Higher Education beyond Job Creation : Universities, Citizenship, and Community 9780739191156, 9780739191149

Citation preview

Higher Education beyond Job Creation

Higher Education beyond Job Creation Universities, Citizenship, and Community Thomas A. Bryer

LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Lexington Books A wholly owned subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 10 Thornbury Road, Plymouth PL6 7PP, United Kingdom Copyright © 2014 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available ISBN 978-0-7391-9114-9 (cloth : alk. paper) TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Figures and Table

vii

Preface

ix

Acknowledgments

xi

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities Higher Education Reforms SEE DEMOS (Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society) Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community A New Model for Higher Education Band of Brothers

1 13 25 45 65 83 99 123

References

133

Index

141

About the Author

145

v

Figures and Table

Fig. 1.1

Including Multiple Interests of Higher Education.

11

Fig. 3.1

Conflicting Narratives.

27

Fig. 4.1

SEE DEMOS.

46

Fig. 4.2

Read-Go-Do.

50

Fig. 5.1

Structure of the Partnership Semester One. 69

Fig. 5.2

Structure of the Partnership Semester Two. 71

Fig. 5.3

Integrating Higher Education Narratives in 82 Joined Up Service Learning.

Fig. 6.1

Return on Engagement.

Table 7.1

Integrating Higher Education Narratives in 109 Performance Funding.

85

vii

Preface

An “avalanche,” a “crucible moment,” a “moral imperative”—these are just three of the phrases being used to describe the precipice on which higher education in the United States, and beyond, is standing. One false move, or one moment where movement is not made at all, can create lasting damage to colleges and universities as they attempt to navigate new and uncertain terrain. Determining what constitutes a “false move” is, of course, a challenge. Pressures are being applied to colleges and universities to reduce the costs of tuition, or to at least freeze the upward climb of tuitions rates. Calls are being made for greater access to education, not only through cost reduction but through the use of technology. Accountability for results is increasingly deemed necessary, particularly for public universities whose state sponsors are cash-strapped. The results of greatest interest are those focusing on Return on Investment: graduation rates and average alumni salary, for instance. These pressures are seen not only in the United States at the state level; they are being applied from the White House and the Obama administration, while also gaining traction in other nations such as the United Kingdom, as well. In the midst of these calls for lower cost, higher graduation rates, better salaries, and more access, there are countering calls for a restored focus on citizenship and civics within higher education. These calls have a common refrain that suggests a decline in active and ethical citizenship, both individualistic and community-based. As discussed in the second chapter, data on social connectedness and other factors suggest a storyline that is scary: as a citizenry, we do not know each other, do not trust each other, and we are not empathetic towards others. If we look across these calls for higher education to do something, we can be discouraged very quickly: our civic fabric is tearing; our economic founix

x

Preface

dation is crumbling; our social contract is on the brink of expiration. The answer to these challenges for higher education is to find a strategic integration across potentially competing imperatives: create jobs, develop skills, cultivate citizens, and disseminate knowledge. This is a book that makes this case, offers clear examples of how and where integration is successful, and provides practical and feasible recommendations for universities and university stakeholders to consider. The answer is to, despite the dominant political demands, go beyond job creation.

Acknowledgments

This project has been in the making for longer than it took to write. I must give thanks to all of my colleagues in the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida and most especially the assistant director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management, Maria-Elena Augustin. I can write about successes and ideals in these pages, but it is thanks to her steadfast and reliable efforts that the work of the center and achieving a high Return on Engagement that helps more people pursue the good life is possible. Thanks as well to Dr. Brandy Hill, who served as a teaching assistant during the class described in chapter 5. To students at the university, who provide an example of what a well-rounded experience beyond job creation can produce, I give my thanks, with a special note to Alice Neira who contributed a short essay that appears in these pages. For the various audiences who heard elements of this book over the past couple of years, I give my thanks for the feedback and opportunity to vocalize the ideas that are now in these pages. Elements found here have been presented at the Association of Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Teaching Public Administration Conference (TPAC) and, most helpfully, in keynote remarks prepared for the InterAmerican Public Administration Education network annual meeting in Santiago, Chile. My thanks to Dr. Cristian Pliscoff for the generous invitation to present in his home city. Thanks to several colleagues who reviewed drafts of sections of the book and to the editorial team at Lexington Books for their support and efforts. Finally, my deep gratitude to my wife, Andrea, and son, Kyle, for their patience with me as this project was completed. Kyle came into my life at about the time the contract for this book was signed; for all who read this, I xi

xii

Acknowledgments

encourage you to think about adopting a child from the foster care system, or to become a foster parent. There is no better feeling and no greater impact you can have.

Chapter One

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life

Governor Rick Scott of Florida created a Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform in May 2012. In creating it, he made a statement: “The state has a vested interest in ensuring its higher education system produces world-class talent to serve as engaged citizens and meet the demands of Florida’s emerging knowledge-based economy. It’s time to assess the progress of prior reform efforts and identify strategies to improve efficiencies and enhance the system’s effectiveness as an economic catalyst.” With this statement, Governor Scott entered a centuries old dialogue about the function and purpose of higher education. The dialogue has often seen philosophers, thinkers, politicians, and administrators separate into carefully delineated camps, or what Williams (2012) refers to as “vistas” and Watson, Hollister, Stroud, and Babcock (2011) consider “grand narratives” of universities. In describing these vistas, Williams summarizes the dilemma (52): Like other modern social institutions, one thing that has defined the history of the university has been the continual struggle among the competing interests of the groups comprising it, from students and parents to administrators to legislators, and over the general public vista that they each purport to represent.

He continues (53–54), suggesting there is no single purpose to the university, but the question is “which interests deserve priority, how to adjudicate among them, and how one might serve all interests justly.” Writers representing each of the varied interests, unfortunately, largely talk past each other; there is little if any shared objective. Indeed, the statement from Governor Scott is firmly in the camp of seeing universities as performing primarily a 1

2

Chapter 1

market function, as job creators and “economic engines” as described by Berman (2012). Governor Pat McCrory from North Carolina also falls in this camp, stating: “I think some of the educational elite have taken over our education where we’re offering courses that have no chance at getting people jobs” (DeWitt 2012). He is proposing to link public university budgets to the proportion of students who get jobs rather than based on enrollments. Other vistas identified by Williams (2012) describe the university as devoted to religious teaching, civic training, research, and corporate support. Not only are these perspectives prioritized differently but they are often seen to be in conflict. For instance, Newman, in writing about The Idea of the University, makes the following observation (1852): The view taken of a University . . . it is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is, on the one hand, intellectual, not moral; and, on the other, that it is the diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than the advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University should have students; if religious training, I do not see how it can be the seat of literature and science.

Similarly, Watson et al. (2011, 13) describe how their grand narratives can be and have been “re-cast in a dysfunctional or negative light” by advocates of competing narratives. The liberal aspiration [to promote social mobility and self-realization] can become a means of social selection and exclusion. Aggressively individualistic notions of advancement can lead to discrimination. Professionalism [intended to ensure vocational training] can lead to narrow and self-interested instrumentalism. Research [to promote national and regional economic growth] can ignore some of its wider ethical responsibilities, and national pride can convert into short-term state priorities. And so on.

The National Issues Forum, a Washington, DC, based education center that promotes dialogue on public policy issues, issued a report in 2012, in advance of a series of dialogues about higher education. In this report, the authors identified three options for higher education in response to three, potentially unrelated national trends. The first trend concerned the struggling national economy; second was the observation that the nation is increasingly divided with rampant individualism at the expense of community; third was the perception that the country is less fair today than in the past. Responding to these three trends, the author conceived of three higher education responses: (1) focus on staying competitive in the global economy, (2) work together and repair an ailing society, and (3) ensure that everyone gets a fair chance (National Issues Forum 2012).

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life

3

To cultivate dialogue, the authors presented specific proposals under each focus of the university. For instance, to promote global competitiveness, students should be required to take more STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) courses, and more resources should be made available to teach those courses effectively with the latest technologies. To help an ailing society, institutions should cultivate greater diversity among student populations, and all students should study history, arts and literature, and philosophy. In the interest of promoting fairness, more access should be granted students through online course offerings, and policies should be enacted that enable community college students to transition seamlessly to a bachelor’s degree program at a four-year institution (National Issues Forum 2012). Consistent with the “debate” described by Watson et al. (2011) across the narratives of higher education, the National Issues Forum report proposes the three options with related specific policy and program suggestions as tradeoffs. The dialogue thus begins with the notion that tradeoffs, potentially across options or narratives, need to be accepted rather than rejected in favor of an integrated approach. As a dialogue starter, the report is well crafted and linked into the right pressing issues of the day. Absent a common language, however, and given the conflict across each vista or narrative when each is taken as an end unto itself, we find the potential for one perspective to take over, superseding the other vital interests. It is only when one interest becomes dominant that radical proposals such as the elimination of tenure for faculty or funding based on a singular outcome of job placement for alumni are considered in a serious manner. These are radical proposals insofar as their implementation would threaten one or more other interests with a stake in the university. For example, eliminating tenure, a purely market-based idea to maintain flexibility in hiring and firing in order to align with current job or economic needs, would also freeze individual faculty members and potentially prevent them from writing, without condition and restriction, what they recognize as important for understanding the past, strengthening the present, or preparing society for the future. Without tenure protections, faculty members would potentially be “held hostage” to the whims and wishes of not only industry and commercial enterprise (Derrida 2002) but to politicians as well. Similarly, enacting procedures and policies that take a decidedly research-centered approach—such as tenure requirements that recognize and reward only publications written in top-ranked peer reviewed journals, rather than journals related to pedagogy or practitioner publications—may prevent faculty from engaging in important community-partnership and service activities. In sum, the danger of a single story or narrative reduces “multidimensional both-and complexities to one-dimensional either-ors” (Peters & Eatman 2013), thus restricting opportunities for creative, integrative thinking.

4

Chapter 1

This book bridges the divide and focuses on four of Williams’ (2012) vistas: civic training, vocational training, research, and corporatism. Importantly, Williams’ “research” vista is not the same as the “research” grand narrative described by Watson et al. (2011). In the latter case, research is oriented towards meeting the interests of market, industry, or corporate partners; this is what Williams refers to as the “corporatism” vista. Regardless, the aim here is to suggest an umbrella “end state” or aim for higher education, in which each of these four vistas are vital components. To continue the standard approach to higher education reform by selecting one vista, theory, or grand narrative to the exclusion of others is perhaps naïve given the withdrawal of public financial support over the past couple of decades and more prominently in the past few years. Universities are well placed to leverage relationships, act as conveners and facilitators, and to take advantage of their vast amounts of human, intellectual, social, and political capital. The modern and future university needs to be at once versatile, innovative, perceived as a partner, and not be dependent on any one or two sources of revenue. To quote Lay (2004, 111), “the university should be valued as an intellectual resource of inherent social usefulness.” While the aim is to forge a harmonious model for twenty-first-century higher education, particularly for state or public institutions, tensions are explored, and a prioritization based on the model is explicated. Namely, civic training is advanced as the most vital component for higher education to achieve a greater end state: individual and community empowerment, or what Freire (2011) would refer to as the human vocation—the pursuit of “full humanity,” which “cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity” (85). With respect to civic training, we have not traveled far in the past decade or more, at the beginning of which Thomas Ehrlich (2000) and co-authors lament the state of our civic life and the absent institutions of higher education in promoting citizenship. William Sullivan wrote eloquently in that volume how colleges and universities have adopted a market-oriented instrumental role in our communities and society as a whole, neglecting the larger civic purpose espoused by Thomas Dewey (1916) and numerous others since Dewey’s time (Saltmarsh and Hartley 2011). Writing in Governing magazine, Peter Harkness (2012) describes universities as being at a “tipping point” where “severe funding cuts and the recordhigh numbers of people going to college are forcing state university systems to make tough decisions about financial aid, curriculums, research and more.” In the face of these budget cuts, advocates are fighting back not by reclaiming the mantle of civism (Frederickson 1982) but by reporting statistics that universities and colleges are engines of economic progress and job creation (Berman 2012). The narrative adopted is one of economic justification, which is a narrative aligned with an implicit if not explicitly stated purpose

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life

5

of crafting cogs to fit the job machines of today. Argued here is that the neglect of the civic in favor of the market and corporate has long-term negative consequences not fully conceived by the advocates of the competing vistas or grand narratives. Senator Bob Graham issued a stark warning if our long-time civic decline continues unabated, comparing lack of civic engagement with an airplane pilot who is required to “stall” the plane’s engines, thus entering a free fall. For a pilot to pass the flight test—and presumably to survive the test—he needs to exit the stall and resume a proper flight pattern. His message was that we are in a civic “free fall,” and failure to correct will lead to a government essentially of, by, and for the people no longer (Bryer 2010). WHAT’S AT STAKE This is undoubtedly a period of change for higher education in the United States (Ehrlich 2000). Embracing the language of the marketplace, focusing on jobs, and individualistic success alone risks forfeiting the larger purpose of higher education institutions—a purpose that includes promotion of democracy and ethical active citizenship. Universities are not merely market mechanisms to craft the newest and best cog in a machine; they are institutions embedded within communities and empowered with significant human strength and social bonds, with obligations both to help citizens grow and flourish and to help communities become stronger civically, economically, and socially. Such a normative orientation falls within the purposivist tradition in which university faculty are assumed to have an obligation to inject their values and judgments into contemporary political and policy debates (Peters, 2010). Rejected are the traditions that assume faculty are neutral purveyors of fact, thus leaving judgment to others, and that assume faculty have a primary teaching role without community or civic purpose (Peters 2010; Snyder 2008). This book provides both a theoretical substantiation of this point, as well as applied practices and cases that can help transform universities into fully socially, economically, and democratically community embedded partners. As partners, universities can help spread the “good life” well above and beyond helping students and alumni earn the highest possible paycheck they can within their profession. The argument presented takes aim at two reform trends. First is the trend to respond exclusively to popular and political desire for economic growth, while doing nothing to address the civic contraction and community decline experienced throughout the United States (Newfield 2008). Second, efforts to re-instill civic aims in higher education tend to be university student and personal identity-centric and instrumental in skill development, thus still implicitly at least aligned with individualistic and ca-

6

Chapter 1

reerist motivations. Such individualistic civic and professional skills development approaches are unlikely to address the broader societal civic decline. Missing is the fundamental idea that “colleges and universities generate and diffuse conceptual frameworks that structure work practices” (Boyte & Scarnati 2014, 87). In other words, university teaching and research activities can institutionalize much deeper than some current practices would suggest. These reform trends, however well intended, are misguided and neglect the strength of higher education institutions, as exemplified by a report used as a resource by the Florida Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Higher Education Reform, which asks about the value of research at institutions, particularly if not tied to economic growth (Vedder and Denhart 2012). The authors of the report cite data indicating that since 1950, there have been 35,000 scholarly publications concerning Shakespeare or the work of Shakespeare; the authors ask, with a presumably straight face, whether the first 1,000 is enough. The answer is (not provided by the report authors): clearly not, and the reason, as is elaborated in the rest of this chapter, is that as a society we require continual self-examination of our history, present, and future, at the individual, organizational, and community levels. This ongoing examination will help us, as individuals and communities, pursue and achieve the good life, which in my view is not calculated based on a law of diminishing return after the first one, ten, five hundred, one thousand, or thirty-five thousand articles on a subject are published. The model developed and presented in later chapters claims the potential for community empowerment through strategic university-community partnerships. The base model is captured using the acronym: SEE DEMOS (Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for the Masses). The model is expanded through an integration of the four vistas defined by Williams (2012), which I argue are necessary for the ultimate social, economic, and democratic aim: empowered individuals and communities to successfully pursue the good life (discussed further below) for all based on a process that is collaborative, boundary-spanning, and more than individualistic in orientation. Thomas Jefferson (1818) saw this multi-purpose potential in creating the University of Virginia, finding purpose both in developing citizens and in attending to the interests of commerce. The full statement from Jefferson is worth reproducing to show the cross-cutting purpose that is the potential of higher education institutions, as envisioned by one of the foremost thinkers on the subject: To form the statesmen, legislators and judges, on whom public prosperity and individual happiness are so much to depend; To expound the principles and structure of government, . . . and a sound spirit of legislation, which . . . shall leave us free to do whatever does not violate the equal rights of another; to harmonize and promote the interests of agriculture, manufacturers and com-

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life

7

merce. . . . ; to develop the reasoning faculties of our youth, enlarge their minds, cultivate their morals, and instill into them the precepts of virtue and order; to enlighten them with mathematical and physical sciences, which advance the arts and administer to the health, the subsistence and comforts of life; and, generally, to form them to habits of reflection and correct action, rendering them examples of virtue to others and of happiness within themselves. These are the objects of that higher grade of education . . .

