PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE APR 2 5 20‘5 5/08 K.IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDaIeDue mdd FACULTY AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION IN SUSTAINED COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS By Angela Danyell Allen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 2009 ABSTRACT FACULTY AND COMMUNITY COLLABORATION IN SUSTAINED COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS By Angela Danyell Allen This dissertation is a qualitative case study of the factors of collaboration between faculty and community partners in sustained community-university engagement partnerships at a public research university in the Midwest. Based on secondary data from an annual, online, mixed-method survey of faculty- reported engagement activity, parallel yet tailored interviews were conducted with ten faculty and nine community partners, corresponding to nine full partnerships. The research conceptual framework implied that as faculty and community partners sustained their partnerships, partnership policies, resources and commitments influenced their ability to align both the academic and civic organizational contexts. This study’s findings assert that the community-university engagement model of mutual exchange between partners is working in practice, especially in relationship to co-creation of knowledge, into transfer, application and preservation. The collaborative process necessitated simultaneous organizational and community policies, resources, and commitments that were strongly influenced by the characteristics of fit between faculty and their community partners. The fit between both partners was based on a commitment to co-create scholarly work useful to the community. Moreover, the leadership relationship was supported by the factors of establishing common goals, networks, experience, and knowledge sharing across both academic and civic organizational contexts. As both partners came together to develop and implement the partnerships in this study, their example of mutual respect and trust expanded throughout both of their respective institutions’ networks. Thus, the actual leadership relationship was modeled into a community-placed network of relationships that sustained the partnership, in spite of institutional challenges. The scholarship of engagement centers on campus and community processes and products of community-campus engagement. The purpose of the scholarship of engagement is to assess reciprocity for both communities and campuses that undertake these collaborations. Although there is an emerging body of community-university engagement literature in higher education, little is known about reciprocal impacts on communities involved in community-university engagement — including institutional policies, resources, and commitments. Further, even less has been published within higher education detailing the community’s perspective in these partnerships. The factors of organizational alignment that are in common between faculty and community partners demonstrate the synchronicity between organizational challenges and opportunities across these sectors. Understanding these collaborations addresses implications for social change and the idea of the academic institution as societal citizen. Copyright by ANGELA DANYELL ALLEN 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS By its very definition, building community is a social journey of both small moments and years of investment, where no one person achieves any milestone alone. In sincere gratitude, I acknowledge the following individuals for their role in my community of support that enabled this research from conception to completion. The completion of both this research and my degree would simply not have been possible without each individual’s role in advancing my passion to give my experience of community a firm voice in higher education literature. First, long overdue thanks are reserved for my family. Our lives brought me here. Equal, ineffable thanks go to my dissertation chair and advisor throughout my degree program, Kristen A. Renn. Also, ineffable thanks to the Michigan State University unit of University Outreach and Engagement (UOE): most notably Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Diane L. Zimmerman, and my colleagues at the National Center for the Study of University Engagement. Special thanks to Kelly Ward, Sarena Seifer, Barbara Holland, Sherril Gelmon, Dwight Giles, Ted Hullar, KerryAnn O’Meara, and David Weerts, Byron White, and Sean Creighton for their insight and encouragement, and Emily Janke and Tami Moore for their passion, persistence and collaboration. Next, I thank my faculty, cohort, and colleagues from my doctoral program in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE). I could not have conceived of a better environment to complete a doctorate between HALE and UOE. Every graduate student should be so fortunate. I especially acknowledge the following from our incredible community of scholars: Marilyn J. Amey and James l IliugP “IIIDUJIQ. » La, . . S. Fainiveather for not only serving on my dissertation committee, but also being affirmative, Ann E. Austin, and; Jennifer P. Hodges, Melissa McDaniels, John Brender, Ildiko Porter-Szucs, Nettavia Curry, Vanessa Holmes, Douglas Chapman, and Michael Rishell for being who you are, and there for me all the times I needed you the most. The following persons I shared brief but significant acquaintance over my experience in Michigan community economic development. You provided me daily inspiration to persist in my work toward this research: Paul Nieratko, Christopher P. Grobbel, June Manning Thomas, Herbert Norman, Robert Lincoln, Jason L. Stringer, Thomas Walters, Grace Lee Boggs, Maggie DeSantis, Jay Juergensen, Margaret Garry, Steve Tobocman, Al Ward, Barry N. Checkoway, Mary Ruffalo, Berit Ingersoll- Dayton, Joan Abbey, Larry Gant, Karen Johnson-Moore, James Brown, Kim Robinson, Frank Fear , and Pennie Foster-Fishman. In special remembrance of mentors who have passed away, I warmly acknowledge Lillian E. Randolph, Norman Cassells, and Robert P. Busby. I am privileged to have known you, and hope that I can continue your example. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ............................................................................ x List of Figures ........................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT ............ 1 Conceptual Framework ............................................................... 6 Research Purpose and Questions ................................................ 12 Research Problem ..................................................................... 13 Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Academic Organizational Culture ......................................... 12 Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Civic Organizational Culture ................................................ 13 Aligning Community-University Engagement to Both the Academic and Civic Organizational Cultures ..................... 16 Definitions of Terms ................................................................... 20 Summary ................................................................................. 22 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 24 Characteristics of Effective and Successful Community-University Partnerships ................................................ 25 Factors of Community-University Engagement Leadership and Governance .............................. 25 Characteristics of Campus and Community Organizational Alignment... 37 Community-University Engagement Policies, Resources & Commitments ...................................... 39 Evidence of Mutual Benefit ............................................................ 43 Scholarship in Higher Education ............................................. 43 Co—Created Knowledge as Scholarship .................................... 42 Evaluating Co-Created Knowledge and Scholarship .................... 48 Characteristics of Sustained Community-University Engagement Partnerships .............................................................. 52 Community-University Partnership Models ................................ 52 The Significance of Understanding Engagement Impacts within Community Development ...................................................... 63 Summary .................................................................................... 67 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 69 Site Selection .............................................................................. 69 Case Selection ............................................................................ 71 Methods for reducing participant risk ....................................... 80 Maintaining participant privacy ............................................... 80 vii Data Analysis ............................................................................. 81 Trustworthiness and Credibility .............................................. 82 Triangulation ............................................................ 82 Member Checking ...................................................... 83 Documentation and Thick, Rich Descn'ption ..................... 83 Applicability and Transferability .................................... 83 Summary ................................................................................... 86 CHAPTER FOUR: PARTNERSHIP CASE DESCRIPTIONS .......................................... 87 American Heritage Partnership ....................................................... 87 Young Futures Program Partnership ................................................ 91 European Community Revitalization Partnership ................................................................................. 93 Greening Community Partnership ................................................... 98 Healthy Families Partnership .......................................................... 101 Community Connections Partnership .............................................. 103 Let’s Create Partnership ............................................................... 105 Community Leadership Partnership ................................................ 106 Family Sciences Partnership .......................................................... 109 How Faculty Developed Sustained Collaborative Partnerships with Community Partners ............................................ 111 Faculty Reputation in Community .......................................... 112 Mutual Partner Desire to Complete Scholarly Work .................... 115 Summary ................................................................................... 119 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS WITHIN AND BETWEEN PARTNERSHIPS ....................... 121 Factors of the Collaborative Process that Most Impact the Relationship Between Faculty and Community Partners ....................... 122 Partner Culture Understanding and Leadership Responsibility ..................................................... 122 The Role of Community-University Liaisons .............................. 130 Factors of the Collaborative Process that Most Impact Partnership Sustainability ............................................................... 134 Community-Placed Networks .................................................. 135 The Knowledge Product as Policy, Resource, and Commitment .................................................................. 139 Summary ............................................................................ 148 CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 152 Dissertation Summary .................................................................... 152 Connections between Research Findings, Research Problem and Conceptual Framework ............................................................ 156 viii Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Academic Organizational Context ............................................ 159 Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Civic Organizational Context ................................................... 161 Aligning Community-University Engagement across Academic and Civic Organizations .......................................... 164 Discussion ................................................................................... 166 Answering the Research Questions ......................................... 167 Theoretical Implications ........................................................ 172 Collaboration and Organizational Leadership ................... 172 Co-Created Scholarship and Co-Learning ....................... '. 177 Study Limitations .................................................................. 182 Implications for Practice and Suggestions for Future Research ............................................ 183 Summary ..................................................................................... 186 APPENDICES .............................................................................. 188 Appendix A: Consent Form ............................................................. 189 Appendix B: Interview Protocol ......................................................... 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 196 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Excerpted Points of Distinction Model of Evaluating Outreach Scholarship & Impact ..................................... 50 Table 2.2. Holland’s (2005) Discussion of Four Models of Effective Partnerships ...... 54 Table 2.3. Models of Indicators of Community-University Engagement Partnerships, 2001-2003 ............................................... 56 Table 3.1 Partnership Demographics ................................................ 78 Table 3.2. Faculty and Community Partner Demographics .................... 79 Table 6.1. Connection of research findings to research questions ......... 170 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Conceptual framework ................................................... 8 Figure 1.2. Research conceptual framework ...................................... 19 Figure 5.1. How faculty and community partners develop partner culture understanding and leadership responsibility ................ 130 Figure 6.1. Research conceptual framework ....................................... 153 Figure 6.2. Research framework and connection to findings ................... 157 Figure 6.3. Research findings diagram .......................................... 158 xi CHAPTER ONE OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY ENGAGEMENT For more than a century, American higher education has had service to society as a part of its mission. As institutions of higher education apply their resources and expertise to addressing social issues, community-university engagement has emerged as an additional dimension of academic research, teaching, and service. In the 19903, several leading associations of higher education recognized the need for institutions of higher education to become more responsible institutional citizens within American society (Boyer, 1990; Cartwright, 1997; Kellogg Commission, 1999). Following this call for higher education to have more direct relevance to community, several scholars of higher education perceived scholarship (academic teaching, research, and service) as a means of making higher education more accountable to American society (Bok, 1982; Boyer, 1990; Campus Compact, 2007; Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Glassick, Maeroff, & Huber, 1997; Michigan State University, 1996; O’Meara, 2002; Ward, 2003) Additionally, several national organizations have developed mechanisms for higher education institutions to demonstrate their commitment to engagement. In 2005, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching not only revised its system of classifying institutions of higher education, they also included several voluntary classification categories (McCormick & Zhao, 2005). One of the new voluntary classifications addresses community engagement. This classification allows higher education institutions the option to describe and represent their outreach and engagement work. As of December 2008, 120 institutions of higher education were successfully classified (Carnegie Foundation, 2009). Also, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (HLC/NCA) of Colleges and Schools in 2005 added Criterion 5 to its institutional reaccreditation self-study. Criterion 5 allows institutions to address their efforts engagement and service. The nation’s oldest higher education association, the National Association I of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), has a Council on Extension, Continuing Education, and Public Service (CECEPS). In 2004, the CECEPS had a Benchmarking Task Force that developed ten Qualities for Engagement. Next, the Committee for Institutional Cooperation, a consortium of twelve research universities in the Midwest (the eleven Big Ten institutions and the University of Illinois-Chicago), had a Committee for Engagement that met from 2001 to 2006. The charge of the committee was to define engagement for research universities (CIC, n.d.). In February 2005, the Committee released its report on defining and benchmarking engagement, including strategic issues for research universities to consider (CIC, 2005). Last, between the period of 2003 and 2006, seven books and one monograph were published on the topic of community engagement partnerships in higher education (Fear, Rosaen, Bawden, & Foster-Fishman, 2006; Jacoby and Associates, 2003; Kezar, Chambers & Burkardt, 2005; Pasque, Smerek, Dwyer, Bowman & Mallory, 2005; Peters, Alter, Jordan & Adamek, 2006; Soska & Butterfield, 2004; Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003; Zimpher, Percy & Brukardt, 2006). These publications. build upon other recent research in which scholars recommended more substance regarding how research universities are institutionalizing their community-university engagement practices. Suggestions for future research regarding institutionalizing community-university engagement in research universities include examining the development of community-based organizational networks as an indicator of improved neighborhood and community development (Checkoway, 2001; Holland, 2001; Maurrasse, 2001). With increasing pressure to demonstrate institutional commitment to community engagement, different terms and definitions have evolved regarding scholarship that involves community collaboration across institutions of higher education. This has been an area of emphasis at certain institutional types, like community colleges and public, four-year research universities (Jacoby & Associates, 2003; Maurrasse, 2001; Peters, et al., 2006; Strand, et al., 2003). The community-university engagement model of scholarship differs from civic engagement or service-learning by its concentration on mutual exchange (or reciprocal) processes and products of scholarship between institutions of higher education (including faculty, undergraduate students, graduate students, and other academic staff) and community stakeholders/partners (Carnegie Foundation, 2009). The goal of the community-university engagement scholarship model is for both academic scholars and community practitioners to discover, integrate, share, and apply knowledge that directly addresses social problems (Boyer, 1990, 1996). The academy also has much to gain by community engagement, including the intellectual challenges of applying scholarship to the pressing issues of the day and the prospect of new interdisciplinary insights that the scholarship of engagement will bring. Community engagement includes service learning, which integrates community service into academic study, gives students an opportunity to improve their citizenship skills, and renews the faculty member’s enthusiasm for teaching. Effective connections to surrounding communities can bring needed knowledge to them and increase knowledge in the academy. In addition, community engagement can be an important catalyst for the institutional change demanded by dramatic changes in the economy, advances in technology, and the increasing diversity of students attending college. (Hollander, 1999,p.vD Subsequently, the scholarship of engagement was similarly defined as the study of the campus and community processes and products of community- university engagement. The purpose of the scholarship of engagement is to assess the reciprocal impacts for both communities and universities as they undertake these collaborations (Boyer, 1996; see also Holland, 2005; Michigan State University, 1993). Although the result from this scholarly discourse is an emerging body of community-university engagement literature in higher education, little is known about reciprocal impacts on communities involved in community-university engagement — including institutional policies, resources, and commitments (Holland, 2005; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Maurrasse, 2001; Ward, 2003). Further, even less has been published within higher education detailing the community’s perspective of the reciprocal impact of these partnerships (Liederman, Furco, Zapf & Goss, 2003; Maurrasse, 2001; Pasque, et al., 2005; Sandy & Holland, 2006). Several scholars in higher education, using case study research comparisons and surveys, have begun to illustrate characteristics of effective and successful community-university engagement, as well as community-university engagement organizational impacts (Bowley, 2003; Holland, 2001c, 2006; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Maurrasse, 2001; McNall, Brown & Reed, 2005). Further, comparison case studies of research university-community partnerships have begun to identify factors of campus administrative-level strategies and actions that affect both the quality and impact of engaged research university-community partnerships (Chicobus & Lerner, 1999; Holland, 1999b; Peters, et al., 2006; Soska & Butterfield, 2004; Ward, 2003; Zimpher, Percy & Brukardt, 2006). These challenges include, but are not limited, to the following: 1. Conflicting definitions of engagement at the institutional mission and department/unit levels; 2. Determining institutional funding and personnel allocations for community- university engagement; 3. Assessing the alignment of institutional and department/unit-Ievel missions that include engagement activity with achievement of outcomes for engagement (especially student learning and institutional outreach outcomes); and, 4. Preparing aspiring faculty and professional scholar-practitioners to use community—university engagement scholarship both within and across disciplines. Most notably, several of these studies have begun to illustrate the need for those institutions of higher education who aspire to renew their commitment to the public to restructure their institutional cultures in this area of research, teaching, and service to work with poor and working class communities instead of merely studying them. When this particular population (of poor and working class communities) has achieved a certain level of knowledge about higher education and the infrastructure of community-based organizations, they will be more likely to approach colleges and universities, speaking for themselves about their priorities and the potential uses of higher educational resources on their behalf. It is important to ensure that knowledge is being transferred from higher education into local communities, promoting self-sufficiency rather than fostering dependency among local constituents. The distinctions between self-sufficiency and dependency are at the heart of the difference between the traditional notion of service and the concept of capacity building. (Maurrasse, 2001, p.186) In-depth information regarding how the community has both perceived and experienced community-university partnerships is lacking, especially in foundational reports regarding these partnerships (Lincoln, 2002; Kellogg Commission, 1999; Office of University Partnerships, 1999; Pew Partnership for Civic Change, 2003). Balance within this area of research and practice is needed to illustrate clearly how community-university engagement demonstrates reciprocal impacts within any community “served” by these collaborations (Holland, 2005). Conceptual Framework Contextually, accountability of higher education to the public good is communicated from the institution’s mission (Beaumont, 2002; Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999; Layzell, Lovell, & Gill, 1997; Plater, 1999). The processes and products of community-university engagement partnerships detail benefits and other impacts to the university’s internal and external stakeholders (Kellogg Commission, 1999; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Maurrasse, 2001). In order for universities to demonstrate active accountability to the public good, a “systemic connection” needs be evident within the institution’s organizational culture (Lerner & Simon, 1998, p. 467). The authors suggest that the systemic connection develops in the following way: 1. From the leadership of the institution (president, deans, department heads) and the institutional mission, into 2. The knowledge creation, dissemination, and transfer process between faculty, students, and other identified internal and external stakeholders (governing boards, community representatives), into 3. Leaders in the community institutional structure (executive administrators, staff, and resident leaders). Lerner and Simon’s argument for a systemic connection suggests a hierarchical, top-down model which does not fit easily into the complex, loosely coupled organizational and leadership processes at most institutions of higher education — including research universities (Scott & Davis, 2007). However, the systemic connection does argue that there is a process of collaborative leadership across community and campus stakeholders. Thus, an examination of the process of collaboration within community-university engagement requires as a first step a thoughtful presentation of the complexities of both campus-level and community- level institutional dynamics. Faculty (and Graduate Student) / Capacity Building Research — \ Outreach Theory Campus & Methodology CAMPUS Culture (Paradigm CONTEXT Pioneers) \ Outreach Scholarship / COMMMUNITY . Best CONTEXT Commumty Practice Culture \ f Dissemination of Knowledge & Technical Assistance Figure 1. 1. Conceptual Framework Note. From University-community collaborations for the m'enty-first century: Outreach scholarship for youth and families (p. 465), by R. M. Lerner and L. A. K. Simon (Eds), 1998, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Reprinted with permission. Figure 1.1 is a model of a conceptual framework that illustrates the campus and community context (organizational cultures) affected by the knowledge creation, dissemination, and transfer (scholarship) of community- university engagement partnerships. Conceptually, successful community-university engagement partnerships have organizational infrastructures that center on the strength of role congruence and networks of communication between community and campus administrators, which can include consideration of those faculty who lead these partnerships (Singleton, Hirsch, & Burack, 1999; Todd, Ebata, & Hughes, 1998). Lerner and Simon’s (1998) conceptual model of community- university collaborative outreach scholarship specifically clarifies the campus and community contexts (p. 465). Within the community context: ...outreach scholarship generates a knowledge base about best practice; and the knowledge base is disseminated through activities...These activities generate positive outcomes in the community, such that there is an increased likelihood that it will turn to the university for further collaborations involving outreach scholarship...the process of community collaboration rests on co-learning: Members of the campus and the community contexts need to learn about each other’s culture in order for productive and effective outreach scholarship to result. (Lerner & Simon, 1998, p. 468-469) Within the campus context, Lerner and Simon (1998) state the following as requirements for successful community-university engagement scholarship, further explaining the significance of the conceptual model’s interconnectedness: “outreach scholarship requires: (1) a change in campus culture, (2) faculty and graduate-student capacity building, and (3) the development of research- outreach theory and methodology” (p. 464). Referring to the process represented in Figure 1.1, Lerner and Simon argue that the campus and community cultures, when aligned through partnerships, can be transformed by the intentional integration of faculty outreach scholarship (the authors define paradigm pioneers as faculty who pioneer efforts to formulate an integrative and multicultural approach to research). The systemic connection of disciplinary research through outreach scholarship requires innovative methodology: empirically rigorous, evidence-centered research methods that are persuasive to the faculty culture, as well as demonstrate compelling relevance to the communities with whom the faculty collaborate. Moreover, Lerner and Simon argue that the best method to do so is multivariate, longitudinal data from sustained partnerships, where the dissemination of community-university engaged knowledge is impacted directly by the organization of the partnership. Simply, this approach not only helps extend and sustain identified best practices but it also assists in building the capacities of community collaborators. As made clear by the authors in this book, the knowledge valued and sought by the community-university partnership must be usable and used. As a consequence, dissemination involves ascertaining the relevance of knowledge and assuring accessibility to it. This view of knowledge utilization underscores the need for a sustained commitment to a campus-community partnership. (Lerner & Simon, 1998, pp. 472-473) Qualitative case study research in community-university engagement describes how partnerships are conceptualized, how they take place, and what ideals they should achieve within the community and university contexts. They do not describe in depth the role of both academic and civic organizational context play in building co-created knowledge, or the influence of their co-created knowledge products in building community capacity. Morgan (1998) presented ways of describing organizational culture as “shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding, and shared sense making” (p. 132). Further, the author defined organizational culture as a process of constructing reality where people recognize situations in distinct ways. The patterns of understanding that are developed in the process of creating organizational reality are influenced by social norms and customs, as well as the situational context. 1O Morgan (1998) presented three questions to examine the systems of shared meaning in an organization: what are the shared frames of reference that make organization possible, where do they come from, and, how are they created, communicated, and sustained? (p. 135) While Morgan argues that the organizational as culture metaphor is a positive means of understanding organizational values and social norms present in human relationships, he also acknowledges that there are limitations. Discussing limitations to the organization as culture metaphor, the author emphasizes how power dynamics affect what we learn from relationships and shared reality in organizations. Culture is self-organizing and is always evolving. Although at any given time it can be seen as having a discernable pattern (e.g., reflecting an ethos of competition or cooperation), this pattern tends to be a snapshot abstraction imposed on the culture from the outside. It is a pattern that helps the observer to make sense of what is happening in the culture. But it is not synonymous with experience in the culture itself. (Morgan, 1998, p.145) More empirical research is necessary to explain the phenomena of these interconnected organizational dynamics (Holland, 2005; Pasque, et al., 2005). The concept of higher education as a public good is “reframed” through these kinds of partnerships as both the campus and community organizational contexts reflect the core values and beliefs of engagement constituents within and outside the academy (Fairweather, 1996; Kezar, Chambers, & Burkhardt, 2005; London, 2002a) 11 Research Purpose and Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the process of collaborative relationship between community and faculty partners in sustained community- university engagement partnerships. Specifically, the study sought to understand how the partners’ leadership and governance process (focusing on partnership organization, group dynamics, and co-created knowledge products) related to the partners’ extent of engagement and sustainability. The study’s research questions follow: 1. What does it take for faculty to develop a sustained, collaborative community-university engagement partnership with community partners? 2. What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners? 3. What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability? Research Problem The study employed the alignment of campus and community organizational culture as a theoretical framework to examine the collaborative process between faculty and community partners in sustained community- university engagement partnerships. Within community-university engagement scholarship, there are several issues of campus and community organizational alignment (Boyer, 1990; 1996). The first issue relates to how community- university engagement scholarship is aligned with academic culture. The second 12 issue is how community-university engagement scholarship is aligned with civic culture. The third issue relates to how community-university engagement is aligned to both academic and civic cultures — which can also illustrate how these cultures align with one another. Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Academic Organizational Culture Within the academic culture, community-university engagement scholarship has to be an essential element of the university’s mission to begin the process of academic organizational alignment. Two areas of campus administration are key indicators of academic cultural alignment: (a) the involvement of highly visible leaders in the institution’s academic administration, and (b) evidence of significant revenue generated by the scholarship activity to the university (Maurrasse, 2001). Additionally, departments within a university should demonstrate two indicators of academic organizational alignment: (a) highly visible faculty leadership in community-university engagement, and (b) evidence in the departmental reward system of promotion and tenure for faculty involved in community-university engagement (Maurrasse, 2001). Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Civic Organizational Culture Similarly, community-university engagement scholarship demonstrates three primary issues of alignment to the civic organizational culture. The first issue involves what is defined as an engaged partnership. The second issue relates to understanding the significance of community-university engagement impacts on development at the community-level. Third, other than 13 recommendations for further research in this area, there is nothing in the community-engagement literature regarding how community-university engagement scholarship aligns to the civic organizational culture. Civic engagement also includes activities such as community service- Iearning partnerships at the undergraduate student level that can involve one- time, short-term projects. These short-term projects meet community organizational capacity needs at the administrative-level that might not translate to the community development level. Additionally, civic engagement can also be limited to academic projects and activities that promote participation of university faculty, staff, and students in the democratic process of political advocacy, which also implies more indirect influence on community development (Beaumont, 2002; Checkoway, 2001; Peters, et al., 2006). As aforementioned, community-university engagement is largely perceived within higher education as scholarly activities that directly address community-defined goals and objectives for development and capacity-building. Community-university engagement involves a demonstrated connection of academic expertise and scholarship to community-defined needs, issues, concerns, objectives (Boyer, 1996). However, more documentation of the impacts of the resulting scholarship specific to community-university engagement partnership policies, resources, and commitments is needed. Anticipated impacts that are specific to community-university engagement can include access to the university by the community, rewards for both community practitioners and 14 faculty, and visibility of successful partnerships as models for other potential community-university collaborators (Pew Partnership for Civic Change, 2003). Understanding the significance of community-level impacts through community-university engagement is necessary because much of the community-university engagement literature only focuses on campus-level issues and impacts. This leaves only a partial analysis to the very definition of community-university engagement: mutually beneficial, two-way, reciprocal scholarly activities which address social issues. Community-university engagement literature has made several assertions to recommend further research on the community context, perceptions and impact (Holland, 2005; Lerner & Simon, 1998; Maurrasse, 2001; Peters, et al., 2006; Soska & Butterfield, 2004). Brisbin and Hunter (2003) investigated community perceptions of civic engagement collaborations between campus and community, and Campus Compact has published several books which provide recommendations for assessing community impacts and indicators (Brisbin & Hunter, 2003; Bowley, 2003; Gelmon, et al., 2001). In spite of this literature, there is little that demonstrates an in-depth investigation or application of community impact assessment within community-university engagement research. As Walshok (1995) asserts, “Institutions will need better mechanisms for connecting new knowledge to large and diverse publics who can use and contribute to that knowledge” (p.12). 