbished bicycles, GED courses, and weekly community vegetarian dinners). The following analysis of the IRC's efforts to enact an asset-based orientation and co-creation is based on a snapshot of the organization from 2010-2014, a period that most honestly reflects the aspirations relevant to this thought piece. At its inception, the people designing the IRC--many of whom were experiencing homelessness at the time--intentionally adopted an asset orientation: peer-based, strengths-focused, and collaborative. As we say every day in our morning meeting: \"This is the Interactive Resource Center. Your best resource is each other.\" Our intention is for everyone affiliated with the organization to experience it as their community. The term \"guest\" displaces the term \"client\"--the common social service agency name for a person accessing services--because we believe it better establishes a respectful space and affirms non-hierarchical, multi-directional relationships. …","PeriodicalId":93128,"journal":{"name":"Michigan journal of community service learning","volume":"74 1","pages":"85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning from and with Community Organizations to Navigate the Tensions of Democratic Engagement\",\"authors\":\"Brandon C. Whitney, Barbara Harrison, Patti H. Clayton, Stacey D. Muse, K. Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In his 2015 framing essay for the Service-Learning & Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP), Edward Zlotkowski challenges the movement to think carefully about \\\"where we locate the center of our efforts\\\" (p. 84) and reconsiders whether the focus on academic legitimacy and institutional transformation he called for in his 1995 essay \\\"Does Service-Learning Have a Future?\\\" ought still to be the priority 20 years later. He also commends several of the 2015 SLCE-FDP thought pieces for calling attention to \\\"voices often unrepresented or underrepresented\\\" (p. 84). In this essay, we try to further deepen the role of community members and organizations in the movement's efforts to understand and address the opportunities and challenges of the present and future. Specifically, we call on our campus-based colleagues to seek out and learn from examples of community organizations that, in their day-to-day work, enact the principles of democratic engagement; and we call on our community-based colleagues to share and critique their own efforts. We envision the future of SLCE as bringing to life the commitments of democratic engagement and thereby nurturing shared responsibility for and shared power in nudging the world toward peace and justice. And we believe the SLCE movement as a whole can learn much from what may prove to be more democratic and cutting edge approaches in the broader community than are often found in the academy. We have first-hand experience as leaders, staff, partners, and volunteers with community organizations that work diligently to achieve democratic ends through democratic means in social and cultural contexts that make doing so difficult. We find in candid examination of two of our organizations' efforts some illumination of the tensions associated with democratic engagement: asset-oriented norms and co-creation (as they occur within the Interactive Resource Center, described below by Kathleen) and place-based partnerships and a process orientation toward impact (as they occur within ioby, described below by Brandon). We offer these examples not as success stories full of lessons learned and words of wisdom but rather as demonstrations of both challenges and possibilities--attempting in this way to shine light on the complexities of democratic engagement as experienced in communities. Interactive Resource Center The Interactive Resource Center (IRC, hup://gsodaycenter.org/) in Greensboro, North Carolina, is a daytime center for people experiencing homelessness. The IRC's mission is to \\\"assist people who are homeless, recently homeless, or facing homelessness [in reconnecting] with their own lives and with the community at large.\\\" We offer practical services: laundry, showers, access to computers and Internet, case management, and referrals. We also partner with other nonprofits and grassroots organizations, sharing our space as an incubator for multiple services and activities (e.g., medical services, art therapy, gardening, transportation via refurbished bicycles, GED courses, and weekly community vegetarian dinners). The following analysis of the IRC's efforts to enact an asset-based orientation and co-creation is based on a snapshot of the organization from 2010-2014, a period that most honestly reflects the aspirations relevant to this thought piece. At its inception, the people designing the IRC--many of whom were experiencing homelessness at the time--intentionally adopted an asset orientation: peer-based, strengths-focused, and collaborative. As we say every day in our morning meeting: \\\"This is the Interactive Resource Center. Your best resource is each other.\\\" Our intention is for everyone affiliated with the organization to experience it as their community. The term \\\"guest\\\" displaces the term \\\"client\\\"--the common social service agency name for a person accessing services--because we believe it better establishes a respectful space and affirms non-hierarchical, multi-directional relationships. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":93128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan journal of community service learning\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan journal of community service learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.108\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan journal of community service learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/MJCSLOA.3239521.0023.108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在2015年为“服务学习与社区参与未来方向项目”(SLCE-FDP)撰写的框架文章中,爱德华·兹洛特科夫斯基(Edward Zlotkowski)要求该运动仔细思考“我们努力的中心在哪里”(第84页),并重新考虑他在1995年的文章“服务学习有未来吗?”