Fundamentally, to meet the needs of commerce, or the job market, requires more than skill development; to cultivate strong and ethical citizens requires more than preparing students for employment. As Newfield (2008) describes, to see a singular path towards strong employees or strong citizens misses the point. He cites Ray Bradbury’s book, Martian Chronicles, which told of a place that was advanced technologically with the great achievements that could be produced through science, technology, engineering, and math, but the place lacked culture. Lacking culture (and presumably the related concepts of ethics and civility), the place still failed. Back on earth, Newfield draws a further parallel to the Dodgers baseball team in the 1960s, which invested heavily in their pitching staff but neglected their batters and other field positions. The result was a team that failed, in that it was not well balanced. Failure to adopt a common language that synthesizes across the higher education vistas risks permanent damage to higher education and unintentional dismantling of institutions based on adherence to only one vista. Universities can serve multiple purposes, as community and regional centers of democracy, skills development venues, and research institutes, but they can only do so with a common core commitment to the empowerment of individuals they serve and communities in which they engage, in pursuit of the good life for all. THE GOOD LIFE Skidelsky and Skidelsky (2012) observe that education “is increasingly seen not as a preparation for the good life but as a means to increase the value of ‘human capital’” (p. 41). We are effectively monetizing students by applying business models to higher education; alumni are seen more as commodities than as citizens, and thus we haggle over the cost of tuition as a function of future expected salary, understanding in nickel-and-dime terms the price without having any real sense of the intrinsic and psycho-social value. In his book, Liquid Life, Bauman (2005, 88) observes: “The market penetrates areas of life which had stayed outside the realm of monetary exchange until recently. It relentlessly hammers home the message that everything is or could be a commodity, or if it is still short of becoming a commodity, that it

8

Chapter 1

should be handled like a commodity.” This is the state of affairs in higher education, but there is an alternative. To suggest there is such a thing as the “good life” is to reject the notion that goodness is derived from allowing individuals the freedom to express their own preferences and pursue their own ambitions, so long as they do not interfere with others’ similar pursuits. Though this is a fundamental attribute of liberal philosophy, it does not satisfy our need as a society to give all people truly equal opportunity to live free and exercise liberty, where liberty is defined as both securing individualism and as taking care of others around us (Ringer 2012), a notion akin to Tocqueville’s (1990) concept of selfinterest rightly understood. Instead, to state that there is the good life is to suggest there is a truth that exists beyond the individual. This truth can be based on the metaphysical, the spiritual, or on human reason. Regardless of the source of the truth, there is a general consensus in the history of thought and philosophy in the world that certain values and needs are more important than others (Skidelsky and Skidelsky 2012). In so prioritizing values and needs, thinkers and philosophers have implicitly at least acknowledged such a thing as a good life is a life that is not only well lived but is worth living. The good life is based on achievement or pursuit of a proper goal (telos) made possible through satisfaction of basic needs and following a course of prescribed duties in our actions for ourselves and towards and with others. Simple utility maximization does not represent a good life, even if it became possible for all individuals in society to maximize utility (e.g., all individuals have not only regular access to resources needed to physically survive but have all of their pleasures met, whether they be material, sexual, or relational). That possibility of universal individual utility maximization is not in fact feasible, given the inability to meet insatiable demand in the capitalist culture in which we exist (Skidelsky and Skidelsky 2012), nor is it desirable, given the moral perversity from a duty-bound perspective of some individuals’ utility (e.g., pornography, environmental degradation). Integrating across several philosophical perspectives, we can suggest that the good life is one in which basic needs are met (to be elaborated momentarily), thus a life worth living as it is free from avoidable pain and discomfort, and in which certain duties are adhered to. The duties, we will find, are closely aligned with the basic needs; in other words, there are certain ways of acting for ourselves and towards and with others that can enable active pursuit of a life worth living for all individuals. The ambition of the good life does not assume every person will be prepared to engage in dialogue on philosophy and debate on rhetoric. It is not the place of every citizen to participate in a forum, like that of the Museum in Alexandria, where the State provided for the material needs of a group of Egyptian citizens so they could be free from distraction to debate philosophy

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life

9

and pressing issues of the day (Murrou 1956), or in the age of Peter the Great who is reported to have mandated the participation of his nobles to take part in philosophical discussion “on pain of torture” (Skidelsky and Skidelsky 2012, 149). One observer of the Museum described it as “a kind of bird cage . . . where they fatten up any amount of pen-pushers and readers of musty tomes who are never tired of squabbling with each other” (Murrou 1956, 189). Instead, the notion of the good life recognizes the diversity of the citizenry, in terms of skill, talent, intellect, and passion. Thus the focus on “basic goods” advanced by Skidelsky and Skidelsky (2012) seems a reasonable approach. They define basic goods as those that are universal, “meaning that they belong to the good life as such, not just some particular, local conception of it” (150), and they span ages and cultures. Basic goods are also final, “meaning that they are good in themselves, and not just as a means to some other good” (p. 150), thus limiting any material wealth as a basic good. Basic goods are “sui generis, meaning that they are not part of some other good” (152). The authors give the example of freedom from cancer as a good that is universal and final but can also be subsumed by the more general category of good health. Last, basic goods are indispensable, “meaning that anyone who lacks them may be deemed to have suffered a loss or harm” (152). The basic goods suggested by Skidelsky and Skidelsky (2012), and those that contribute to a life “worthy of desire” and not just “widely desired” (145), are: (1) health as the “full functioning of the body, the perfection of our animal nature” (153), (2) security as “an individual’s justified expectation that his life will continue more or less in its accustomed course, undisturbed by war, crime, revolution or major social and economic upheavals” (156), (3) respect, meaning to “respect someone is to indicate, by some formality or otherwise, that one regards his views and interests as worthy of consideration, as things not to be ignored or trampled on” (157), (4) personality as “the ability to frame and execute a plan of life reflective of one’s tastes, temperament and conception of the good” that also includes “an element of spontaneity, individuality, and spirit” (160), (5) harmony with nature as a “sense of kinship with animals, plant and landscapes” (162), (6) friendship, meaning when “each party embraces the other’s good as his own, thereby bringing into being a new common good” (163) and when people “love one another for what they are, not for what they can offer” (164), (7) leisure as “that which we do for its own sake, not as a means to something else” or due to some “external compulsion” (p. 165). Pursuing the good life as individuals and helping others pursue the good life requires adhering to certain duties. These duties may take many forms, but they can be condensed to a core few that align with the basic needs Skidelsky and Skidelsky identify (2012). The first is to act as a virtuous citizen in work, family, and play. Hart (1984) identifies four attributes of

10

Chapter 1

virtuous citizens: (1) doing moral philosophy, (2) belief, (3) individual moral responsibility, and (4) civility. To do moral philosophy is to understand and internalize the “American regime values” (p. 114), grounded in not only selfreflection and action but also through self- and group-identity formation. Values are affirmed and reaffirmed through interaction with others; leading isolated or atomistic lives prevents a realization of these values “in the lives of all citizens” (114). In so affirming and reaffirming these values, citizens must believe in their normative truth, not just that “the majority accepts them” (114). This aligns with Skidelsky and Skidelsky’s (2012) notion that the good life is one that is desirable and not just that many people desire it. Virtuous citizens, according to Hart (1984), must also exercise and develop a sense of individual moral responsibility: The obligation of the virtuous citizen to the American regime values transcends all other obligations, whether to obey the law or to honor promises. Since, by nature, those rights belong to each individual, so each individual assumes the obligation of honoring them. Whenever anything violates or even compromises the regime values, the virtuous citizen is obligated to oppose it (115).

Last, the virtuous citizen must practice civility and understand the reason for it (Hart 1984), or, to ensure that all citizens receive respect (Skidelsky and Skidelsky 2012). Lack of civility and respect for diversity of appearance, thought, and personality threatens pursuit of the good life for citizens. Though this and other aspects of the virtuous citizen are necessary, there are also duties or obligations to social, economic, and environmental outcomes that are required to direct our institutional, social, and political attention to achievement of the good life for all or as many citizens as possible. These commitments are described by Box (2008) as the distinctions between progressive (p) and regressive (r) values: (1) knowledge (p) versus belief (r), (2) economics as means (p) versus economics as end (r), (3) limited inequality (p) versus great inequality (r), (4) earth as home (p) versus earth as resource (r), and (5) cooperation (p) versus aggressiveness (r). The task before us then is to educate and develop our citizens to be virtuous, and to shape our institutions to pursue progressive versus regressive values. This is the role of higher education: to help individuals and societies pursue the good life for all and not to merely create cogs for a marketplace. This can be accomplished through the empowerment of individuals who are enrolled university students and other community members. Individual empowerment that is grounded in principles of the common good (that which is “collectively defined, collectively brought about, and . . . collectively and critically reexamined,” Ringer 2012, 291) can help produce strong communities. Empowering individuals in this way requires including multiple high-

Higher Education Narratives and the Good Life

11

er education vistas and not any single vista acting independent from the others. Figure 1.1 shows the conceptual relationships. The components of figure 1.1 are expanded in later chapters; the core essence depicted is the interdependence and interconnectedness of each vista/ interest on the other, contributing differently but co-equally to the empowerment of individuals to contribute meaningfully in concert with others towards strengthening communities and pursuing the good life for all. To be empowered in this way requires individuals to be: (1) socially connected, meaning individuals have wide and deep connections with others (i.e., bridging and bonding social capital; Putnam 2000), (2) politically intelligent, meaning individuals understand how to pursue their individual and collective interests within the governing and political processes, both as voluntary actor and working professional (3) socially aware, meaning individuals have developed an empathy for the conditions in which others live and the unique needs individuals have, both place-based and more globally, and (4) economically self-sufficient, meaning individuals acquire the skills necessary to earn a regular paycheck in a field of their choosing to accommodate the standard of living they desire.

Figure 1.1.

Including Multiple Interests of Higher Education.

12

Chapter 1

The second chapter reveals the need for enhanced social connectedness, political intelligence, social awareness, and economic self-sufficiency. Following this exploration, the third chapter lays out the historical development of higher education, its previous efforts at reform, and the limitations of reform efforts that focus on one of the vistas to the exclusion of the others. Chapter 4 introduces the SEE DEMOS model and presents case studies of how the approach can work to achieve strengthened communities, pursuit of the good life, and individual and collective empowerment. Chapters 5 and 6 present more in-depth case examples of pedagogy (the SEE side) and institutional design (the DEMOS side). The model is expanded in the seventh chapter, and consideration is given for the future development and higher education institutional reforms necessary.

Chapter Two

Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities

To empower individuals to pursue the good life and to thus strengthen our communities requires individuals to be: (1) socially connected, meaning individuals have wide and deep connections with others (i.e., bridging and bonding social capital; Putnam 2000), (2) politically intelligent, meaning individuals understand how to pursue their individual and collective interests within the governing and political processes, both as voluntary actor and working professional, (3) socially aware, meaning individuals have developed an empathy for the conditions in which others live and the unique needs individuals have, both place-based and more globally, and (4) economically self-sufficient, meaning individuals acquire the skills necessary to earn a regular paycheck in a field of their choosing to accommodate the standard of living they desire. In this chapter, I report on recent trends showing the overall disconnection of our citizens from each other and from our institutions. SOCIALLY CONNECTED The Corporation for National and Community Service publishes annual data on Volunteering and Civic Engagement in the United States (see www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/). Collected data reveal citizen engagement rates, particularly through volunteering, confidence in various institutions of society, and trust in others. The most recent reported data from 2012 show that, nationwide, 44% of American citizens trust some or none of the people in their neighborhood (with a full 9% saying they trust none of the people). Sixteen percent of citizens report trusting all of the people in their neighborhood. In some states, such as my home of Florida, 11% of citizens report 13

14

Chapter 2

trusting none of the people in their neighborhood, and a further 38% of citizens report trusting some of the people. In the Southern United States, 10% of citizens report trusting none of the people; this contrasts with 8% in the northeast, 6.5% in the Midwest, and 9% in the West. These trust data generally align with data on social connectedness. Here we find that, nationally, 14% of citizens report never exchanging favors with neighbors, and roughly the same percentage report that they never talk to neighbors. This contrasts with 2-3% of citizens who report never seeing or hearing from friends or family and eating dinner with members of their household. Forty-three percent of citizens say they talk to their neighbors once or a few times per month. Overall, the social connections are insular, to the extent they exist. Lack of trust is pervasive across government (though less so for local and state government) and people, and other institutions. Nationally, 49% of citizens report having no or hardly any confidence in corporations; thirtyeight percent say the same about the media, and 12% say the same about public schools. We see variation on these measures across regions as well. The rate of volunteerism has remained relatively steady over the past decade at approximately 26% of citizens, with higher volunteer rates in rural and suburban communities (27.5% and 27.7%, respectively), compared to urban communities (23.4%). Low levels of social connectedness have been addressed substantively and substantially over the past couple of decades in a variety of arenas, both scholarly and popular. Putnam (2000) perhaps most prominently considers the notion that citizens are increasingly “bowling alone,” meaning they are not joining groups, forging relationships, and are potentially spending more time in solitary activities behind a computer screen or driving independently in an automobile. The image conjured in Putnam’s research is of an individual who gets up in the morning, clicks open an online newspaper while sipping coffee, drags himself out to a car to sit in traffic for 30 minutes to an hour to get to work, plods through the work day, sits again in traffic alone, pulls in the garage, and goes back on the internet once safely in the house, perhaps with a cold beer in hand to top off the day. From beginning to end, there are no acts of citizenship outside the workplace or within, and to the extent citizenship exists it is in the atomistic individualist or liberal tradition (Boyte, 2008). To Putnam’s point, technology advancements potentially make individuals less reliant on others and more self-sufficient. The personal automobile is one example; the television (at first a technology that brought people together to watch one of a few sets in a neighborhood) ultimately drove people apart as ownership became universal; air conditioning made it more comfortable for individuals to stay indoors rather than engaging with neighbors outside, and so on (Galston 2002). Today’s social media tools, with increas-

Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities

15

ing rates of membership across age and other demographics, provide an opportunity for technology to re-facilitate lost social connection, albeit via virtual or cyber-worlds rather than face-to-face engagements. As a governance and political community, we are only just beginning to realize the potential for these tools to foster connectedness as well as political intelligence. For example, the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Los Angeles, California, has designed social media space that appears to facilitate the production of four types of citizens: informed about the substantive community issue(s), included regardless of their philosophical or demographic background, empowered to ask questions and receive meaningful answers, and embedded in material world relationships with others of similar interest or concern (Bryer 2013-a). The potential for the internet to become a “civic web” (Anderson and Cornfield 2003) and other social manipulations to provide space for social togetherness (Gillette 2010) is there, but there are mighty headwinds to overcome as seen in the overall state of social connectedness. The vibrancy of American civic life and social connectedness captured by Alexis de Tocqueville (1990) in the nineteenth century are now perhaps better symbolized by the metaphor of a cracked bell (Riley-Smith 2010) standing for the atomistic, not-other-interested, consumer culture of the twenty-first century. POLITICALLY INTELLIGENT When I teach about civic engagement and the roles and responsibilities of citizens in communities, I use an exercise that usually stirs some controversy. The exercise is entitled “Resolution for Citizen Competence in Democracy.” Essentially, the point of the exercise is to get students to consider the potential harm to democratic institutions and trust within communities when citizens participate in governance without being fully informed or, worse, being substantially misinformed. The exercise forces the question by suggesting citizens take a “poll test” or other assessment prior to being able to vote, speak at a meeting, or post a comment on a government website. Though some students like and advocate the test option, the broader discussion is how can government and societal institutions beyond government do a better job educating our citizens for democracy. If we find it unpalatable to administer a test, which raises historical memories of racial discrimination and disenfranchisement, then, the exercise’s dialogue concludes, we must do better to prepare citizens for more meaningful engagement. Former U.S. Senator and Florida Governor Bob Graham sat for an interview with me (available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=vyE3ciEeGgo) regarding his pocket-sized book, America, The

16

Chapter 2

Owner’s Manual. The book—about the size of an automobile manual— provides step-by-step guidance for citizens on how to be active and effective in their advocacy. In the interview, Senator Graham tells of one of his first encounters with citizens who were way off the track to addressing their concern (what I call here, political intelligence). When he was a member of the state legislature, he visited a local school in his district for a town hall meeting. During the question-and-answer period, a couple of high school kids stood up and complained about the bad food in the school’s cafeteria (or the greasy pizza, as the senator tells it). In response, he asked the students whom else they had told about this concern. The response: the local sheriff, the city council, and now him, a state representative—none of whom have any control over food served at school. My class exercise and this anecdote from Senator Graham are not examples detached from reality. Political engagement and political intelligence are in poor shape in the United States. In terms of engagement, the National Coalition on Citizenship releases annual assessments of civic health. When giving talks on the subject in Florida, I reveal the bad news that the Sunshine State is ranked 44th out of the 50 states in overall civic health, meaning we are near the bottom in voting rates, percent of citizens contributing to charity, percent of citizens working with neighbors to address community challenges, and so on. My standard narrative is then something along the lines of: “That’s bad news. The worse news, numbers 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, and so on are only marginally better than we are.” Then I issue my challenge: what can we do about it, besides importing citizens from Minnesota and Utah, where civic health is highest? The first challenge is citizens do not know much about government or politics, at least in specific—but potentially significant—details. As a Pew Research Center poll summarized in a 2010 survey, young people know more about the latest Android technology than they do about politics. College-educated individuals tend to be more informed compared to those who have completed some or no college, but even then on a 12-point knowledge survey, college educated citizens scored less than 50%. Not only do citizens not know much about politics, we do not trust each other when it comes to making decisions about political affairs. As reported by the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), “Although low trust of Congress is widely known, it may be just as significant that a ‘dwindling majority (57%) [of Americans] say they have a good deal of confidence in the wisdom of the American people when it comes to making political decisions.’ That trend is consistent with a long and steady decline in generalized social trust, or trust in fellow citizens” (2013). Yet, as citizens, in our collective ignorance and mutual distrust, we tend to follow each other, thus creating the equivalent of lemmings running off a cliff en masse because no one knew enough to think or act differently

Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities

17

than the popular opinion of the moment indicated. Those who do not follow may disengage in the face of what they perceive to be an uphill battle against the mass, and if they did engage, the mass may likely not trust them enough to change course. This kind of emotionally driven mass opinion, lacking in reasoned thought, is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared, as written in the Federalist Papers. Madison perceived the people to be driven more by passion than reason (Howe 1987). For instance, Federalist No. 71 considers the benefit of a representative system that enables the whims of the public to be tempered: “When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporary delusion in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection” (Kramnick 1987, 410). Similarly, in Federalist No. 10, the people are seen to require a representative to ensure that their interests are properly understood and acted on. One benefit of a republic versus a democracy is that the public’s views are passed through “the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose” (Kramnick 1987, 126). Federalist No. 49 suggests that the people are subject and perhaps prone to mob rule and thus implicitly incapable of responsible action for self- or public good. Adding to this quagmire of collective ignorance and mutual distrust are the very real mechanisms, institutions, and procedures in place that actively “demobilize citizens” (Crenson and Ginsberg 2002). These procedures include the extent that money pervades the political process (Broder 2000), the pre-scripted feel of public hearings (Baker, Addams, and Davis 2005), the special interest-dominated policymaking process (Casper 2000), and the generally inaccessible government documents that call for public comment (Bryer 2013-b). It is perhaps not surprising that we have little civility in our politics, whether grassroots or professional—citizens are locked in a self-fulfilling, self-reinforcing vicious cycle of disempowerment, demobilization, distrust, and limited opportunity for meaningful engagement. When citizens are invited to participate, they may often find that they have insufficient information, guidance, and/or confidence to do so effectively, leading to further disempowerment, demobilization, distrust, and further restricted opportunities for meaningful engagement. Lashing out, in an adversarial, uncivil way, may be a last recourse, a desperate attempt on the part of citizens to have attention

18

Chapter 2

paid, which only perpetuates the perception that citizens are not of the caliber to represent their own interests and collective well-being. It is a self-fulfilling, self-reinforcing vicious cycle. The fears of the Founders seem to be reflected in data on political intelligence and in this vicious circle curtailing the kind of political engagement that can lead to increased political intelligence. Fears of “temporary” or short-term considerations impeding properly self-interested (or self-interest rightly understood as de Tocqueville discusses) decisions or pronouncements, as well as fear of an impassioned mob, are reflected in the findings of lack of knowledge and lack of social connection and trust. Similar data are available with respect to citizen social awareness. SOCIALLY AWARE Socially aware citizens are those individuals who have developed an empathy for the conditions in which others live and the unique needs individuals have, both place-based and more globally. Empathy is a multifaceted concept, as Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing (2011) discuss. It has a cognitive dimension, in “which people are able to imagine the internal state of someone else” (181), an affective dimension in which “people’s emotions are matched directly to another’s affective state” (181) or when “people empathize to reduce their own stress about another’s situation” (181). Generally, empathy can be considered the “tendency to react to other people’s observed experiences” (181). Empathy has been declining since 2000 (as measured beginning in 1979) amongst college students (Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing 2011). Specifically, empathy has declined on a measure of Empathic Concern, which “measures people’s other-oriented feelings of sympathy for the misfortunes of others” (181) and on the measure of Perspective Taking, which measures “people’s tendencies to imagine other people’s points of view” (181). One measure of empathy that has not declined is a more self-, rather than other-oriented dimension labeled as Personal Distress (e.g., I feel guilty seeing a homeless man on the street while I drive my nice car and sip my $5 Starbucks latte). Overall then, other-oriented empathy has been declining and a more narcissistic self-oriented empathy has held steady. Focus on self is reflected in other social science research (Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing 2011). Kelton Research found that 90% of Americans consider it important to promote volunteerism, more than 50% more actively choose personal activities ranging from television watching to visiting in-laws to the act of volunteering. Charitable giving is not high, as an overall percentage of citizens who give, or as a percentage of disposable income given. These tendencies are perhaps related to the lack of social connections previously reported and represent

Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities

19

another barrier to the promotion of citizens well prepared to pursue the good life and help strengthen communities. They may also be an indicator of what Goleman (2013) discusses as an “empathy gap,” meaning those who have or perceive themselves to have a higher status through income, education, or otherwise, are less likely to pay attention to those of a perceived lower standing. Thus, the gap between rich and poor is not just a material asset gap but a relational gap as well. The lack of social awareness is also reflected in the perceptions of homeless individuals and the effort, on the part of homeless service and advocacy organizations, to create a “new” face of homeless visualization. The common image of a homeless person (indeed, if you search “homeless” on Google, is that of a lone individual, dirty, sitting on the side of a road on a city street holding a sign that says some variation of “please help; need food.” With such common visualizations, there may also be a tendency for some individuals to refuse help, reconciling that “if I give money, they will waste it on drugs or alcohol.” Though there are some in the homeless population who have a drug or alcohol addiction, the “new” face of homelessness is perhaps better reflected by Will Smith’s character is the film, The Pursuit of Happyness—an eager man with a child who wants to work and provide for his family but cannot get a break. In the three-county area around the University of Central Florida—the second largest university in the nation with enrollment of approximately 60,000 students—there is a K-12 homeless student population of around 12,000. In 2010-2011, the television news magazine 60 Minutes profiled children and their families who were homeless—but who looked and acted like individuals who were not homeless. This is a face of homelessness that is hidden. One school district office, whose job it is to assist these homeless students, released a newsletter with a cover photo of a family in colorful clothing that could have been posing for a department store advertisement; instead they represented—and were—homeless. Much poverty is hidden—by society in not putting a public face to the need, and by individuals who do not want to be seen as needy. The 2008 recession made plain both the need and the desire among some citizens to keep their plight hidden (Bryer 2012-b). Take for instance, the citizen who required help with her mortgage to save her home but did not want to either appear needy or act in a way that seemed to violate what might be considered middle-class sensibilities (ibid). As summarized by White (2009, 20): People are less likely to default if doing so will make them feel like immoral or irresponsible persons—and are especially unlikely to default if they believe others will think of them as immoral or irresponsible persons. Guilt and shame are powerful motivators, and there is no doubt that many people who have faced foreclosure feel a great deal of both. As Linda, a single mom in Tampa

20

Chapter 2 who asked that her last name not be used, explained, “As a mom, I feel like I let my children down . . . It’s a terrible embarrassment, and it’s humiliating.” Linda is not alone: a recent qualitative sociological study of the internal costs of foreclosure found that feelings of personal failure, shame, and embarrassment dominated the accounts of individuals who had lost their homes to foreclosure. Moreover, such feelings predominated even when individuals were not at fault for their predicament, but were victims of the declining economy and/or unethical practices by mortgage brokers.

The tendency expressed in that quote and generally perceived through U.S. society is a need to keep up with the Joneses, regardless of personal financial or psychological health risks. “Inner tension can be created when the public world of yard work and play is kept separate from the kitchen table conversations of financial distress. Fear of being labeled immoral or irresponsible may push individuals or families into further distress caused by their not asking for help or by their keeping up appearances with all the requisite spending habits of the financially responsible family” (Bryer 2012-b, 306). Absent is a stronger community where pain can be shared and empathized with in an other-oriented way. Social-awareness is lacking, while economic self-sufficiency is dragging. ECONOMICALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT Economically self-sufficient individuals are those who have the skills necessary to earn a regular paycheck in a field of their choosing to accommodate the standard of living they desire. As has become abundantly clear in the aftermath of the recession in the first decade of the twenty-first century, Americans in large numbers failed in this regard. They spent more than their paycheck allowed to accommodate the standard of living they desired. Titles of recently published books tell the sorrowful story of Americans and their debt: • Borrow: The American Way of Debt—How Personal Credit Created the American Middle Class and Almost Bankrupted the Nation (Hyman 2012) • (Not) Keeping Up With Our Parents: The Decline of the Professional Middle Class (Mooney 2008) • The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt (Sullivan, Warren, & Westbrook 2000) This way of debt is not new (Hyman 2012; Reich 2011) and it seems that history repeats itself, and individuals, governments, and communities do not adequately learn the lessons of history. I define economic self-sufficiency as having the “skills necessary” to find and keep a job, thus earning a paycheck

Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities

21

to meet material desires. The culture of debt spans income levels, as Sullivan et al. (2000) reveal through their analysis of bankruptcy filings. Thus, the need is both in taming desires (perhaps too high a hurdle to overcome, given the insatiable desires of individuals; Sideslky and Sideslky 2012), and to prepare individuals for the workforce and for changes in the workforce (or training individuals to be adaptive in their skill sets). Data on employment and debt are generally available and widely reported. We know during the recent recession and the lingering hangover that young adults, in particular, are underemployed, that an increasing number of citizens perceive themselves to be in the lower rather than the middle class, that whole industries have disappeared or at least shrunk necessitating the retraining of skilled employees, and that the wealth gap between different racial groups and between “rich” and “poor” is growing (Pew Research Center 2013). Though these data are clear, what is not so abundantly clear is the manner in which our societal and governmental institutions promote potentially competing behaviors among citizens. Do we want citizens living within their means? Do we want citizens to consume in the interest of economic growth? These questions ultimately lead us to what might be called an identity crisis: Struggling to emerge from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depressions, policymakers, public administrators, and citizens seem afflicted with what might be labeled an identity crisis. Faced with a burst housing bubble and property owners across income and educational groups confronting foreclosure, policymakers seek both relief from the downward spiral and the creation of a more sustainable economic infrastructure. Some policies promote individual responsibility, whereas others allow responsibility to take a backseat to easy credit and consumerism. Other policies promote justice and equity, but still others create divisions for people caught in similarly dire straits. Additional policies seem to promote stronger communities but simultaneously incentivize atomistic individualism (Bryer 2012-b, 299),

Indeed, we can suggest that the identity crisis and individual financial troubles are not (or not entirely) rooted in individual bad decisions. They are socially and institutionally established, which is likely true for all other data examined in this chapter. Our lack of social connectedness, trust, empathy, political intelligence, and financial health (or economic self-sufficiency) are individually manifested but culturally rooted and institutionally supported. Greed may be manifested through individual actions but collective greed is made possible through our norms and laws (Madrick 2012). The ability for insatiable material demand (Skidelsky and Skidelsky 2012) to dominate our culture is likely attributable at least in part to the short-term thinking of institutional decision-makers and the lack of long-term strategy for whole communities—a case in point is the “paradise” of San Diego wrecked by

22

Chapter 2

financial greed and short-term, materialistic thinking (Erie, Kagan, & Mackenzie, 2011). FINDING HOPE We can find hope, or the prospect for “turning the curve” on these statistics. Civically and socially, we can clearly see the promise of certain institutions to buck the trend and cultivate relationships across individuals and communities. Most prominent are faith-based organizations or the faith community more broadly. This community is recognized as a source for building the skills among citizens that are necessary to be civil and productive members of society (Smidt et al. 2008, 10). As they discuss: [T]hose who gather to worship may be reminded in sermons, prayers, and other proclamations of the ethical imperative to minister to those in need. Similarly they may learn of opportunities to volunteer and serve others in their community through announcements, classes, or informal conversation with fellow worshippers. And regardless of whether such members participate in church governance, lead worship, teach classes, organize liturgies and celebrations, or engage in church-sponsored community service or civic projects, all such endeavors provide opportunities for individuals to learn how to take responsibility, make collective decisions, express their views, acknowledge the contrasting views of others, and compromise.

In the aesthetic and functional design of our communities, we can see potential for facilitating neighbor speaking to neighbor (Gillette 2010; Mehta 2013). The local, where institutions are generally trusted more, or the grassroots are sources of innovation and social integration (Stout 2010; Skocpol 2003). Despite these opportunities we are pushing against a long trend of social disengagement and increasing isolation (Putnam 2000), as well as a culture that has created an acceptability of market-based thinking that does not clearly fit in all aspects of life (Sandel 2012), including and especially education (Bauman 2005). It is in the educational arena, however, where we encounter hope through students like Alice, an undergraduate studying political science with an interest in being a teacher. She leads the effort within the University of Central Florida to recruit and coordinate volunteers to support hunger and homeless initiatives. As an active volunteer herself, she tells how, on her way to work, she encounters the homeless individuals to whom she distributes food every Sunday evening; she takes the time to chat with them, learn how they are doing, and wishes them well. When she distributes 400 meals on a given Sunday, she is both thrilled at her contribution and appalled that such a need exists in such a quantity. She wants to meet the significant need but also

Civic Decline, Lust for Growth, and Weak Communities

23

work to ensure such vast need does not exist. Indeed, education can be a source of hope, but the institution needs to be designed in a supportive way. We turn now to a discussion of the history of higher education reform, the development of the multiple vistas or grand narratives, and how, ultimately, we find ourselves at a place where colleges and universities can help reverse the negative trends reported in this chapter in a sustainable way.

Chapter Three

Higher Education Reforms

In this chapter, I lay out the historical and conceptual development of higher education, its previous efforts at reform, and the limitations of reform efforts that focus on one of the vistas to the exclusion of the others. There have been numerous books published on higher education reform and mission in the past decade alone, each providing either a normative perspective on the purpose of higher education, a description of the state of higher education, a set of philosophies regarding higher education, or some combination. Some of these books are used here as a resource to build upon in the argument presented in this book. The historical review begins in antiquity (drawing largely on Henri Murrou’s 1956 A History of Education in Antiquity), draws on global developments, and focuses on U.S. higher education, integrating across histories and conceptual maps presented in several noteworthy texts. Many of the historical and conceptual innovations have entered higher education lexicon as fads, but as with many fads, though their full operationalization rarely survives in the long-term, pieces of the fad remain and persist (Birnbaum 2000). Broadly speaking, the history and conceptual development of higher education in the United States parallels and was heavily influenced by models developed in Europe and elsewhere. The earliest institutions formed during the U.S. colonial period saw institutions focused on denominational study, with an emphasis on service. Post-revolution and pre-civil war, institutions focused on developing leaders for the new nation. After the Civil War and into the twentieth century, universities began a transformation and evolution that continues to this day. Developing citizens to serve the nation continued to be a focus, but filling needs of industry also became important. The twentieth century saw shifts not only in the mission of the institution but in the students who enrolled and who were encouraged to enroll. Helping 25

26

Chapter 3

veterans reenter civilian life after World War II was the first wave of democratization of higher education for the masses, followed by Cold War concerns to strengthen U.S. national defenses, and then a more complete democratization in the 1960s, which pursued diversity goals as fundamentally significant on their own merits (Loss 2012). Business and corporate interests embedded within universities as institutions sought both to achieve practical relevance and to raise additional revenues (Bok 2003), and as state regulation for public universities in particular increased and corporate interests became more significant, we saw a rise in administrative structures at universities, potentially at the expense of the faculty and their freedom to research and teach (Ginsberg 2011). These potentially conflicting trends, along with varying focus on the vistas or narratives of higher education, led some observers to write about the emergence not of the American university but rather the American multiversity (Cole 2009), where goal conflict occurred down to the level of the individual faculty member (Boyer 1990). The question was can any component of this university with multiple identities and multiple components hang together seamlessly, or is it likely that any one component or identity characteristic could be removed without harming the whole. Though Cole writes about debates occurring in the early 1960s on this question, we can conceive that this “uneasy balance” (Cole 2009, 38) is a flaw in today’s higher education environment: today’s strong focus on accountability and outcomes (whether tied to graduation rates, job placement, or citizenship cultivation) demands that underperforming components be reformed or eliminated. Yet, in today’s current environment, there is no uniform set of agreed-upon goals and outcomes on a systemic scale, though the dialogue has now reached the highest level of the United States government within the White House. The idea of the university (Newman 1852) is still very much uncertain. These and other issues are elaborated in this chapter, organized around the four vistas introduced in the first chapter: citizenship cultivation, skills development, knowledge creation and dissemination, and job creation. While discussing the history of each vista/narrative of a university, I will describe what might be labeled a “pure” form of each. By this I mean a description as an ideal-type for each in the manner of Weber’s (1978) idealtype bureaucracy. Ideal is not meant as perfect but as a compilation of the various descriptions of the vista. Indeed, per the premise of this book, adoption of the ideal-type model for any narrative is potentially harmful to integration with each other narrative. For instance, devoting increasing resources to university profit-seeking and job creation may push less profitable scholarly pursuits to the sideline. Figure 3.1 summarizes these conflicts in the ideal-type configurations. The lightning bolt image represents conflict between higher education narratives. The inner-circle represents the integration that is possible if there is

Higher Education Reforms

27

strategic coordination across narratives, which goes beyond a peaceful coexistence to include a more active and intentional alignment. The image of Yin and Yang is displayed as the inner circle to visually reflect this point. Yin and Yang are symbols that signify ongoing alignment, realignment, and harmony in the midst of change and opposing forces. This is precisely what is suggested to be necessary in higher education and possible, if properly managed. As reviewed, strategic alignment is not what has occurred in higher education; opposing forces have remained opposed or have operated in silos, thus limiting the potential that can be achieved through holistic and harmonious integration. This chapter thus begins with discussion of ideal-types, identifies the tension between them, includes a historical and conceptual overview of each narrative, and closes with a restated need for integration, which carries through to the chapters that follow. The conclusion: harmony is possible but only if approached strategically and in a manner that transforms the opposing forces to become integrated as one. These descriptions are best considered in the context of the contemporary pressures facing universities. Some of these pressures were introduced in the first chapter and described within a National Issues Forum (2012) report. The pressures are described more fully and more precisely in the context of

Figure 3.1.