15 Aligning Community-University Engagement to Both the Academic and Civic Organizational Cultures The CIC Committee on Engagement has identified that an increase in the evidence of quantifiable data of engagement reciprocity and impact is necessary to indicate the alignment of community-university engagement with both academic and civic cultures (CIC Committee on Engagement, 2004; see also Holland, 2003). Since 1995, several guidebooks for documenting community- university engagement scholarship have been published (Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Driscoll & Sandmann, 2001; Glassick, Huber & Maeroff, 1997; MSU, 1996). These guidebooks have advocated for analysis of the campus faculty rewards system and scholarship products as the primary data of engagement reciprocity and impact. Additionally, though national community-university engagement benchmarking initiatives have been implemented in 2005 based on the work of the CIC and several other national associations, only one study has been published that attempts to assess how this campus-oriented research aligns with community and civic organizational indicators (Bowley, 2003), which is discussed in detail in Chapter Two. Six indicators of community-university engagement partnerships have been identified as measures to assess the quality and effectiveness of community-university engagement partnerships: 1. Joint planning and assessment, 2. Needs assessment, 3. Sustained relationships (2 years or more), 16 4. Future plans for sustainability, 5. Dissemination of knowledge to the public, and 6. Community or partner capacity building. (Michigan State University, 2005) Holland (2005) suggested “More work is needed to develop simple yet compelling ways to measure the quality and impact of partnership work, especially from the perspective of community. A related need is a clear strategy for how data will be used” (Holland, 2005, p.16). Also, Lerner and Simon (1998) noted that although there is significant empirical evidence from evaluation research that community-university engagement is effective in addressing the social issue of youth development, community-university engagement scholarship also illustrates specific challenges for community-based program replication and sustainability. Yet despite the presence of such evaluation data, many of these demonstrably effective programs have not been sustained. Even fewer have been replicated. Effective programs for youth have often not been sustained because members of the community within which the program is embedded do not have the capacity to themselves continue to conduct the program. Thus, what needs to be ascertained is how — for a specific program in a particular community — can such capacity be developed. (Lerner & Simon, 1998, pp.469-470) Figure 1.2 represents the research conceptual framework for this study, examining sustained community-university engagement partnerships from one public, land-grant research university. As aforementioned, evidence of a systemic connection between the leadership of the academic and civic institutions involved in the knowledge creation and transfer process is essential to understanding the collaborative process of community-university engagement. Thus, the sustained 17 partnerships as identified in this study were examined at both the campus and community executive leadership levels, as these are the levels that have the most influence on the sustained success of the partnership (Kearney & Candy, 2004). Moreover, the figure emphasizes in italics and in bold that the study examined the role policies, resources and commitments contribute to the alignment process, as well as toward partnership sustainability. The argument was that as both faculty and their community partners identify policies, resources and commitments, they will also emphasize the most significant collaboration factors that take these partnerships from conceptualization to sustainability. 18 Faculty Capacity Building CAMPUS J '\ CONTEXT Campus Culture Research (Leadership & A Methodology Governance) \ f In terdependent Policies, Community Resources, Engaged Commitments Scholarship Sustained Community Culture Engaged (Leadership & v COMMMUNITY CONTEXT Partnerships Governance) \ 2‘ Knowledge Transmission, Application, & Preservation Figure 1.2. Research conceptual framework (based upon Lerner & Simon, 1998, emphasis added). Note. From University-community collaborations for the hi'enIy-first century: Outreach scholarship for youth and families (p. 465), by R. M. Lerner and L. A. K. Simon (Eds), 1998, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Adapted with pemiission. This section presented the research problem for this study. The chapter concludes with an overview of the study, including the methodology. delimitations of the study, and a definition of terms. 19 Definitions of Terms The following terms will be used throughout this study. Community-university or community-campus outreach is campus-based, campus-placed, predominantly campus beneficial research, teaching, and service activities that only transmit knowledge to communities and community- placed organizations and/or members, with no ongoing policies, resources, or commitments. Community engagement (also called community-university engagement, community collaborative outreach scholarship, or community-campus engagement) is mutually beneficial, community-placed research scholarship created, implemented, and disseminated between university faculty members and community members, through a specific community-placed partnership leadership/governance structure, resulting in community-placed partnership- specific, co-created knowledge, policies, resources, and commitments. Sustained community engagement partnerships are those community engaged partnerships that have been sustained for two years or more, with continued evidence of a community-placed, co-created leadership or governance structure, continuing to result in community-placed, partnership-specific, co- created knowledge, policies, resources, and commitments. Scholarship is mutually beneficial, community-based research and/or teaching, directly representative of a faculty, student, or staff member’s discipline or specialty, that is interdisciplinary, interpretative, and integrative in its knowledge base, creation, generation, transmission, transfer, and dissemination. 20 Engaged scholarship is scholarly outreach and engagement activities that reflect a knowledge-based approach to teaching, research, and service for the direct benefit of external audiences (Michigan State University, 2007). Public scholarship is a particular variety of action research and community-based research; it is creative intellectual work that is conducted in public, with and for particular groups of citizens. Its results are communicated to, and validated by, peers, including but not limited to peers in scholars’ academic fields. Scholars who practice public scholarship seek to advance the academy’s teaching and research missions in ways that hold both academic and public value (Peters et al., 2006). Knowledge dissemination and transfer is defined as: The knowledge valued and sought by the community-university partnership must be usable and used. As a consequence, dissemination involves ascertaining the relevance of knowledge and assuring accessibility to it. This view of knowledge utilization underscores the need for a sustained commitment to a campus-community partnership. (Lerner & Simon, 1998, pp.472-473) Knowledge products are those products that resulted from the partnerships in this study, defined by the faculty and community partner as the product resulting from the partnership. The scholarship of engagement is community-placed, community-based, mutually beneficial research and/or teaching that are co- created between community and campus partners, used directly by the community to increase their human, financial, and other resources in order to achieve their defined goals, objectives, and outcomes for community change. Institutional/organizetional cultures are A pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that has worked well enough to be 21 considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 1992, p.12, in Lerner & Simon, 1998, p. 464) Further, Morgan (1998) frames the definition of organizational culture as “shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding, and shared sense making” (p. 132). Moreover, Morgan defined organizational culture as a process of constructing reality where people recognize situations in distinct ways. The patterns of understanding that are developed in the process of creating organizational reality are influenced by social norms and customs, as well as the situational context, referred to in this study as academic and civic contexts. Summary In my first chapter, I have provided an overview of community-university engagement. I described how higher education institutions have demonstrated commitment to community engagement. Further, I discussed the community- university engagement model of scholarship, including how recent research has framed challenges and impacts of its implementation on community and university organizational structures. Next, I introduced my study of the collaborative process of community-university engagement, presenting a theoretical framework of campus and community organizational alignment to examine sustained community-university partnerships. Last, I provided definitions and terms that frame the proposed study. In the next chapter, I provide a review of the literature related to community-university engagement. As an overview of the methodology, secondary data analysis of an annual, online survey of faculty reported outreach and engagement activity at one public 22 research university in the Midwest was completed to determine the final sample of nine full partnerships (ten faculty partners and nine community partners). Based on the research problem, purpose and research questions, a parallel yet tailored interview protocol was developed to guide the semi-structured interviews undertaken with the faculty partners and their community partners. The demographics of the partnerships and the faculty and community partners are presented. After imparting the methodology in Chapter Three, the dissertation follows with Chapter Four, the case descriptions of the partnerships and answer to the first research question: What does it take for faculty to develop sustained community-university engagement partnerships with community partners? Next, Chapter Five discusses the research findings within and between partnerships, answering the second and third research questions: What factors of the collaborative process most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners, and; What factors of the collaborative process that most impact the partnership’s sustainability? Last, Chapter Six provides a summary of the dissertation and discussion of the findings as connected to the research problem, conceptual framework, and research questions. Theoretical implications of the study are discussed, and the dissertation concludes with a discussion of implications for practice and suggestions for future research. 23 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Community-university engagement has been broadly characterized across both higher education and community development literatures. Most characterizations of community-university engagement are based upon qualitative research methods, especially case study research. These case studies have evolved to represent implementation of community-university engagement across different institutional types and regional collaborations. Further, emergent community-university engagement case study and survey research focuses on developing indicators of engagement impacts. Several key themes in the community-university engagement literature emphasize a call for further research on the relationship between the characteristics and impacts of community-university engagement partnerships. Additionally, these themes imply a need for research that examines how the collaboration process of community-university engagement partnerships aligns to these characteristics and indicators. This literature review provides an overview of these key themes. First, I present characteristics of effective and successful community-university engagement partnerships. Next, I present themes from community-university engagement partnership models. Last, I present a rationale for the significance of understanding community-university engagement partnership impacts within the context of community development. 24 Characteristics of Effective and Successful Community-University Partnerships In the community-university engagement literature, both effectiveness and success of community-university partnerships center on the achievement of community-defined goals through mutually beneficial outcomes. By engagement the Commission envisions partnerships, two-way streets defined by mutual respect among the partners for what each brings to the table. Such partnerships are likely to be characterized by problems defined together, goals and agendas that are shared in common, definitions of success that are meaningful to both university and community and developed together, and some pooling for leveraging of university of public and private funds. The collaboration arising out of this process is likely to be mutually beneficial and to build the competence and capacity of all parties. (Kellogg Commission, 1999, p.27) Of these mutually beneficial partnerships, three categories of characteristics dominate the literature. The first category of characteristics illustrates factors of leadership and governance. The second category of characteristics presents factors of community and campus organizational alignment. The third category illustrates evidence of mutual benefit. Factors of Community-University Engagement Leadership and Governance Organizational leadership is a prevailing factor in achieving mutually beneficial community-university engagement partnerships. As aforementioned, the community engagement literature has asserted that “the necessary ingredients for the sustenance and enhancement of (the involvement of universities and colleges in community partnerships) rest(s) considerably within the academy” (Maurrasse, 2001, p. 5). However, community engagement research also clearly notes that factors across both community and campus organizational infrastructure have to be further examined to best understand 25 effective and successful partnerships. Thus, three factors of community university engagement leadership and governance from the literature are presented: models of collaboration in higher education, the faculty member as leader and engaged scholar, and the relationship between community leadership and campus leadership. Models of collaboration in higher education. Campus-community engagement literature has presented several models of collaboration in higher education (Amey & Brown, 2004; Kezar, 2001; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). Mattessich and Monsey’s (1992) foundational review of research literature on factors that influence successful collaborations formed by community service agencies established the literature regarding characteristics of effective partnerships in community engagement. The authors defined collaboration as “a mutually beneficial relationship between two or more organizations that includes a commitment to mutually defined goals, a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility, mutual authority and accountability for success, and sharing of resources and rewards” (p. 7). Further, the authors grouped the 19 factors they found into six categories: environment, membership, process and structure, communications, purpose, and resources. The authors specifically present a discussion of each category’s factors with a definition, implications, and examples from the literature. Across Mattessich & Monsey’s (1992) categories of collaboration, characteristics of factors included: history of collaboration or cooperation in the community as central to environment, and; mutual respect, understanding, and trust shared amongst the 26 collaborative group and their organizational contexts as a part of membership. The presentation of these findings from the research literature by Mattessich and Monsey (1992) provide a practical structure by which to begin to determine processes of collaboration in community-campus engagement partnerships. Similarly, Kezar (2001) developed 17 research-based principles for change based upon a critical synthesis of research literature on the process of organizational change within higher education institutions. The following eight principles were recommended for those in higher education institutions to work with individuals: be inclusive, and realize this is a human process; be aware how institutional culture affects change; realize that change in higher education is often political; focus on adaptability; be open to a disorderly process; facilitate shared governance and collective decision-making; focus on image; connect the change process to individual and institutional identity, and; create a culture of risk and help people in changing belief systems (p. 123). While Kezar (2001) based her principles on a review of research literature, the principles themselves are too broad to advance an understanding of how collaborations such as community-campus engagement partnerships affect organizational change. Moreover, when compared to Mattessich and Monsey (1992), Kezar’s (2001) research-based principles fail to demonstrate a measurable process of collaboration that would assist either community or campus collaborators in determining how their efforts are systemically affecting organizational change. 27 In their empirical case study of interdisciplinary collaboration and faculty work, Amey and Brown (2004) defined leadership as a form of learning between collaborators who have taken a neutral position as individual leaders. In this neutral position of leadership between the collaborators, the collaborators become open to learning from the emergence of the collaborative process and create neutral organizational spaces to facilitate their commitments to the work. Comparatively, Kezar and Lester (2009) include community-based research among the interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary collaborative approaches that meet the higher education institutions’ goals to work with communities in addressing complex social problems. Strategies that Kezar and Lester (2009) found from their intensive case study research of four higher education institutional experiences of successful collaboration included establishing rewards for faculty involvement, campus-wide funding structures that enable faculty to collaborate and participate on interdisciplinary research grants, and actively altering faculty reward structures by giving faculty course release time and seed money for research. These strategies Kezar and Lester (2009) present for successful collaboration for campus leaders are better able to be assessed than Kezar’s (2001) principles for collaboration for organizational change, and imply that the faculty role is essential to facilitating collaboration with partners external to the academic context. In summary, faculty and community partners that collaborate in community-campus engagement partnerships might exemplify several factors across their process of leadership that contribute to models of collaboration in 28 higher education literature: including community organizational processes that facilitate collaboration, and academic organizational processes employed by faculty (Amey & Brown, 2004; Kezar, 2001, Kezar & Lester, 2009; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). The faculty member as leader and engaged scholar. In the university, faculty members tend to lead community engagement partnerships (Holland, 2005; Maurrasse, 2001; Ward, 2003). Faculty members in this leadership role demonstrate several simultaneous roles that motivate their actions and behaviors as agents within the university system. The (academic) department ‘has become a potent force, both in determining the stature of the university and in hampering the attempts of the university to improve its effectiveness and adapt to changing social and economic requirements’. A new kind of professor, the specialist and expert and man of consequence in society, has replaced the teacher and has augmented his (the specialist’s) influence with a national system of professional and disciplinary societies. Together they have set the standards and the values, both oriented to productive scholarship, that dominate the universities. (Duryea, 1973, p.17) According to Duryea’s assessment, the faculty member’s role includes relational, representative leadership in academic and organizational governance of the university. Further, the faculty member’s role involves responsibilities in the development of educational or academic policies and budgetary decisions (Duryea, 1973, p. 18). A question arises as to how this assessment of the faculty member’s academic and organizational responsibilities are impacted by the university’s internal perception of engagement and service as less significant — especially compared to traditional research and teaching productivity. This perception against engaged scholarship persists even though the scholarship of 29 engagement has been recognized as legitimate scholarship (Boyer, 1990, 1996; Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Driscoll & Sandmann, 2001; Ward, 2003). Community-university engagement centers on building partnership based upon a “universe of human discourse” where different ways of knowing are valued, yet, negative perceptions of engagement with the university context can leave faculty members marginalized within their ranks, institution, and discipline (Fear, Rosaen, Bawden, & Foster-Fishman, 2006). Three themes dominate the service-learning and community-university engagement literature in higher education regarding faculty involvement in community-university engagement: (a) the need to further understand faculty motivations for involvement in community engagement in the context of their traditional academic roles, as well as their perceptions of the results of these efforts by themselves, the campus and community, and the discipline; (b) the need for more documentation of institutional mechanisms to support faculty involvement in outreach and engagement, especially making outreach and engagement part of the promotion and tenure system, and; (c) the need to understand how junior faculty, undergraduate and graduate students involved in outreach and engagement are socialized about their work within the academy (Austin & Barnes, 2005; Driscoll, 2000; Fear et al., 2006; Gelmon et al., 2001; Holland, 1999a; O’Meara, 2001, 2002, 2005; Rice, 2005; Ward, 2003). Related to these three themes, community-campus engagement literature asserts three major policy recommendations that encourage faculty to lead the transformation of institutional perception of community-university engagement at 30 the university and disciplinary levels: (a) university culture toward institutionalizing and rewarding outreach and engagement will not change unless faculty lead its advocacy through the promotion and tenure system; (b) faculty can lead this advocacy by demonstrating a foundation of scholarship based on the integration of engaged teaching, research, and service, balanced within their entire faculty portfolio; and (c) documentation and evidence of rewards for both engaged scholarship and the scholarship of engagement will also promote an infrastructure for continuing professional development. A model of “the engaged scholar” has emerged from an analysis of faculty who participate in community-university engagement‘within state and land-grant universities (Peters, Alter, Jordan, & Adamek, 2006). The focus of the nine case study analysis of faculty and students in state university and land-grant university systems “was on understanding the nature and significance of scholars’ academic and civic purposes and practices rather than on determining and evaluating the actual results of their work” (Peters et al., 2006, p.13). The engaged scholar model involves four phases of faculty participation in community-university engagement: (3) taking the initiative to develop a project idea; (b) searching for partners, revising, and refining the project idea; (0) organizing and implementing the project, producing scholarly and public goods; and (d) scaling up or moving on (Peters, et al., 2006, pp. 409-422). Moreover, the engaged scholar model signifies the faculty member’s role as a leader, both as a collaborator in the community-university partnership and within the system of the university. 31 The point is that pursuing the academy’s engagement mission in mutually beneficial ways is not simply an intellectual project: it is also an organizing project that requires skilled organizers. While some of the scholars in our cases have organizing skills that enable them to play key roles in organizing and maintaining relationships and in creating and maintaining a space that is conducive to effective public work, in every case we find people other than the lead scholar also playing key, and often leading, organizing roles. (Peters, et al., 2006, p. 422) More community engagement research is emerging that explains faculty motivations and perceptions of their involvement in this work, based upon recent scholarly presentations at national conference sessions of higher education associations (Janke & Colbeck, 2006; O’Meara & Jaeger, 2006; Weerts & Sandmann, 2006). However, this emergent research does not illustrate in-depth how the influence of co—leadership between faculty members and community partners sustains community-university engagement partnerships. More specifically, the community-university engagement literature does not specify what co-created, partnership-specific policies, resources, and commitments are used by faculty members within university infrastructure that advance their leadership and governance ability for community-university engagement. The relationship between community leadership and campus leadership. Several authors have attempted to characterize the organizational leadership processes and characteristics that may support effective and successful partnerships. According to Lerner and Simon (1998), “The process of community collaboration rests on co-learning: Members of the campus and the community contexts need to learn about each other’s culture in order for productive and effective outreach scholarship to result” (p. 469). Recent research in the community-university engagement literature has affirmed this assertion 32 that both community and campus leaders need to demonstrate a shared understanding of cultural contexts for effective results. Yet, the factors of community-university engagement leadership and governance that are actually evident have not been examined in-depth in the literature, especially at the community-level. A monograph (Liederman, Furco, Zapf, & Goss, 2003) resulted from a two-day summit that convened 19 community leaders involved in partnerships with 13 colleges and universities. The summit included a series of focus group interviews with the community leaders. The authors provide two noteworthy lists in their discussion of what these community partners shared as their perspectives of challenges to and opportunities for creating and maintaining successful and effective community-university partnerships. The first list details mediating factors that the community partners used to decide whether or not to engage and remain in a partnership. The second list is of common organizational resources and limitations that campus personnel need to consider throughout the partnering process. The mediating factors for community partners’ decisions to engage were: 1. The presence of sufficient, qualified staff at a campus center. Whether or not the campus has an office or unit that coordinates community engagement work (a service-learning center, internship office, or community outreach center for example), the community partners consider the degree to which the institution has allocated sufficient and appropriate staff to handle the scope and scale of the partnership work. 2. The level of sustained administrative interest and visible leadership supporting community engagement. Community partners expect high-level campus administrators to demonstrate that they value engagement work by incorporating it into the institutional culture and infrastructure. 33 3. An assessment of the quality of prior experiences with campus partnerships generally, and with a given higher education institution and particular faculty. 4. Whether or not partners have discussed and begun to work through issues of accountability. 5. Clear expectations about who will prepare students and faculty for engagement activities. (Liederman et al., 2003, pp. 9-10) These mediating factors that the community leaders used to decide whether or not to engage and remain in a partnership clearly demonstrate an expectation from the community that campuses are directly accountable to the community leaders throughout the partnership process. The common organizational resources and limitations that the community leaders said campus personnel need to consider throughout the partnering process were: 1. Capacities vary among community partners, and their resources are often stretched very thin. . Community demographics and most pressing needs are always changing (though underlying causes stay fairly constant). It is important to stay current on how issues play out locally and to understand current community characteristics. . Community partners may or may not be grass roots organizations. The depth of their connections with residents varies a lot. . Community partners’ standards for volunteers are tied to the volunteers’ abilities to help an organization achieve its mission. . A given community organization usually has many partners - in higher education, other community groups, and public sector departments. . Senior staffs of community agencies have expertise, often hold advanced degrees, are often very familiar with current research on the issues on which they work, and are experienced in policy and planning. (Liederman, etaL,2003,p.15) 34 The community partners’ statements to campus personnel for considerations throughout the partnership process indicate a desire on behalf of the community for campus leaders to respect that their organizational culture and climate is actually congruent to that of the campus. Issues of accountability to constituents, resource allocation, and power resonate within these responses to suggest that community partners want to be seen as equal partners with campuses in community-campus engagement efforts. Sandy and Holland (2006) build upon and reference Liederman, et al. (2003) in their qualitative study of community partner perspectives on campus- community partnerships. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with 99 experienced community partners who worked in service-learning partnerships with eight different higher education campuses in California. The study sought “to address the research question of how well the community partner perspective does or does not align with current (four models of campus-community partnerships) proposed by higher education” (Sandy & Holland, 2006, p.31). These four models are referenced in Holland’s previous publications, and are described later in this chapter. The findings echo the characteristics discussed in this literature review, with the exception of one. Regarding the report of community partners that there should be more faculty involvement in the partnership: Community partners indicated that their greatest challenge in partnering with campuses is to find ways to interact directly with faculty through ongoing, reciprocal relationships, become collaborators in designing the service-learning curriculum, and engage with faculty more deeply in the work of their agencies. There was an overwhelming clamor among these community partners that faculty should be more directly involved with their 35 sites and work to better understand the culture, conditions, and practices of their community co-educators. The impact of their weak connection with faculty is disturbing...These community partners also provided many examples of partnership experiences that worked well with faculty, including joint planning days prior to the start of the semester, on-going collaboration with a faculty member throughout the life of the project, clearly defined responsibilities, and shared expectations and roles for students. (Sandy & Holland, 2006, p. 37) The above quote indicates a conflict of understanding from the community partner perspective of what the faculty member’s leadership role throughout the project is supposed to be in the context of his or her individual responsibilities and the community’s responsibilities. A significant finding of Sandy and Holland’s study was “that community partners value the relationship with the university beyond a specific service-learning project” (Sandy & Holland, 2006, p. 34). Also, the authors identified an important limitation that emphasizes the need for more focused research on the relationship between community and university partners involved in community engagement partnerships. This study’s research team may not have had adequate representation among those who work with academic institutions on longer term community development projects in ways advocated by Harkavy (1999) and Bringle (1999) to address this [issue of relationship to higher education partners] adequately. (Sandy & Holland, 2006, p. 38) Therefore, while the focus of this study on community partners involved community-campus service-learning partnerships, the authors of the study clearly suggest that research on engagement efforts such as sustained community- campus engagement partnerships may produce different understandings from community partners. In this first section of my literature review, I have discussed the characteristics of effective and successful community-university engagement 36 partnerships, focusing on two elements: (a) the role of the faculty member as leader and engaged scholar, navigating simultaneous leadership roles between one’s institutional responsibilities, one’s expectations from their discipline, and the community, and (b) the relationship between community and campus leadership, where the community partner wants to be recognized as a congruent partner with the faculty member, facing similar challenges and role expectations. In the next section of my literature review, I discuss the second category of characteristics of effective and successful community-university engagement partnerships: factors of campus and community organizational alignment. Characteristics of Campus and Community Organizational Alignment The second category of characteristics of effective and successful community—university partnerships are those characteristics involving campus and community organizational alignment. Transformational institutional change in higher education is deep and pervasive, affecting the culture and entirety of the institution as reflected through the intentional policies, resources, and commitments that result from that change over time (Eckel & Kezar, 2003, p. 17; see also Ward, 2003). Campus and community organizational alignment in community-university engagement partnerships, therefore, should be expressed by co-created policies, resources and commitments. Further, in the community-university engagement literature, campus-level administrative strategies and actions have been found to significantly affect both the quality and impact of these partnerships (Chicobus & Lerner, 1999; Holland, 1997, 1999a, 1999b; Maurrasse, 2001; Peters et al., 2006; Soska & Butterfield, 37 2004; Ward, 2003; Zimpher, et al., 2006). In his determination of the factors that influence the nature of higher education-community partnerships, Maurrasse (2001) found the following factors most prominent: (a) the type of institution of higher education; (b) the historical relationship between the partners; (c) power relationships between the institution and community; (d) the availability of external funding; (e) the relative support of the public sector, the capacity of community-based institutions and governing structures; (f) the institutional culture of the college or university; (g) the historical mission of the college or university; (h) the backgrounds of the higher educational representatives; and (i) demographics (in both community and institution). It has not been clearly examined in the community-university engagement literature how or to what extent the collaborative relationship between community and campus leaders impacts the effectiveness and subsequent sustainability of these partnerships. Understanding what institutional change results from community-university engagement may center on understanding the strength of both role congruence and networks of communication across levels of leadership in engagement partnership. Especially if the partnerships being examined are ones that have been sustained over time, it is crucial to understand how and to what extent the partnership leaders were/are involved in the development of partnership policies, resources, and commitments. Examining sustained community-university partnerships might present a more clear understanding of how the partnership- specific leadership and governance structure impacts the individual partners’ respective leadership and governance roles. Such delineation may further clarify 38 the characteristics of each partner’s role that contributes to successful and effective leadership and governance structures. Community-University Engagement Policies, Resources 8. Commitments For both the community- and university-levels, characteristics of successful partnerships that relate directly to engagement policies, resources, and commitments have been identified as (a) group cohesion, (b) communication, (c) group effectiveness, (d) shared power and resources, and (e) co-creation of knowledge (Schultz, Israel, & Lantz, 2003; see also Holland, 2005). Further, at the university level, policies identified as essential to successful community-university engagement partnerships are institutional and department-level mission statements that prioritize engagement, and a faculty reward system that includes engagement (Maurrasse, 2001, Holland, 1999, 1997; Soska & Butterfield, 2004; Ward, 2003). Next, resources that contribute to successful partnerships are institutional funding and personnel allocations for community-university engagement (from both partners), and other human, fiscal, information physical resources (Holland, 1997, 20010; Maurrasse, 2001; Soska & Butterfield, 2004; Ward, 2003). Last, commitments that contribute to successful partnerships are commitments specific to community-university engagement sustainability based on scholarship, and scholarship, especially the scholarship of engagement is scholarship (discovery, integration, application) as applied to social problems (Boyer, 1990, 1996). 