中呼吁的对学术合法性和制度转型的关注是否应该在20年后成为优先事项。他还赞扬了2015年SLCE-FDP的几篇思想文章,这些文章呼吁人们关注“经常没有被代表或被低估的声音”(第84页)。在这篇文章中,我们试图进一步深化社区成员和组织在运动中的作用,以理解和应对当前和未来的机遇和挑战。具体来说,我们呼吁我们的校园同事寻找并学习社区组织的例子,这些组织在日常工作中制定了民主参与的原则;我们呼吁我们以社区为基础的同事分享和批评他们自己的努力。我们设想SLCE的未来是将民主参与的承诺变为现实,从而培养共同的责任和共同的力量,推动世界走向和平与正义。我们相信,SLCE运动作为一个整体,可以从更广泛的社区中学习到很多东西,这些方法可能比在学院中发现的更民主、更前沿。作为社区组织的领导者、员工、合作伙伴和志愿者,我们有第一手的经验,在社会和文化背景下,通过民主手段努力实现民主目标,这使得我们很难做到这一点。通过对我们两个组织的工作进行坦率的考察,我们发现了一些与民主参与相关的紧张关系:以资产为导向的规范和共同创造(正如它们发生在互动资源中心内,下文由凯瑟琳描述),以及基于地点的伙伴关系和以影响为导向的过程(正如它们发生在ioby内,下文由布兰登描述)。我们提供这些例子,不是作为充满经验教训和智慧的成功故事,而是作为挑战和可能性的展示——试图以这种方式揭示社区中经历的民主参与的复杂性。互动资源中心位于北卡罗来纳州格林斯博罗的互动资源中心(IRC, hup://gsodaycenter.org/)是一个为无家可归者提供日间服务的中心。国际救援委员会的使命是“帮助无家可归、最近无家可归或面临无家可归的人重新与自己的生活和整个社区建立联系。”我们提供实用的服务:洗衣、淋浴、使用电脑和互联网、病例管理和转诊。我们还与其他非营利组织和草根组织合作,分享我们的空间作为多种服务和活动的孵化器(例如,医疗服务,艺术治疗,园艺,翻新自行车交通,GED课程和每周社区素食晚宴)。以下对IRC制定基于资产的导向和共同创造的努力的分析是基于2010-2014年组织的快照,这一时期最诚实地反映了与此思想部分相关的愿望。最初,设计IRC的人——其中许多人当时正经历着无家可归——有意采用了一种资产导向:以同伴为基础、以优势为中心和协作。就像我们每天早会上说的:“这是互动资源中心。你们最好的资源就是彼此。”我们的目的是让每个加入组织的人都能像体验自己的社区一样体验它。“客人”一词取代了“客户”一词——这是社会服务机构对获得服务的人的常见称呼——因为我们相信它能更好地建立一个尊重的空间,并肯定非等级的、多向的关系。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Learning from and with Community Organizations to Navigate the Tensions of Democratic Engagement
In his 2015 framing essay for the Service-Learning & Community Engagement Future Directions Project (SLCE-FDP), Edward Zlotkowski challenges the movement to think carefully about "where we locate the center of our efforts" (p. 84) and reconsiders whether the focus on academic legitimacy and institutional transformation he called for in his 1995 essay "Does Service-Learning Have a Future?" ought still to be the priority 20 years later. He also commends several of the 2015 SLCE-FDP thought pieces for calling attention to "voices often unrepresented or underrepresented" (p. 84). In this essay, we try to further deepen the role of community members and organizations in the movement's efforts to understand and address the opportunities and challenges of the present and future. Specifically, we call on our campus-based colleagues to seek out and learn from examples of community organizations that, in their day-to-day work, enact the principles of democratic engagement; and we call on our community-based colleagues to share and critique their own efforts. We envision the future of SLCE as bringing to life the commitments of democratic engagement and thereby nurturing shared responsibility for and shared power in nudging the world toward peace and justice. And we believe the SLCE movement as a whole can learn much from what may prove to be more democratic and cutting edge approaches in the broader community than are often found in the academy. We have first-hand experience as leaders, staff, partners, and volunteers with community organizations that work diligently to achieve democratic ends through democratic means in social and cultural contexts that make doing so difficult. We find in candid examination of two of our organizations' efforts some illumination of the tensions associated with democratic engagement: asset-oriented norms and co-creation (as they occur within the Interactive Resource Center, described below by Kathleen) and place-based partnerships and a process orientation toward impact (as they occur within ioby, described below by Brandon). We offer these examples not as success stories full of lessons learned and words of wisdom but rather as demonstrations of both challenges and possibilities--attempting in this way to shine light on the complexities of democratic engagement as experienced in communities. Interactive Resource Center The Interactive Resource Center (IRC, hup://gsodaycenter.org/) in Greensboro, North Carolina, is a daytime center for people experiencing homelessness. The IRC's mission is to "assist people who are homeless, recently homeless, or facing homelessness [in reconnecting] with their own lives and with the community at large." We offer practical services: laundry, showers, access to computers and Internet, case management, and referrals. We also partner with other nonprofits and grassroots organizations, sharing our space as an incubator for multiple services and activities (e.g., medical services, art therapy, gardening, transportation via refurbished bicycles, GED courses, and weekly community vegetarian dinners). The following analysis of the IRC's efforts to enact an asset-based orientation and co-creation is based on a snapshot of the organization from 2010-2014, a period that most honestly reflects the aspirations relevant to this thought piece. At its inception, the people designing the IRC--many of whom were experiencing homelessness at the time--intentionally adopted an asset orientation: peer-based, strengths-focused, and collaborative. As we say every day in our morning meeting: "This is the Interactive Resource Center. Your best resource is each other." Our intention is for everyone affiliated with the organization to experience it as their community. The term "guest" displaces the term "client"--the common social service agency name for a person accessing services--because we believe it better establishes a respectful space and affirms non-hierarchical, multi-directional relationships. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Title Pending 5477 Daniels, R., Shreve, G., & Spector, P. (2021). What Universities Owe Democracy. John Hopkins University Press. List of Reviewers Reviewers - Volume 27.2 Validation of S-LOMS and Comparison Between Hong Kong and Singapore of Student Developmental Outcomes After Service-Learning Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1