Conflicting Narratives.

28

Chapter 3

higher education in a report produced by the Institute for Public Policy Research (Barber, Donnelly & Rizvi 2013). First is the issue of globalization, in which not only universities have increased competition from institutions around the world and across public, nonprofit, and private sectors, but students are increasingly “shopping” for the best deal and best fit across the globe. Second are the dismal job prospects for graduates of universities, thus leading to such statements as that of the President of the Republic of Korea: “Skip college and go to work.” The third pressure is the rising cost of tuition to attend universities, thus leading policymakers across partisan divides to promote, cajole, incentivize, and shame institutions into lowering or at least reducing the rate of increase of tuition. Fourth, data reveal a pattern of degree value decline, meaning a college degree will not guarantee the same relative lifestyle as it previously did. Fifth and finally, content is ubiquitous; the increasing availability of expertise, data, lectures, and even classes online is leading individual faculty and whole institutions to question what their unique role is within this era of hyper-access to information (Barber et al., 2013). With these pressures in mind, I turn to a deeper discussion of each narrative of higher education reform. CULTIVATOR OF CITIZENS The mayor of Seoul, Korea, Park Won Soon, has, since his election in 2011, promoted a reorientation of Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) away from economic development (though this is still important) and towards what he and his SMG agency leaders refer to as a human-oriented society. In describing the SMG’s mission to provide increased welfare particularly for the elderly in Seoul, the rhetoric is around the idea of a “welfare community” rather than a “welfare state.” In both notions—the human-oriented society and welfare community—the underlying emphasis is on human individual and collective relationships with others. Most intriguing with regard to SMG is how they are tapping into the power of emergent social technologies to achieve the aim of enhanced relationships and stronger human connections (as well as connections with the non-human but living natural environment and ecosystems around Seoul). Fundamentally, the narrative on citizenship, in most recent conceptualizations, has this same focus. Universities are charged with a higher purpose (Saltmarsh and Hartley 2011) that includes the practice of everyday politics (Boyte 2004) through which individuals find both purpose and opportunity for action in their relationships with others. It is a focus that finds its roots in U.S. President Harry Truman’s Commission on Higher Education (1947, 2) (“education for a fuller realization of democracy in every phase of living”)

Higher Education Reforms

29

and is a core attribute of civic engagement, as Terry Cooper (2005, 534) defines it: “people participating together for deliberation and collective action within an array of interests, institutions and networks, developing civic identity, and involving people in governance processes.” From an international perspective, citizenship in higher education has been defined by the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Declaration on Higher Education (Gourley 2012, 37): higher education is “for citizenship and for active participation in society, with a worldwide vision, for endogenous capacity-building, and for the consolidation of human rights, sustainable development, democracy and peace, in a context of justice.” Though these definitions of citizenship have been prominent in recent years with the higher education policy community, they are by no means the only definition of citizenship or citizenship pursued within higher education over time or today (Snyder 2008). By way of example, we can cite Ireland’s Department of Education and Skills (2011, 79): “Engagement by higher education with wider society takes many forms. It includes engagement with business and industry, with the civic life of the community, with public policy and practice, with artistic, cultural and sporting life and with other educational providers in the community and region, and it includes an increasing emphasis on international engagement.” Broadly, we can characterize citizenship pursuits in higher education within three categories: (1) dutiful citizenship, focusing on adherence to law, obedience to authority, and service to the State, (2) engaged citizenship, focusing on individual and collective action to achieve stronger communities, and (3) individualized citizenship, focusing on the cultivation of unique identity within and across groups of citizens. Dutiful Citizenship Russell Dalton (2009) defines dutiful citizenship as the act of abiding by law and generally behaving in a patriotic manner in furtherance of State pursuits. This kind of citizenship is demonstrated, for instance, in President Richard Nixon’s call to conserve energy in the wake of the 1970s crisis; in appealing for conservation, he used language linked to obligations as citizens to see the nation through the situation (Bryer 2012-a). Within higher education, this alignment has taken several directions. Christopher Loss (2012) summarizes the development as such: “Believing that higher education created psychologically adjusted citizens capable of fulfilling the duties and obligations of democratic citizenship, the state coordinated and funded this remarkable expansion [of higher education], transforming [it] into a key mediating institution between citizens and the state” (214). However, the manner in which “higher education’s core social and

30

Chapter 3

political function [of] educating citizens for life in a democracy” was pursued shifted over the decades. Prior to the American civil war, the ecclesiastical and denominational colleges pursued two objectives: first, to train democratic citizens (Loss 2012) and second, to ensure an “illiterate ministry” was not left to the churches (Cole 2009, 14) and to future generations who would both serve and be served by the churches. Post-civil war, the need to be met was not to help build a new nation but to move a nation post-turmoil towards unification and industrialization. The next major shift came during World War II, when the State “deployed education to build better soldiers” (Loss 2012, 214). This development in creating dutiful citizens (or citizen-soldiers) is part of a long history, dating to the time of Socrates; citizens were prepared physically and mentally to be soldiers for the protection, preservation, and sometimes expansion of the State. This was not the only function of higher education in antiquity, as Murrou (1956) explains. Though, as with higher education today, even in those times, there was less uniformity in form or function of advanced learning institutions as compared to primary and secondary levels of education. Overall, though, “as the Hellenistic ephebia ceased to be merely or even mainly a form of compulsory military service, intellectual culture came to be included more and more in its curriculum. The physical side remained essential . . . but it was no longer everything . . . And so along with sport there grew up lessons, lectures, and auditions” (Murrou 1956, 186). Such well-rounded education provided means for particularly wealthy members of society to enhance their place in that society through study of military arts, as well as cultural and literary affairs. Ultimately, to prepare citizens for service to the State required both physical and intellectual development, an ideal captured by a Latin poet from the second century A.D. “Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano”—We should pray for a sound mind in a sound body (Murrou 1956, 219). Back to the United States in the period around World War II, citizens who were trained to become effective citizen-soldiers were provided further education following their service as soldiers in order to successfully reenter civilian life. This both-sided relationship, legally solidified by the G.I. Bill, “consecrated the relationship between education and psychological adjustment and moved American higher education, and the veterans that swarmed to it, closer to the center of democratic citizenship” (Loss 2012, 9). Dutiful citizens are also moral or virtuous citizens (Hart 1984; see discussion in the first chapter). Despite efforts to “restore civism” in higher education (Frederickson 1982), there is still much need for progress. The virtuous citizen is one who understands, supports, and further interprets the founding values to fit contemporary contexts. As Thomas Jefferson writes, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people

Higher Education Reforms

31

themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” We have not realized this ideal for a variety of reasons, including a general deterioration of our institutions, including educational institutions. As Frederickson (1982, 501) wrote more than thirty years ago, we find similar—if not further deteriorated—conditions in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Something is wrong. Virtually all of our institutions seem to be in trouble. The family is deteriorating, schools seem to be ineffective, there is deep suspicion of most-large-scale organizations including industry, business, and government. There is dwindling support for churches. Crime is alarmingly common. We are balkanized into racial, economic, ethnic, demographic, and sexual divisions. Privatism, greed, self-interest, and self-indulgence challenge the notion of community. Old assumptions of trust and integrity have slipped into a quagmire of litigiousness which jams the courts.

Frederickson thus endorses the view that higher education can prepare citizens better, to reverse this course. The elements introduced over the past several decades remain in place, to prepare dutiful citizens, citizen-soldiers through ROTC programs, and to teach obligation to country. We see elements of dutiful citizenship, from an institutional level, in cases outside the United States. For example, the University of Seoul in Korea works as an institution in partnership with the Seoul Metropolitan Government to help build the reputation of the State and the Korean society. By paying for classes of American graduate students to study in Seoul for one week, university and SMG officials seek to not only provide an educational experience for American students and professors but to create ambassadors for their city and nation. Likewise, the university hosts a scholarship program to bring local government officials from developing countries to Seoul for a full intensive year to study and, again, to build goodwill across nations. In this sense, the university as a whole institution is acting the part of a dutiful citizen and consequently preparing its students to play the same role in their relationship with foreigners in their country and outside their country. Engaged Citizenship Where the University of Seoul exemplifies a higher education institution acting itself and through its component parts as a dutiful citizen, other universities exemplify the role of engaged citizen by placing citizen engagement and partnership with community at the heart of their mission (Maurrasse 2001). Some of these universities are recognized through a Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching designation for Community Engage-

32

Chapter 3

ment, which, as of 2008, numbered 196 institutions or roughly 4 percent of universities and colleges in the United States (Saltmarsh and Hartley 2011). These institutions reflect the ideals of citizen engagement at least rhetorically if not programmatically and act as citizens, seeking to support communities around them. For example, the College of Health and Public Affairs at the University of Central Florida has a motto of “Strengthening Communities, Changing Lives”—a motto that might more comfortably fit with nonprofit or advocacy organizations (such as the Urban League’s “Empowering Communities, Changing Lives”). As a university college, the motto reflects a commitment to apply institutional resources (students, faculty, staff) for the benefit to the organizations, individuals, and communities around it—beyond self, loyalty to the State, and obedience to authority. As Maurrasse (2001, 28) states, “it is one thing to be involved in service, it is another actually to be helpful.” The aim of universities focused on citizenship and partnership is to be helpful. This orientation is not new but dates back to some of the earliest institutions created in the United States. Colby and Ehrlich (2000, xxvii) report: The primary purpose of the first America colleges and universities was the development of students’ characters, no less than their intellects. Character was defined in terms of moral and civic virtues. The founding charters are clear. The following excerpt from the founding documents of Stanford University, for example, is typical: The objectives of the university are “to qualify students for personal success and direct usefulness in life and to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization. . . .”

That universities should play such a role is not, of course, without controversy. Asking university faculty to help cultivate citizens and environments supportive of engaged citizenship is a repudiation of roles that are more narrowly defined as an expert purveyor of objective information and analysis (Peters 2010). The need for an engaged professoriate as themselves active citizens performing public work (Boyte 2008; Boyte & Scarnati 2014) is evident in data reported in the second chapter, and these data have caught the attention of university officials and other interested parties. Some of the issues are reported in a report issued by the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012) entitled A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future. Amongst the concerning or disconcerting data reported are the following (7): • U.S. ranked 139th in voter participation of 172 world democracies in 2007 • The 2010 Civic Health Index indicates that only 10 percent of citizens contacted a public official in 2008–2009

Higher Education Reforms

33

• Twenty-four percent of graduating high school seniors scored at the proficient or advanced level in civics in 2010, fewer than in 2006 or in 1998 • Fewer than 70 percent of high school seniors reported learning about important parts of civic knowledge in 2010, including the U.S. Constitution, Congress, or the court system • Half of the states no longer require civic education for high school graduation • College seniors scored only 54 percent correct answers on a test measuring civic knowledge • Opportunities to develop civic skills in high school through community service, school government, or clubs are available disproportionately to wealthier students • Just over one-third of college faculty surveyed in 2007 strongly agreed that their campus actively promotes awareness of U.S. or global social, political, and economic issues • 35.8 percent of college students surveyed strongly agreed that faculty publicly advocate the need for students to become active and involved citizens • One-third of college students surveyed strongly agreed that their college education resulted in increased civic capacities Such measures of civic health became a concern to higher education institutions with the creation of land grant universities in 1863. These institutions were created by federal statute to provide “liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several professions of life” (Cole 2009, 28). The ambition of these institutions was to prepare not just dutiful citizens but citizens who could, through their advanced training and philosophical development, engage with the body politic in civil and civically healthy ways. In this regard, universities have been “adrift” (Saltmarsh and Hartley 2011, 1). This feeling of acting without direction is documented in 2002 report by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, which observes: [M]any universities espouse the importance of public engagement but do little internally to align the institution to support its achievement. The result is that public engagement remains on many campuses very fragile and person-dependent. At most institutions, the idea of public engagement is not so deeply rooted in its culture that its emphasis would continue unabated after the departure of a committed CEO or other academic leader (8).

Colby and Ehrlich (2000, xxvii) similarly observe that many if not most institutions “give at least formal recognition to the institutions’ responsibility for fostering moral and civic maturity of their students. But few campuses have a coherent institutional strategy to implement those statements.” Levine

34

Chapter 3

(2014, 5) observes: “scholarship is not well organized to serve people who see themselves as citizens.” Snyder (2008, 54) concludes: “While [universities] may serve public purposes by preparing students for participation in society at large, preparation for active civic or political participation is not necessarily a part of higher education.” More troubling from a “movement” perspective is that every individual leader or professor has his or her own way of operationalizing citizen engagement in terms of service learning, research-focused, volunteerism, public work, deliberation or otherwise (Levine, 2011). The lack of consensus on what a good citizen is (Dalton 2009) creates tension and ambiguity (Saltmarsh and Hartley 2011), whereas measuring something more quantifiably pure like job creation or skills development is freer of this conceptual and operational burden. Though the history of engaged citizenship in higher education dates to the creation of land grant universities (Maurrasse 2001; Snyder 2008), formal efforts to fully establish and integrate engaged citizenship within the role and processes of the university have only emerged in the past few decades. O’Meara (2011) traces these efforts to the National Society for Experiential Education in 1978, the International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership in 1982, the National Youth Leadership Council in 1983, the Campus Outreach Opportunity League (COOL) in 1984, and Campus Compact in 1986. As such, the efforts in this area are still relatively recent, have included bursts of momentum such as the publication of Ernst Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered in 1990 and the release of the Crucible Moment report of the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement in 2012. In 2014, Peter Levine and Karol Edward Soltan published a monograph through the Bringing Theory to Practice project of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which laid further theoretical groundwork for embedding “civic studies” as part of core university missions. Despite these efforts and successes achieved through these efforts at individual institutions, systemic progress has been halting in promoting engaged citizenship as a purpose of higher education. Individualized Citizenship Beginning in the 1960s, universities pursued a course Loss (2012) calls rights-based citizenship that did not necessarily promote or require service to the state as dutiful or engaged citizens. This focus is on individual identity, the exploration of those identities both collective and individual, and opportunities for self-expression and personality development. The movement in this direction became particularly prevalent as access to higher education democratized, offered to more than returning soldiers from World War II. This was institutionalized through the 1965 Higher Education Act, which

Higher Education Reforms

35

“increased college access for black and minority students, laying the groundwork for the emergence of diversity as the main organizing principle of the post-1960s university” (Loss 2012, 15). Thus we saw emerge educational curriculum and degree programs focused on identity—women’s studies, for instance. This was the final shift in citizenship prior to an even more individualized conception of citizenship, focusing on markets and preparing individuals for success in the market economy—an issue to which we turn when discussing higher education as job creator and skill developer. Cultivator of Citizenship “Ideal-Type” It is difficult to construct an ideal-type conception of higher education cultivator of citizenship, given the array of citizenship theories that have been developed and applied within higher education. The core attributes across citizenship theories include: (1) preparation for policy and political engagement, (2) political and social equality, (3) adherence to legal authority, and (4) service to community. Embedded within these attributes are values of respect for difference, empathy, and civility; as Colby and Ehrlich (2000) discuss, there is a need for coupling of morality and democracy. “Because civic responsibility is inescapably threaded with moral values, we believe that higher education must aspire to foster both moral and civic maturity and must confront educationally the many links between them” (xxi). This can involve creating spaces for deliberation or direct discourse across diverse interests (Nabatachi & Munno 2014), as well as for going beyond discourse to include engagement and action by both students and faculty (Boyte & Scarnati 2014). Boyte (2008) contrasts the role of the professor as expert/critic/commentator and as intellectual leader/catalyst. The distinction is the same essentially as that between the public intellectual and action researcher/public scholar/educational organizer Peters (2010) describes. On the one hand is a focus on the scholar as detached but active in sharing research, interpretation, and recommendations to strengthen communities and help the needy in society. On the other is a focus on the scholar as a partner with the people, rather than an expert above the people, so the professors are actively engaged in public work and civic capacity building. This orientation requires a potentially big shift in cultural orientation for professors but also assumes the work and intellectual insights of the professoriate are valued by the public, thus ensuring legitimacy of effort (Stanley 2008). Specific tactics that can be implemented to cultivate citizens have been advanced by several scholars and thought leaders. As one example, the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2011) offers five applied recommendations.