39 Holland (2005, 2006) discussed four models developed to assess community-university partnerships that begin to broadly illustrate the policies, resources, and commitments that should be present. The four models are: (a) Campus Compact Benchmarks for Campus-Community Partnerships (2000), (b) US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Characteristics of Effective Partnerships (1998), (c) Community-Campus Partnerships for Health’s Principles of Partnerships (1998), and (d) Council of Independent Colleges’ Building Sustainable Partnerships (2003). Based upon her synthesis of these four models, Holland presents six common themes or elements of effective community- campus partnerships: 1. Partners must jointly explore and understand their separate as well as common goals and interests, 2. Each partner must understand the capacity, resources, and expected contribution of effort for themselves and every other pannen 3. Effective partnerships identify opportunities for success and evidence of mutual benefit through careful planning of project activities and attention to shared credit, 4. If the partnership is to be sustained, the focus of the project activity and partnership interaction is the relationship itself, with the core work to promote ongoing knowledge exchange, shared learning, and capacity building, 5. The partnership design must ensure shared control of partnership directions, and 6. The partners must make a commitment to continuous assessment of the partnership relationship itself, in addition to outcomes. (Holland, 2005, pp. 14-15) These six common themes echo what the community-engagement literature represents as characteristics of successful and effective partnerships, 4O with some additional specificity as to what policies, resources, and commitments should be evident. Additionally, Holland (2005) identifies and describes in detail two elements she finds missing from the six common themes: two types of information, and seven challenges. Regarding the first category of information missing from the six common themes, she states, “There is much less written or documented about how a partnership would develop these ideal characteristics...we have not adequately examined and captured effective strategies and practices” (Holland, 2005, p.15). The second category of missing information is “a host of challenging subtopics inherent in many of these common characteristics” (Holland, 2005, p.15). These challenging subtopics are presumed by the reader to be what she details next in her description of core challenges regarding attainment of effective partnership characteristics (Holland, 2005, pp.15-16). The seven challenges are (a) power differences, (b) culture/race issues, (0) language, (d) leadership, (e) documentation and measurement, (f) resources, and (g) visibility. In her discussion of the challenge of documentation and measurement, Holland makes a strong observation of the community- engagement literature. Outstanding work has been done over the last decade to explore the characteristics of effective partnerships. Most of this information appeared in reports that were developed independently of one another and rarely built on other works or previously synthesized models. As a result, there are a number of models of effective partnerships in the literature, but still no sense of broad consensus about their implementation. More work is needed to develop simple but compelling ways to measure the quality and impact of partnership work, especially from the perspective of community. A related need is a clear strategy for how data will be used. (Holland, 2005, pp.12,15-16). 41 Holland’s earlier works (2001c, 2001d) give much more specific elaboration as to how to assess the impact of community-university engagement, especially from the community partner perspective. Following are some examples of the kinds of variables and indicators that might be used to capture community partner impacts: 1. Capacity to fulfill mission (new insights into organizational operations, new services initiated, increased capacity to serve clients), . Economic impacts (value of service-learning services, new or leveraged funding, reduced or increased costs associated with service- learning activity), . Perception of mutuality and reciprocity (self-articulation of role in project, articulation of goals for the partnership, articulation of benefits to the campus and students, articulation of unanticipated benefits to organization), Awareness of potential (analysis of mission or vision, development of new networks of partners, interest in new endeavors), Sustainability of partnership (articulation of criteria for success, cost- benefit analysis, perceptions of trust, suggestions for change or improvement), and . Satisfaction (intentions to continue, ability to articulate positive and negative feedback, recruitment of students for continued service or employment, references to service-learning in fundraising or publications, ideas for further interaction). (Holland, 2001c, pp. 57-58) In summary, more research is needed within community-university partnerships to clearly illustrate which partnership-specific, co-created policies, resources, and commitments supported the sustainability of the partnership. Further, it should be examined in research how the partnership-specific, co- created policies, resources, and commitments contributed to each partner’s ability to build their organizational infrastructure. Last, a clearer understanding of 42 partnership-specific, co-created policies, resources and commitments can better delineate each partner’s leadership role in the overall sustainability of the partnership. The last category of characteristics of effective and successful community-university engagement partnerships follows: evidence of mutual benefit. Evidence of Mutual Benefit Successful and effective community-university engagement partnerships should have evidence of mutual benefit to both the community and university partners. What the community-university engagement literature has begun to define as evidence of mutual benefit includes co-created knowledge or scholarship. In this section of my literature review, I discuss how scholarship has been viewed in higher education, and conclude with an illustration of how the community-university engagement literature discusses co-created knowledge or scholarship. Scholarship in Higher Education Traditionally, “scholarship” has been defined in higher education as original research that has been published as a book-chapter or book, or an article in discipline-based, peer-reviewed (refereed) journals (Diamond, 2002). Three separate initiatives re-examined scholarship across higher education: a publication on the scholarship of professional service (Lynton, Elman & Smock; 1985), a four classification redefinition of scholarship by Eugene Rice (1991), and Diamond’s study of scholarship across disciplines (1997) (Diamond, 2002). These initiatives led to more publications that discuss the relationship between 43 faculty responsibilities, faculty productivity and workload, and needed additions/standardization of criteria and assessment policies at campuses that help the faculty promotion and tenure system support a broad range of activities that can be legitimized as scholarship (Diamond, 2002; see also Baker, 2001; Fairweather, 1996; O’Meara, 2000; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Ward, 2003). Diamond (2002) succinctly summarizes how scholarship has been considered across disciplines in higher education. Any attempt to define scholarship within a particular context of faculty work is doomed to failure. Some disciplines are more comfortable with a research/publication basis for scholarly work than others are, but in every agademic field there are problems with this approach. (Diamond, 2002, p. Later in this section of my literature review, I discuss how scholars such as Diamond have used community-campus engagement activity as a means of advancing campus policies and practices that support further definition of scholarship. These scholars attempt to use community-university engagement as an organizational tool to reflect the relationship between (a) the campus mission of engagement, (b) leadership and governance, (c) organizational alignment, and (d) evidence of mutual benefit. Next, I will provide an overview of how community-campus engagement research has advanced co-created knowledge as scholarship. Co-Created Knowledge as Scholarship Maurrasse (2001) aimed to determine the compatibility of community partnerships with the missions of institutions of higher education as he researched how four different types of colleges and universities form 44 partnerships with their communities. Maurrasse concluded that community- campus partnerships make sense to various degrees, in both academic and economic dimensions of their missions; “mutual interests between local communities and institutions of higher education do exist, and they seem to become more apparent through lengthy relationship-building processes” (Maurrasse, 2001, p. 181). Co-creation of knowledge (or scholarship) is recognized by Maurrasse (2001) as a key factor of community-university engagement partnerships’ successes at a major research university, but does not provide in-depth information on how this co-created knowledge has specifically benefited the community. Academically, (the university’s) incentive for engaging in community partnerships is knowledge production. Economically, its incentive is based on physical location. The quality of faculty and students is dependent upon the conditions of the surrounding neighborhood. (Maurrasse, 2001, p. 33) Driscoll and Sandmann (2001) detail three major components that faculty members can use to document their scholarly activity as community-campus engaged scholarship: purpose, process, and outcomes. First, faculty members can use the purpose of their engagement activity to articulate their expertise and experiences to the institutional or departmental mission which supports engagement work. Next, the faculty member can use the process as a record of the design and methodology of their engagement activity, bridging their previous research, evidence of collaboration with community partners, and presentation of scholarly impact/questions/lessons learned. Last, outcomes describe benefits to the community partner, institution/unit, students, the discipline or profession, and the individual faculty member. 45 In a recent book on university-community partnerships in social work, two tenured faculty members in social work illustrated their experiences and techniques to help pre-tenure faculty meet tenure scholarship requirements while involved in university-community partnerships (Rogge & Rocha, 2004). The authors shared specifics by sharing two case examples of their community-based, participatory research co-created knowledge. Moreover, the authors discussed the challenges, benefits, and lessons learned in their roles as faculty members. Both case examples give detail on how the authors involved community members and leaders in their partnership processes and research designs. The first case example concludes with a discussion of how one co- author integrated the research from the partnership into her advanced social work policy course, with some description of how the course’s task group assignments provided technical assistance to communities. The second case example describes how a co—author was involved in two projects: (a) her initiation of a community fellows project that provides a tuition-free, non-credit graduate course on financial management and resource development to members of community-based organizations, and (b) the process and results of a piloted, experiential community-based assignment of student task groups in a graduate foundation course on practice with organizations and communities. Rogge and Rocha (2004) include some detail on the community impact of that research, as they discussed the challenges, benefits, and lessons learned from the two case examples. Much information is shared by the authors on the challenges, benefits, and lessons learned as related to the faculty members’ 46 roles, scholarship, and student learning outcomes, and leadership and governance. End-of-project evaluations by community partners and students, however, provide some indicators of the actual service outcomes experienced and perceived by community partners. Community members used the hands- on support from students and faculty in a variety of community-generated and defined areas...Additional learning over time has included how to help both community partners and students assess at the outset their mutual knowledge, skills, and interests to shape service project activities. Together, the two case studies describe a range of measurable and intangible service outcomes for the actors engaged in this university- community partnership...as participatory and other community research- based approaches become more widely accepted, universities should acknowledge, nurture, and publicize the academic value-added enhancement of community service through such research. (Rogge & Rocha, 2004, pp. 116-117) However, gaps in Rogge and Rocha’s (2004) presentation include a need for more detail how the efforts’ infrastructure and knowledge products contributed to community capacity-building. This discussion is representative of what is missing from much of the community-university engagement literature: details or in-depth discussion of the specific policies, resources, and commitments that contribute to the co-created knowledge (scholarship) of the partnership. These policies, resources, and commitments — while commonly recommended in the community-university engagement literature in broad terms to fit various campus and community organizational types — are the yet-to-be analyzed factors that may advance the assessment of impacts of community- university engagement. More research is needed to examine the relationship of organizational factors of community-university engagement and the following aspects of partnerships: (a) extent of engagement and (b) how the extent of 47 engagement directly impacts the extent of co-creation of knowledge impacts, community and faculty partner perceptions, and experience of effectiveness. Evaluating Co-Created Knowledge and Scholarship Several publications directly address how colleges and universities can assess community-campus scholarship in ways that are not only beneficial to higher education partners within their organizational responsibilities, but also to the community as co-created knowledge (Baker, 2001; Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Glassick, Maeroff, & Huber, 1997; Michigan State University, 1996; O’Meara, 2002; Ward, 2003). Of these publications, three discuss specific measures that faculty in community-campus engagement partnerships can specifically use to evaluate outreach and engagement scholarship (Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Glassick, Maeroff & Huber, 1997; Michigan State University, 1996). Of these three publications, only Points of Distinction: A Guidebook for Planning & Evaluating Quality Outreach (Michigan State University, 1996) discusses how both the campus and community partners can co-evaluate outreach and engagement scholarship for reciprocal impacts. POD won the 1998 University Continuing Education Association Innovations award. POD has three sections that discuss how outreach scholarship can be evaluated at the levels of the academic unit, the individual and the project. POD presents a detailed matrix for evaluation of quality outreach at the project level centering on four dimensions of determining quality outreach and engagement (significance, context, scholarship, and impact). The matrix discusses each of the four dimensions, with components of each dimension to examine, sample questions to ask about the 48 project, and examples of both qualitative and quantitative indicators. Table 2.1 represents an excerpt of the POD model of evaluating outreach scholarship and impact. 49 Dimension Scholarship Impact 1 3 4. Knowledge 1. Impact on Issues, Components . Knowledge Resources . Knowledge Application . Knowledge - Generation Utilization Institutions, and Individuals 2. Sustainability and . Capacity Building 3. University— Community Relations Table 2.1. Excerpted Points of Distinction Model of Evaluating Outreach Scholarship & Impact Sample Questions Is knowledge in the community or among the stakeholders utilized? Does the plan include provision for ongoing documentation of activities, evaluation, and possible midstream modification? Was new knowledge generated; i.e., program hypotheses confirmed or revised, outcomes creatively interpreted, new questions for scholarship asked? Is the knowledge generated by the project available for dissemination, utilization, and possible replication? In what ways is the knowledge being recorded, recognized, and rewarded? Is the project affecting public policy? Has it improved practice or advanced community knowledge? To what extent did the project build capacity for individuals, institutions, or social infrastructure; i.e., financial, technological, leadership, planning, technical, professional, collaborative, etc.? To what extent did the stakeholders come to understand and appreciate each others’ values, intentions, concerns, and resource base? 50 Examples of Qualitative Indicators Annotated narrative showing what sources of knowledge are used; i.e., community assessments, previous works, and applied theory. Reflective narrative, rationale for project, and documentation of the design process. Lessons learned documented. External review of performance by stakeholders relative to innovation, satisfaction with approach and results. Stakeholder feedback. Project generated a replicable, innovative model. Nature of groups or institutions applying knowledge generated. Description of impacts (i.e., significance and scope of benefits) on the issue, stakeholders, and beneficiaries, to include: Needs fulfilled, issues addressed, population or group involved in process. Institutional processes changed. Replicable innovation developed. Benefits resulting from changes in practice; e.g., knowledge applied, processes or approaches more efficient, circumstances improved. Inventory of new or developed skills. Activities and processes institutionalized. Networks activated. Cross-disciplinary linkages activated. Continued or alternative resources secured; e.g., funding, facilities, equipment, personnel. Planned degree of disengagement or continuing partnership achieved. Co-authored reports and presentations. Opportunities for new collaborations established. Role flexibility and changes that provide for greater university/community interaction. Examples of Quantitative Indicators Number of cross—disciplinary resources utilized. Number of in—house communications related to the project; e.g., in-house documents, interim reports, newsletters, e—mail messages, chat rooms, bulletin boards. Number of programs, curricula influenced by scholarly results. Scope of involvement in interpretation and dissemination; e.g., numbers and types of partiCIpants. Number of different avenues chosen to communicate results. Number of appropriate products generated for practitioners and public (e.g. technical reports, bulletins, books, monographs, chapters, articles, presentations, public performances, testimony, training manuals, software, computer programs, instructional videos, etc.). Quantitative changes in skills, technologies, behaviors, activities, etc. List of facilities, equipment, personnel available. Number of sites and cross-site linkages established. Number of new collaborations considered or established. Evidence of increased demand placed on the unit or faculty for outreach. At least one study has been published that used POD as a foundation to evaluate community-university engagement scholarship, focusing on the assessment of this scholarship in the college-level promotion and tenure process (Baker, 2001). Baker (2001) summarizes her study’s findings about perceptions of engagement scholarship, finding that perceived values of engagement scholarship were mixed, dependent upon whether such scholarship produced publications, grants, and contracts (Baker, 2001, p. ii). Further research based on models of evaluating engagement scholarship is needed to provide a better understanding of their applicability in the actual assessment of community- campus engagement scholarship, and its influence on faculty involvement in sustained partnerships. In this section of my literature review, I discussed how co—created knowledge from community-campus engagement can serve as evidence of mutual benefit to engagement partners. More research is needed specific to the relationship between (a) community-university partnership leadership and governance, (b) organizational alignment, and (c) evidence of mutual benefit, especially co-created knowledge and scholarship. In the next section of my literature review, I discuss the characteristics of sustained community-university engagement partnerships. 51 Characteristics of Sustained Community-University Engagement Partnerships Other than anecdotal case study information, little is known about specific characteristics of sustained community-university partnerships, including the nature, scope, roles of those involved, funding, and impact of engagement activities. Hatala and Sandmann (2000) reported the results of an inventory that collected information about engagement from a regional cluster of higher education institutions, and analyzed elements of the institutions’ engagement activities. In discussing results and limitations of the inventory, the authors shared the significance of further in-depth research on community-university partnership impacts. Additional review of the inventory indicated that it might have been of benefit to include a) why the engagement initiative was instituted, b) activities of the partnership and what type of involvement came from faculty, staff, and students, 0) content area, d) perceptions of the benefits derived from the partnership, and e) whether or not research or evaluation studies had been conducted to document the partnerships effects, and if so, provide details. (Hatala & Sandmann, 2000, pp. 154-155) Community-University Partnership Models The community-university engagement literature is dominated by research on service-learning oriented collaborations. Overall, this literature presents an emergent set of models that demonstrate two elements: models of community- university partnerships based on characteristics and principles of partnership development, and models of benchmarks or indicators of community-university partnerships. 52 As aforementioned, Holland (2005) based her reflections on community- campus partnerships on four models: (a) Campus Compact Benchmarks for Campus/Community Partnerships (Campus Compact, 2000), (b) the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Characteristics of Effective Partnerships (Holland & Ramaley, 1998; Holland, 2001), (c) Community-Campus Partnerships for Health’s (CCPH) Principles of Partnerships (CCPH, 1998), and (d) the Council of Independent Colleges’ Building Sustainable Partnerships program (CIC, 2003). Each of these four models is brief, with fewer than ten bullet points per model in terms of descriptions of characteristics. Holland synthesizes the brief models into her six common themes/elements of partnerships and the subsequent seven core challenges regarding the attainment of effective partnership characteristics (Holland, 2005). Table 2.2 presents those models’ characteristics as summarized by Holland (2005, pp. 12-14). 53 Table 2.2. Holland’s (2005) Discussion of Four Models of Effective Partnerships Model 1: Campus Compact (2000) Stage I: Designing the Partnership Genuine democratic partnerships are: 0 Founded on a shared vision and clearly articulated values. 0 Beneficial to partnering institutions. Stage II: Building Collaborative Relationships Genuine democratic partnerships that build strong collaborative relationships are: 0 Composed of interpersonal relationships based on trust and mutual respect. 0 Multi—dimensional: They involve the participation of multiple sectors that act in service of a complex problem. 0 Clearly organized and led with dynamism. Stage III: Sustaining Partnerships Over Time Genuine democratic partnerships that will be sustained over time are: 0 Integrated into the mission and support systems of the partnering institutions. 0 Sustained by a partnership process for communication, decision~ making, and the initiation of change. 0 Evaluated regularly with a focus on both methods and outcomes. 54 Model 2: US HUD (Holland & Ramaley, 1998; Holland, 2001) Joint exploration of goals and interests and limitations. Creation of a mutually rewarding agenda. Operational design that supports shared leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution, resource management. Clear benefits and roles for each partner. Identification of opportunities for early successes for all; shared celebration of progress. Focus on knowledge exchange, shared learning and capacity—building. Attention to communication patterns, cultivation of trust. Commitment to continuous assessment of the partnership itself, as well as outcomes of shared work. Model 3: CCPH, 1998 Agree upon values, goals and measurable outcomes. Develop relationships of mutual trust, respect, genuineness and commitment. Build upon strengths and assets, and also address needs. Balance power and share resources. Have clear, open, and accessible communication. Agreed upon roles, norms and processes. Ensure feedback to, among and from all ' stakeholders. Share the credit for accomplishments. 0 Take time to develop and evolve. Model 4: CIC, 2003 Goals and processes are mutually determined, including training for people who will work with community organizations or residents. Resources, rewards and risks are shared among all parties. Roles and responsibilities are based on each partner’s capacities and resources. Parity is achieved by acknowledging and respecting the expertise and experience of each partner. Anticipated benefits justify the costs, effort and risks of participation. Partners share a vision build on excitement and passion for the issues at hand. Partners are accountable for carrying out joint plans and ensuring quality. Partners are committed to ensuring that each partner benefits from participation. wmmt nafione unders essay I Hmoug mecha eren resear same Cenkn Howe lherat Impa( mats bEnd While Holland’s (2005) essay is a significant contribution to the community-university engagement literature that synthesizes some of the national models of community-higher education partnerships in the context of her understanding of the community perspective, it remains a reflective essay. The essay explains in narrative how the models can be used for further research (through her six common elements and seven core challenges especially). Yet, the characteristics of effective and successful partnerships that directly influence evidence of a reciprocal partnership needs to be clearly exemplified in future research. Holland’s research that follows in 2006 builds upon this work by using the same four models as the basis for a large scale qualitative research study centered on the community partner perspective of service-learning partnerships. However, what is missing from both these contributions by Holland to the literature are other more specific models of community-campus partnership impacts published between 2001 and 2003, by some of the same organizations that she references in her work. The significance of understanding the benchmark/indicator models in the context of Holland’s research on community- campus partnership models is a juxtaposition of research that is directly related to understanding community-higher education engagement partnerships. Table 2.3 presents a summary of these models of indicators of community-university engagement partnerships. 55 Table 2.3. Models of Indicators of Community-University Engagement Partnerships, 2001-2003 \1 ON ()0 CIC Committee on Engagement (March 2003) . Enrich scholarship and research . Contribute to the common good . Prepare citizen scholars Impact curriculum . Endorse democratic values and civic responsibility . Serve as a model for democratic discussion . Address critical societal needs, and is . Infused across the university 56 Campus Compact IOEP (Meeropol, 2003) 1.Mission and purpose 2. Administrative and academic leadership 3. External resource allocations 4. Disciplines, departments, and interdisciplinary work 5. Faculty roles and rewards 6. Internal budget and resource allocation 7. Community voice 8. Support structures and resources 9. Faculty development 10. Coordination of community- based activities 1 1. Teaching and Learning 12. Forums for fostering public dialogue 13. Student voice Minnesota Campus Civic Engagement Study (Bowley, 2003) Overall Strongest Civic Engagement Indicators . Local knowledge is valued in epistemology/knowledge generation. . Partnership relationships are built on respect, responsiveness, mutual accountability, and assets. . Civic leaders exist and are encouraged among all people on campus and among community partners. 4. Decision-making on campus includes all campus stakeholder voices. 5. Resources are shared in partnerships and joint community development efforts. Overall Weakest Civic Engagement Indicators 1. Endowment policy (how the endowment is invested) considers local, regional, or global impact. . Adequate professional staff and/or coordination exist to effectively support engagement. . Faculty development opportunities support engagement. . Recognition/awards exist for exemplary engagement work. . Service-learning and other community-based forms of education exist throughout departments/disciplines. Recommendations 1. Improve communication with internal and external stakeholders, including increased evaluation efforts. . Remove faculty rewards barriers and encourage faculty development. . Improve civic engagement efforts overall by focusing on those ten indicators that appear to leverage strength in all thirty indicators. Identify key professionals to coordinate and support civic engagement. . Consider the influence of top leaders. ,_I l\.) DJ [\J b.) is U} N U.) P: (J1 Gelmon, Holland, Driscoll, Spring, Kerrigan, 2001 Variables about community partner organization Capacity tofulfill organizational mission 1. Types of services provided 2. Number of clients served 3. Number of students involved 4. Variety of activities offered 5. Insights into assets and needs Economic benefits 1. Identification of new staff 2. Impact on resource utilization through services provided by faculty/students 3. Identification of funding opportunities Social Benefits 1. New connections or networks 2. Number of volunteers 3. Impact on community issues Variables about community-university partnership Nature of community-university relationship (partnership) 1. Creation of partnerships 2. Kinds of activities conducted 3. Barriers/facilitators Nature of community-university interaction . Involvement in each others’ activities 2. Communication patterns 3. Community awareness of university programs and activities 4. University awareness of community programs and activities Satisfaction with partnership 1. Perception of mutuality and reciprocity 2. Responsiveness to concerns 3. Willingness to provide feedback Sustainability of partnership 1. Duration 2. Evolution )__A A comparison of the two tables of models implies that further research is necessary to more clearly understand community-campus engagement partnership characteristics and indicators. Across the models, it is clear that individual associations have varying assessments of community-campus engagement partnership goals and objectives for leaders across community and campus organizations. For example, comparing the Committee for Institutional Cooperation’s (CIC) recommendations for engagement partnerships across the two tables, one perspective is that roles and responsibilities achieved across partners who lead the engagement partnership determines the impact of the partnership. The second CIC set of recommendations from the Committee on Engagement describes more of a process of guidelines that should be established across the academic and community organizational contexts who participate in engagement. Unless both sets of recommendations are considered side-by-side, one would not necessarily be aware that the same organization had this range of recommendations that could assist development of community- campus engagement activity. Similar conclusions can be made comparing the Campus Compact models of engagement activity. The first is a stage-based model of democratically-oriented principles of engagement for partnerships that might be sustained over time. The second model is a list of indicators of engagement for academic institutions who seek to build engagement activity. Taken together and synthesized through further research, they could be used by Campus Compact 57 or any other institution to form a process of collaboration for community and campus partners desiring to develop effective engagement partnerships. These studies and the models that were derived from them have specific emphasis on the contextual dynamics of community-higher education partnerships, especially as related to what the literature says about their characteristics of effectiveness and success. Further synthesis of the community- university engagement models of characteristics and of indicators needs to happen in order to more clearly delineate their relationship to the partnership collaboration process. Kearney and Candy (2004) presented three case examples from the US. and UK. to answer the question, “what are some of the processes that enable a (community-university) partnership to work?” The authors describe “processes of engagement” they used in their work as consultants that enable people to work together on the basis of trust, reciprocity and shared purpose. These “high engagement processes” are often ignored, undervalued, or taken for granted in the “partnership paradox”. The “partnership paradox” happens where a tension exists between the goals of the leading institution and/or funders and the desire to involve local communities in a positive way (Kearney & Candy, 2004, p. 183). The partnership paradox is addressed by defining partnership as a “process formed through collaboration with other groups and which changes and develops over time...especially important if desired change is to emerge in complex systems” (Kearney & Candy, 2004, p. 184). 58 The authors assert that the ways in which the partnership is developed and implemented by both partners, as well as how power dynamics are addressed, affects the outcomes achieved. To achieve change through community-university partnerships, the authors conclude that process needs to be the priority. Further, the authors assert that members of the partnerships should be given space to decide outcomes that match their organizational contexts. An evaluation was completed in 2005 to understand the community partner perspective of experience and value of one university’s community- university partnerships, including how the partnerships could be improved for effectiveness (McNall, 2005). Conducted as an online survey, the evaluation included a sample consisting of 28 community partners. Ten of the community partners were from non-profits or community-based organizations. Twenty of the partners (71%) reported that their partnerships were either near the end or over. Most of the community partners (57%) said that they had not been approached by university faculty about the partnership first, and almost as many partners (58%) said their partnership did not involve a formal letter of agreement. The evaluation also examined community and faculty partner perceptions of: (a) partnership services expected and received, (b) changes to community partners’ organizations, (0) partnerships with university faculty, (d) attitudes toward partnering with university faculty, and (e) sustainability of partnership impacts. Partnership benefits expected were compared to the benefits actually received, and the degree to which these benefits were sustained after the 59 partnership (McNall, 2005). Significant findings included the following: (1) community partners expected that their partnerships would generate more research on a community issue, problem, or need than both actually occurred and was sustained, and (2) on average, community partners rated their experiences as moderately positive in partnerships with university faculty, both before and after the partnerships. Additionally, these attitudes did not change significantly over time. Moreover, community partners expressed considerable interest in partnering with university faculty in the future (McNall, 2005). McNall, Reed, and Brown (2006) adapted Schultz, Israel, and Lantz’s (2003) model and instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships to complete their university-community partnerships evaluation. The purpose of this evaluation was to understand in what ways community-university partnerships facilitated by an outreach and engagement unit of the university (a) possessed the group dynamics characteristic of effective partnerships, and (b) produced benefits for both community and faculty partners. The evaluation also explored the relationship between group dynamics and partner benefits. A parallel but tailored survey of university and community partners was administered that was designed to address the following dimensions of partnerships: (a) environmental characteristics, (b) structural characteristics, (C) group dynamics, d)intermediate measures of effectiveness, and (d) outcome measures of partnership effectiveness. 60 The sample was comprised of 62 respondents: 44 (75.9%) were community partners, 18 (78.3%) were faculty partners. Participants came from partnerships that ended after December 31, 1999 and were ongoing as of October 2005 as an indication of sustainability. Thirty community partners (68.2%) were from a non-profit or community-based organization; seven (15.9%) were from an intermediate school district. Twelve university partners (66.7%) were faculty members; four were non-tenured faculty (22.2%). The evaluation found that upon combined analysis of the community and faculty partner perceived benefits of the partnership, further analysis is needed to appropriately understand what factors led the partners to respond as they did. A significant question also arose related to how both sets of partners understood the dynamics of community engagement as related to research and scholarship; the evaluation’s findings indicate implications for further analysis. In summarizing the evaluation, the authors found that community partners and, to a lesser extent, university partners view three aspects of their partnerships positively: group dynamics, group effectiveness, and expected and received benefits. Moreover, the benefits of partnerships were not routinely sustained after partnerships ended, and the authors recommended that for further improvement, more ways needed to be identified for partners to sustain these benefits. Additionally, three dimensions of group dynamics were associated with total benefits confidently expected or actually received from partnerships: co- creation of knowledge, communication, and group effectiveness. Analyses of the 61 relationships between group dynamics and particular benefits showed that communication was associated with increased collaboration among organizations, and co-creation of knowledge was associated with improved service outcomes for clients and increased knowledge and skills among students and staff. Last, implications for improvement of partnerships as reported by both community and faculty partners included working on ways to sustain benefits after partnerships have ended, and working on involving more partners in the analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of results (McNall, Reed, & Brown, 2006) Although several models of highly engaged community-campus partnership characteristics and indicators to measure their effectiveness are present in the literature, more analysis is need in order to clearly understand the relationship between the models and the actual experiences of the partnership participants experiences of success. Emergent evaluation research specific to highly engaged community-university partnerships has also been completed. This emergent research indicates that further analysis of community and faculty partner experiences of partnership dynamics need to be assessed in conjunction with their experiences of sustainability. In the final section of my literature review, I discuss why it is significant to understand engagement impacts within the context of community development. 62 The Significance of Understanding Engagement Impacts within Community Development Community development involves capacity building, the achievement of outcomes and other activities that improve the community's ability to solve problems collectively (Mattessich, 1997). The community development literature has asserted that it is more valuable to understand community development less as an indicator of social change, but more through a focus on the relationship between partner uses of knowledge resulting from the strength of the institutional and community cultural ties (Mattessich, 1997; Rubin & Rubin, 1992). What has not been examined in the community engagement literature is what these relational dynamics at the community level mean in terms of leadership and governance dynamics, skill development among community organization staff members and community residents, and other impacts. Mattessich (1997) evaluated the significant factors that influence the success or failure of community building initiatives. After be identified 525 publications of the evaluation literature on community building, he also communicated with practitioners and other researchers about the many definitions of community (close to 25 definitions of community development). From his final sample of publications (48 studies), his developed the following five areas of focus: 1. We focused on one type of community - communities formed on the basis of where people live, 2. We focused on the building of community strengths that relate to social capacity or social readiness to accomplish tasks or improve community living standards, 63 3. We focused only on the ways that community building initiatives increase those strengths - not on the other matters that influence these strengths, 4. We focused on social capacity - a community's internal potential to accomplish what it needs to do; we didn’t focus on task accomplishment itself, and 5. We defined certain terms to make analysis uniform across different studies. (Mattessich, 1997, p. 5) Mattessich, Monsey, and Roy (1997) noted that task and goal accomplishment are not the outcomes of a community building process. Instead, the authors asserted that community building efforts result in a community’s improved capacity to accomplish tasks and goals in relationship to evidence of a strong network of relationships between community residents and leaders based on place and the depth of mutual relationship. Further, the authors use the term “community social capacity” to refer to a community’s ability to work together in concert to develop and achieve goals, acknowledging that other authors have referred to this capability of communities by use of such terms as assets, capacity, and social capital. The authors conclude that the 28 factors found to influence community building (also discussed as abilities or competencies) exist, to some degree, in most communities, and that the more often that these projects include a community building component, the greater the likelihood of success with an overall community building initiative. Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh and Vidal (2001) defined community capacity-building as ways of acting and doing that promote community well- being, emphasizing “the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, 64 and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of that community” (p. 7). The authors conclude their definition of community capacity- building by stating that it can be facilitated among and between systems of which the community is a part, including informal social processes, organizational efforts, or social networks. Presenting the development model for organizational administration of community-based social and economic programs, Rubin and Rubin (1992) stated the following as a definition of success of the development model: “Developmental actions are successful when people build and maintain their own organizations that provide a community-based capacity for problem solving...successful developmental organizations combine a concern for the community and local empowerment with service delivery and economic growth” (pp.350,359) Moreover, community development organizations face three significant dilemmas that affect their involvement in determining organizational infrastructure and activities: (a) empowerment versus routinization, defined as balancing routine organizational tasks with empowerment activities, (b) broad participation versus professional effectiveness, defined as obtaining necessary expertise without destroying the empowerment that occurs when members control their own projects, and (c) power versus dependence, defined as obtaining resources from government and businesses without losing organizational autonomy (Rubin & Rubin, 1992). If the organizations with whom community development 65 organizations partner share power, decision-making, and other resources with the community, then the partnerships are most likely to be successful. Specifically discussing the relationship between the academy and community development practitioners, the authors emphasized the role community-based research partnerships can play. Academics can gather and organize the background information needed to analyze trends and can translate research on economic and social change into terms that can guide community action. Implementing a closer relationship between academics and activists in the communities has been difficult. But research need not be inimical to practice...As the relationship between academics and practitioners improves, practitioners gain the ability to set a research agenda for academics. Academics can learn from practitioners what is happening in the neighborhoods and use this knowledge to challenge the research community to discover more about the structures of social power or to investigate alternative forms of economic enterprise. A continuing exchange between academics and practitioners helps define what knowledge is required to keep community organizations adaptive and successful. (Rubin & Rubin, 1992, p. 444) In the third and last section of my literature review, I discussed the significance of understanding community-campus engagement impact within the context of community development. Community development involves capacity building based on the community's ability to solve problems collectively in order to achieve outcomes and other activities. Community-campus engagement can play a significant role in advancing community capacity and community development by building leadership and governance dynamics, skill development among community organization staff members and community residents, and other impacts. Co-created knowledge developed by community-campus engagement partnerships can serve as a means by which the community 66 development organization leaders and members work equally with academic partners for mutual adaptability. Summary My literature review began with an overview of characteristics of effective and successful community-university engagement partnerships, In which I emphasized a need for further research on the relationship between factors of leadership and governance, factors of community and campus organizational alignment, and evidence of mutual benefit. In the second section of my literature review, I presented themes from community-university engagement partnership models. I emphasized that further synthesis of the community-university engagement models of characteristics and indicators is needed, in order to more clearly delineate their role in advancing the assessment of the collaboration process of partnerships. I Last, in the third section of my literature review, I presented a rationale for the significance of understanding community-university engagement partnership impacts within the context of community development. Here, I advocated that co- created knowledge developed by community-campus engagement partnerships promote the adaptability and success of both community and campus leaders and members. In the next chapter, I discuss methodology I used to examine the collaboration process of community-university engagement partnerships. The research design focused on an analysis of two essential elements of these 67 partnerships: (a) co-created scholarship resulting from the partnership, and (b) partnership specific, co-created policies, resources and commitments. 68 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methodology of the dissertation, beginning with an overview of the case study institution, Midwestern University, a public research university in the Midwest. In addition, the chapter situates Midwestern University explaining why it was chosen for the dissertation. Next, the sample selection process of the nine partnerships is described, including demographics of the final sample of faculty and community partners. Last, procedures of data analysis are discussed. The research questions for the study were: Once faculty engage, what factors of collaboration with community partners enable them to develop sustained community-university engagement partnerships; What are the factors of the collaborative process that most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners, and; What factors of the collaborative process most impact the partnership’s sustainability? Site Selection Since 1993, Midwestern University has implemented several initiatives to center both its institutional mission and academic context on outreach and engagement. In October 1993, the Provost’s Committee on University Outreach published the results of an 18-month in-depth analysis of research. In 1993, the Provost had a committee that published the results of an 18- month in depth analysis of research on engagement activity. The report’s research comprised over 200 interviews of colleagues who undertook engagement research, teaching, and service activity, including colleagues who 69 were at Midwestern University and state-wide constituents across 16 sites of engagement activity. Moreover, the report’s research included a review of 17 national peer institutions’ efforts. There were two primary results from the report, a new definition of outreach, and seven strategic directions to strengthen the university’s demonstration of commitment to outreach. Per the report, the seven strategic directions were recommended to result from the new definition of engagement were related to how the institution would focus its operations toward engagement. The strategic directions included: adopting the new definition of engagement; creating a measurement and evaluation system to track, assess, and adjust the amount of engagement activity done by the institution; placing primary responsibility for engagement at the unit level while involving multiple stakeholders in dynamic planning for engagement; rewarding units and faculty for involvement in engagement; enhancing access by the community to the university’s knowledge resources, and; strengthening engagement through university-wide leadership. In 1997, the Office of Engagement at Midwestern University began development of the Midwestern University Engagement Survey (MUES), which launched in 2004. The MUES is an annual online survey of university faculty- reported outreach and engagement activity. The survey gathered both quantitative and qualitative data about characteristics of engagement efforts. These characteristics spanned four sections; wherein the first three sections of the survey are comprised of closed-ended questions about the geographic location of activities; the area of social concern of the activity; time spent on the 70 activity, and revenue generated by the activity, both for the university and from the external partners. The fourth section of the survey solicited qualitative data from respondents about their thoughts and opinions about organizational aspects and outcomes of the activity. These qualitative data were designed to solicit individuals’ assessment of the collaboration roles achieved with the external partner, types of internal and external partners involved in the activity, products produced by the activity, and impact of the activity on the respondents’ scholarship. Last, Midwestern University modified its institutional mission through a strategic process in 2005. In the strategy, Midwestern University re-envisioned its institutional mission to one where the university is renowned worldwide as the leading university in the United States within five years. As a part of the vision for Midwestern University, the emphasize ranges from the provision of academic knowledge by faculty, staff, and students to international society, emphasizing impact in community, economy, and family. The conclusion of the Midwestern University mission statement exemplified how the institution’s mission centers on ideals connecting the resources of the institution to society. Case Selection Yin (2003) states that the case (the individual unit) is the terminal form of inquiry, which must be a well-bounded, specific, complex, and functioning person or a program. The approach taken was an embedded case study design, where the unit of analysis is the partnership, and the faculty and community partners 71 are embedded within the partnerships, which are embedded within the institution of Midwestern University. The study began by gaining formal access to the MUES for analysis across two years (2005, N=1,044; 2006, N=1,305) of faculty-reported projects, that most met the six criteria of sustained partnerships discussed at the end of Chapter Two. From the fourth section of the survey, collaboration roles were reported of external partners across six categories: (1) identification of issues or problems addressed, (2) assistance in the planning and management of the partnership, (3) participation in the research, evaluation, or teaching responsibilities of the partnership, (4) shared responsibility for the dissemination of products or practices resulting from the partnership, (5) contributions to the identification of resources to support the partnership efforts, and, (6) an open “other” dialog box for respondents to enter roles not mentioned or different from the other five. Each partnership chosen for the study sample had to demonstrate the five out of six collaboration roles, The “other” responses were analyzed for content specific to how the study defined community engagement. In addition, there were five categories of critical comparative interest for the purposes of this study. In addition to better understanding university outreach and engagement, the research goal was to discern the collaborative relationship of faculty who participated. Therefore, six categories of more detailed probing were identified from the fourth section of the survey. The six categories of combined quantitative and qualitative data are described as follows, and served as sample selection criteria. 72 1. project length of two years or more, 2. type of internal and external partners in the activity, 3. outcomes and impacts of the project activity, including evidence of project evaluation, 4. evidence of intellectual property products, 5. creation of scholarly work that assesses or describes how the project activity was completed. and 6. impact of the activity on scholarship. From the survey universe of N=2,349 projects reported by faculty, 233 total projects met the criteria specific to the sample selection criteria, representing 186 individual faculty responses. The total projects as reported by faculty across 2005 and 2006 was comprised of 104 projects in 2005 representing 85 faculty, and 129 projects in 2006 representing 101 faculty. Through a content analysis of these faculty’s responses, I eliminated from further consideration those faculty-reported projects that involved professional service or other reported activities not relevant to the study. After the content analysis, 40 faculty met the criteria specific to the sample selection criteria. Twelve of these faculty reported across both 2005 and 2006. Of the 40 faculty meeting the sample selection criteria, 17 were recruited for interviews in order to have a diverse sample across faculty rank, as the 40 faculty were as follows: 16 full professors, seven associate professors, seven academic specialists, six assistant professors, two visiting professors and one research associate. The representation of the 17 faculty who were recruited was as follows: one 73 distinguished professor, eight full professors, four associate professors, two assistant professors, two academic specialists and one research associate. At Midwestern University, the term “academic specialist” defines academic positions that require a Master’s degree and/or other specialized qualifications in the respective discipline or profession. The actual requirements vary with the specific functional area, and include administrative or non-tenure track functions related to teaching, advising or curriculum development, research, and outreach or service. Thus, while “academic specialists” are not technically tenure-track faculty, they understand scholarship at a comparative level to tenure-track faculty, and might have similar faculty roles as detailed in Chapter Two. I distributed informed consent forms to the participants during recruitment that included the purpose and scope of the study, and reviewed the consent forms with participants upon setting up the initial interview appointment, and again at the beginning of the interview. Prior to beginning the interviews, the participants and I discussed the informed consent forms in detail, emphasizing confidentiality before the participants signed. Of the 17 faculty recruited, 13 agreed to participate in the research sample (six of whom reported across both 2005 and 2006). Using the snowball sampling technique (Patton, 2002), the 13 faculty respondents were each asked to identify the community organization leader who collaborated with them in administrating the partnership. Three of the 13 faculty could not identify a corresponding community organization leader who would agree to participate in the research, thus, those partnerships were not included in 74 the final sample. I defined a full partnership to consist of at least one faculty member and one corresponding community leader who worked together to administer the partnership. Sixteen community leaders were invited to participate in study, of which nine agreed. Therefore, the final sample consisted of ten faculty and nine community leaders, corresponding to nine full partnerships. From this analysis, I used semi-structured interviews that were parallel yet tailored to each the community and faculty partner. The interview protocol consisted of 48 questions based on the research conceptual framework. The questions were grouped into seven major areas for data analysis: partnership development, partnership outcomes, organizational leadership, organizational governance and/or institutional alignment, knowledge creation and transfer processes, evidence of mutual benefit, and strengths and suggestions. I developed the interviews to illustrate the community and campus organizational factors that contributed to partners’ collaboration process in the partnership, its sustainability, and use of partnership scholarship. Moreover, I designed the interview questions for identification of partnership-specific policies, resources, and commitments that most contributed to the partners’ collaboration process. The interview protocol is included in Appendix A. I conducted the interviews via a combination of 14 face-to-face interviews and five telephone interviews. Each interview lasted from 45 to 90 minutes, depending on the detail of the respondents’ answers. I had the interviews digitally recorded and transcribed by a third party transcription vendor service. 75 Demographically, the faculty members of the sample varied. Only two of the respondents were non-tenured, and both were white women in their mid- thirties. The eight other faculty were a combination of tenured professors across rank, and all also held administrative positions in addition to their faculty roles. Seven of these eight faculty were tenured full professors and one was an assistant professor. Four of these eight tenured professors were white women in their mid-fifties. Two of the eight tenured professors were women of color; one African-American woman in her fifties, and one Asian Pacific Islander in her late- forties. One of the eight tenured professors was a white woman in her early forties. There was one male tenured professor, who was white and in his mid- forties. The community partners’ demographics also varied. Two were white males (one in his late thirties and one in his early fifties), one Native-American woman in her late fifties, one African-American woman in her late fifties, and five white women. All five white women were over forty. Seven of the nine community partners identified in their responses that they held university degrees, the other two did not identify. Further, seven of the nine community partners held executive administration roles in their organization; one of the two who did not was a consultant, and the other was an executive administration at a community-based organization not related to their role in the partnership. Table 3.1 summarizes the partnership-specific demographics, focusing on the heretofore unmentioned areas of discipline, and relationship of the partnership’s location to the university studied. The term “community-placed 76 research” is one I developed, based on Strand, et al.(2003), who define community-based research as follows. Community-based research is a partnership of students, faculty and community members who collaboratively engage in research with the purpose of solving a pressing community problem or effecting social change. Community in this context includes educational institutions (schools and day care centers), community-based organizations of various kinds (neighborhood associations, for example), agencies that provide services or othenivise work on behalf of area residents, or groups of people who may not share a geographical association but do share an interest around cultural, social, political, health, or economic issues. Sometimes the focus is on a local problem facing a neighborhood or an organization. The focus can also be regional, national, or global. Ideally, CBR is fully collaborative with those in the community working with academics - professors and students — at every stage of the research process. (Strand et al., 2003, pp. 3, 8-10). I called the knowledge products from the partnerships in this study “community-placed” because the faculty and community partners co-created and developed scholarship that remained in the community. Moreover, the community partners made use the research as foundations for action, differentiating between participatory action research, action research, and community-based research. Table 3.2 summarizes the demographics of both the community and faculty partners. 77 Table 3.1. Partnership Demographics Name of Partnership Discipline of Partnership Partnership Type Partnership Relationship to University Location American Heritage Arts and National Community—placed Humanities research Young Futures Education Regional Community-placed Program research European Agriculture International Service-learning with Community and Natural community placed Revitalization Resources research Partnership Greening Social Local Community-placed Community Science: research Partnership Anthropology Healthy Families Health Local/Regional Community-placed Partnership Sciences research Community English Local Community-placed Connections research Partnership Let’s Create Arts and Local and National Service—learning with Partnership Humanities community-placed research Community Educational National Community-placed Leadership Administration research Partnership Family Sciences Health Local Community-placed Partnership Sciences research 78 Table 3.2. Faculty and Community Partner Demographics Age Race or Ethnicity Gender Position American Heritage Partnership Judy Reyes Community 59 Indigenous F Interim CBO Executive Director, 2 years Partner Kate Walsh Faculty Partner 57 White F Full Professor and Administrator Tom Rice Faculty Partner 58 White M Full Professor and Administrator Young Futures Program Partnership Maxine Jones Community 55 Black F Project director of partnership Partner Heather Wallace Faculty Partner White F Non—tenured faculty European Community Revitalization Partnership Barbara Robinson Community 66 European F Retired social work and project manager of partnership Partner Joyce Dallas Faculty Partner 38 F Non—tenured faculty CDO Greening Community Partnership Rhoda Williams Community 58 White F CBO Executive Director, 8 years Partner Cheryl Peters Faculty Partner Late 50’s White F Non—Tenured Faculty Healthy Families Partnership Lane Thomas Community 53 White F Project coordinator of partnership, 5 years Partner Alice Bartok Faculty Partner 58 White F Full Professor, three years Community Connections Partnership Bill Glass Community 48 White M Community college instructor and CBO contractor Partner Sean Roberts Faculty Partner 39 White Full Professor Let’s Create Partnership Marcia Matthews Community 53 White F Elementary School Teacher Partner Georgia Pierce Faculty Partner 56 Black F Full Professor and Associate Dean Community Leadership Partnership Jeff Morgan Community 54 White M CBO Executive Director, 3 years Partner ' Amelia Lewis Faculty Partner 51 Asian—Pacific F Professor, 6 years full Islander Family Sciences Partnership Sarah Nelson Community 68 White F Director of Ministry Partner Virginia Thompson Faculty Partner 68 White F Full professor, 12 years cont prov and lden parti allov desc their com gain addi com Orge Methods for Reducing Participant Risk The primary risk to the participants in this proposed study was breaching confidentiality. To reduce this risk, descriptive informed consent forms were provided to each participant, informing them of the study’s rationale, purpose, and use of data for dissertation research where they would not be asked to identify themselves or the partnership name in their responses. While all participants signed the consent forms, during the data analysis and write up, I allowed the participants to member check Chapter Four, the partnership case descriptions, and asked them once more if they had changes to the description of their partnership and its process as described,. Moreover, I asked them to communicate with their co-partner to discuss the case description. Benefits gained by the study’s participants include acknowledgement or realization of additional impacts within the partnership’s full context — not only within the community that was served, but also across both community and academic organizational contexts. Maintaining Participant Privacy To maintain participants’ privacy, l was the primary contact with the participants, the sole individual requesting access to and abstraction of data from the participant’s academic and/or organization as related to the partnership. The study took place on the Midwestern University campus, with interviews being conducted both on campus and with community partners, preferably on site in their community to maintain rapport and trust. Five phone interviews of 80 community partners were conducted by telephone, with the participants’ full consent Data Analysis I used an inductive content analysis approach to analyze the interviews, which enables the identification of core consistencies and meanings, as well as pattern recognition and themes through the implementation of open coding (Patton, 2002). A code is a short phrase that summarizes the theme, and I developed the codes by either using the language of the participants, or, by summarizing the themes I found across participants (Patton, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Using AtlasTl 5.2 qualitative research software, the 48 interview protocol questions were made into approximately 50 codes. Of the nine partnerships comprising the final sample, three of these partnerships were coded in a first round of an iterative coding process to identify preliminary themes. I completed a second round of coding of the last six partnerships to confirm the preliminary themes. While coding the three partnerships, approximately 8 more codes were created, for a total of 58 codes. The individual codes were then grouped into nine major areas for data analysis, using the code family function‘of the software: (1) partnership development, comprised of four codes; (2) partnership outcomes, comprised of five codes ;(3) organizational leadership, comprised of eight codes; (4) organizational governance and/or institutional alignment, comprised of 15 codes; (5) knowledge creation and transfer processes, comprised of four codes; (6) evidence of mutual benefit, comprised of eight codes; (7) relationship codes, comprised of five codes, (8) 81 demographics, comprised of five codes, and (8) strengths and suggestions comprised of four codes. Last, a data analysis matrix was constructed in Microsoft Excel of eight worksheets: seven worksheets, one worksheet per the seven major areas, and one worksheet tracking the data organized to answer each research question specifically. Last, I color-coded the data matrix as l drafted the findings chapters in order to make sure that all themes were verified by the raw data, and also to make sure that the themes were consistent. Trustworthiness and Credibility Four methods of trustworthiness (or qualitative research validity) were used in the study (Glesne, 1999; Trochim, 2006): (a) triangulation; (b) member checking; (c) documentation and rich, thick description, and (d) applicability/transferability. Given that this is case study research, three of these methods are parallel to Yin’s (2003) criteria for judging research design quality: construct validity (triangulation & member checking), external validity (applicability/transferability), and reliability (documentation/rich, thick description). Triangulation The purpose of triangulation is to test for consistency among data sources to yield essentially the same result (Patton, 2002). The combination of using content analysis and semi-structured interviews based upon that content analysis tested data consistency. The theoretical construct that is the basis of the study’s conceptual framework is an additional test of data consistency in reporting findings, demonstrated in Chapter Six. 82 Member Checking Member checking, which is review of the study’s transcripts and findings by those being studied, is another approach to analytical triangulation (Patton, 2002). The participants were provided the opportunity to review the transcript of their interview after its completion, as well as the interpretation of their data. The participants were given the opportunity for member checking as a part of the informed consent form and interview debriefing. Further, participants were given the opportunity to review Chapter Four, partnership case descriptions. This procedure verified data accuracy and perceived data validity “by having the people described in that analysis react to what is described and concluded” (Paflon,2002,p.560) Documentation and Rich, Thick Description The specific data sources used in the study are summarized in the methodology chapter of the dissertation. The audit trail process as described in the following section addresses how documentation was maintained throughout the research. Rich, thick description “describes and probes the intentions, motives, meanings, contexts, situations and circumstances of action” (Denzin, 1988 in Glesne, 1999, p. 22). This definition is discussed in developing the study’s theoretical context, which was carefully done. In addition, the theoretical context served as a consistency test of the data from the study. Applicability and Transferability Extrapolation determined the applicability and transferability of the study. Extrapolation was presented as a solution to the debate regarding qualitative 83 research applicability of purposively sampled, small, carefully selected, information-rich cases (Patton, 2002). Extrapolation involves building from the data from these cases to emphasize discussion of lessons learned and potential applications to future efforts. In this study, extrapolation was done through an audit trail to document the data collection process, including the following: (a) memo writing, (b) analytic files, and (c) a coding scheme. The first aspect of the audit trail included a participant contact summary worksheet created in Microsoft Excel, confidentially detailing the participant recruitment and selection process. The audit trail memos include specific note sheet forms per subject ID that details the date, time of interview, location of interview, and date of notes. Further, the note sheet forms detail overall comments and observations of the interview just completed, and summarize new understandings or affirmations based upon the areas of inquiry of the interview. The note sheet forms conclude with personal observations about the technique used in the interview, and areas for improvement (e.g., probes, need for more specific information). Last, memo writing was done in the transcript files to check for clarification of responses, which facilitated member-checking. Analytic files were kept as computer files based from the audit trail information (Glesne, 1999). For example, I have notes and files on my computer for the background, conceptual framework and research design of the study in preparing the study proposal. I developed and maintained data output files based on Atlas Tl’s output for each partnership by code family, and also created Microsoft Word folders for each partnership’s interviews, notes, and memos to 84 organize memorable quotes and data findings during the data collection and analysis process, “(to organize and store) data in light of your...meaning-finding interpretations that you are learning to make about the shape of your study” (Glesne, 1999, p. 132). To illustrate, I created Atlas T.l. data output files for each partnership that l organized to present the raw data from each faculty and community partner per partnership per code family. The purpose of the data outputs by code and arranged by partnership was to identify which aspects of the theme are the strongest and thus worth reporting. The code family name is the theme summary or phrase, and then what comprised the individual codes themselves are the raw data descriptors. For example, Partnership Development is a theme for describing the partnerships. The Atlas T.I. code family (and subsequent data output file) for Partnership Development was comprised of 4 codes: PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT — an overall, catch all code, Purpose (how each partner discussed the purpose of the partnership), Why Continued (why each partner continued in the partnership), and Why Involved (why each partner stated they remained involved in the partnership). For all nine partnerships, the raw data quotation included in this single code family output of Partnership Development was 115 quotations, or data chunks. Then, in order to explain why each partner became involved and why the continued the in the partnership, I created a code output matrix on Microsoft Excel to note the individual quotes per partnership, and across all nine partnerships, I then worked across the code family data output files and code matrix to pull out the raw data quotes from the 85 codes that reflect themes back to the code family as a whole, allowing me to analyze theme consistency within and across partnerships. Summary This chapter review the methodology used to complete the study. The next chapter is the first of two findings chapters. The fourth chapter provides case descriptions of each of the nine partnerships, and answers the first research question of the study: How do faculty develop a sustained, collaborative community-university engagement partnership with community partners? 