36

Chapter 3

1. “Champion civic learning explicitly and repeatedly in its fullest democratic-enhancing dimensions as a fundamental U.S. priority and a component of all educational programs, including those that relate to job training and workforce development” (41). Note, we will return to this point, to assess the capacity for linking civic learning with job training and workforce development, as per the recommendation. 2. “Strategically refocus existing funding streams to spur—from school through college and beyond—civic learning and practice in the curriculum, co-curriculum, and experiential education” (42). We will return to this idea in the penultimate chapter as well. 3. “Create financial incentives for students, including first-generation students and those studying in career and occupation fields, to facilitate their access to college while expanding their civic capacities as part of their education” (43). 4. “Tie funding for educational reform and research initiatives—at all levels—to evidence that the funded initiatives will build civic learning and democratic engagement, both U.S. and global” (43). 5. “Report regularly on the levels of civic and democratic learning, set national and state goals for expectations about students’ achievement in civic learning before they graduate, and make such outcomes a measurable expectation of school and post-secondary education in public, private, and for-profit degree granting institutions” (43). These recommendations use accommodating language that, as we will see as we progress in this chapter and later in the book, align well with the other higher education narratives. There is still the potential for conflict if the alignment suggested here is not strategically designed and implemented across units and divisions of the university. If strategic, though, the opportunity for aligning competing forces in harmony is greater. Focusing on creating political equality—and cultivating the values that can sustain political equality across recognized differences in education, class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation—need not interfere with the advancement and incubation of the latest technological or social innovation that can transform markets and economies, and vice versa. The more significant danger is in the potential primacy of short-term measures tied to job creation and skills development, at the expense of patience for longer-term and potentially less quantifiable measures of citizenship and the values, duties, and achievements associated with citizenship. Balancing these pieces in harmony will be taken up in the penultimate chapter in greater depth. For now, we move on to the second of four higher education narratives: knowledge creation and dissemination.

Higher Education Reforms

37

KNOWLEDGE CREATION AND DISSEMINATION As there is a complete lack of consensus as to what a good citizen is, thus how a university might support the cultivation of such a citizen, there is also a lack of consensus about the appropriate nature and function of knowledge dissemination. Knowledge creation is a fundamentally ontological and epistemological question and thus is not taken up here; instead the focus of this discussion is on “what next.” That is, in whatever way knowledge is created—through large-n data collection, action research, qualitative case study, participant-observation, et cetera—what is to happen with the knowledge? How is it to be used, for what purpose and for which audiences? Answering these questions is more complex than simply saying “write it up, and publish it.” O’Meara (2011, 192) provides a helpful comparison between the assumption of scholars labeled as “post-WWII academic professionals” (academic professionals) and “engaged American scholars” (engaged scholars). She builds on her work as well as that of Rice (1996) to draw these contrasts. The first distinction O’Meara draws between these two scholar characterizations is with respect to the professional goals of each. Academic professionals are described as research-oriented, where knowledge is pursued for knowledgesake, and the underlying purpose is to uncover truth. Engaged scholars are concerned with impact rather than pure research, where knowledge creation is intended for the pursuit of a changed and improved world, and the underlying purpose is difference-making. The other differences O’Meara identifies flow from these core assumptions. On the question of how knowledge is pursued, the academic professionals will gather data separated from practitioners to avoid bias; for the engaged scholar, data gathering is performed in concert with community partners. Bias, particularly in social sciences, is unavoidable and thus is better to be interpreted rather than artificially (and probably unsuccessfully) bracketed (Rosaldo 1993). Once collected, research products should be disseminated where impact is greatest, per the engaged scholar, as compared to the most respected academic outlets, per the academic professional. Perhaps the most significant difference between these characterizations is what O’Meara labels “assumptions about the most important contributions of faculty to society” (193). Academic professionals are described thusly: “Scholars’ most important contribution to society is the application of expertise to the discovery and dissemination of knowledge”; engaged scholars are described thusly: “Scholars’ most important contribution to society is their ability to bring values and skills of academic professionals as well as expertise to partnerships with students, community partners, and knowledge circles to solve problems.” Peters (2010) labels the distinction as that between a service intellectual tradition and a purposivist tradition.

38

Chapter 3

What knowledge is “important”? This is the next question to consider and may actually be the primary question, as it concerns the nature of questions university professors and students should be asking, let alone disseminating responses to those questions. It is with this question that we can potentially see conflict across the higher education narratives, when certain knowledge may be deemed to not be essential to the pursuit of one or more of the other narratives. For instance, recall the discussion from chapter one of the consultant to Florida Governor Rick Scott’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Higher Education Reform. The consultant openly questioned the utility of additional scholarly articles and presentations about Shakespeare or the work of Shakespeare; the implication was such foci do not contribute to job creation, thus they have limited economic value (Vedder and Denhart 2012). Knowledge Dissemination “Ideal-Type” If we apply the ideals of knowledge dissemination freely and fully, and in the manner of O’Meara’s “engaged American scholar,” we may cause some tension with advocates of a nimble university enterprise that are vigilantly and strategically responsive to the needs of current and emergent market conditions. On this, I argue, we cannot compromise. The ability to promote social, cultural, and economic awareness as broadly as possible requires all subjects be “legitimate” even if not tied to market conditions or needs, as doing so introduces students and community members to diversity of values, interests, and individual and collective life ambitions. In other words, democratized knowledge dissemination with intent to strengthen communities and societies can only do so through the simultaneous cultivation of citizens, the development of citizen social awareness and enhancement of citizen political intelligence. On the other hand, if knowledge is disseminated only to the extent to which it is tied to the marketplace, we may achieve innovations in economic expansion but at the expense of innovations in social and political ascension. Just as the “ideal-type” would not exclude market-oriented research and dissemination, it ought not exclude the knowledge of O’Meara’s academic professional—knowledge for knowledge-sake with the primary audience being fellow academicians. In the academic world, this is after all how reputations are developed and quality control is exerted, even if the process is not always trusted (Boyer 1990). In the penultimate chapter, we will return to this issue with respect to open access journals, made more popular and increasingly so through the internet. Overall, though, the peer review process helps to ensure both quality of academic standard and also quality of applied recommendations as based in sound research for community partners. Otherwise, the risk becomes applied knowledge that may be harmful while simul-

Higher Education Reforms

39

taneously trusted given the “PhD” attached to the author’s name (Sowell 2009). We turn now to the last two higher education narratives and those most explicitly tied to the market: higher education as job creator and skills developer. For ease and logic of the narrative, these are addressed together. JOB CREATION AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT Preparing students for the jobs of today and the jobs for tomorrow is a fundamental mission of many institutions. We want our students to emerge from university not only as good, well-informed citizens, but prepared to succeed financially for themselves, their families, and their communities. The history of this mission is linked both to ambition for students and alumni and to the overall marketplace setting of universities; the critique of this narrative is one of commoditization of students and the learning enterprise, where there may be a displacement of other narratives or interests of the university in order to achieve alignment with market demands. To begin this section, recall Skidelsky and Skidelsky’s (2012) discussion of the good life, summarized in the first chapter. In their broader argument, they argue that the good life is difficult to achieve given the insatiable demand among human beings for more material possession. Bok (2003, 9) finds similar insatiable demand among universities, thus creating the condition for responsiveness to market forces: Universities share one characteristic with compulsive gamblers and exiled royalty: there is never enough money to satisfy their desires. Faculty and students are forever developing new interests and ambitions, most of which cost money. The prices of books and journals rise relentlessly. Better and more costly technology and scientific apparatus constantly appear and must be acquired to stay at the cutting edge. Presidents and deans are anxious to satisfy as many of these needs as they can, for their reputation depends on pleasing the faculty, preserving the standing of the institutions, and building a legacy through the development of new programs.

In order to remain cutting edge requires obedience to market forces that dictate the skills needed from today’s workers and the industries needed for tomorrow’s economy. This is not particularly new, as we find as early as 1906 with the president of the University of Illinois: the university “is a business concern as well as a moral and intellectual instrumentality, and if business methods are not applied to its management, it will break down” (Bok 2003, 2). Such business practices have given rise to the “all-administrative university” (Ginsberg 2011), with a growing cadre of non-faculty offi-

.

40

Chapter 3

cials charged in one form or other with responsiveness to governmental, corporate, or other officials. Berman (2012) asks the question: how did we get here as a university community? It is a journey that, in its fullest form, has come to fruition only in recent decades. Berman demonstrates this point with the case of the University of Illinois, which was charged by the state’s governor in 1961 with conducting a study on the impact of universities on economic growth to insure “that Illinois secures a favorable percentage of the highly desirable growth industries that will lead the economy of the future” (Berman 2012, 1). The response from the university at the time was the formation of a task force, which generated a report that stereotypically gathered dust on a shelf. A similar request was made in 1999 to the same university. As Berman (2012, 1) reports: “This time, though, the university knew how to respond. It quickly created a Vice President for Economic Development and Corporate Relations, and a Board of Trustees Committee on Economic Development. It titled its annual State of the University report ‘The University of Illinois: Engine of Economic Development.’ It expanded its program for patenting and licensing faculty inventions, launched IllinoisVENTURES to provide services to startup companies based on university technologies, and substantially enlarged its research parks in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign. It planned to pour tens of millions of dollars into a Post-Genomics Institute and tens more into the National Center for Supercomputer Applications.” The same pattern occurred at universities around the country with the establishment of business incubators, offices devoted to commercialization of innovations, and creation of full-time administrative jobs to manage these enterprises. For instance, the Business Incubation Program at the University of Central Florida describes its goal to “facilitate smarter, faster startup and growth of emerging companies so those companies will become financially successful, high growth companies in the community.” Since 2004, the program claims to have “jumpstarted” more than one hundred high-growth companies who have created more than one thousand jobs. (See http:// www.incubator.ucf.edu/Incubationprogram/index.html.) This kind of activity is not developed in isolation but has been promoted through a variety of programs and policies across levels of government. Most prominently, the Bayh-Dole Act (named for the bill sponsors in the United States Senate) in 1980 permitted universities to patent and trademark innovations developed using government grant and contract funds, a practice that until then was inconsistently and uncertainly available. This authorization alone sparked the interest of universities to expand their commercialization activities. Add to this demand from state governments for increased accountability and metrics demonstrating how universities are investing (and generating return on investment) limited state dollars. Thus, metrics on efficiency,

Higher Education Reforms

41

graduation rate, job placement rate, alumni salary, et cetera, became fair game for policymakers to request and expect from universities. These initiatives are not without critique, as Bok (2003, 19) summarizes: Members of the university who resist commercial influences have several concerns. They fear that money and efficiency may gradually come to have too dominant a place in academic decision making and that the verdict of the market will supplant the judgment of scholars in deciding what to teach and whom to appoint. They suspect that commercialization and those who favor it will strengthen the forces that look at teaching and research chiefly as means to some practical end rather than as ends in themselves. Most of all, they worry that business methods, with their emphasis on accountability and control, may encroach upon the exceptional personal freedom that is such a cherished part of academic life.

These concerns are not without basis, as we witness proposals and recommendations advanced in states like Florida, Texas, and North Carolina for higher education reform. For example, in Florida, the governor’s task force recommended the possibility of differential tuition rates for Science-Technology-Engineering-Math majors, thus theoretically encouraging more students to study these “in-demand” subjects, adding to advanced skills, a better prepared workforce, and future job growth opportunities. The effect would have been for liberal arts majors to subsidize the more expensive STEM degrees, which cost more in equipment required as well as in faculty salaries. As another stark example, in Florida, the legislature in 2013 provided competitive performance-based funding to institutions within the university system, the beginning of the process to restore the hundreds of millions lost during the recession beginning in 2008. The performance-basis is three criteria: (1) graduates who either have a job or are continuing their education one year after graduation, (2) the average wages of graduates, and (3) the average cost of educating an undergraduate. The burden of collecting such data aside, to base substantial funding for individual universities on these measures alone skews the mission of the university in potentially irrevocable ways. Trends and concepts developed within the United States university system context parallel the same in other nations. Globally, Slaughter and Leslie (1997) refer to this movement as “academic capitalism,” which as Munck, McQuillan, and Ozarawska (2012, 18) describe, “refers to the way market or market-like mechanisms impinge on the university.” Around the globe, universities are effectively being pushed into the market world through insistence on commercialization of activities and increased dependence on revenue outside of the public sector. Pressures come from both within country— as in the United States—and from international bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, both promoting marketization and innovation within higher education (Munck et al., 2012). In this context, the

42

Chapter 3

“term ‘mission drift’ takes on new meaning as calls for greater relevance to wider society coexist with more specific expectations that universities play a leading role in promoting economic regeneration and growth” (Boland 2012, 41). Job Creation and Skill Development “Ideal-Type” The ideal-type would begin with curriculum and research driven by the market; much as apprenticeship programs were formed and disbanded during the Hellenistic period to meet the needs of Greek society (Murrou 1956), so to would modern universities nimbly adjust their course offerings to respond to economic and job market needs of the state. The university would invest in research and development activities, potentially putting at risk those activities that have no short or perceptibly long-term return on investment, using pure market logic. Perhaps more than the other narratives, implementing these in pure form would threaten the other narratives. This potential threat is captured in Birnbaum’s (2000, 92) summary of a higher education as commodity narrative: So the customer is king, and universities are engines of the economy. If colleges and universities are doing their job, according to these perspectives, institutions would not have to support programs with few career prospects, students would be trained for the jobs available, business could avoid the cost of retraining new employees, and public funds could be adjusted to regulate appropriations so institutions could change as the market changed. To commoditize higher education, we must downsize faculty, replace lectures with Internet sessions, reduce the need for campus facilities, eliminate useless scholarship, charge faculty and others for support services, end tenure, and use economic criteria to assess faculty performance.

Here is a real ripped-from-the-headlines example that comes from the highest levels of policymaking in the United States. In March 2013, President Obama signed an appropriations bill that stripped funding for the National Science Foundation’s Political Science program, which funds scholarly research on government, politics, and citizenship. The defunding emerged from an amendment offered by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who argued his point that the federal government should not fund academic research that does not contribute to economic growth or national security (Lepore 2013); if political scientists can justify their study in that context, it is worthy of funding. Quoting Coburn: “studies of presidential executive power and Americans’ attitudes about the Senate filibuster hold little promise to save an American’s life from a threatening condition or to advance America’s competitiveness in the world” (Lepore 2013). Beyond the senator’s examples, the

Higher Education Reforms

43

NSF program portfolio is diverse within the social sciences. According to the NSF website (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5418): In recent years, program awards have supported research projects on bargaining processes; campaigns and elections, electoral choice, and electoral systems; citizen support in emerging and established democracies; democratization, political change, and regime transitions; domestic and international conflict; international political economy; party activism; political psychology and political tolerance. The Program also has supported research experiences for undergraduate students and infrastructural activities, including methodological innovations, in the discipline.

The narrow view of the function of academic research (and academia more broadly), in this case, threatens the perceived legitimacy of other research that also functions to strengthen community. Failure to study citizenship and the societal institutions that facilitate effective, ethical, and active citizens, political intelligence, and social awareness skews the overall societal context to that of the market and Bauman’s notion of liquid life. The challenge is not just to prevent the silo of market thinking from unduly invading upon the other interests of the university but to strategically and harmoniously integrate across the narratives so they build on each other, as complementary rather than opposing forces. In dealing with such stark narratives as marketization and citizenship, however, there is a real threat that one can easily subsume the other. As Munck et al. (2012) argue, there must be a balance between free market economics and a longer-term need for social cohesion, akin to Polanyi’s theory of the countermovement. Thus, they ask (18): “Is [civic engagement and citizenship] simply a cosmetic corporate social responsibility measure or is it part of a social countermovement whereby society seeks to regain control over the market? And if civic engagement is part of a Polanyian social countermovement, how can it reconcile that role with the new academic capitalism, which is the dominant ethos of the contemporary university?” This is a threat when any one narrative dominates at any time. Rather than maintain an integrated and harmonious whole, alternative narratives such as citizenship to market, are subject to symbolic or cosmetic enactment, meaning the language of citizenship is subsumed and justified through the language of the market. To optimize the potential of the university requires the narratives to exist equally on their own terms. In the next chapter, we turn to a model of how this can be done: Student Empowered Education and Democratizing Education for Members of Society (SEE DEMOS).