86 CHAPTER FOUR PARTNERSHIP CASE DESCRIPTIONS Chapters Four and Five present research findings, using a case study analysis to examine the phenomenon of the sustained community-university engagement partnerships and their contexts. This chapter details each of the nine partnerships and their outcomes, concluding with answers to the first research question: How do faculty develop a sustained, collaborative community- university engagement partnership with community partners? American Heritage Partnership The American Heritage Partnership is a collaborative cultural heritage partnership, focusing on increasing inter— and intra—cultural awareness of ethnic basket-making arts. Additionally, the American Heritage partnership addresses the relationship of these cultural arts to issues of human encroachment, natural resource preservation, and cultural heritage preservation. The partners in the partnership include Midwestern University, the Smithsonian, and several national ethnic organizations and regional ethnic arts associations. The American Heritage partnership grew from a cultural quilting project and program that involved two faculty members from the university, Tom Rice and Kate Walsh. The quilting project also involved several members of national community—based ethnic arts organizations. After the success of the quilting project’s national exhibit at a major cultural museum in the United States and also through a national tour of ethnic museums, ethnic arts organizations created an electronic bulletin board to remain in touch about the project. 87 In the online discussion, representatives from the community-based tribal arts organizations expressed a desire to create a project that would document the experience of the decade-long quilting project, as well as the current story of weaving traditions across American ethnic communities. It is not widely known outside of these communities that their artists do not focus on just one genre; instead, they range across genres like quilting and basket weaving. The community representatives further recognized that there were few programs (especially nationally) that document ethnic quilting traditions. Moreover, the community representatives emphasized the reputation and history of the two faculty partners’ work with ethnic organizations across their online discussions. Specifically, quilt makers asked for a new project that focused on basket making. Through the conversations, the community representatives came to understand that Michigan State University had these two scholars who not only possessed research and project management skills with their communities, but also demonstrated interest in being a part of such a project. Kate is a 57-year old white female full professor and administrator, and her husband, Tom, is a 58-year-old white male full professor and administrator. Together, in 1998, they convened a meeting of ethnic tribal arts organization stakeholders about the idea of an exhibit. The stakeholders who attended included: heads of some ethnic arts organizations, ethnic curators, and anthropologists who had done research on contemporary cultural arts. The process and impact of the first meeting determined the partnership's overall development. The community stakeholders discussed with Tom and Kate 88 how they wanted to maximize the faculty members’ academic and network skills as project managers. Tom and Kate acknowledged that they would only assume their roles with the consent of the indigenous community. Within a matter of minutes, the community stakeholders insisted that they become the project’s managers. The reasons that the community stakeholders expressed for having Tom and Kate serve in their roles became the partnership’s goals and objectives, and are still used to this day. One of the community partners who participated in this study, Judy Reyes of the Cultural Heritage Association (CHA), was not involved from the very beginning of the partnership. However, she did give some perspective of how the founders of her association, an ethnic arts organization, felt about her involvement as the incoming organization president. The organization’s founders gave Judy, as new CHA president, encouragement that kept her involved in both the organization and the partnership. At that time, the partnership was about three years into operation when she joined the CHA as president. In the following excerpt, Judy describes how she transcended being new to both the organization’s leadership and the partnership to address past disappointments experienced by the organization through focusing on involvement in the partnership. I think I got on the tail end, actually. The American Heritage partnership was years in planning, and l was in the last maybe year and a half. I didn’t quite understand because I was just newly asked to be involved in the meetings, and I know that there was disappointment from some of the other organizations. One of the things that I had heard is that what happens is that some of the museums will come to the organizations and they want input, but then I think where ill feelings started was that after they got the input, then they went ahead and did it the way that they 89 wanted to do it. I think that the [ethnic] basket weaving organizations really were disappointed. I think that that’s what happened, but since I was so new [to serving as president of our tribal arts organization] and our vice president and the other two were the founding members of CHA; I said, “so I’m just invited; this is my first meeting.’ I said, ‘but if I’m gonna make a decision on behalf of CHA, I have to make a decision based on what I feel is good for [the organization]. I feel that we do need national representation and this will give an opportunity for us to come back, to come to Washington, DC and network with all of the other basket weavers.’ I said, ‘it just is a positive step for us and I don’t know what is going on, there seemed to be political things; but at this time, because I’m so new, I really can’t get involved with that and so I’m just gonna go ahead, go forward and then support this partnership.’ And I was never sorry for doing that; the other organizations didn’t keep it against me for making that decision. I was invited by Tom and Kate to come back to the Midwestern Ice Festival and that was just — oh, I’m telling you - that was such a great experience. So, anytime, I would even be more than happy to look for funding myself to make sure that I stay plugged into the [American Heritage Partnership] because I think it’s really important to represent [my geographic region of the country]. Community-specific issues that the American Heritage partnership addresses included: declining access to natural resources, materials, and transmission of community and cultural knowledge (emphasizing reduced loss of master tradition bearers and declining youth interest in cultural heritage careers). The scholarship that resulted from this partnership included: a website that documents the project’s goals, objectives, as well as the relationship of those project goals and objectives to the knowledge products of the partnership; a major festival program at a Smithsonian Festival on the national mall in Washington, DC that attracted over 900,000 visitors; an exhibition at the Smithsonian; a national ethnic youth education cultural heritage training program; collections development; research that will be showcased in a planned national touring exhibition and a related book, and; a national ethnic arts archive and museums conference paper presentation, as well as a region-specific 90 documentary series. Recently, a world premiere was held for part of the documentary series. Young Futures Program Partnership The Young Futures Program is offered in more than 100 schools across 21 school districts in a Midwestern city, with a mission to encourage positive youth development through safe, accessible, and challenging activities that appeal to students’ diverse interests. The partnership between the Young Futures Program and Midwestern University evolved over time. Similarly, Heather Wallace’s role in the partnership also evolved from initial partnership involvement as a graduate student into leadership of non-tenured faculty member. Evolution of the partnership continued in spite of a shift in university research priorities. Originally, university faculty worked with the community in one Midwestern school district to research community needs assessments around early childhood and mental health research, involving parents with young children who participate in home visitation prevention programs. The partnership was implemented because Randall Adams, a university distinguished professor executive-level administrator, was providing general oversight and consultation to the community. As the community began to develop a framework to provide more supportive services for parents of young children, Randall was asked to provide more direct oversight of research that demonstrated both what the population’s needs were. Further, Randall was charged to determine how 91 effective county-wide efforts were in meeting those population needs as related to goals that might become a programmatic initiative for youth. Building from the findings of Randall’s research, the Young Futures Program was established. The program focuses on youth development, serving youth from kindergarten through the ninth grade. The purpose of the partnership is to provide evaluation research about the Young Futures Program’s effectiveness and promote the program for sustainability, based upon program improvement data that the community partners can use. The community served by the Young Futures Program is defined as the 21 different school districts that comprise the county’s intermediate school district. The geography is both large and diverse, involving “tricky politics” for Heather to navigate. Heather’s role centers on evaluation research that serves the community partners usage needs. The community partner for the partnership, Maxine Jones, is the director of the Young Futures Program. For the past nine years Maxine has been working for the county school district, emphasizing community involvement in after-school programming. In fact, the county school district focused her position’s responsibilities on facilitating community-building partnerships and relationships to generate program resources for children and their families. In 2005, Maxine learned about Heather’s evaluation research with the early childhood component of the Young Futures Program, and she invited Heather to discuss the feasibility of partnering to do additional evaluation research. Maxine discussed how her relationship with Heather impacts the program. 92 I view Heather and her staff as more than just an evaluator now. I think they bring a lot more to the table, just having them be a part of the conversation at partner meetings, or when we’re talking about staffing structure or data collection. They are a really good resource in terms of bringing some of their experiences and expertise to the conversation, helping to think about things as we look for funding. They’ve looked for funding for us, [and have done other tasks such as] having the staff to help us problem-solve issues around taking attendance or collecting data, [as well as] trying to figure out what might work best. I know from my position the relationship is more than evaluator — we’re paying you for this service, to evaluate the program - to more of a partner, in my opinion. The knowledge products that are generated from the evaluation research include program improvement data that has been used for both grant development and publication. The European Community Revitalization Partnership The European Community Revitalization (ECR) partnership is an international study abroad partnership. The faculty and community partners do not call it a service-learning project, but a community engagement project. It ranges from semester-long student placements in the community to year-long student placements, focusing on undergraduate student involvement (while graduate students have been involved in the partnership in the past). While the ECR partnership with Midwestern University has been in existence for six years, the network that coordinates the partnership is ten years old. The network began with 12 rural European farming communities, and has since expanded to 17 communities. The community network leads the partnership, working with the faculty and community partners to coordinate service-learning placements of students in the communities’ villages. The community placements for students are established from the community’s 93 definition of their areas of need, which are then matched to participating student interests and skills. The placements are approximately six weeks long, of no more than eight students total placed at a time, and with one student placed per village. Each student lives in the village with a host family, has a community mentor, and works with the village council on their project. Each student project includes weekly reflections with faculty and community partners. On an ad-hoc basis, semester- Iength placements are arranged for highly motivated students. These placements allow immersion in the village culture as well as community engagement in projects the community members decide are most relevant. To date, a total of 45 student projects have been completed. Current students in the partnership get to build on the work from previous students, and alumni can keep up with the progress of the work they contributed to their respective community. Students serve as liaisons or catalysts for local funders to engage with the communities. Students must document their community conversations as a part of their grade in the course. In the late 19903 Michael O’Reilly, in his capacity as chief agricultural officer, commissioned a study on the future of agriculture in the region with a focus on farming and its viability. A declining trend in the viability of rural family farms was indicated by the study, where deterioration in profitability of European agriculture was projected as a significant impact on rural farming communities. The study made Michael and his colleague, rural development worker Barbara Robinson, aware of the need to establish a support structure that would enable 94 local communities to address issues the study emphasized. Subsequently, they completed an in-depth study of networking in an European rural community network, where Michael and Barbara presented networking as a model for the rural communities in the study. The study provoked discussion amongst community members, leaders, established community councils, and local development associations. As a part of the community’s discussion on this study and several other sources of data, the community undertook a Visioning process to document how they wanted their communities in five to ten years. Barbara and Michael re-established the rural community network after the community Visioning process, making the network a legal entity, a non- governmental organization. Primary representation was comprised of residents from each of the rural communities; secondary representation was comprised of some government and state agency representatives. Barbara became the manager, having had previous work experience with the county extension service. Upon retirement, Michael became a director and advisor to the network organization. In 1999, a senior faculty member in agriculture was invited to facilitate a workshop at a cross-border peace and reconciliation conference. The senior faculty member brought to the conference several colleagues: another senior faculty member; a Midwestern county director, and; three students (one graduate and two undergraduate students). The university representatives met a Midwestern University European alumnus at the conference who now worked in 95 horticulture, and identified several related projects that were happening in the area-including Michael and Barbara’s study. The university team decided to develop several local case studies prior to going to the north of Ireland to do the conference workshop. The university team met with Michael and Barbara to discuss their case study, which they recognized as being different in its grassroots orientation. After the meeting, the senior faculty member committed to support the documentation of the case study. Within two years of the conference, the senior faculty member wondered if Michael and Barbara were prepared to develop a pilot program where Midwestern University students would be able to experience what he perceived as a different approach to community engagement, where the communities within the network were the leaders. Michael and Barbara agreed, and thus, the ECR partnership began with Midwestern University. The partnership was designed to address the socioeconomic needs of the 17 communities in the network, as well as foster learning across the network and its community members, faculty, and graduate and undergraduate students. The senior faculty member acknowledged that this structure would be different from most international service-learning programs. Joyce Dallas, the non-tenured faculty member who leads the academic side of the partnership, explains further about the unique qualities of this partnership in the university’s traditional approach to service-learning. This network's based on this interesting idea of a timeless community development. The idea there is even though the network is a network of now 17 communities; when it’s useful for them to network together, they do. But on issues where it’s not useful to network together, they don’t. And so it’s a grassroots approach, which defines the relationship between the Irish people and the American people. We don’t tell them what they 96 are doing. It’s up to them to craft where they need and want help; and then to invite us to learn along side with them. It is very different from most international development models, where we at [Midwestern University have come up with some type of knowledge that we are going to go tell somebody else to do. But in addition to the Irish being in the lead, for the most part, on everything, even within the little network of communities, there is a lot of autonomy and choice. As the network continues to grow there is an ever-increasing interest by community members in the quality and impact of the students’ work. State agencies and other funders have shown interest in the projects developed by the students. In 2007, the partnership won an award from Midwestern University as an outstanding partner in study abroad programs. Student scholarship has led to the following community outcomes: one community now has a nature walk with signboards and environmental interpretation of plants and animals; others have had bridges designed by engineering students, while others have had scoping studies carried out on walking trails, and; research has been carried out on childcare needs, senior citizen needs, housing, rural tourism, organic production, and other income-generating activities. Additionally, Joyce collaborates with two other Midwestern University faculty in a two-year old federally funded research project on professional learning exchanges between Europe and the United States. This research project resulted in co-created case studies and a conference. Joyce is the university leader of both processes (the study abroad program and the additional research project). Barbara’s role may transition into a committee structure; to be determined by the community network. 97 Central Development Organization Greening Community Partnership The Central Development Organization (CDO) Greening Community partnership is a partnership between the CD0, local farmers, the a city-wide greening organization, and Midwestern University in their development of a greening project for a central city community. The partnership is a part of a larger, comprehensive programmatic strategy by the CD0 to address food security issues by connecting the resources of the urban community and rural farmers. In 2003, the CD0 had been looking at the issue of hunger across their neighborhood through their community outreach team that canvassed the neighborhood to have “front porch conversations” about local concerns. The CD0 does comprehensive, integrated community development with an aim for neighborhood-driven solutions, including programming around several issues such as youth development, housing counseling services, and health access. One year, CDO’s neighborhood canvasses included a survey about resident food needs and their use of the CD0 food pantry. Additionally, the survey included a survey question that had been developed by a federal agency to determine food security. After surveying 503 neighborhood households, 30% were found to be food insecure (compared to 11% nationally, and 9% within the Midwest). I The survey findings surprised the CDO’s executive director Rhoda Williams and her staff. They considered the context of all of their programs from a continuum perspective; where the food pantry was perceived to be at one end of the continuum, as direct social service intervention. At the other end of the 98 continuum, the CDO wanted to go further than being merely an emergency resource, but instead, a resource to improve neighborhood residents’ food access and self-sufficiency. The CD0 already involved local small farmers in some of their programs, and had begun to explore a more robust effort to promote front-, back-, and side-yard gardening education through the CDO’s youth program. Developing a greening project was one idea out of a set of interrelated, synergistic program ideas, and seemed the appropriate response along the continuum perspective. There was one problem: no one in the CDO knew anything about how to establish a greening project. Rhoda and some of her CDO staff attended a meeting about a possible collaborative grant application to a federal community foods project that was called by the local gardening organization. At the meeting, Rhoda met Cheryl Peters, a senior academic specialist in a social sciences department at Midwestern University who was a board member of the city-wide greening organization. During the meeting, Cheryl understood that the city-wide greening organization did not have the capacity to implement a federal community foods project as lead agency and fiduciary. Having worked with the city-wide greening organization for several years, Cheryl recognized that there were small, local organic farmers who did not have reliable markets for their high quality produce. Cheryl also knew there were urban residents living less than 20 miles away from these farmers who did not have ready access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Thus, Cheryl proposed to both the greening organization and Rhoda that a 99 program that would bring local farmers and urban residents together could benefit both populations. Out of this initial proposal the idea for a neighborhood greening project emerged, as part of a larger urban food project. Cheryl and Rhoda worked together to initially sketch out the projects and dimensions of a food security program for the community served by the CDO. Rhoda discussed how the developing relationship between she and Cheryl informed the CD0 and the community as the partnership came to fruition. We were quick studies; we were already pulling in neighborhood people into planning groups and holding dialogues about what might meet the food security needs of people in this neighborhood, what was unique about a partnership that we would forge with farmers as opposed to someplace else; and so Cheryl was learning about the [our community] and our methods, engagement and planning. At the same time, we were learning about food issues-l think that was the teaching trade-off in that first couple of years. That’s been the theme throughout our association. In that we continue, I think, to teach her about our neighborhood and about our particular approach to creative assessment and planning and engagement and program implementation. And she continues to raise issues and questions and challenges and ideas around food, and what the nexus is-what is a place-based response. The knowledge products that have resulted from the CD0 Greening project partnership include evaluation research that provides both quantitative and qualitative impacts of the market. The qualitative evaluation research includes interviews with the market’s customers, vendors, staff, and volunteers. Additionally, there are ongoing student community engagement internships with an organic food certification program led by another Midwestern University faculty member. 100 The Healthy Families Partnership University health sciences professor Alice Bartok formed a collaborative community partnership in 1997 with a Midwestern early childhood development agency after completing a program evaluation. A key outcome of the program evaluation focused on mother-child interactions. The early childhood research and training coordinator, Lane Thomas, collaborated with Alice as her community partner. Lane identified the program evaluation outcome on mother-child interactions as related to agency interests to advance early childhood nutrition. Lane talked with Alice how they might partner toward enhancing healthy eating behaviors and mealtimes practices for agency families. They developed a grant proposal for the Healthy Families partnership that was initially funded through internal university funds as a pilot study. The purpose of the pilot study was to provide nutrition education to low-income mothers of toddlers enrolled in the agency program. The pilot study resulted in evidence substantiating the benefits of a nutrition education program aimed at toddlers. This collaborative pilot study provided preliminary data for what became the first federally-funded university-community research partnership grant in this area of scholarship. Lane had responsibility for the coordination and management of agency program staff training and curriculum projects. Lane assumed this responsibility from the previous staff person who held this position during the initial agency program evaluation. The Healthy Families program was continued because it’s been very helpful information and the product that came from it is very helpful to the 101 work that we do. The [partnership goal was] ultimately the development of the product that then would be beneficial to both parties. [This partnership has been sustained] because they really have met those goals. They were very good at listening to us because every individual program has very strict guidelines from the government as to what we can and can’t do; as well as knowing how to approach parents with things, particularly our socio-economic group. Alice and her group were very responsive to us when we would say, you know, this is too long or, you know, this is not realistic, that kind of thing; and they adapted just as much as they could to our input and were excellent at keeping us informed with regular meetings and information in their newsletters. They were being also very generous in their praise and gratitude to us for working on things. Their staff was almost always polite and right on in. When they weren’t, they were very responsive in making sure that any of those inappropriate behaviors did not occur. A second partnership research grant was federally-funded to develop a companion observation tool for use with low-income African-American and Non- HispanicNVhite families with toddlers, as a culturally-appropriate and reliable mealtime behavior checklist and guide. Both the behavioral guide and its companion observation tool are designed not only for use to assess nutritional and dietary deficits, but also to address areas for ongoing education. The Healthy Families partnership sustained collaboration across partners, where Alice and Lane co-led the integration of agency community partners in shared decision-making as the early childhood nutrition assessment “toolkit” (the guide and its companion tool) developed, and ownership of the toolkit was transferred to community partners. The toolkit is currently being used within agencies throughout the region, and the families they serve. Additionally, a website was developed for community and staff access to the nutritional assessment guide and educational handouts. The Healthy Families partnership has expanded through further federal funding to test the intervention in a multi- state longitudinal randomized clinical trial. Other partnership outcomes include 102 several peer-reviewed publications: invited papers, and peer-reviewed poster presentations that described the formative research process used within community outreach populations. Community Connections Partnership The Community Connections partnership began with a project funded by a major philanthropic foundation. The original project between the county, university, and several neighborhood groups to design a website as a tool to assist neighborhoods and community groups to connect with each other via the Internet as a means to increase their capacity to do community-based development, an emerging concept called data democratization. Community Connections contracted university staff. Several regional community summits were held as a part of the project development, and in a community summit, a major outcome was how to reconnect the community with local health resources. Paul Burgess, an administrator with the local health department was single- handedly keeping the Community Connections project alive. He was connected in 2002 with faculty member Sean Roberts. A After five years as an assistant professor at a southern university who had experimented with several research projects in community technology, Sean was hired to Midwestern University as an associate professor. A colleague in Sean’s new department added him to the faculty advisory board for the university’s Center for Community Development (CCD) as a way of introducing him to the most relevant people on campus and in the community who might share similar interests. Tim Bowers, an associate director at CCD, heard about the work Sean 103 had done in the south on community technologies and connected Sean to Paul Burgess. It took almost two full years of persistent communication for Sean and Paul to connect. Additionally, Tim connected Sean to Bill Glass, a graduate student at Midwestern University with experience working both in the local community and with CCD. After his graduation, Bill became involved in several community projects, including the Community Connections project. ...it’s been probably about three or four years now since (Sean and l have) been in touch. Basically, we worked on updating an original Community Connections website. Before that it was a data democratization project, which is about sort of sharing information. How do we share information? How do we communicate and connect on a community level using electronic tools that are now available? So, I had some relationships with many of the groups over the years and some fairly good relationships and that provided sort of an easy in to talk to them about tools that they were using and how this tool might be useful to them. It took three years for the collaborative evaluation and redesign of the Community Connections project to be completed, including research on use of the website and database resource, a community mapping tool. The mapping tool allows multiple community users to manage and access the database content, as well as create internal and external community information tools that increase their capacity. A new version The mapping tool is hosted and supported on servers that were controlled by Sean and housed in his department, enabling him to provide the service to the Lansing community for free. Another outcome of the partnership has been the development of a non- profit, 501(c) (3) organization called the Community Connections Center. The Center coordinates community-placed information resources. Other knowledge products that the partnership has produced include publications (including a book 104 Sean published in 2007on the partnership as related to his disciplinary work), presentations, reports, and training materials. Let’s Create Partnership Let’s Create is a semester-long undergraduate course for 30 students in education that requires them to complete at least 10 hours of service-learning. The course instructor, Georgia Pierce, had recently become the associate dean of outreach in the university’s college of humanities. She built her portfolio through tenure as a professor of creative arts. Georgia had developed ongoing relationships with local elementary and secondary school teachers over the years, either through summer professional development courses, or through personally visiting the schools and asking the teachers individually if they would be interested in participating in a course she had developed. One of Georgia’s community partners for the Let’s Create course, Marcia Matthews, had an ongoing relationship with Georgia. Marcia is an elementary school teacher of the arts at an adjacent community school who has longtime involvement with one of the local community arts organizations. Marcia incorporates a creative arts curriculum with her classes that allows her students to work with different art disciplines, through a theme-based approach. And [my pedagogy and community connections] seemed to be very complementary to what Dr. Pierce was doing with the Arts Pipeline program; bringing students from Midwestern University into the schools to enhance that learning [through] the same type of goals and focus that I have with my creative arts program. As long as Midwestern University’s arts program is willing and wanting to bring them to my school, I’ll certainly welcome them with open arms. I’ve always had very positive experiences with it. 105 The Let’s Create course curriculum centered on its students’ teaching drama and integrated lessons to secondary school students in schools, community centers and churches. Students who participate in the Let’s Create course and demonstrate a strong integration of both components of education and arts can also participate in a year-long program called Arts Pipeline, where they work one-on-one with a teacher to develop and implement an arts curriculum in a secondary school classroom. Kate had two reasons for implementing the course. I thought it was important that the students had an opportunity to see how this worked in a real world setting. I thought that was one important reason. Another one, on the partner side, is to really get the arts into the classroom in a real setting so that the classroom teachers and others could see the importance of incorporating the arts. So it was really on both sides. The students take the Let’s Create course as an elective, learning how to integrate an art form into their future curriculum as teachers. Many of the students are in classrooms where they can use their service-learning setting as placement for their teaching certification requirements. The knowledge products that the partnership has generated include publications, presentations, reports, training materials, and websites. Georgia has collected data from each class, and has published papers, and delivered both national and international presentations. Moreover, she, Marcia, and colleague Shirley Lawrence have co- authored a book for elementary school teachers based on the course activities. Community Leadership Partnership In 1997 a large national philanthropic foundation began a professional leadership development program that was adapted from an individual leadership 106 model used by several other large philanthropic foundations. The professional leadership program was very successful at a high-visibility, executive level as it used a cohort model, where approximately 20 leaders around the nation were selected as fellows in the program for a three-year period. The foundation was one of the first philanthropic foundations to develop a leadership program with a cohort model. After three years, the program transitioned to an emphasis on building grassroots-level community who intended to remain within their communities, in order to build “collective leadership for social change.” Amelia Lewis, a professor in higher education administration, was a part of the programmatic conversations early on due to her involvement in other projects with the foundation that had hired her as the national evaluator for the Community Leadership program. All of the reports Amelia completed as a part of the partnership are disseminated to the public through the foundation’s website. Amelia detailed the mission and purpose of the program, including her role in how its design enables community-placed leadership development through capacity-building and empowerment. The Community Leadership Program has a mission to build the capacity of community-based leaders to create social change around a set of issues that is important to that community. It seeks to help community members build bridges across differences which would include race ethnicity, economic privilege, age, sexual orientation, language, history, culture, and so on. It helps to build those bridges; it helps to teach community members how to collect and use data to make decisions, and that’s my job, evaluation. It’s a developmental way of looking at evaluation. It’s an empowering way of gathering data to help your community. And building what we call collective leadership which is building a place, physical and cognitive and spiritual place where people come together, learn together, make decisions together. And at the same time allow for collisions to happen. We call this space ‘gracious space’ which may sound warm and fuzzy and what not; but it is a way to learn 107 how to open up, how to be accepting and yet understand that there will be differences and how to work through those differences to be helpful to your community. There are a myriad of tools that we share with the community members that we can pick and choose from. And in fact there are many tools that communities use that they share with one another. So, the first Community Leadership cohort began in 2002 and the initial period ran from 2002 to 2004. Amelia’s responsibilities centered on evaluation of the partnership’s leadership development series that involved national evaluation research across the program’s 11 community sites, development of annual evaluation reports and presentations at foundation debriefing sessions. The 11 community sites that participate in Community Leadership are divided across two sessions. At the time Amelia participated in this dissertation there was a third session in development. Amelia has been hired to complete the longitudinal evaluation for all three Community Leadership sessions. Jeff Morgan, Amelia’s community partner, represents the national coordinating organization across all Community Leadership community sites. Jeff has been involved in the partnership since its beginning in spring 2002, and will participate in all three sessions. Jeff, in explaining how the partnership developed from his perspective, also delineated how his leadership role with Amelia served the goals of both the foundation and the communities involved in Community Leadership. The foundation helped facilitate the initial partnership as they developed this program that asked ‘how do you cultivate collective leadership in a place that will have long-term stewardship for that place and be able to engage in community change that matters to that community”. So they designed an initial structure, giving grants to communities but then also having a national team that would take on different roles. The foundation independently developed the relationships and identified those different roles, and then we found ourselves at the table together, essentially, and 108 had to build these relationships. The foundation really didn’t tell us how to do that, so we just figured that out ourselves. [Part of my continuing involvement will be determined] by mutual decision making with the foundation, who envisioned working with a third cohort of communities. We have been the continuity in the first two sessions. If they ask us to do the third session-and the way they structure it fits with what we do-then we’d be interested in continuing. If not, we’ve got some follow up work for the next two years to help with some of the harvesting and dissemination of learning that’s coming out of the communities. So we already have some support to do that work, so we definitely will be in Community Leadership work for at least through 2009. Family Sciences Partnership Virginia Thompson, a full professor of pediatrics and human development, received a grant from a Midwestern foundation to identify family histories of those a genetically-oriented disability while developing a pedigree for a young child with early on-set orientation of the disability, Virginia and her research team realized that there was more than one differently-abled person present in the central Midwestern community where the child lived. Further investigation lead to another person the researchers knew of through their genetics clinics that had some relation to this larger family. Virginia spoke to a fellow colleague in ability education about how to enter the community, who replied that in general the community is very self-protective because they do not want to be perceived or used as guinea pigs. The colleague directed Virginia to Sarah Nelson, who not only was the wife of a man from the community, but also worked for the state for services for those with disabilities. Moreover, by marriage, Sarah was a part of the larger family that the researchers wanted to study further. Since the 19803, Sarah had come to meet several professors at Midwestern University through her work with the state. One of the professors, 109 Jim Rowlins (now deceased), invited Sarah to speak at one of his classes about her unique community. The presentation in Dr. Rowlins’ course began her community partner relationship with the university. Years later, Sarah and her husband agreed to be the entry points into the community for Rachel, and at their home they held a meeting which seven or eight people attended. Sarah described how that first meeting defined their community-placed research partnership. At the outset, a purpose of this research project was to determine whether family members of people with our orientation for this trait - and I meant and people from early onset orientation, was more likely to occur at an earlier age than for people who normally be affected by the genetic orientation as a part of aging. It was implemented as they wanted the information regarding living as differently abled. Virginia, Sarah, and more of the community members who were a part of this large family pedigree met on a monthly basis, and ended up forming two committees: an advisory committee that focused on which community members should be involved in the research, and an ethics committee that decided how to approach the community for the research. The ethics committee considered questions related to the long-term impact of genetics research on the community, including the effect of individuals knowing their and the community’s genetics, how they would address that, and if the community would consider large, publicly accessible family pedigrees a good thing or a bad thing in the long term. Virginia discussed the process of both community committees on the research as well as the partnership development processes. So we felt we were going through really two groups of approval — both the community and the university that we would satisfy. At some point we collapsed the ethics committee and the advisory committee into one group 110 because people left and they have other things they need to do. So we now have a group of about six people together-the remains of the two groups. And it’s interesting — we’re still finding people that they’d forgotten about. (Laughter) But in terms of continuation, I think it probably needs something more than deafness if it’s going to continue, and they’re an interesting community. Again, they don’t want to be thought of as odd or different but they’re extremely willing, in the right circumstances, I think, to help with research on illness and on genetics. I think they’re fascinated by it, actually. The focus of the Family Sciences research has a tri-fold, community- based purpose: (1) to expand instruction on genetics in two high schools’ biology classes, (2) to obtain data regarding methods for developing genetics literacy in high school students and adults, and (3) identify genetic etiologies of the trait in the area’s families. The research procedures that involved the community members as subjects included testing their hearing, taking DNA samples, and testing those samples for genes previously determined to exist in the community. The knowledge products that have resulted from this research included genetic results that have been published in peer reviewed journals, centering on the discovery of a new allele in a gene affecting ability. Moreover, Virginia and Sarah ensure that the community reviews publications and presentations before submission. How Faculty Develop Sustained Collaborative Partnerships with Community Leaders This section builds from the partnership case descriptions to address the first research question of this dissertation research: How do faculty develop sustained, collaborative community-university engagement partnerships with community leaders? This section begins the data analysis and interpretation, 111 demonstrating data findings from the procedures described in the methodology chapter. The collaborative nature of the relationship between faculty and community partners was foundational to both the partners’ relationship and the partnership’s sustainability. Regarding the collaboration process and its connection to the relationship between the faculty and community partners, the two most important factors of partnership development were faculty reputation with the communities involved (regardless of local, national, or international location) and desire to complete mutually beneficial scholarly work based on community needs. Faculty Reputation in Community The faculty in this study, as evidenced by their community partner’s affirmation in the interviews, spent a lot of time prior to the partnership building respect and trust through establishing a reputation with the community. For some partnerships, the faculty partner had community informants who helped to acclimate them into the community, which led them to their community partners. Examples include the European Midwestern University alumnus who connected Barbara and Michael O’Reilly to the Midwestern University team, Cheryl’s reputation in the local community food and farming programs led to the city-wide community greening organization meeting where she was put in touch with Rhoda after the city-wide organization declined to undertake the project that became their partnership, and Virginia’s introduction to Sarah Nelson as entree to the communities upon which her partnership is based. For other faculty partners, their reputation in their communities was project-based. Examples 112 include Tom and Kate’s transition from the national ethnic quilt-making project into the American Heritage partnership, Alice and Lane’s work in early childhood program evaluation led to connections to nutrition and the Healthy Families partnership. The faculty’s passions for their area of research and reputation with their community through related projects led to the development of several partnerships in this study. Several partners described this phenomenon of faculty reputation in community leading to their partnerships as “fit”, or in other words, role congruence (Singleton, Hirsch, & Burack, 1999; Todd, Ebata, & Hughes, 1998). The partners defined “fit” as being based on common goals, practical experience and commitment to achieving those goals for the community. The following excerpted response from a community partner helps illustrate the relationship of faculty partner fit to the development of the partnership and community transformation. Rhoda Williams, the executive director of the Central Development Organization, has been in her position since the center’s inception in 2000. What we've tried to do with Cheryl [her faculty partner]-at first it was very theoretical and this “mutual educating’ going on- what we've been able to do is to create a role for Cheryl; not just as evaluator or educator. We've integrated her in ways that are not just as a distant, third party. She's engaged in these very lively conversations where the relationship between community people and farmers are deepened, enriched and detailed. She's a part of it. And I think that she's still teaching us and we're still teaching her. And she makes it easy to work with her; she's accessible, she's thoughtful, she is willing to get in there and sort of wrestle a little bit, in the way that long-time collaborators and friends will do. We just recently had an issue in the development of our friendship with Cheryl. And it was interesting to me afterwards, just thinking about it and realizing that we had gotten to a point where we could have a difference of an opinion, we could really rattle each other, and know that the relationship was ongoing. 113 And that's an important realization. That's really nice to get to that point. So it feels to me like Cheryl will always have a role in our food projects, the set of interrelated strategies, as long as she wants. She's a member of the team, essentially, and she feels a part of this neighborhood effort. We have the continuity. I think the other thing that is helpful is that we both understand that as important and gratifying as the work is that we do together - the in-between - that we live in different arenas; that we operate in different arenas. That academia is a real different place than the neighborhood. But we both have our own sets of expectations and rules and practices that we have to contend with, or that we choose to - that we embrace. Cheryl loves academia; she's a scholar. We have to really respect that she has a whole set of expectations from her colleagues and her department chair and from just by virtue of being an academic, that is really hers and that we have to honor that and respect that and understand that it's different than how we operate. And she has to do, often, the same thing; she gets it that this is the arena in which we live and work, and there are also practices and expectations and unspoken rules. This excerpt from Rhoda demonstrates the systemic process of the reciprocal leadership relationship. The collaborative process necessitated simultaneous organizational and community impacts that were strongly influenced by the characteristics of fit between partners: the establishment of common goals, networks, experience, and knowledge sharing across both academic and civic boundaries. Moreover, this excerpt demonstrates how the fit between both the community partner and her faculty partner has evolved from conception of the partnership into implementation. Similarly, Sarah Nelson shared her experience of what it was like to work with Virginia and her team in her community in the Family Sciences partnership. They’re always very positive in everything [and] wonderful to work with. [It has been] just a wonderful experience. I think they respected that we were not being paid [to participate] or anything, but that we [wanted] to help them and they reciprocated - it was just a good fit. I can’t imagine anybody being involved with that that felt that that was not a good experience. We’re both interested in it. We have a common goal, even before we were working together, I’m sure she does other kinds of research as well, but we were both working on something. It wasn’t a new area for either one of 114 us, but then we worked well together too, and I admit that’s probably lucky with personalities or whatever. Just an appreciation of what each was doing for the other I think is what worked really well. Sarah’s statements, while being very positive, also reflect the experiences of a self-protective community that also happens to be both geographically and genetically-connected. This community found Virginia and her team welcoming because they shared a “common goal” of building the pedigree of the community members. Further, Virginia and her team were adaptive to the negotiations it took for the community to guide the research process to the point of having an advisory and ethics committee that was not required by the university to conduct the research. Sarah uses the phrase “it was just a good fit”, and continues to explain throughout the excerpt that she and the community had had networks that they could have worked through to complete similar research, but the mutual fit between Virginia, her team, and the community beyond reputation cemented their partnership. Mutual Partner Desire to Complete Scholariy Work All nine partnerships in this study developed from mutual faculty and community partner desire to produce community-placed research that addressed community-identified needs. Both the faculty and community partners in this study were clear to emphasize the significance of research methodologies and products to their respective goals and objectives, modeling community-placed research as the foundation for reciprocal partnership goals and objectives. These two findings from the study (mutual partner desire to complete scholarly work and the result from that desire of a mutual partnership leadership relationship that 115 models community-placed research as the foundation for reciprocal partnership goals and objectives) debunk an unspoken myth of the community-university engagement literature that assumes community partners do not value research, especially research published in the form that is valued by institutions of higher education (Maurrasse, 2001). One community partner, Judy Reyes of the American Heritage partnership, summarized the impact of knowledge transfer from the partnership in relationship to her role as an interim executive director of an organization in a state external to Midwestern University, participating in a national network collaboration of community organizations. While her partnership has been in existence for several years and she has participated in two years’ worth of activity, her insights echo those of several community partners who collaborate with faculty. I think the impact is listening to the interviews [we are doing with our community members as a part of our partnership] because I think that we take it for granted, what we know. We don’t realize how important are the things that we know and how important it is for us to pass it on. So that’s the impact. When they do the interviews with the different people, the different [ethnic groups]-one of the things that l was really impressed with was when they interviewed the youth. I just really think that, especially, the youth that were taught traditionally are so connected. You'll find [in ethnic communities] where they are just so connected to Mother Earth and to just everything in nature-they are so connected. It made me think that that’s what we’re missing out on-me living in an urban society-that somehow it would really be nice to share that with our urban community because there’s a real disconnect. I think that that’s the impact that I have felt and that I wanted to share with the board, and I’m hoping that the board will go out and share it in their community. And if we could also get stories from our youth in our community to share so that you can just continue that impact...l'm anxious for the American Heritage filming to be finalized. That is what I think that I would love to take to our different communities and share with them. Probably just for myself I would really like to do my own 116 research so I could really share more, doing more outreach within my own community. Barbara shared that she and the communities involved in the European Community Revitalization partnership actively use what the students produced in a comprehensive way, where the research supports their community development goals. All of the students have made a huge contribution towards rural community development, and towards communities being motivated to take action. The students are working with the community-not one individual person, and it may involve interviewing many, many subgroups within the community, bringing together groups that heretofore have not come together as a group, from where divisions exist for one reason or another. So we attribute so much of our village revitalization to this study abroad program, and that’s from our perspective. We learn from the students. We learn from what they give us. They give us a document that can be used by the community as guidelines when they’re applying for funding, grant aid, and share it with other communities. This great sense of place emerges and its students work. There’s no program like it any other place in Europe. Because faculty in this study achieved promotion and tenure at their academic institution while participating in these community-engaged collaborative partnerships, they challenge the pervasive assumption in the community-engagement literature that junior faculty cannot achieve tenure doing this work (Maurrasse, 2001). However, the study clarifies that faculty who seek involvement in sustained community-university engagement partnerships must enter the partnership with experience working with communities in order to develop the capacity they will need to collaborate with their community partners. Considering the diversity of faculty rank across faculty partners interviewed (three non-tenured faculty and seven tenured faculty with additional 117 administrative duties), all ten gained experience working with communities before participating in their respective partnerships. Tom Rice and Kate Walsh of the American Heritage partnership transitioned their national collaborative partnership on ethnic quilt-making into one on weaving as a result of the dialogue from ethnic stakeholders. Heather Wallace, the non-tenured faculty partner in the Young Futures Program partnership, had prior experience working with communities as a graduate student in psychology. Joyce Dallas was an advisor and instructor in a community service-learning program of the college of agriculture, as well as an academic coordinator of community economic development programs for the university. Cheryl Peters spent several years working with the local organic farming community . Alice Bartok was an evaluator of agency programs and collaborated with Midwestern University professionals in early childhood nutrition education courses. Sean Roberts, faculty partner in the Community Connections partnership had experience working in community at the university at which he was assistant professor before being hired by Midwestern University. Georgia Pierce spent years working with community arts organizations and visiting with local secondary school teachers who might eventually show an interest in adding creative arts education components to their classes. Amelia Lewis shaped her early career pre-tenure on the study of indigenous communities, and worked with scholars in her discipline to ensure that community-based work was a part of her tenure portfolio. 118 For these ten non-tenured and tenured faculty it took a personal development of their academic expertise in service to community as connected to their disciplinary requirements for promotion and tenure to become involved in sustained community-university engagement partnerships. As evidenced by the faculty partners in this study, faculty who participate in community-university engagement partnerships that have previous experience working with communities. As detailed in the partnership case description narratives, a senior faculty member was involved in each partnership’s conceptualization, expanding the idea of the "champion” role in community-university partnerships. In two of the nine partnerships, the Young Futures Program partnership and the European Community Revitalization partnership, the champion passed the overall partnership leadership and administration to a faculty member who is not on the tenure track. Yet, even these non-tenured faculty members created scholarly, research-based knowledge products with and for the communities they serve that have gained local, national, or international recognition. Summary This chapter portrayed the nine partnerships of this study, including a brief description of their outcomes. Further, the chapter concluded with answers to the first research question: How do faculty develop a sustained, collaborative community-university engagement partnership with community partners? Chapter 5 provides more analysis within and across the partnerships by answering the second and third research questions: What factors of the 119 collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners, and; What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability? 120 CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS WITHIN AND BETWEEN PARTNERSHIPS Amey and Brown (2004) made a hypothesis regarding the transformative collaborative relationship between faculty partners across disciplines. The authors state that, in order to sustain these collaborative relationships, the relationship has to be perceived by co—collaborators “as one of internal integration and collective cognition... (where) intellectual dominance is gone...and new knowledge could be created” (p. 14). Further, the authors assert that this transformative stage of collaboration between the interdisciplinary faculty partners in their study could not be reached without the foundational stage accomplishments of role and goal clarification, conflict resolution as decisions are made, refining and coordinating work processes, and the growth of trust, respect, and ownership between team members. The authors shared that they could only hypothesize about the third, transformative stage because their research team was no longer engaged in studying the particular community-university partnership they were using as the basis of their collaboration study and its resultant model. The nine partnerships in this dissertation have all reached that third, transformative stage. While no one model may fit the reality of every community- university engagement partnership, this study illustrates several factors of collaboration between the faculty and community partners that increase their likelihood for sustainability. This chapter presents analysis of the faculty and community partner interviews of the dissertation research, answering the second 121 and third research questions, respectively: What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners?, and, What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability? Factors of the Collaborative Process that Most Impact the Relationship Between Faculty and Community Partners This section of the data analysis from the faculty and community partner interviews presents the factors of the collaborative process that most impacted the relationship, answering the second research question of the dissertation. The section presents four factors that most impacted the relationship, as well as the how the partners’ defined those factors in their interviews. Partner Culture Understanding and Leadership Responsibility In this study, both faculty and community partners emphasized the importance of organizational leadership that served the community’s needs. Between partners, organizational leadership that served the community’s needs was defined by two aspects that had to co-exist: an understanding of each other’s systems and a willingness to work with the broader community to build capacity. I named this theme “partner culture understanding and leadership responsibility” as I analyzed the partner interviews to determine the specific factors of collaboration the partners themselves identified that illustrated the theme. 122 For faculty partners, their focus in ensuring the partnership’s activities met the community’s capacity needs was “not creating dependency relationships,” where faculty partners aimed to avoid creating relationships in which community partners — and thus communities — became dependent on the university and could not sustain the activities on their own. Two faculty partners, Joyce Dallas and Tom Rice, best summarized this theme in their discussions of how they approach their respective partnerships. Joyce discussed how her understanding of Barbara’s responsibility to the European community. In doing so, Joyce described a connection between Barbara’s responsibilities to the partnership’s outcomes within the community. Moreover, Joyce discussed the ways in which her own responsibility to build community capacity as a faculty member and co- partnership leader affected her leadership approach. It’s really hard to kind of sum up what we do in this relationship; and it’s the other way too. Barbara listens to us and she tries to put things together [with the community] that works for Americans as well as Irish people. And we work really hard on not creating dependency relationships. Community engagement doesn’t really wrap up that nice and tidy. If you’ve put together a process, brought people together, and you’ve built their capacity-when you step away, they keep going. Your little part of the project might be done, but the project still has a life of its own and will happen because of the community members left who are active. So if a person’s motivation for participation in community engagement is about them as a person, this is not satisfying. I would be very upset if we sent five or six or seven or eight students over every year and created dependency relationships that in a way inhibited the communities from moving forward on their own. And because of that we work very hard to make sure students don’t go to the same communities; because if this community gets a student five years in a row and this community gets none, we’re creating inequality. Similarly, Tom Rice discussed how the communities he serves are impacted by community-university partnerships. From his experience, leaders in 123 these other partnerships did not think through the aspect of not creating dependency relationships. He describes the ways in which that understanding has helped his work with his community partners across several partnerships, including American Heritage. Attempting not to benefit at his community partners’ expense, he found he continually had to address the persistent challenge that exists in communities of distrust of universities and the self-serving nature of community-university partnerships. In doing so, he recalled a Swedish phrase in ethnography “dig where you stand”, which inferred that when one makes a commitment they do so and stay with that commitment. Connecting the idea of “dig where you stand” to best practice in the field of ethnography, he stated that those scholars who do the best work are from the communities where they have stayed for a long period of time. Further, he related that insight to his and Kate’s passion for their work, sharing that they have been in active contact with some community partners for over 30 years now. He added more insight based on this level of commitment on his part as a faculty member in partnership work. But they feel a certain amount of trust and respect that they weren’tjust used. There’s a famous Zuni song that translates into, ‘here come the anthropologists’. It talks about how scholars have typically studied native people where, ‘they come in, they observe me, they photograph’. The words [of the song] go to this effect: ‘they interview me, they photograph me, I hear they wrote a book about me, and I hear someplace it’s in the library somewhere’. In other words, you came, you did your work for your dissertation, your book, your article, your grant that got you a promotion, but I never saw you again. So my feeling has always been that when people take the time to share with you the depth of their concerns, their anxieties-it’s a kind of social contract to do what I would [call] quality and meaningful outreach engaged scholarship: that you’re going to be somebody who’s going to be transparent about it. That translates into lots of different approaches we take in our work. I think that we’ve been 124 successful in helping develop capacity for these emerging non-profit organizations to grow, to be more stable and effective organizations. I think there’s also been a leadership development part of that that its come more from mentoring from one another, rather than from us, but by setting up a situation where they can mentor one another. We’ve also provided a forum where they can talk about critical issues and concerns and planning and those kinds of things. We’ve also assisted them in writing grant applications to help them fund their organizations or activities. I think that one of the challenges is the sense of dependency that you have to be careful about that you’re not leading them to believe that you can continue to bring money on a continual basis for operational support. So it’s trying to help them think in terms of framing projects that are in some cases, well, fundable, as well as meaningful to the community. For community partners, the emphasis by their faculty partner on “not creating dependency relationships” led to an affirmation of their faculty partner as an authentic capacity-building resource. Further, the community partners expressed that as they sustained their partnership relationship, they experienced “learning by doing”. This finding was especially strong across partnership type, from local or regional to larger-scope partnerships, such as a network of communities, and examples follow that demonstrate how Barbara of the European Community Revitalization and Rhoda Williams of the CDO Greening Community partnership experienced this. For these two and several other partnerships, it was found that both “commitment through action” and “learning by doing” led to collaboration-centered capacity-building across the leadership relationship as well as within the community-university partnership itself. Barbara discussed her leadership relationship in the European Community Revitalization partnership with Joyce and several Midwestern University faculty, where she emphasized how her experience of “learning by doing” and “commitment through action” led to her understanding of the community’s 125 experience of collaboration-centered capacity-building. Expressing a debt of gratitude to her university counterparts, she noted they describe themselves as “guides by the side,” where they do not tell her and the community networks what to do, but instead, advise them from their experience. She contrasts this with the approach taken by other agencies that participate in similar partnerships in Ireland, and shared the impact she believes that approach has on the partnership’s future. That is not the approach state agencies [take in Europe], we’re on a learning curve. There’s a good solid foundation being put in place which I believe is more important. I think the thing I would guard most is the preservation of the authenticity of the relationship, of the guidance, of the learning, and the thinking which has been very different to what we would have had. We were learning by doing. Maybe if we were more informed we would have learned more quickly; but I think that’s growth. And now it appears we are coming to a stage where there’s great commitment, there’s great understanding, appreciation, and valuing where we’re at. We are at the stage where now we’re looking at an overall action plan and we are seeking guidance also from the university in relation to the whole thing; we have a group together working on this. We are continuing to walk the journey together. Rhoda Williams works in two different community-university partnerships, both of which happen to be a part of this study (one with Cheryl Peters, and one with Sean Roberts). She provided a significant insight into how her experience with both faculty partners illustrated the themes of “learning by doing” and “commitment through action”. She found the difference is working with faculty that have more than an academic interest in her organization’s work, where the faculty members identify with the organization, the community, and the process of work in the partnership. Central Development Organization interacts with the community residents it serves, modeling the idea of a long-term, ongoing 126 relationship instead of a one-time conversation. Yet, Rhoda illustrates her insight on what the complexity of the multiple community-university partnerships has on her own approach as the leader of a community-placed organization; emphasizing the ways in which a scholarly, sustainable relationship works best for her community’s needs. One of the things that always made me crazy about the university is the business about having semester-long interns who come in for two-hours a week and then they're gone. We have no time for that, frankly; we don’t do that anymore. We're excited about forging more of a relationship with the new living-learning program, because it's a long-term, year-long relationship with more than an hour or two each week. It's relationships that we're interested in developing with people at the university, whether for scholarly work, for research, whatever. So that's our bias, and I think that that has really been the key to what we have [with the university faculty with whom we partner]. It‘s about a relationship, where both parties come at it with the expectation that it will continue over time and that it will deepen and that we'll learn and grow from the experience. For both faculty and community partners in this study, continuity in commitment in the leadership relationship was essential. The community partners found accessibility of the faculty partners and their staff necessary to organizational leadership throughout the partnership. As indicated in the following excerpts from both faculty partner Heather Wallace and her community partner Maxine Jones of the Young Futures Program, accessibility was defined as continuity in commitment. Continuity in commitment on the part of both the faculty member and community partner was the key factor attributed to culture alignment in this partnership. Heather discussed how she specifically emphasizes relationship-building with her community partner above institutional challenges the partnership might face. 127 Funding really comes and goes-it’s so transient. It’s not very stable. I can really say that’s not as big of a factor in terms of the sustainability of the partnership. It seems like it would be, but we’re had years where funding was really low. We kept going. Relationships are the key. When I’m in [Washington] DC with a community partner for a grant meeting, I’ll go to breakfast with them at seven o’clock in the morning before the meeting starts. That builds communication in ways that nothing else does; in ways that e-mails don’t, in ways that phone calls don’t. That face-to-face communication that’s not project-specific - you’re still conversing about the project, but it’s not about tacks. That does more than anything else, and finding time to do that is sometimes difficult. A lot of people don’t see the value in that kind of communication, because it’s not getting something done. Similarly, Maxine discussed how Heather’s commitment to personal visibility strengthens their relationship, because her she is present to witness Maxine’s cultural challenges and opportunities. This is a big thing, for people who work with school districts; they're not real sensitive to the nature of school districts. If you don't work within the culture of the school district, you can't get stuff done. And because we are in a big district, you've got to understand these multi-layers of stuff going on. You've got the district level, you've got the building level, you've got the program level, and you don't understand the nature or the culture of ‘this’ school building on ‘this’ side of town, versus the culture of the building on ‘this’ side of town. But in the systems, getting things done through systems, she's always been willing to be flexible around making it work for us in the district. 