Chapter Four

SEE DEMOS (Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society)

Despite the wide attention being given to service learning as pedagogical strategy in recent years, to focus on this alone without deeper connections to community through research, teaching, and service is going to be limiting. Many service learning projects are mostly if not purely instrumental—designed to meet a specific need of a particular client, or to facilitate volunteerism without any substantial connection to broader learning objectives or the idea that service ought not to be limited to being a special project or “off the work clock” activity (Levine 2011). Instrumentality may develop professional skills and help meet a real community or organizational need, but it is not likely to shift cultures of institutions and communities. Though there are examples of service learning projects that are deeply impactful and community transforming—some of which will be highlighted later—they are often small scale and well outside the public eye. Thus, it would seem preferable if transformation and civic rebirth is at least part of the objective in higher education to begin with service learning as pedagogical practice but to go beyond it. What is proposed here and is the theme for the book is summed up in the dual purpose acronym: SEE DEMOS (figure 4.1). Let us start with the phrase before spelling out the meaning of the letters. SEE DEMOS. “See” is clear enough. “Demos” is the populace, the “common people,” the masses. Preparing our students for a life and career outside of school ought to be premised on an obligation to lift up the people and lift up our communities, whether students are preparing for careers in government, the nonprofit sector, private industry, in the faith community, as community volunteers, or as full-time parents. We are preparing, in Salamon’s (2005) 45

Chapter 4

46

phrase, professional citizens who commit to using their unique skill and talent, across the professions and life choices, to look as much to the care and development of others as to the care and development of self. To see the people requires both students and faculty in universities to engage the broader public in and through research, teaching, and service activities. In and through research, faculty and students can enrich public dialogue about pressing social and economic issues and empower community stakeholders to claim a role in the development of solutions to community challenges. In and through teaching, faculty and students can engage in joint learning enterprises in which students and community stakeholders co-learn and co-teach. In and through service, faculty and students can give of their time, talent, and expertise to strengthen the foundations of organizations and whole communities, thus enabling more healthy and sustainable communities. SEE stands for Student Empowered Education. We want to experientially empower our students to become sustainably empowered and to emerge as active ethical citizens. Empowerment of students is not a simple task; the traditional teacher-student model of learning is unidirectional, providing substantial power to the teacher to shape the values, ideas, and future of students. At its worst, the traditional model allows for the perpetuation of the status quo, which may serve to disempower students by preventing their questioning their identity, social standing, or the values of the society in which they

Figure 4.1.

SEE DEMOS.

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 47

reside. Freire (2011) points us to these possibilities in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and Shor suggests similar worst case scenarios in his work on classroom democratization (1996). At its best, the traditional model may provide the tools for critical thinking and reflection but stop short of allowing students to use or experience the use of those tools for any kind of community or societal change process. Thus, there is a need for techniques and social technologies for empowering students and thus empowering communities to achieve change. Bryer and Seigler (2012) define student empowerment as follows: Student empowerment ensures that students are fully integrated in mind, body, and spirit with the teaching and learning process. This means that students are intellectually, socially, physically, and emotionally engaged with the content of the course, with the teacher, and with fellow students. Functionally, empowerment, we suggest, means: (1) granting control of course content to students, (2) permitting students to co-create subject-matter content with each other and with the teacher, (3) enabling the voice of students, (4) enabling choice for students, and (5) enabling creativity with students.

Three rationales for student empowerment are suggested: (1) Develop ethical reasoning and judgment in complex contexts, (2) Develop leadership and management skills in complex contexts, and (3) Develop ownership in the learning process. Together, these rationales can form to establish Dewey’s (1916) vision of higher education, in which institutions through their teaching and service, promote democracy, encourage citizenship, and serve community. They also serve to bolster Freire’s (2011) notion of the vocation of humanity, through which students are empowered to understand and act on principles of justice, freedom, autonomy, and responsibility (Ringer 2012). Ultimately, these principles contribute to individual pursuit of the good life for self and for others. One interesting example of an empowerment through manipulation (Cooper and Bryer 2009) comes from the classroom of Arizona State University professor Erik Johnston. The class was Introduction to Public Administration; the lesson was on social and economic inequality. Rather than simply lecturing on statistics of inequality, Johnston designed a process whereby students were graded on an assignment based on existing laws that impact the lives of real people in society. Colbert (2013) describes the scenario as follows: To receive credit for the assignment, students were subjected to an in class cheek swab, and white students had to display their student ID’s to their teaching assistants (TA’s). In addition, student athletes who did not score at least an 80 on the assignment would receive a 0, and all female students would have their scores adjusted to 77 percent of the average score of their male counterparts.

48

Chapter 4

Some students in the class acted out against Johnston, with some even forming a union of sorts to demand a change to the grading policy. Ultimately, the experiment was revealed, students embraced the lesson while also raising more than $3000 to support a variety of nonprofit and charitable organizations in the community that address some of the very inequalities—and the values of justice, autonomy, and responsibility—the students experienced. Given the importance of these values to education, it is imperative that students be empowered, first, to develop the attributes of a virtuous citizen (Hart 1984). Simple indoctrination through repetition and cognitive manipulation are not sufficient to inculcate these values and develop reflective behaviors; students need to come to own these values, as if they were developed on their own. The attributes of the virtuous citizen are perhaps best developed through the empowered student and empowering learning process. The second rationale for empowering students is to develop leadership and management skills. Just as the moral reasoning rationale is focused on values, attitudes, and related behaviors, the more instrumental rationale of skills development is focused on ability to effectively communicate and facilitate the behavior of others in alignment with internalized values. Through empowerment in the learning process, students are given the tools and selfawareness to achieve this objective. Third, empowering students and creating an empowered learning environment will potentially develop ownership in the learning process. It might generally be said that students who “own” their learning experience might be more committed to the enterprise and thus be potentially more successful in both internalization of course content and application in non-course environments. These instrumental rationales may be consistent with the individualistic, market-oriented approaches to higher education, which encourage entrepreneurial and willing risk takers to optimize individual payoff. By giving ownership of the learning process and focusing on skill development, entrepreneurship and risk taking might be encouraged, so long as risks are taken in alignment with the normative rationales previously expressed, or what Bellone and Goerl (1992; 1993) define as civic-regarding entrepreneurship. Student empowerment can specifically be achieved through engagement in two activities: Community Engaged Teaching (CET) and Participatory Action Research (PAR). CET encompasses but necessarily goes beyond service learning. Service learning is student-centered and may neglect the needs of community partners (Stoecker and Tryon 2009). Community Engaged Teaching suggests equal and deliberative partnership between faculty, students, and community stakeholders, in which curriculum is strategically aligned with community need to develop a project that takes advantage of students’ available time and emerging expertise. The outcome of CET should be learning for all three core stakeholder categories: faculty, students, and community stakeholders (Redlawsk and Rice 2009).

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 49

Participatory action research offers students a learning experience unlike typical classroom learning because PAR necessarily includes student input and perspectives (Cahill, 2004) and is a particularly suitable research strategy for investigating issues of consequence to young people (Cahill 2007). Cahill (2007) highlights a multitude of benefits that flow from engaging young people in PAR. Those benefits include equalizing the power imbalance between the researcher and the researched by conducting research “with, rather than on participants” (301) and empowering students with a sense of selfdetermination about the future of their communities. Moreover, students can readily unmask issues that present challenges in the community. Cahill (2007) elaborates by suggesting that students’ “challenges in achieving ‘success’ implicitly expose the failures of our society” (298). DEMOS stands for Democratizing Education for Members Of Society. We want to lift up whole communities through our educational process, including education of our elite actors and the general population. This can be accomplished through teaching (CET), research, and service in the community. Examples include research in healthy communities, neighborhood governance, and in other social service areas, that ultimately help align institutional, political, and social levers with Box’s (2008) progressive versus regressive values. Putting SEE and DEMOS together, I find some insight and inspiration from a regular activity in which my Methodist church engages. At least twice per year, the church cancels traditional church-based Sunday services and instead asks churchgoers to volunteer time with some organized projects in the community. They call this “Be-Go-Do” weekend: be a faithful person, go to a place or a people where there is need, and do an action that lives out the faith while meeting the need. As we think about empowering students and engaging community members in community strengthening research and action activities, we can conceive of this as Read-Go-Do, with the further addition of Write: Read-Go-Do-Write. Done well and done right, students who engage in a community process will continue this cycle even once their formal studies are complete, just as there is documented evidence of national service volunteers (such as AmeriCorps VISTA members) who are more likely to continue volunteering given their service experience (Nesbit and Brudney 2010). They start by educating themselves about the context of a community challenge, enter the community to learn how they can help, engage with the community to craft and implement an intervention, and then reflect through writing or other means about their journey individually and as part of a community. Figure 4.2 summarizes this cycle. Some examples already existing in the literature and in practice will demonstrate the point. Six cases are identified: (1) community engaged research in Los Angeles to identify and address access to healthy food options (Sloane, et al. 2003), (2) active facilitation of dialogue and deliberation be-

Chapter 4

50

Figure 4.2.

Read-Go-Do.

tween City of Los Angeles neighborhood councils and agencies (Kathi and Cooper 2005), (3) implementation of “public work” through the university in Minnesota (Boyte 2004), (4) development of advocacy and relationship with individuals living with HIV/AIDS (Siplon 1999), (5) facilitation of a public participation process to educate citizens on possible local government incorporation (Bryer 2010), (6) teaching a whole-class service learning project in partnership with an array of community stakeholders to enhance services for children in a county (Bryer 2011), (7) academic institutes and centers that maintain a community focus, and (8) student volunteerism and learning communities. COMMUNITY-ENGAGED RESEARCH IN LOS ANGELES Increasingly, governments and nonprofit agencies are concerned with issues of obesity, food security, food deserts, and healthy lifestyle. Obesity is considered an epidemic, leading First Lady Michelle Obama to consider childhood obesity a national security threat on the logic that the youth of today will not qualify based on their physical health for military service. In rural poor communities and urban centers, we find numerous instances where individuals and families have limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables, either due to transportation barriers, cost concerns (fresh produce is often more expensive than canned and processed foods), and/or the paucity of small food marts in gas stations, for instance, that carry produce. The issue has led to opportunities for innovative research, teaching, and community partnership, examples of which will be discussed in the fifth and sixth chapters. Beyond those examples, one case that is notable in that it is a decade or more old, is from Los Angeles.

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 51

Sloane et al. (2003) are interested from a public health perspective in the eating behaviors and challenges to healthy eating of residents within the city. A “traditional” research approach might have included a survey design, perhaps some focus groups with residents, where the researcher controlled the questions being asked, the method for collecting data, analysis, and reporting. Beyond the role of “research subject,” community members might not have ever contributed to the research. This traditional approach was not used; instead, a process that allowed for empowerment and education of community members was implemented. The research team recruited community members to serve as data collectors, recording their food shopping and eating behaviors. By engaging community members as data collectors rather than presenting a one-time survey asking a battery of questions, the community members became invested in the research and consequently in the implications of the research (i.e., any policy recommendations or changes that might be generated based on the findings). As a democratic process, the faculty researchers shared power, held themselves out as one with the community rather than an elite from outside the community, and gave co-ownership of the process and success of the project to the community. This kind of relationship development between research faculty and community members can help reduce the potential for “us versus them” animosity that might typically befall researchers studying a community phenomenon, as through the process of empowerment, trust is developed. NEIGHBORHOOD GOVERNANCE IN LOS ANGELES In 1999, voters in the city of Los Angeles approved a new charter that created a system of neighborhood councils. The intent was to empower city residents and stakeholders to become a part of official advisory bodies to the mayor and city council. The first councils were formed and became operational in 2001, with significant escalation beginning in 2003. Today, there are approximately 85 councils throughout the city. From the time period before the charter was drafted through today, faculty at the University of Southern California launched a series of community-engaged studies that examined a variety of aspects of the emergent neighborhood council system, including the design and implementation of a participatory budgeting process that empowered citizens to help make budget decisions for the city and a process to develop stronger relationships between city agency staff and newly empowered citizens. Much of this work, which has lasted more than 10 years, is assessed and described by Musso, Weare, Bryer, and Cooper (2011). One project within this set is particularly informative to discuss DEMOS. Faculty recognized that city agencies may not necessarily have the tools or

52

Chapter 4

skills to successfully engage with empowered citizens and likewise for the citizens and their relationship with city agencies. Thus, they developed a collaborative dialogue model called the Learning and Design Forum (Kathi and Cooper 2005) which brought together representatives from select neighborhood councils with officials from a city agency selected by the neighborhood councils. The intent was, through facilitated dialogue, to craft an agreement to promote more responsive service delivery to the diverse neighborhoods of Los Angeles. As an exercise in community engaged research and community education, the process worked very well. A neutral third party facilitated citizens and agency officials in a process that was designed using relevant theories of democracy and deliberation, and both practical and scholarly outputs were produced. Most significantly, the university faculty took the teaching they would normally present in the classroom and brought it to the community in an engaged dialogic process, with real world implications. PUBLIC WORK IN MINNESOTA Harry Boyte (2004) defines civic education as performing “public work projects,” as opposed to community service or learning about civics passively or through development of advocacy skills (93). Boyte and his team combine participatory action research “with social and political theory that included an emphasis on the nature, formation, and uses of political ideas” (xiv). In other words, they took theoretical knowledge, disseminated it within the community, sought to apply it to achieve change, and engaged citizens in the process. They developed ultimately the idea of “public work” as a means to prepare not only students but citizens within society for active engagement and co-ownership of community. To quote extensively (Boyte 2004, xvii): Public work has proven a useful way to name, in conceptual terms, the vernacular, work-centered traditions of citizenship in America. It is a valuable conceptual tool for civic change, a way to re-imagine professionals as part of the political and civic mix, not as outsider fixers, and a way to highlight the civic contributions of groups, from minority and low income communities to new immigrants and young people, often seen in terms of their needs or deficiencies not their talents and intelligence. Finally, public work is a way to illuminate the productive side of politics—to see politics not simply as a fight over scarce resources, who gets what, but as the way for people with diverse interests and views to build the common world.

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 53

STUDYING AND ADVOCATING FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/ AIDS Patricia Siplon (1999) is interested in studying the context and lives of people living with HIV/AIDS. In an intriguing write-up of her work, she laid bare the choices she confronted as a scholar who developed a relationship with the subjects of study. Ultimately, she asked, is she a scholar, witness, or activist? Her response was: all three. Though these may seem conflicting roles to play as playing one (activist) may conflict with another (scholar) given the potential to introduce bias into what might otherwise be “objective” scholarship. The value of this role, however challenging, is that it places the faculty member in an engaged position with the community and as equals with the community, thus permitting not only education and advocacy based on scholarly research but legitimacy of that education based on both academic and “street” credentials. FACILITATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In 2010, a team of faculty and students from the University of Central Florida and working through the John Scott Dailey Institute of Government was contracted to conduct a feasibility analysis of a local community to determine if it could become a city. The project was unique in the team that was brought together for the project. One faculty member had responsibility for the financial analysis; another worked with a community advisory council to draft a charter for the potential future city; a third had the task of designing and facilitating a public education and participation process. The objective was not only to ensure citizens had information to make an informed decision about the possibility of becoming a city, but the research team wanted to educate the citizens about government more generally and the opportunities for working across divisions in the community. The process design afforded that opportunity, as Bryer (2010) states in an article detailing the project and process design, labeled descriptively as “getting dirty.” In other words, the process was not smooth, clean, nor overall positive. The political process and latent community divisions that became active were quite ugly at times (for instance, an elderly Caucasian woman yelled at a Hispanic resident in the middle of a meeting, “You’re in America; learn to speak English!”). However, the process did provide community education on politics and civics; it integrated members of the faculty with the community, and it established a set of trust-based relationships with at least some segments of the community for future projects.

54

Chapter 4

ENHANCING COLLABORATION TO IMPROVE SERVICES TO CHILDREN A graduate class provided students with the theoretical and practical tools needed to successfully engage in networking and collaboration across government, nonprofit, and private sectors (Bryer 2011). Among the topics covered during the course were network development and evaluation, conflict management, consensus building, and public participation. The class of twenty-five students worked for thirteen weeks with the Orange County Children's Cabinet and the larger child-serving community in Orange County, Florida. According to the Children’s Cabinet by-laws, their mission is: “[T]o provide the framework, advocacy platform and organizational model to foster integration, collaboration and development of all entities focused on creating positive outcomes for the children of Orange County.” Though the Cabinet has formally drafted by-laws, it is not a legal entity. Instead, the Cabinet is an informal network of approximately sixty individuals from public, private, and nonprofit child serving agencies. Service areas represented include but are not limited to foster care, education, mental health, juvenile justice, and basic needs (e.g., shelter, food). Members meet once a month to reflect on current data and trends in their service areas, plan joint activities, and generally share information regarding the participating organizations. The Cabinet was in search of a plan to enhance coordination across childserving agencies in the county, a means to re-focus their attention collectively on prevention rather than treatment, and a desire to reduce service duplication as well as service gaps in meeting the needs of children in the county. Students in the class sought to apply their skills and knowledge to address these objectives. They did so through the conduct of interviews, analysis of a survey, completion of a literature review, and assessment of best practices. The following is a case summary (Bryer 2011, 109): [It] offers documentation of how a course can be taught in furtherance of a community service objective and an instrumental objective, primarily. Students reflected on the contributions made to community while also acknowledging skills learned and applied in offering a consultation service to community members. Additionally, students had the opportunity through journaling to reflect on their role as emerging leaders in the public administration discipline. As one student wrote in defining his expectations for the project, “I think our service learning project will be our road to becoming professional citizens.”