80 I really appreciate that. Last, faculty and community partners across partnerships stated that the faculty partner’s presence is the fundamental element that leads into continuity of commitment for both partners. While this aspect of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships requires leadership on the faculty’s part, it affects not only entire leadership relationship, but also the partnership in its entirety. As described in the last chapter, several partnerships’ processes of development illustrate how faculty’s presence facilitates continuity in commitment 128 for both partners. Alice Bartok, faculty partner in the Healthy Families partnership collaborated previously in doing program evaluation for the agency with community partner Lane Thomas. Lane identified the early childhood education on nutrition was a related interest, which led to Alice taking the initiative to form a research team and develop the university-funded grant that funded the pilot study that began the partnership. Similarly, Virginia Thompson’s commitment as a faculty partner to the research on the Family Sciences led to her asking colleagues about the topic, which led her to Sarah Nelson, her community partner. While Virginia could have taken it upon herself to determine that it might be beyond her responsibilities as a faculty member to facilitate research within this community, she continued to do so, including agreeing to the process of establishing a community advisory board and community research ethics board. Last, Sean Roberts’ interest in building from his previous work at a southern university to doing community-based research in the Midwest led to his having conversations and meeting Paul Burgess and Bill Glass, whereby he committed himself to not only following up with the Community Connections partnership, but taking responsibility to co-Iead the partnership into a community information center in the hopes of disseminating the project to the community. In summary, several interrelated factors comprise partner culture understanding and leadership responsibility as faculty and community partners collaborate and build their leadership relationship, illustrated in Figure 5.1: (1) faculty enter the partnership focusing on not creating dependency relationships, 129 (2) which affirmed the community partner’s ability to see them as an authentic capacity-building resource, (3) leading to the shared partner collaborative process of learning by doing and commitment through action in implementing the partnership, and (4) as the faculty partner sustains their presence as the partnership develops, this leads to continuity in commitment for both partners, which affects sustainability of both the leadership relationship and entire partnership. (1) (2) (48) Faculty Partner: Community Partner: Faculty Partner: Enter the partnership Affirms faculty Sustains relationship “not partner as an authentic presence/visibility in creating dependency capacity—building the partnership as it relationships” resource develops V I V (3) (4b) Both Partners: Both Partners: Continuity in commitment to both the leadership relationship & partnership develops for both partners As collaboration begins & develops, partners share experience of "learning by doing” and build mutual “commitment through action” Figure 5. I. How faculty and community partners develop partner culture understanding and leadership responsibility The Role of Community-University Liaisons As several faculty and community partners described their leadership roles in the partnership, they described themselves or their partner as community-university liaisons. Maxine Jones, community partner for the Young Futures Program, co-led the partnership from her position with the intermediate 130 school district titled Community Partnership Facilitator, where her responsibilities where her work in the eight years prior to the Young Futures Partnership was in developing community-building partnerships between secondary schools and families, as well as generating resources for programs serving youth in the school district and their families. Rhoda Williams, community partner in the Central Development Organization (CDO) Greening project partnership and executive director of the CDO, talked about how she saw her faculty partner Cheryl Peters in such a liaison role, what it has meant to her community and what that has meant to the sustainability of their partnership. She's an affirmation of that liaison role between the university and the community, and she balances boundaries for you and gives you freedom to still fulfill your goals. But with her resources-she's the embodiment of the purpose of engagement, really. So that's been really great to learn and to hear from other people how much they would need somebody like that and could use that in different ways. I think it requires, again, a sort of level of comfort in both directions. I think we also occupy that space, that in-between space. And I think that the community-based organization has got to be comfortable there as well, acting as a liaison between the neighborhood and the university. So it's really both; it's really the ability of both the faculty and [CDO] staff that she interacts with, to be able to straddle that. Bill Glass, community partner of the Community Connections project, shared his definition of the liaison role as one of an intermediary between communities and universities as he discussed his relationship with faculty partner Sean Roberts. It’s good to have people who are skilled at being intermediaries. It’s not a role that’s necessarily defined or valued and I don’t necessarily see myself as good at it. ljust know it’s helpful for people to understand the university. People [with] long-term relationships with communities understand community and can serve as bridges between the two. It’s not just two; it’s oftentimes multiple entities that are interacting [in community- university partnerships]. 131 The community-university liaison theme strengthened across the faculty and community partner interviews, when both partners were asked if there were anything different that the community and/or university could do to support the partnership. Several partners defined the community-university liaison role as one that creates an environment across the academic and civic organizations where the partnership co-leaders could each have more time to communicate results of the partnership. Additionally, the partners noted that this particular communication process could include publishing, community-placed education, marketing, and other means of community-based knowledge dissemination. Heather Wallace, non- tenured faculty partner of the Young Futures Program, described her vision of what such a liaison role would do to help facilitate knowledge dissemination from her partnership. I think allowing a person to be in a role of community liaison would really assist in getting data published and having a really clear mechanism for doing that, and that would allow a real focus on the community research partnership. That position would be tricky because you have to know a lot about research and you have to know a lot about communities-your knowledge about research and communities has to be very broad because you’re going to deal with so many different kinds of research issues. But the community would benefit from having that knowledge and having that expertise. Georgia Pierce, faculty partner in the Let’s Create partnership, ran both a service-learning course and a longer-term community engagement project based from the course. She has published from both and explained the process she uses the knowledge products collaboratively. In doing so, she emphasized that her involvement in time and the pursuit of money for the partnership yielded 132 resource constraints in the partnership, and that hiring someone like her in a liaison role to help facilitate the partnership would be helpful. I think time is the real, that’s really part of the biggest resource more so than money; although they are connected. But, it would mean being able to hire someone like me, because it’s getting harder and harder for me to do these projects and do my job. So yeah, if there were more resources to hire someone to be the director of the Arts Pipeline program or the director of outreach for our department who could help to facilitate community connections for a variety of projects, [that would be helpful] because these all take time to evaluate them all. To do a really top notch job it takes effort; it takes time and it takes resources. And so I feel like I do as much as I can with the time and resources that l have. Georgia’s community partner, Marcia Matthews, agreed that a community- university partnership liaison would help her as well, especially with marketing and disseminating communication about the outcomes and benefits of such partnerships. She added that working with the liaison to evaluate the entire overall partnership (not just each semester’s work) as an additional benefit. I think that when we were talking about visibility, specifically, about the arts in education, some of these partnerships and some of the initiatives that are happening-the fact is that not a lot of people know about them. I actually feel I need to do more to promote what's happening in my classroom and through these relationships even in the local community. I think that there's actually more knowledge-base in the community about the creative arts program than I'm necessarily aware of. But I would love to have someone to work with me to try to do more to build that [public relations] element in the community. And that could enhance what's happening with the relationship with the university as well and be able to educate the local community and the general city as to what cool things are happening and what opportunities are there and what opportunities could be if we were able to continue to build on what's in place. In summary, faculty and community partners saw themselves as liaisons between the community and university as a part of their leadership relationship in their partnership. They also shared that having a community-university liaison position as a part of their partnership could help them balance their leadership 133 responsibilities in the partnership across the academic organization and the community. Responses across several partners demonstrated that both faculty and community partners in sustained community-university engagement partnerships had strong relationships with their partnership co-leader, but also experienced ongoing challenges such as visibility of the partnership in the community related to communicating the results of the partnership. The next section discusses the findings as they relate to the third research question: what factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability? Factors of the Collaborative Process that Most Impact Partnership Sustainability As aforementioned, the factor that sustained all nine partnerships in this study was the relationship between the faculty and community partners. Across the partnerships, respect and trust were the primary factors of the partnership relationship that were essential to partnership development into sustainability. Both faculty and community partners were specific in their answers defining the role respect and trust played as primary factors impacting the collaborative leadership relationship. Across interviews, faculty and community partners asserted that the university polices for community engagement supported the ability of each faculty partner and their staff to collaborate. As both partners came together to develop and implement the partnerships in this study, their example of mutual respect 134 and trust expanded throughout both of their respective institutions’ networks. Thus, the actual leadership relationship was modeled into a community-placed network of relationships that sustained the partnership, in spite of institutional challenges. The term community-placed network means that within the communities served by the partnership, community members would also initiate and sustain relationships with other community members that involved mutual learning based on respect and trust. Community-Placed Networks Several faculty and community partners developed a network of community-placed relationships that did not originate from grant availability or need, but instead, originated from community dialogue on research-based projects that both partners had worked on in the recent past. As these faculty and community partners came together in their respective partnerships and co-led them into sustainability, their community-placed network of relationships had the direct result of community capacity-building. To illustrate, Jeff Morgan discussed how the communities involved in 11 sites of the national Community Leadership partnership developed their community-placed network of relationships, and how it shapes the communities’ definition of capacity-building for the purposes of their partnership. As far as the community level, what sustains the interest is the real belief in the work of crossing boundaries and building collective leadership and locally based change that’s not opposed from the outside but it’s supported by the outside. And when they experience it and feel the power of it, they want to make it a way of life in their organizations. And they know that it’s really important to break the isolation and not just be so self- absorbed with their community that they need to go out and tell their story 135 and learn from other people’s stories and it opens them up to thinking more creatively. Similarly, Tom Rice discussed his experience of community-placed networks across the American Heritage partnership. Compared to Jeff’s experience, Tom explicated how these community-placed networks, developed at the local-level, seemed to result from the leadership relationship at the national-level. Tom reiterated how vital the faculty partner’s awareness of their community partner‘s capacity is to the sustainability of the partnership and its outcomes. As he addressed issues of geographic representation across several large state-wide basket-making associations that were comprised of several hundred tribes, he and Kate wanted to provide a sense of equity at the partnership’s conceptualization that would lead to inter-organization capacity-building. Tom knew from his work in other large-scale cultural arts community partnerships that there was a difference in organizational maturity, as some organizations had paid staff and others were all-volunteer. Knowing that they would face “founder’s disease” or leadership succession problems brought on by “great leader” organizational structures, Tom discussed how having this find of insight and awareness as a faculty member contributed to his ability to see all of their community partner associations and members through a sustained partnership. So the sense of always working out equity and working together would have been easier had we just said alright, we’re going to do an 18-month project ‘we’re going to get one deliverable and we’re all behind it. Then we’re going to break-up’. But our goal right from the beginning really was about capacity building by getting these organizations to know each other. 136 Then, we helped them think about how they can write grants so that when they’re getting [federal] funding they have a program of technical assistance. So we used to say, ‘if you’re going to have one of your big gatherings with 500 people, why don’t you invite one of your colleagues from the other associations to come and experience your event?’ So they started a kind of sharing, going around seeing each other’s work and learning from each other. Right from the beginning that was a goal of helping in the organizational development and planning process. So that literally helps communities help themselves, in a way, rather than us being the experts. Our role was to help them get to know each other and what they do well. There’s nothing more powerful than having a network of colleagues; when something goes wrong you can pick up the phone and say, ‘how did you deal with this?’ The leadership often felt they were moved into positions without proper organizational training, particularly, we find this in working with a lot of community groups. They’re usually extraordinary people, but they’ve never really had to run a non-profit organization and find themselves having to do it. Moreover, Joyce Dallas described how the co-design of the European Community Revitalization partnership with the community partners and Midwestern University faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students addressed the partnership goal of addressing the socioeconomic needs of the communities in the network. In centering the co-design on a two-way process of learning, not only would the students involved learn from one another, but also allow the community members to feel free to be engaged with both the students and each other in the partnership. I think that has been a key element from the very start, which I think that two way learning makes it a little bit different, at least from other study abroad partnerships and other international development work that l have been apart of. Every summer after the study abroad we relax for a couple months and then we really reflect on what went well, what was different, what was difficult, what we need to change, how we make that different for the next year and we have this kind of reflection process. We have a lot of phone calls back and forth and we write up different things. And how community members may or may not want to weigh in differently and so, I think that the learning part has been a key focus of that. Which is maybe a little bit different, but it’s learning in the context of socioeconomic change and rural change and all that. So the projects and the topics definitely are 137 socioeconomic change-oriented. There have been times I think host families are more comfortable talking to Barbara about things and then Barbara will talk to me about them. I think sometimes people are more-this is just in the past year-maybe more comfortable talking to me about something things and then I will talk to Barbara about them. But these communities-even though they are far apart from each other-there’s so many interconnections and so many people know so many other people that if you do something over in one community and it isn’t quite right, every one over here is gonna know, sooner than you can realize. And so, in order to be respectful, but also to be effective you really want to have a local partner that you’re really, really close with and talking through a lot of things. Likewise, in the Family Sciences partnership, faculty partner Virginia Thompson shared that although the community involved in their partnership is a self-protective community, they are interesting because they are, under the right circumstances, extremely willing to help with research related to abilities. In fact, Virginia shared that when their partnership concluded, the community has already expressed an interest in building from her research to learn more about the community’s genetics in several other areas of health research. In summary, several partnerships developed community-placed networks as a result of their partnerships, where the community members involved in the partnership initiated relationships based on mutual respect and trust to learn from with one another. The partnerships that developed these networks involved more than one community in the partnership’s co-design and implementation process. Based on the data presented in this section, in those partnerships that developed community-placed networks, emphasis on co-learning as their process for partnership design and implementation was the factor that facilitated their development. Moreover, creating space and/or time for reflection for those 138 community members involved in the partnership also facilitated the development of community-placed networks. The next section discusses the next factor of the collaborative process between faculty and community partners in community-university engagement partnerships that most impacted the partnership’s sustainability: the knowledge product as policy, resource and commitment. The Knowledge Product as Policy, Resource, and Commitment Across all nine partnerships, a model process of partnership implementation became a theme, based upon the process each partner described related to developing partnership policies, resources, and commitments. The faculty and community partners found that the process of listening and learning from each other as faculty, students, and community partners evolved as the partnership was sustained, from knowledge creation to transfer. For example, faculty member Joyce Dallas spoke of her responsibility with both the community host families and Barbara to infuse her pedagogy within the partnership with interactions that allowed her students to adapt their American learning styles to that which valued the community’s culture. We talk a lot about respecting local knowledge, not just formal expertise, and that if you don’t tap into that you’re really not doing the community a service-the product you’re leaving behind is just irrelevant. The other thing is verbal knowledge [and] understanding oral tradition. Not everything they need to find is written down, [and] that is really hard for students who have grown up pretty much only ever Googling things. We have to work really hard on helping [our students] learn local history skills and great things happen; you talk to somebody who knows somebody who says, ‘you go have a cup of tea with that lady, I think there’s something that she has in a drawer’. And she pulls out this drawer original letters that really should be archived someplace, not in the front room. [The students] unravel all of these magical, exciting discoveries that they put into these reports that 139 communities don’t have the time to do. But if you’re only valuing what is written you miss all of the rest of that. Similarly, Lane Thomas shared that the Healthy Families partnership’s community—placed toolkit was not originally identified, but became a policy and a resource that grew out of the community’s need. [Our partnership] has helped shaped some of our nutrition policies and procedures, particularly because an extension of the early childhood nutrition project became a screening tool to determine how families were doing nutritionally and where they might need some intervention. We were very involved in developing that; that was something that grew out of our needs, where we said, ‘we have all these good activities and resources now, but how do we decide whether a family needs intervention and in what areas of nutrition?’ And so I worked collaboratively helping to develop the assessment tool, which we piloted, got comments back, and have in final copy. And that was not part of the original collaboration, but grew out of the partnerships’ needs and has a wonderful thing. To have something concrete on the level that our parents can understand is really important thing to be able to have. So I think that we are definitely having an impact on our clients. Using the knowledge product to make a sustainable process of education and communication within and across the communities served, all partnerships in this study resulted in scholarly knowledge products that were co-developed between faculty and community partners. Moreover, all partnership co-developed knowledge products were recognized by the discipline, community, and/or other aspects of the academic and civic institutions. Last, the knowledge products were designed for both academic and community benefit beyond the partnership’s duration. Alice Bartok described how her Healthy Families partnership’s development of the knowledge product for community-sustained use created buy-in for the agency staff supervisors. This enabled the front-line staff that 140 would use the knowledge product with the community members and communities they served to value both the partnership and the quality of its outcomes. So I guess it was a combination of where the supervisors really believing in the project and supporting us went to support us and then transmitting that belief and value to their staff, and then their staff then buying into it and seeing it as a valuable part of their work and that’s what is seen as valued. So their supervisors value their work and input to the project as important and valuable. Jeff Morgan, the community partner of the Community Leadership partnership, shared how their partnership was planning their process of education and communication that would be sustained within the communities they served. Their partnership was implementing place-based learning exchanges called Community You that would be open to both partnership- involved communities and other communities who were not involved in the partnership. We’re starting something called Community You where we’re going to have place-based learning exchanges in the partnerships’ communities over the next two years. There will be three-and-a-half day gatherings where we bring from 30 to 50 people from non-partnership communities, give them some exposure and experience in a place-based community change, and then open it up to the learning they bring to develop a larger national learning community. Theoretically, it’ll help distribute some of the lessons, but it’ll be in the spirit of what we always do; where we share our lessons and we’re open to learning from others. It’s the iterative process that builds the experience of everyone, so it’s not one-way information. We have the ability to do some writing and then have a Community You; that’s kind of an interesting approach to disseminating-it’s very reciprocal. Another example of how community partners facilitate the use of the knowledge product from the partnership to sustain the process of education and communication across communities served is the European Community Revitalization partnership in rural Ireland. Barbara shared how the final 141 presentation by the Midwestern University students to the community network board and stakeholders, after only about six weeks of work, advances the ability of the community to work with local and regional funders to support their communities’ revitalization. It’s so enriching and they do realize when they’re leaving that there’s a program that would follow. All of the students have made a huge contribution towards rural community development, and towards communities being motivated to take action. So we attribute so much of our village revitalization to this program, and that’s from our perspective. We learn from the students. We learn from what they give us. They give us a document that can be used by the community as guidelines when they’re applying for funding and grant aid and share it with other communities. So you have a type of case study of what is possible and when it’s documented that’s where it really becomes so valuable. State agencies that fund us are extremely interested in funding those projects and being involved with us. Faculty partners demonstrated how both academic and university-specific policies influenced their involvement in the partnership. All ten faculty partners in this study achieved promotion and/or tenure while working in their partnerships. Additionally, all ten faculty originated and sustained their individual visibility in the partnership’s activities with the community, regardless as to if they had formal staff; for example, either professional or student staff. Yet, as related to policy demands specific to the institution and their disciplines, the demand for faculty in this study to demonstrate published evidence of their partnership work as scholarship significantly affected the ability of the faculty partners to sustain partnership involvement. Further, this demand impacted faculty resources and commitments to contribute to their partnerships. To illustrate, Sean Roberts discussed the “guerilla strategy” he employed to continue in engaged scholarship. Sean clarified how the collaboration process 142 in the partnership itself is a different experience for him than how he has to write about it, and how developing his ability to balance both experiences gained him tenure, and subsequently, promotion. He noted this was a result of his being mentored into doing this type of work, but added that no one mentored him on how to develop the processes to sustain the work. Having the infrastructure to generate research projects “on the fly” is what brought him to Midwestern University from the south, in order to do more sustainable, community-based research projects in his discipline. However, even with the infrastructure, Sean discussed how the persistent problems related to maintaining infrastructure might impact his current partnership’s sustainability. Once we lose the ability to do that here, this is my great anxiety is my ability to sustain this research center in such a way that we can continue to do that work. Once that infrastructure starts to erode, my ability to do this work will erode with it. This is why a media center is actually fairly important to me because it allows me to not be so damned responsible for some of these things that we've been infrastructurally responsible for over the last four years. I much more enjoy the work, frankly, than the way I write about the work. There are all of these complicated things that we do in collaboration with folks [that] l have to turn into disciplinarily relevant nuggets of information, which means that when I‘m designing these projects in communities I have to design them like research studies. I had a really good mentor in graduate school who said, ‘don't do anything you can't write about - and be sure to write about everything that you do.’ And so that is what I've taken into all of my work; if I'm gonna do something, I'm gonna write about it. I certainly was much more focused on that in my first ten years -I don't have to do that so much anymore. I can be a little bit more selective; and I can take more risks, which I really like. I just had to figure out how to do this-and that I had to figure out on my own. I didn‘t have anybody to teach me this. Similarly, Joyce Dallas, non-tenured faculty member of the European Community Revitalization partnership, explained that the partnership has built the capacity of the Irish community, leading to an idea for an exchange program of 143 ECR community leaders to come to the Midwest after their federal grant was scheduled to end. Joyce referenced a guest speaker for the course, who is an expert in rural heritage tours, and in discussing how to implement getting this expert in rural heritage tours to become the first community exchange member, there are policy, resource and commitment about which she has informed her university colleagues that signal challenges to how the university might sustain community-university engagement projects through faculty leadership. There are different departments on campus who have speaker series and if we were to do some of our homework and get her support to come and talk about rural heritage tourism-the same caliber professionals as we have here in terms of our scholarship and our research and what she does with communities-that would be a useful thing, I think. You know, it would be great to have some time bought out for sustaining this type of partnership, and particularly, I think if the university wants to have this study abroad that l coordinate and the new one in our region and if they actually truly want to expand, there aren’t a lot of people who can keep the partnership communication flowing just as part of what they do in their every day life. And I think the university is in the midst of a tremendous shift in terms of faculty, time, and what a traditional tenure type of faculty is supported and allowed to do in terms of what else they do as part of load. And I’m not sure outreach engagement is gonna be on the top of that list. International might be, outreach engagement probably isn’t. So that means that some of our pre-tenure faculty and our tenured faculty might not feel that they have the rewards to do this kind of work, which then leaves a whole slew of non-tenured type people, most of who are on soft money. If they don’t have money buying out their time, then, they are really kind of wedging this in somehow and l have raised that as many times as I can to this team that wants to expand this type of study abroad other places as a real warning. I’m not sure this institution has the capacity to have enough of its own people to be the partners, even though there are plenty of communities that would be interested. So, I don’t know what the answer for university support is on that, but I think some help there somehow in figuring out what we do with that problem because that is gonna be a significant limitation I think. Related to policies and commitments, a few faculty also experienced an emergent need to mentor the community in order to sustain the partnership. 