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 55

ACADEMIC INSTITUTES AND CENTERS Chapter 6 profiles the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management and several initiatives underneath that banner, as an extended case example of SEEing DEMOS. Here is presented mini-case examples from three other institutions. There are likely other case examples beyond these, but the selection here comes from small to mid-sized and public and private universities, thus showing diversity of how academic centers and institutes can be developed to support democratized education in the broader community and student empowerment in the learning process. The three examples are: (1) University of Southern California’s Price School, with specific focus on the Sol Price Center for Social Innovation, (2) the Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Center at the College of Charleston (South Carolina), and (3) Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Public Policy, with particular focus on the Grace E. Harris Leadership Institute. University of Southern California Price School In 2011, the University of Southern California (USC) received a naming gift from the Sol Price Family Foundation, which led to the rebranding of the School of Policy, Planning, and Development to the Sol Price School of Public Policy. The Price School is ranked by U.S. News & World Report, as of 2012, as sixth in nation for public affairs programs. USC is a private university located in the city of Los Angeles; its main campus is a neighbor to the section of the city sometimes referred to as south-central and the community of Watts, a poverty-stricken urban community. Los Angeles itself is a highly diverse city, stretching from the valleys to the north through Hollywood out to the commercial harbor community of San Pedro and moving out west towards the neighboring city of Santa Monica. There are pockets of affluence and deep poverty sprinkled throughout the city. The university was founded in 1880 and has a student enrollment of approximately 40,000. The Price School characterizes itself and its experience for students as follows (http://priceschool.usc.edu/about/): • Combines social sciences, professional expertise, and the resources of a great research university to offer students breadth, depth, and variety as they pursue their interests and design their programs. • Centers on and values the relationships that develop between students and teachers. • Offers both academic and relevant real-world experiences, and draws widely on the expertise of networks of engaged councilors, advisors, alumni, and prominent professionals.

56

Chapter 4

• Encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, experimentation, and collaboration. • Fosters a multidisciplinary and problem-solving ethic. • Focuses broadly and inclusively on the issues, constituencies, structures, and institutions engaged in public life—in both governance and the built environment. • Utilizes the City of Los Angeles and the greater Southern California region as a living laboratory in which to learn and put into practice the lessons of the classroom. The school strives to be interdisciplinary, collaborative, and communityfocused. The twelve centers and institutes within the school are a core driving force to achieve these aims (see http://priceschool.usc.edu/research/centers/). Among these centers and institutes are the Center for Economic Development (seeks to “provide a range of services to public, private, and nonprofit entities in the 12 counties of Southern California”), Center for Sustainable Cities (seeks to “contribute to the development of public policy and planning that improves the natural and human environment of cities”), METRANS Transportation Center (seeks to “solve transportation problems in large metropolitan regions through interdisciplinary research, education, and outreach”), and the Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy (seeks to “develop real-world, sustainable solutions in five priority areas: education, energy and environment, fiscal and economic policy, health and human wellness, and political reform”). The center that is of most interest in this context is also the school’s newest: the Sol Price Center for Social Innovation, which seeks to help “create sustainable, holistic vitality in low-income, urban communities” (http://socialinnovation.usc.edu/research/). Specifically, “through research and training,” the center aims to “identify and develop initiatives, leaders, and scholars that embody innovative approaches to achieving such outcomes, with a particular eye towards those large scale change efforts that are generalizable to populations and other places.” In its first year of operation, the center has essentially adopted the City Heights neighborhood of San Diego as a living laboratory for faculty and students to study, experiment, and promote community transformation. For students, the center coordinates a public policy practicum, public administration capstone, planning studio, and internships to support policy development and organization enhancement in City Heights. Students have worked to design open space in the urban community, develop a community garden program, and create plans for urban revitalization. Faculty members are incentivized to participate through a faculty grants competition to conduct targeted community-impact and engagement research in City Heights. Among research projects funded through this internal grants

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 57

competition are projects focusing on access to nutritious food, education program evaluation, creation of social capital through community garden programs, and assessment of transportation links to employment centers for community residents. Details of these and other projects can be accessed online at http://socialinnovation.usc.edu/research/projects/. Overall, the Price School and the Center for Social Innovation are leveraging their location in a “global city” urban and regional environment to both enhance the education of students and produce research that is relevant for and responsive to needs in surrounding communities. As a private university with a philanthropic endowment, it is an example of how wealth can, through higher education institutions, transform communities. The next example is completely opposite: a small, public liberal arts college. College of Charleston’s Riley Center for Livable Communities The College of Charleston is a small liberal arts college with enrollment of approximately 12,000 students. Founded in 1770, the college serves the Lowcountry region of South Carolina and, more broadly, the southeast United States. Embedded within the college is the Joseph P. Riley, Jr., Center for Livable Communities, which is named for the former Charleston mayor. The center has undergone a couple of transformations since its founding in 1978, with the most recent transformation in 2010, at which time it adopted its current name. This name change “reflects a more applied and committed focus to enhancing urban life in the Charleston area” (http://riley.cofc.edu). Specifically, the center is committed to forging connections between the campus and the broader community. It focuses on sustaining the legacy of Mayor Riley through programs and projects directed at various aspects of developing and maintaining livable communities in urban, suburban, and rural contexts. The Center carries out its mission by assisting in connecting community needs with faculty and student research interests, facilitating the attainment and administration of grants, providing expertise and assistance to public and nonprofit organizations, and supporting several academic degrees. The goal of fostering livable communities builds off current expertise among College faculty and helps to foster new areas of strength.

The research and teaching cultivated and facilitated through the center spans five issue areas, including urban design, environment and health, nonprofit and local government, crime and justice, and education, arts, and culture. The center links strategically with appropriate academic degree programs tied to these foci. In the past few years, sample studies that linked the college to the community include a waterworks customer satisfaction survey, an evaluation of Charleston Promise Neighborhood, and a local farm program study.

58

Chapter 4

Though College of Charleston is much smaller and with a substantially smaller resource pool than the University of Southern California, it maintains a focus on engaging and impacting local community. The last example is another public institution of moderate size. Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Public Policy Virginia Commonwealth University was formed in 1838 in Richmond, Virginia—the state’s capital city—and has current enrollment of approximately 32,000 students. In 2011, the university developed a strategic plan that lays out a vision for becoming the “nation’s premier urban, public research university focused on student success.” Housed within the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, the Center for Public Policy boasts seven centers and institutes, each with a different mission but a similar thread of student engagement and community support. For instance, the Performance Management Group provides workshops and training on matters related to program development and performance for government and nonprofit organizations; the Transportation Safety Training Center provides training and curriculum development to law enforcement, hospitals, and emergency management officials to help optimize safety in all transportation systems; the Common Wealth Educational Policy Institute helps facilitate public dialogue on matters concerns K-12 public education. The focus in this case example is the Grace E. Harris Leadership Institute, named for the former provost at the university, who was also the highestranking woman and African-American in the university’s history. The institute provides capacity-building training and applied research for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and educational organizations in the areas of leadership, team building, conflict management, program evaluation, survey research, and needs assessment. Two examples help define the character and work of the institute. First is its grounding in the concept of transformative leadership, which it espouses and prepares organizations and organizational leaders for through training and consultation. The idea is described on their website (http:// www.pubapps.vcu.edu/gehli/FAW.html). Transformational leadership originates in the personal values and beliefs of the leaders and is transmitted to one’s followers by focusing on a common purpose that transcends short-term goals. Transformational leaders operate out of deeply held personal value systems that include values such as justice, liberty, equality, and integrity. It is a leadership style that involves empowering and mentoring those you lead through addressing their self-worth, helping them reach their full potential, and creating a sense of shared values and vision. . . . Transformational leadership is a style that values collaboration and teamwork and personal empowerment.

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 59

Linked with academic degree programs, including the Ph.D. in Public Policy and Administration housed within the Center for Public Policy, this leadership orientation provides access points for students, faculty, university staff, and community members to engage each other and enhance their ability to collaboratively engage others in pursuit of a common good. An example of a research project that exemplifies the work of the institute is a grant received for bridging across multiple, independent databases to enhance tracking of education and workforce data in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The project can not only help provide academic researchers with single-point access to data for important analyses of educational and workforce intervention efficacy but also provides citizens the same access. The institute is partnering with multiple other state and educational agencies, demonstrating the importance of partnership and collaboration for successful academic ventures. STUDENT VOLUNTEERISM AND LEARNING COMMUNITIES A final example of SEEing DEMOS are the institutional mechanisms that support student engagement with the community, outside of class-based assignments. There are two instances to highlight here. First is the case of Volunteer UCF, an example of an initiative that exists at multiple universities, through which students are mobilized to serve their campus and surrounding community. Second is the Living Learning Communities at American University, an example of residence hall programs for students that facilitate deep focus on service and promotion of justice in communities surrounding the university. Volunteer UCF Volunteer University of Central Florida (UCF) is the student-led body organized through the Office of Student Involvement that creates opportunities for students to volunteer both on campus and in the broader and global community. The body is divided into eleven committees, with a student director leading each committee. These committees consist of the following: • Alternative Break. Students are given opportunities to spend winter and spring break periods traveling locally, regionally, or globally to support various humanitarian causes, such as disaster relief or home building through Habitat for Humanity. • Animal Awareness. Students work to support animal rights and welfare organizations. • Arts and Recreation. Students volunteer in support of and to raise awareness about cultural opportunities.

60

Chapter 4

• Different Abilities. Students work to support and raise awareness about individuals with various disabilities. • Domestic Violence. Students educate fellow students and community members about the risks and signs of domestic violence, as well as steps to be taken if a victim of violence. • Education and Literacy. Students partner with schools and other organizations, such as the Adult Literacy League, to promote greater literacy within the community. • Elderly and Veterans. Students volunteer in support of the various social service needs of these unique populations. • Environment. Students volunteer for various environmental conservation and stewardship projects. • Health. Students work to encourage healthy living and awareness of health challenges. • Hunger and Homelessness. Students volunteer to raise food donations, distribute food to the needy, and educate fellow students and the community about these complex issues. • Youth and Mentoring. Students work alongside other organizations and in schools to provide mentoring to students who can be strengthened through regular interaction with a young adult or adult mentor. Across these diverse initiatives, student leaders and volunteers achieve impressive results and extensive student and community engagement. For instance, at the end of the third chapter, I briefly discussed Alice, an undergraduate student at UCF who directs the hunger and homelessness initiatives of Volunteer UCF. This committee convenes a weekly Sunday Food Share program, through which student volunteers distribute home-cooked meals, salad, and drinks to homeless individuals and families. The number of meals served in any given week regularly surpasses two hundred, with substantially higher numbers reached on occasional weeks. Alice wrote a brief essay explaining why she does this kind of work and how the university institutions help facilitate her and her fellow students’ ability to volunteer and achieve impact in the community. A Student Perspective on Service and the University: Alice Neira Throughout the day, they barely have enough energy to carry the torn and heavy backpacks that hold all their belongings, including their worries, their childhood memories, and their fading hopes. As night falls, they often find themselves with no other choice but to burn their hopes to warm their hearts and bodies. They catch the smallest of floating embers to calm their shivers and make it through another night.

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 61

It is challenging to imagine what these conditions are like—to be hungry and to be homeless. Nevertheless, it is important to learn about these harsh situations to help those who are enduring them. This is why every Sunday night, in a church parking lot in downtown Orlando, I lead students and community members to provide meals to those in need. I volunteer because I fear having to undergo these circumstances. I never want to be poor and alone. However, I never want to avoid those who are poor and alone. I volunteer because I came from a humble family, and I believe in giving back as a way to thank my community for blessing me with many incredible opportunities. I also volunteer because I believe that poverty can be conquered. Some people have been thrown into poverty due to financial and emotional hardships, but many of the people we serve have been born into poverty with no chance to succeed. Yet, they are too frequently ignored, belittled, and even hurt violently. More than food and clothing, they need guidance and support. I have learned, by talking to many of the people I serve, that love and respect are the greatest remedies to end poverty. Therefore, I aspire to fill more than just stomachs with food; I aim to fill hearts with hope. I want to share as many smiles as I do meals because many of the men, women, and even children, just need someone to acknowledge that they are people too. In return, the people I serve teach and inspire me. They teach me to be thankful and they inspire me to keep working hard. I am grateful for being a part of some of the many programs that are offered at the University of Central Florida, such as LEAD Scholars, McNair Scholars, and Volunteer UCF because they have nurtured my love for volunteerism. The LEAD Scholars program has taught me to be congruent with my thoughts, words, and actions. The McNair Scholars program encourages me to be a civic leader and change agent. Additionally, Volunteer UCF challenges me as a student leader to partner with organizations and engage students who share the same vision to help people who are hungry and homeless. I hope to empower more students to make a difference in our local and global community. The Hunger Banquet Volunteer UCF and the hunger and homelessness committee organize an annual “hunger banquet,” which serves to educate the student and broader community about world hunger and local hunger. The 20th annual banquet was convened in fall 2013, with more than 250 students participating. This is a unique event and a good example of the empowerment of students and democratization of education. Students, as well as university faculty and staff, and community members, are invited to attend the banquet; the cost to attend is at least two non-

62

Chapter 4

perishable food items donated to a local food bank. Upon checking in at the banquet, participants are randomly assigned to one of three economic classes: low, middle, and upper. Lower class participants are told to sit on a newspaper covered floor; middle class participants are told to sit on one of several chairs set in lecture style rows; upper class participants are walked to their seat at a table, which is preset with a plate, silverware, napkin, bread, salad, iced tea, and water. The group is divided in rough approximation to world percentages on poverty, thus the biggest group is the lower class. The seating discrepancies are only part of the intentional discrimination enacted in the space. Lower class participants must stand in line to get a serving of rice, of which there is insufficient quantity for everyone in line; middle class participants must stand in line to get a sandwich; upper class participants are served a plated chicken or steak dinner, followed by coffee. During the banquet, a number of guest speakers from the community and university put the hunger and homelessness issues in context and describe opportunities for participants to take their new knowledge, and their experience in the intentional discrimination and food inequity program, and volunteer or advocate for change. Participants are empowered in the process both through the experiential exercise but also through the ability to change the situation during the banquet. Some, though not all, upper class participants give up their plated dinner and invite a lower class participant to partake, or they share the meal with lower class participants. The same applies to some middle class participants. Overall, the banquet serves as an opportunity for student and community engagement, student and community education, and the development of opportunities for more intensive engagement and education, as students and other participants venture into their personal and professional networks with a new and intriguing story to tell. Living Learning Communities Living Learning Communities (LLCs) are “cohorts of students that live together and explore a common interest or academic pursuit” (http:// www.american.edu/ocl/housing/llc.cfm). They exist in various models across universities in the United States; some are reserved for first year students; others permit a blending of student levels. Some LLCs are tied to an academic class required of residents of the floor or hall of the residence hall; others join students in shared activity without an academic component. For instance, American University in Washington, DC, maintains at least five LLCs, with the potential for students who have a shared interest to propose and create new communities. One LLC is devoted to social justice, described as: “This community is designed for students interested in better understanding and practicing social justice.” Activities for students include collective

Student Empowered Education/Democratizing Education for Members of Society 63

volunteer engagements, educational and seminar opportunities, and other events designed to both inform and mobilize students to action. Research on LLCs is sparse but positive with respect to impact on students. Edwards and McKelfresh (2002) find that male students living in LLCs are positively influenced in their academic performance, and nonwhite residents are more persistent (i.e., likely to complete) in their first year of studies, compared to students who do not reside in an LLC. Stassen (2003) similarly finds that first semester grade point average and student retention is greater among LLC students, compared to non-LLC students, and Inkelas and Weisman (2003) draw similar conclusions in their analysis. Overall, we have much yet to learn about the benefits and impacts of LLCs for students and community, but they are an example of institutionally supporting student empowerment with a clear link to service and impact in the community. SUMMARY These mini-case examples demonstrate an array of activities from different institutions to pursue student empowered education and democratization of education for members of society. The reader is encouraged to consult the citations found with each one to access the full context. The next two chapters offer more in-depth case examples, first of pedagogy and second of institutional design. These examples demonstrate the potential of SEE DEMOS and set up the discussion of institutional reforms that will follow in the seventh chapter.