144 Amelia discussed her experience in her dual role as member of the executive leadership team of the Community Leadership partnership, and the subsequent impact it had in her service to the community as evaluator. For me a partnership is not 50/50. For me a partnership is that we bring our different gifts to the table and we use our different gifts for something, to act. And so, I have a stronger partnership with my colleagues on the national level with communications. We’re learning from one another; we’re open to learning with and from one another and we’re moving forward, making decisions. There’s not as much as that kind of a partnership because of the teams at each of the sites. Now there are exceptions [as] the teams at each of the sites are comprised of people who are learning the skills for the very first time; because they’re building their capacity to be evaluators. So the partnership is a little different in that it becomes more of an opportunity to be a mentor, a teacher. So it’s a very different kind of partnership. Sometimes I wouldn’t call it a partnership. It’s more of a teaching opportunity. Similar to Amelia, in the American Heritage partnership, Tom also leads a nationwide partnership that simultaneously developed local-level community impacts. Tom shared how the communities involved in this multi-Ievel partnership built its capacity through increasing human and physical capital. I think that we’ve been successful in helping develop capacity for these emerging non-profit organizations to grow, to be more stable and effective organizations. I think there’s also been a leadership development part of that that its come more from mentoring from one another, rather than from us, but by setting up a situation where they can mentor one another. We’ve also provided a forum where they can talk about critical issues and concerns and planning and those kinds of things. We’ve also assisted them in writing grant applications to help them fund their organizations or activities. I think that one of the challenges is the sense of dependency that you have to be careful about that you’re not leading them to believe that you can continue to bring money on a continual basis for operational support. So it’s trying to help them think in terms of framing projects that are in some cases, well, fundable, as well as meaningful to the community. 145 Sean Roberts discussed the balance he had to navigate in his across his leadership role in the Community Connections partnership, which is related to his leadership role in the non-profit organization. As he facilitates the web server hosting process that enabled his community partners to use their database and mapping tool for free Sean also has to facilitate the transfer of this management process to the community through the information center. This balancing and leadership navigation role across academic and civic organizational procedures presents several concerns that he believes would be solved by specific commitments both organizations could make. The data for the mapping tool lives on multiple servers here in my department, some of them at Google; and so none of the data lives on the community’s computers. But, they're left with the ability to use it and re- use it to build capacity. Community Connections, like any small organization, has the ability to create a website for free, so they don't have to pay anybody to do it. We provide the free web hosting, and we’ll continually do that once you make an agreement, and this is the hard part. I committed to it so, come hell or high water, we're gonna make sure that there's electricity in that closet and it continues to go, but I'm concerned about the sustainability of it. I don’t trust the university to be good to people necessarily-so I don’t trust myself. For the foreseeable future we'll continue to do it. In my view, one of the functions of the community media center should be to supply this, to support this capacity for the community- I see that as the proper role of the community media center because they can be much more responsive than we can be, and innovative and creative. At I actually think it's in the best interest of everybody if it‘s displaced to the community. All partners gave evidence of grants obtained, human and physical capital resources sustained, and social capital enhanced as a result of the partnership. Federal grant funds played a role in the development of only two of the nine partnerships; one used National Institutes of Health funding, one used funding from a national disciplinary association, two used national foundation funds, three 146 were based on university provided funds. The two partnerships that were developed from federal grant funds happen to have not been funded upon first grant application by the community partners alone — they found their applications to be accepted after working with their respective faculty members as the partnership developed. Human and physical capital also played a role in partnership development; hereby referred to across most interviews in the study as infrastructure. However, infrastructure was only mentioned directly by two respondents as factor for partnership sustainability; the other respondents discussed infrastructure as an indirect factor to building respect and trust. Amelia discussed what she learned about building infrastructure from her partnership. But what I have ascertained over so many years and so much data collecting is the one thing we can do for the Community Leadership sites is to build organizational infrastructures of that fiduciary agent or what we call the host agent in our society. If we can build organizational capacity at that site to do this work, then this work becomes hard line items. It becomes a part of the work of everyone involved in the organization. If we cannot do that, then there is no sustainability for the work that we do. It takes a lot more concerted effort, a lot more resources I think. And when we did the first Community Leadership cohort, we learned a lot, but we weren’t doing that organizational capacity building. That’s what came out of my report; that you’re putting a lot into building individual leaders and bringing people together with their community and stuff, but we’ve missed the host organization. We missed the people who are actually holding the work. In the second Community Leadership cohort, we began to do that so I assessed that. I said yes we’re doing it, but this is also what we need to continue to do. Similarly, Cheryl Peters, non-tenured faculty partner for the CDO Greening Community partnership, detailed how the process of finding grants to support the partnership over time enabled her to integrate both her faculty and personal idenfifies. 147 I wrote the sketch of a proposal to bring these two populations together, with the idea of some sort of project for their mutual re-acquaintance with one another, and it emerged. I wanted, at that point, to get the federal community food program grant; and it was too early that first year because we didn’t have our ducks in line. So we did some background research; a graduate student of mine did a survey to assess the degree to which that community was actually a food desert, and then we started a food team under the auspices of the CDO. We wrote the proposal, and it wasn’t funded the first year. We went through and got some small grants to help underwrite the program, with the idea that a market was going to improve nutritional standing of the residential population. That’s what funded the market the first year, in part. And we started writing for second and third grants, and third time it got funded. This past year was the first year. It’s a three-year grant, so we have two more years on it. With that grant, I was an evaluator on [another] grant, which is now done; and I am the evaluator on this one as well. So I’ve been working with [the CD0] as an individual; both as a concerned citizen, and as someone interested in food system issues. [I emphasized] getting my students involved; I had students who did research for it, then students interned at [CD0], and students who have been helping with the market. And now that I belong to the [new Midwestern University living-learning program in the arts and humanities, Rhoda and the [CDO] have agreed with work with me and the living- Iearning program, as a location for student involvement. This section discussed the knowledge product as policy, resource, and commitment. The next section concludes this chapter. Summary This chapter detailed what faculty and community partners said that addressed research questions two and three of this study: what factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners, and, what factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability? Again, the relationship between the faculty and community partners was the primary factor that sustained all nine partnerships. Given this, the factors of 148 the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnership that most impacted the relationship between faculty and community partners were as follows. 1. 3. A simultaneous understanding of each other’s systems and a willingness to work with the broader community to build capacity, defined by the partners as “mutual partner culture understanding and leadership responsibility”. In this regard, faculty partners had to lead the co-design of the partnership by “not creating dependency relationships”, which affirmed the community partner’s ability to see the faculty partner as a capacity-building resource. The community partners expressed that as they sustained their partnership relationship, they experienced “learning by doing”. This was especially strong across partnership type, from local or regional to larger-scope partnerships, such as a network of communities. Both “commitment through action” and “learning by doing” led to collaboration-centered capacity—building, across the leadership relationship as well as within the community-university partnership itself. As the faculty and community partners implemented their partnerships, faculty experienced the emergent need to mentor the community partners in how address organizational succession issues that might impact the partnership’s sustainability, defined as "partnership as mentorship”. 149 Addressing the third research question, which asked what factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability, this chapter presented the following. 1. The actual leadership relationship was modeled into a community- placed network of relationships that sustained the partnership, in spite of institutional challenges. Their community-placed network of relationships had the direct result of community capacity-building, through continuity in commitment in the leadership relationship. The presence of the faculty partner affected the entire partnership. 2. The knowledge product was co-designed by the faculty and community as policy, resource, and commitment. This led to a sustainable process of education and communication within and across communities served by the partnership, which yielded recognition of the partnership’s knowledge products by the academic discipline, community, and/or other aspects of the academic and civic institution. The next chapter is the concluding chapter of this dissertation research. The chapter summarizes the dissertation, connecting the study’s findings to the research problem and conceptual framework. Next, the chapter continues with discussion of the study’s findings as they connect to the research questions. Additionally, theoretical implications of the study present connections to prior research, including an explanation of unanticipated findings and the study’s limitations. Last, the summary and discussion chapter concludes with 150 implications for practice for the field of community-campus engagement and suggestions for future research. 151 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This chapter begins with a summary of the dissertation, connecting the study’s findings to the research problem and conceptual framework. Next, the chapter continues with discussion of the study’s findings as they connect to the research questions. Additionally, theoretical implications of the study present connections to prior research, including an explanation of unanticipated findings and the study’s limitations. Last, the summary and discussion chapter concludes with implications for practice for the field of community-campus engagement and suggestions for future research. Dissertation Summary The first chapter of the dissertation presented the research problem and conceptual framework, research purpose, and research questions. The research conceptual framework, represented in Figure 6.1, portrays the alignment of campus and community organizational through the collaborative process of sustained community-university engagement partnerships as a theoretical framework. Based on the conceptual framework, the research problem statement posits that campus and community context of community-university engagement partnerships (organizational context) is aligned through the knowledge creation, dissemination, and transfer process (scholarship). Three issues were posited in the research problem regarding how academic and civic organizational context alignment through community-university engagement partnerships. The first 152 Faculty Capacity Building CAMPUS ¥ K CONTEXT Campus Culture Research (Leadership & A Methodology Governance) \ f Interdependent Policies, Community Resources, Commitments Engaged Scholarship / Sustained Community Culture Engaged (Leadership & Partnerships Governance) \ r‘ Knowledge Transmission, Application, & Preservation y COMMMUNITY CONTEXT Figure 6.1. Research conceptual framework (based upon Lerner & Simon, 1998, emphasis added). issue related to how community-university engagement scholarship is aligned with the academic organization through the faculty collaboration role. The second issue was how community-university engagement scholarship is aligned with the civic organization through the community collaboration role. The third issue related to how community-university engagement is aligned to both the academic and civic organizations through the collaboration between faculty and community partners as a means to further illustrate how these cultures align with one another. 153 Moreover, the research conceptual framework implied that as faculty and community partners sustained their partnerships, partnership policies, resources and commitments influenced their ability to align both the academic and civic organizational contexts. The research conceptual framework and research problem were the foundation for the study’s research purpose and questions. The study’s purpose was to examine the process of collaboration between community and faculty partners in community-university engagement partnerships. Specifically, the study explored the leadership and governance process between faculty and community partners, focusing on partnership organization, group dynamics, and co-created knowledge products. The study sought to understand how the collaboration process between faculty and community partners affected their extent of engagement, as well as partnership sustainability. Last, the research questions for this study were as follows: 1. What does it take for faculty to develop a sustained, collaborative community-university engagement partnership with community partners? 2. What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the relationship between faculty and community partners? 3. What factors of the collaborative process of community-university engagement partnerships most impact the partnership’s sustainability? 154 As explained in Chapter Three, this was a qualitative case study of nine full partnerships from one public research university, Midwestern University. The final sample was selected by identifying faculty who responded to the Midwestern University Engagement Survey (MUES), an annual online survey of university faculty-reported engagement activity that began in 2004. The universe for the final sample focused on MUES faculty respondents across 2005 and 2006. The MUES gathered both quantitative and qualitative data about characteristics of engagement efforts on a project basis. The final sample consisted of ten faculty and nine community partners, corresponding to nine full partnerships. Based on the research problem and conceptual framework, 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted that were parallel yet tailored to each the community and faculty partner to illustrate the community and campus organizational factors that contributed to partners’ collaboration process in the partnership, its sustainability, and use of partnership scholarship. Moreover, interview questions were designed for identification of partnership-specific policies, resources, and commitments that most contributed to the partners’ collaboration process. This section of this chapter presented a summary of the dissertation, connecting the study’s findings to the research problem and conceptual framework. The following section discusses the study’s findings as connected to the research problem and conceptual framework. 155 Connections between Research Findings, Research Problem and Conceptual ‘ Framework As discussed in the research problem statement in Chapter One, Lerner and Simon (1998) argued that a systemic connection within the academic institution’s organizational structure needs to be evident throughout the development, implementation, and sustainability of community-university partnerships based on knowledge creation, transfer, and dissemination. In the literature review, an argument was made that the determination of a model infrastructure of institutional change supporting community-university engagement may center on understanding the strength of both role congruence and networks of communication across levels of leadership. Examining sustained community-university partnerships to understand how and to what extent the partnership leaders were involved in the development of partnership policies, resources, and commitments would clarify the characteristics of each faculty and community partner’s respective leadership and governance roles. This study’s findings assert that the community-university engagement model of mutual exchange between partners is working in practice, especially in relationship to the influence of knowledge creation, transfer, and dissemination. Figure 6.2 illustrates the connection between the study’s findings and the research conceptual framework. 156 O>31cm OOZHNX... . 30:3. 00000.2 m:._0.:o 0 “00:5. 80:0 0: :0. 0833m 0000:0038. 8.000333 0 02.3053: mm 30:85.33 . £00008: 303000.09. o .55 392.00%" 080:0. 850500 00.8.0333 00 00.50.. 58:80. 0:0 00334302 . 003000 80003:: 0. 0083800 0 5383.0. 0:183:03 .00 8 30:5. 3<0.<030:<0E..Q 8 8083 03.803300 8 0:23:10: 0:0 030:0 OOZZZ:2....< 002...de . .80. 030200” 300000 003053.00 0 55:5. 3030010 833:5. 3 0033303 0000300 0: 0:30:00 00000.Q.0:..03m 58:80 8 00333.3. 03305 . 00333.2 ..0000833 m, 0.083800 0 00333.3. 00355 .03.: S 003w 0:0 038:8 000305.00 833:5 3. 0033303 38:30 00:0: 0 .55 303008 030:2 8:880 88.0833 00 00:00.. 88:80. 0:0 0033.303 . X82680 50:03.88? 3.00.5000: m. 30823.0: 0 55 3.00000 0.. ..m8:.:m 0:0 .0033m $03 000.: 0050 mm 5.00:5: 0800:". 0:0 003335. 03303 0<0.<0m 00 30 303008 080:2 W80 #03 08000: 030000 38 53803.0? 000.3000? 0:0 30820003 35:5. 00000.3. wc..03m \ / .8830: 00305 303000.03 800053: 0.0 0083300 > / \ Manama @3238? 808300 00333.3. 4 m:m0m00 r0000330 mm 35:053.? 0053300 / \. 5:90.008 50:03.38? >015000: 00 3082000: 5.350 9N. .8808: #030203 30 0030000: 8 0.303% @0000 :8: P032. 00 930:. .08. 03.3005 00000.. 5830300000.. 02.2.00. 3085000. 003533030 . 10:3. .55 00.3.8300: 0:58:32: 0m 003 05880 :00 0003003.. 00.5.00 30” 0:020 35:03:... 00.00003 8 3003.8 003335.- 0.0000 883.03. . 308500 .55 58:80: 8 0:83 :5 02308.00 0030 ...83 :5 50005.00 3.3.2530 0:0 .5 008.83 003335703000 30280.8 i 3 8:0 on 38800:». 3.0333088 030.0500 80... mm 3:03m 00 09.830. 00:80.30. . 0033.303 .55 0033.930“: 8 00.0005: 05 30$..00m0 080:9 30.80 0 80838.0 200000 On 00:03.0: 0:0 0033:3038: $.33 30 00800 30 00333500 8200 157 CAMPUS COMMUNITY CONTEXT CONTEXT Creates Community makes environment for meaning and value reciprocity that of campus context affects entire through knowledge partnership Co-Created process Community-Placed Scholarship as Policy, Resource and Commitment Listening to and learning from each other as knowledge is co-created, applied, and preserved in community facilitates mutual education and communication Figure 6.3. Research findings diagram. 158 Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Academic Organizational Context Faculty act within an academic organizational context that centers on the institution’s mission and a structural environment that supports or hinders their work (Holland, 1997, 1999a; Maurrasse, 2001; O’Meara, 2002; Ward, 2003). This study found that the faculty role is essential to the alignment of community- university engagement to the academic organizational context. The faculty partners in this study work in an academic organizational context and structural environment at Midwestern University where community engagement is infused throughout their institution’s mission as well as the tenure and promotion policy crafted by the faculty. Having these policies embedded across both university’s organizational context and structural environment enables the faculty partners to adapt to challenges to reciprocal relationships across the academic and civic organizational contexts. The faculty and community partners interviewed in this study had the opportunity to share specific factors that contributed to the university’s environment to support community-university engagement partnerships when they answered the interview question regarding if there were anything that the community or university could do differently in the partnership. Overall, both faculty and community partners praised the university for allowing the faculty members the time to be present and visible in their respective partnerships, supporting the finding that the faculty partner’s presence in continuity of commitment affected both partners and the partnership’s sustainability. 159 Several faculty and community partners provided recommendations for what the university could do differently to support the partnership. Their recommendations were focused on improving the university grants and contracts management process to facilitate the ability for both faculty and community partners to fulfill commitments to the partnership. Specifically, partners found that the university only allocates research money to departments or faculty, which presented an operational problem in these community-university engagement partnerships. They suggested that if the institution’s mission emphasizes engagement, then its facilitation of a process that provides these community-university partners the ability to place funds directly in the community would be an innovation. Tom Rice discussed how he has experienced requests from philanthropic funders to place funds in the community, and explained further how the role ofjoint credit helps facilitate his responsibilities as a faculty member managing such processes in these partnerships. it took a long time for the university to acknowledge that faculty get credit for where the dollars actually go in a jointly written proposal, and stated it had implications for him as a foundation-funded partner. Joyce Dallas shared problems she has had related to processing receipts that serve the purpose and goals of her partnership. On a rural development study tour with students and community partners, they visit rural places and how they have implemented community economic development, some of which are arts and cultural institutions like museums. She cannot get the museum 160 admission fee reimbursed, although it is a part of that community-based learning. While she has had trouble with her federal grant in that way, she has not had trouble with other study abroad receipts. She shared how an improved budget and grant process could improve the university environment for these community-university partnerships. Joyce documented her receipts and expenses on a learning agenda approved by the federal agency that facilitates her grant, but she stated that she spends as much time addressing accounting issues as on the scholarly aspects of the partnership. She recommended that the university contract and grants office should balance the accounting procedures across its responsibilities, especially for federal grants involving community engaged research, “to make sure that there’s a culture here on campus that allows partnerships to move forward”. Similarly, Bill Glass, the community partner from the Community Connections partnership, shared how both the community and university could collaborate to reform the budget and grant process. He stated that the university could include grants that seek matching, long-term leverage for communities. He continued by stating that removing obstacles such as billing cycles, where the money is released after the project is done and communities have difficulty sustaining their human and physical capital. Aligning Community-University Engagement to the Civic Organizational Context Community partners aligned community-university engagement to their civic organizational contexts through a process of listening and learning from each other as faculty, student, and community partners. The process of listening 161 to and learning from each other evolved as the scholarship went from creation into application and preservation in community. The majority of partnerships were large-scale community initiatives regardless as to if they were local, regional, national, or international. More than one neighborhood was involved in the definition of the communities served by the partners across all nine partnerships. Thus, understanding what the partners meant by community was essential to understanding the community partners’ civic organizational contexts. These findings affirm Rubin and Rubin (1992), who suggested that “a continual exchange between academics and community practitioners helps define what knowledge is required to keep community organizations adaptive and successful” (Rubin & Rubin, 1992, p. 444). When Barbara stated, “we have learned by doing,” she meant that the European Community Revitalization had to come to a process of collaborative planning and implementation across both community members and faculty partners. This process of collaborative planning spanned from 2002 to 2007 as referenced by Barbara, where the faculty and community partners began the partnership thinking of such concerns as how to sustain hosting and mentoring one student per eight villages. Over time, issues and concerns to address as the partnership grew spanned not only hosting and mentoring students as they developed projects throughout the community network, but also collaborating with funders to support the network and the partnership. As Barbara summarized, “we are learning at a personal level; the cultural learning, the theoretical learning, the application of that knowledge, the communication level. 162 This demands great communication with community - with the host family addressing the difficulties in a rural area.” Across the faculty and community partner leadership relationship, issues of growth included coordinating spin-off partnership outcomes such as the exchange of European and American professionals. Likewise, in the American Heritage project learning and coordination happened across different cultural organizations across the country. In addition, organizational changes had to be addressed within individual state—wide ethnic organizations as the partnership was implemented. Even for the Family Sciences project in a rural Midwestern community, the self-protective network of communities all genetically related to one another had to decide to act collectively to establish their community advisory board and community research ethics board for the project. When those two community boards reduced to one advisory board the community was still invested in the results of the research, and had to plan for how they fulfill their desires for more genetics research once their faculty partner, Virginia Thompson, retired. This section discussed connections between the research findings, the research problem and conceptual framework focused on how faculty and community partner collaboration in sustained community-university engagement partnerships aligns with the academic organizational context. The next section discusses connections between the research findings, the research problem and conceptual framework and how faculty and community partner collaboration in 163 sustained community-university engagement partnerships aligns with the civic organizational context. I Aligning Community-University Engagement across Academic and Civic Organizations The process of knowledge creation, transfer, dissemination, and preservation was the catalyst for sustaining the partnership across both the academic and civic cultures of the engagement partnerships in this study. Additionally, interdependent policies, resources and commitments to support co- created scholarship most influenced the alignment of sustained community- university engagement partnerships to the civic organizational culture as evidence of reciprocity or mutual benefit. Successful community-university engagement partnerships have organizational infrastructures that center on the strength of role congruence and networks of communication between community and campus administrators (Singleton, Hirsch, & Burack, 1999; Todd, Ebata, & Hughes, 1998). As presented in Chapter Five, the factors found to most impact the faculty and community partners’ ability to sustain the partnership demonstrated a process of role congruence and the establishment of networks of communication. As the faculty and community partners committed to design partnerships that resulted in community-placed scholarship, they established their leadership relationship. Their relationship was modeled into community-placed networks that sustained the partnership in spite of institutional challenges. The community-placed networks generated evidence of community capacity-building, where those 164 community leaders or members involved in the partnership took initiative to develop the community’s inherent resources. Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh and Vidal (2001) defined community capacity- building as facilitation processes among and between systems of which the community is a part, emphasizing informal social processes, organizational efforts, or social networks. In this study, several partnerships exemplify how community capacity-building took place beyond the specific goals and objectives of the partnership. Over the course of the American Heritage partnership, the tribal organizations themselves hired a videographer who produced documentaries on each of communities, their specific ethnic artists and their specific issues about access to resources, including use of pesticides, cultural property rights, and indigenous property issues. Moreover, faculty partners Tom and Kate are recruiting more ethnic students into cultural heritage studies to provide theories and the practice that substantiate their learning how to document cultural heritage. Next, not only was a new gene allele found in the Family Sciences partnership, but high school students in the community traced their own genetics in their biology class and gained some awareness of the significance of the genetics of their community. Further, the Central DevelopmentOrganization’s Greening Community partnership involved five organized neighborhoods and a local community of refugees who lived adjacent to the CDC to work in the CDC greenhouse, providing them a long-term opportunity for education about local organic food 165 and community gardening while learning from Midwestern University faculty and students in the organic farming certificate program. Last, in April 2006, 120 people came together to explore collective leadership. The conference was co- facilitated by Community Leadership partnership facilitators (including Jeff Morgan) and another community-based leadership development organization. Twenty-five members from the Community Leadership communities shared their learning and participated in the conference. These are just a few additional examples to the partnership outcomes discussed in Chapters Four and Five that illustrate how these sustained community-university engagement partnerships facilitated evidence of community capacity-building beyond the specific goals and objectives of their respective partnerships. In summary, this section discussed connections between the research findings, the research problem and conceptual framework focused on how faculty and community partner collaboration in sustained community-university engagement partnerships aligns with the academic, civic and combined organizational contexts. The next section discusses the study’s findings in relationship to the research questions, as well as theoretical implications, an explanation of unanticipated findings, and concludes with implications for practice and suggestions for future research. Discussion This section answers the research questions. In addition, theoretical implications the study’s findings are connected to prior research. The discussion concludes with implications for practice and suggestions for future research. 166 Answering the Research Questions Across the nine full partnerships studied, faculty and their community partners who co-administered community-university engagement partnerships experienced role congruence that sustained the leadership relationship. Subsequently, as the partners sustained their leadership relationship, the partnership was sustained by the development of community—placed networks and co-developed, community-placed scholarship. This section details the process of faculty and community partner collaboration to sustain these community-university engagement partnerships by discussing each research question; including what it takes for faculty to become involved with community partners in sustained community-university engagement partnerships, and the factors that most impacted both the relationship between partners and the partnerships’ sustainability. Table 6.1 illustrates how the study’s findings address each of the research questions. The first research question asked what it takes for faculty to become involved in sustained community-university engagement partnerships. Faculty in the study entered the partnership with prior experience working with communities, which developed the capacity they needed to collaborate with their community partners. As evidenced by their community partner’s affirmation in the interviews, their faculty partners spent a lot of time prior to the partnership building respect and trust through establishing a reputation with the community. 167 Further, all nine partnerships in this study developed from mutual faculty and community partner desire to produce community-placed research that addressed community-identified needs. Both the faculty and community partners in this study were clear to emphasize the significance of research methodologies and products to their respective goals and objectives, modeling community- placed research as the foundation for reciprocal partnership goals and objectives. Two findings from the study debunk an unspoken myth of the community- university engagement literature that assumes community partners do not value research, especially research published in the form that is valued by institutions of higher education: (a) mutual partner desire to complete scholarly work, and (b) the result from that mutual partner desire of a mutual relationship between the faculty partner and their community partner that models community-placed research as the foundation for reciprocal partnership goals and objectives. The second research question asked what factors of the collaborative process between faculty and community partners in sustained community- university engagement partnerships most impacted their leadership relationship. As discussed in Chapter Five, several interrelated factors comprise partner culture understanding and leadership responsibility as faculty and community partners collaborate and build their leadership relationship: (1) faculty enter the partnership focusing on not creating dependency relationships, (2) which affirmed the community partner’s ability to see them as an authentic capacity- building resource, (3) leading to the shared partner collaborative process of 168 learning by doing and commitment through action in implementing the partnership, and (4) as the faculty partner sustains their presence as the partnership develops, this leads to continuity in commitment for both partners, which affects sustainability of both the leadership relationship and entire partnership. 169 2:3 : 4.38m mow “soc—Q no Uo