Chapter Five

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

This case is “Cross-Sector Governance,” a graduate course I offered in the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida in spring 2011 and 2012. The course syllabus states the following objective: “The solution to many social problems requires the combined strengths of the public, for-profit/private, and nonprofit sectors. This course highlights this emphasis on cross-sectoral governance by providing a foundation in the purpose and usefulness of cross-sectoral relationships, and by providing the knowledge and tools necessary for the effective management of such relationships.” The university’s catalogue provides the course description: “This course examines the structures, dynamics, and processes associated with developing and delivering public services through networks and partnerships involving public, nonprofit, voluntary, and private sectors.” Specific class objectives were divided across three categories. First, academic and scholarly objectives: these address the specific academic knowledge students would encounter and internalize. Second, professional development objective: to develop governance, consensus building, and conflict resolution tools in inter- and intra-organizational interactions. Third, service learning objectives: (1) develop a normative orientation towards self and community, (2) learn about community—strong community requires active involvement with and of diverse stakeholders, (3) learn about citizenship—as professional citizens, we individually and collectively have responsibilities towards the betterment of communities, not only for our own selves and neighborhoods, and (4) learn about service and knowledge—with knowledge comes responsibility. In designing the course as one anchored in community engagement, the dual objective was to both instruct on the practice and theories of collabora65

66

Chapter 5

tive governance while demonstrating through service to a set of community partners how collaboration can be successfully achieved. The example involved graduate students, in two classes over two semesters a year apart, working in partnership with high school students from a low-income community to recommend community capacity changes to better meet the needs of high school students and their families—a particular form of community engaged teaching and learning I label “joined-up service learning.” An important consideration for any instructor contemplating a community engaged course on the scale of the one described here is the immense time commitment required (Bryer 2011). Simply stated, much is being asked of students in a service learning class; much should be expected of the instructor. With that in mind, it is advised that instructors observe the service learning design principles outlined by Imperial, Perry, and Katula (2007). Among those: explicit connections between the service activity and learning objectives, reflection, faculty commitment, and perceptible impacts. Faculty commitment, in particular, cannot be overly emphasized. Ultimately, the success of the project requires the hard work of the students, to be matched with persistence from the instructor. Without both, the project will not be successful and may very well damage relationships between the university and community based on the inability to complete a desired and promised project. Conducting any community engaged research may require the approval of a university Institutional Review Board (IRB). However, IRB processes require submission of any change to protocol or data collection instruments, which are requirements that may be problematic given the emergent nature of a community engaged teaching and learning project. In the examples, I completed the IRB process to secure use of student reflection journals for analysis of the class. The journals leave a paper trail for analysis of the efficacy of the course. The community partners, following completion of the project, agreed to have the student report with data analysis and recommendations for the community publicly released. This method worked in this case; however, if an instructor or any student wished to publish directly from the data, it is advisable that the IRB be consulted at the very least for the possibility of expedited review. Ultimately, it is best to protect against unethical behavior in the conduct of research. Lastly, it is important for there to be a clear theoretical framework that guides the overall project (in this case example, the theoretical framing is the same as explicated in Bryer, 2011). Absent such a framework, it can be potentially difficult to ensure all students are accomplishing tasks that are aligned with the needs of the project and the learning objectives of the course.

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

67

“JOINED-UP” SERVICE LEARNING There were twenty-five graduate students enrolled each semester, working with approximately twenty high school students each term. The first year, high school students came from the International Baccalaureate program at the school; in the second year, students were drawn from a student leadership council. The high school is located in the Pine Hills community of Orange County, Florida. The graduate course is an elective course for the Masters in Public Administration and Masters in Nonprofit Management programs, and it is a required core course for the Masters in Urban and Regional Planning and the graduate certificate in Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Students from each of these disciplines were represented in the class during the semester discussed herein, with a different class of students each semester. The rationales for the CET effort were three of the four Dicke, Dowden, and Torres (2004) outline: (1) community service, (2) moral, and (3) instrumental. The project was intended to provide a benefit to the community, discussed below; it was intended to encourage active reflection by graduate and high school students regarding their role in community and society; last, it was intended to develop research and communication skills of students. Context The Pine Hills population includes characteristics of low to very low income, limited educational achievement, steady population growth, and a recent rise in single-parent households (Pine Hills Business Redevelopment Task Force 2010). Core demographics of the community include (ii): • Population of approximately 70,500 across 24,300 households, with a 6% growth expected by 2015. • Unemployment approximately 10.5%. • 55% of residents employed in retail, accommodation/food services, healthcare, construction, and finance, insurance, and real estate. • Median household income $40,013; 43% of households earned less than $35,000. Evans High School serves the Pine Hills community. Between 2004 and 2010, the school received grades of “F” three times and “D” four times based on a Florida system that assesses school performance based on standardized test scores and school improvement. The graduation rate at the school in 2009-2010 was 79.4%, which represented a 5.4% positive change from the previous year, and an even more significant improvement from 2006-2007 (49%) and 2007-2008 (66%). The graduation rate is slightly above the 79%

68

Chapter 5

district and state average. Recent Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores reveal an achievement gap across certain demographics. In FCAT reading, 20% of ninth graders scored three or better in 2010. A score of three indicates that the student demonstrated only partial mastery of the test content. Broken down, white students scored better than black students by twenty percentage points and better than Hispanic students by ten percentage points; male and female students achieved about equally; free or reduced lunch students performed less well than those students not on free or reduced lunch by a factor of ten percentage points. Given these conditions, both in the school and the surrounding community, leaders from multiple sectors came together to craft a plan to build a new school campus, modeled as a wrap-around service community school. Leaders came from the school district, the nonprofit Children’s Home Society, the College of Health and Public Affairs at the University of Central Florida (UCF), the College of Education at UCF, and other partners, including a funding partnership with J. P. Morgan Chase Bank. A community school is “a place and a set of partnerships connecting a school, the families of students, and the surrounding community” (Blank, Jacobson and Melaville 2012, 1). Some of the strategies aimed at building such communities are resource sharing between school faculty, parents, and community partners, the integration of community-based learning into the school curriculum, expanded networks of adult support, and preventative health and social services. The desired results are successful students, families, schools, and communities indicated by improvement in areas such as student aspirations, community strength, student attendance and graduation rates, and overall student grades. “Joined-Up” Service Learning Partnership Structure In order to determine the student, family, and community needs the community school might address in Pine Hills, the leading partners engaged with a faculty member at the University of Central Florida to develop a service learning project that would assess need and make recommendations for the development of the school. Figure 5.1 presents the functional structure of the partnership between students during the first year. The core activity was for graduate and high school student researchers during this year to conduct focus groups with various stakeholder groups across sectors within the Pine Hills community—students, parents, teachers, faith organizations, and other community members. Pairing high school students with graduate students accomplished several goals which included (1) the high school students providing local knowledge of the school and community to the graduate students, (2) the high school students helping the graduate students develop a short-term trust relationship with the focus group participants, and (3) re-

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

69

search that provided a learning opportunity for both the high school and graduate students. The purpose of the focus groups was to address the following questions in connection with understanding the needs of the community with respect to the new community school. • What factors outside of school time facilitate and/or hinder student success in school? • What facility and human resources exist for occupying students outside of school time? • How do Pine Hills faith community members perceive their role in relation to youth educational achievement? • What does the community want out of a community school? • How are parents of Evans students currently utilizing school resources to engage with their child’s learning? At each focus group, one graduate student researcher served as a moderator, and at least one high school student researcher served as a recorder or notetaker. The moderator was charged with asking the questions to the stakeholder group. The recorder was charged with recording participant responses to the questions posed by the moderator thereby creating a record of focus group answers. The answers were collected from the recorders and compiled by the UCF graduate student researchers.

Figure 5.1.

Structure of the Partnership Semester One.

70

Chapter 5

Shortly after concluding the focus groups, the high school student researchers were asked to help formulate recommendations based on observations from the various focus groups. In addition to the focus groups, graduate student researchers were charged with conducting a literature review on topics of concern in developing the future community school. Specifically, students reviewed available literature on the following subjects: community school models, parental engagement in education, and faith organization-school partnerships. These reviews were also contained in the final report. In the second year, the model was altered to accomplish three objectives based on student feedback: (1) creating more opportunities for intensive interaction between high school and graduate students, (2) providing high school students with more opportunities to learn about college life, and (3) providing graduate students with more opportunities to immerse themselves in the community. Figure 5.2 shows the year two model. The second year model deployed students differently. Rather than have teams of high school and graduate students conduct focus groups jointly, in this iteration high school students were charged with independently administering a survey of their fellow students. Graduate students independently conducted interviews with key community stakeholders. Building on what the students from the previous year learned about the needs of the community, the students, in their own independent efforts, sought to assess the resources already available in the community to meet those needs. Recommendations were produced for the community school to fill in the gaps between needs and existing resources and programs. The other significant change was in how the two student groups interacted with each other. The second class session for the graduate students was conducted at the high school in a joint session with the high school students. The objective was to give the high school students a taste of the content the graduate students would be studying throughout the semester and how it related to the research activity. An additional objective was to forge close bonds and trust between the graduate and high school students. To accomplish this end, a set of image cards were spread around the room at the joint class session at the high school, each depicting a scene from nature, sport, education, family, or something else. Students were asked to walk around the room and select an image that represented for them their ambition or career goal. Once returned to their seats, students introduced themselves using the “popcorn” method of introduction, in which one student volunteered to go first, giving his or her name followed by an explanation of the image. The next person to introduce identified something in common with the person, and the process continued until everyone “popped” or introduced themselves. What became apparent was that, despite the age, education, and economic differences, these students had

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

Figure 5.2.

71

Structure of the Partnership Semester Two.

much in common with respect to their passions, concerns, and life interests. The tone was set for a productive semester of working together. Students came back together face-to-face at the end of the semester to craft the recommendations during one class period and again to make a final joint presentation to the community. They came together twice in the middle of the semester via conference call to update each other on the research they had been conducting, challenges they had encountered, and to share other stories. IMPLEMENTING THE “JOINED-UP” MODEL Designing the “joined-up” model was approached with some trepidation, given the complex logistics that would need to be worked out. However, with careful planning and a trusting relationship across partnering organizations, the model was implemented with no perceptible flaw. Four topics focusing on course design and implementation are addressed here: logistics management of the partnership, pedagogical management of the partnership, the role of the graduate student faculty member, and the role of the high school teacher whose students were signed up to work on the project.

72

Chapter 5

Logistics Management The primary logistical concerns for the project included scheduling focus groups, ensuring background check clearance for graduate students, addressing liability concerns for high school students conducting off-campus research, and managing expectations for community members and partners. With focus groups as the core activity, the biggest challenge was to schedule focus groups with diverse stakeholders—high school students, teachers, community members, faith organization leaders, parents—at a time and location that was convenient for both the graduate students, who would be driving from outside the community, and high school students, who would have limited and constrained times during the school day or after school. Ultimately, most focus groups were convened during the school day or immediately after on the high school campus, with one significant exception. The first effort to convene parents for a focus group was coordinated with a regularly scheduled Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA) meeting; however, as was typical for these meetings, only four parents showed up. Thus, a second attempt was initiated in partnership with faith organizations in the community to hold a parent focus group at a central church location in the evening, with participation slightly higher than at the PTSA meeting (though also hindered by a rain storm on the evening of the event). For this group, high school students did not participate. Background checks were necessary for participating graduate students, as they would be on the high school campus and directly interacting with students. Coordination with the school district allowed the background checks to be completed with little delay. From a design perspective, alternative assignments for graduate students were needed in the event that any graduate student failed the background screening. The literature review assignments provided this alternative; in this case, no graduate student failed the background screening. Liability concerns needed to be addressed in the event that high school students traveled off their campus to participate in focus groups or some other activity. Though in final implementation this was not an issue, the issue was addressed by ensuring that school personnel would use a school minivan to transport students as necessary rather than assign this task to graduate students driving them in their personal vehicles. This plan, though not needed in implementation, remains in place for future iterations of the project. Lastly, community members and partners required a clear statement of what the final output of this project would be. Importantly, the expectation should not be for a highly polished and comprehensive study and analysis, as it would be student-driven and highly constrained in time and resources available for commitment to the project. For example, the failure to attract

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

73

parents to the PTSA meeting for a focus group led the graduate faculty member to organize another focus group event with assistance from students in the class, as well as students from another graduate class to meet the labor need. This second event still did not generate ample parental participation. If this had been a funded needs assessment, additional effort would be undertaken to access and assess parental viewpoints; in this case, the effort was ended, and the challenge of engaging parents was taken up as a core area for graduate and high school students to address in making final recommendations to community school partners. Pedagogical Management As previously discussed, community engaged teaching has the potential to create learning opportunities that empower students and enable social change. Successful implementation of the effort thus requires structured learning opportunities for both graduate and high school students. For graduate students, the task is more straightforward, as the research is linked to course content delivered on a weekly basis in the classroom. For high school students, the service learning objectives were the same, but control over other course content was necessarily limited. The graduate faculty member visited the class three times in the course of the semester during the first year: first to introduce the project, second to train students on focus group protocol and procedure, and third to facilitate discussion with students on the results of the study and generate recommendations. Both groups of students were asked to reflect on their experiences; reflection is a core component of service learning, as it requires students to consider the meaning and implications of their work both in their lives and in the context of their coursework. The method for reflection was an individually written journal; this is a preferred method as it allows for a record to be kept of student reflections, thus permitting analysis afterwards in efforts to assess learning outcomes and other process issues. Each group of students was asked to respond to reflection prompts three times during the semester: once before the start of the project, once while the project was in process, and once at the conclusion of the project. High school students completed their journals in paper notebooks provided by the graduate faculty member; graduate students completed their journals electronically. The reflection questions for high school students consisted of the following. Journal 1: (1) What are your expectations for this semester’s service learning project? (2) What do you personally hope to contribute to the project? Journal 2: (1) How have your expectations regarding this project changed as you have worked as a recorder during focus groups? (2) How would you describe your experience working as a recorder during the focus groups? Have you encountered any particular challenges? (3) What have you

74

Chapter 5

learned by working with graduate students at UCF? Journal 3: (1) Based on your experience working on the community needs assessment project, do you feel you have the power to shape the future of Evans Community School? If so, explain why you feel you have the power. If not, explain why you feel you do not have that power. (2) What have you learned about the process of conducting research? Do you have an interest in working on future research projects that will allow you to conduct research? (3) You had a limited opportunity to interact with UCF graduate students. Describe how you might like to interact with UCF graduate students as part of your school work in the future. Reflection questions for graduate students were similar, except with added questions about the application of course content to the work being performed in the community. For instance: What barriers do you foresee in creating a sustainable community school that successfully engaged the crosssection of stakeholders? What theories and/or tools do you envision as being applicable to the recommendations we are making to Evans Community School? They were also asked about their relationship with the high school students: What have you learned from them, or what observations do you have about their contributions to this project? Role of the Graduate and High School Faculty The implementation of “joined-up” service learning requires intensive commitment on the part of both graduate and high school faculty. Three tasks for the graduate faculty are common with other large-scale service learning projects: development of a research protocol, facilitation of reflection, and facilitation of a joint writing process to develop a final report with recommendations (Bryer 2011). Perhaps the most complex component of the process is the writing of the final report. With students assigned to different “tasks” (e.g., focus groups with students, focus groups with parents, etc., and literature review), the graduate instructor asks for a volunteer from each group to serve on a writing team. It is this volunteer team that writes the final report and drafts recommendations, facilitated in their discussion by the instructor. The draft recommendations are then presented to the rest of the students and edited as necessary. All students must be willing to give up a little control over the final written report, and thus a portion of their course grade, in order for this process to occur in a timely fashion. Unique to the “joined-up” model are the addition of logistics management and the inclusion of high school students in crafting the final report. The high school faculty member was needed to prepare her students for participation, keep reflection journals, and facilitate the journaling process. She also must disrupt her other course plans to accommodate the instructional needs of the graduate faculty.

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

75

In designing, preparing, and evaluating the course, several lessons learned are apparent. Notably, the model shifted from the first iteration to the second, which represents the first lesson: to be adaptable and responsive to student feedback. Particularly as student empowerment is part of the objective, and empowerment intended to extend beyond the classroom to the broader community, responsiveness to student interests is vital. In this case, the model for teaching became more integrative and more fulfilling, both from a teaching and learning perspective. Second, maintaining open communication with the community partner (in this case, the high school) is vital. The process required a good bit of change and some extra work on the part of high school faculty and administrators, including the devotion of class periods to the research (during the first iteration) and setting up after school times for graduate and high school students to convene both face-to-face and via conference call. Third, the model described here was implemented over two semesters a year apart. This kind of process, implementing the SEE DEMOS model and integrating across the higher education vistas of skill development, job preparation/creation, citizenship development, and knowledge creation, can occur within a single semester with a more narrowly defined project. That said, developing and maintaining a trusting partnership with a community partner for repeated interactions and engagements, where ability to contribute to the good life of youth and residents in a single community over time, is powerful and impactful for students, as they see how their contribution fits into a broader movement. A recognition develops that community change that is truly transformational takes time and repeated engagements OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS AND COMMUNITY: METHOD Following the method employed by Bryer (2011), student reflection journals were content coded to assess learning outcomes. This analysis focuses particularly on the moral rationale described by Dicke, Dowden, and Torres (2004), which concerns the development of student empowerment and orientation towards an active role in the community. The other rationales pursued in the project—community service and instrumental—are not assessed here. To analyze the journals the author/course instructor and a volunteer not involved with the project read through all student journals, coding statements as whole sentences and/or paragraphs related to student empowerment and the development of a role orientation in the community. Coders grouped statements independently into categories based on similar meaning, after which time the coders met to discuss the categories created. A final set of categories and statements were defined through consensus, and coders independently re-coded all statements into the agreed upon categories. The final

76

Chapter 5

inter-coder agreement was 96%; the statements presented herein are based on the coding of the author. OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS AND COMMUNITY: FINDINGS Graduate students entered the project with great anticipation for what they could achieve; high school students were more measured in their approach, particularly during the first year. By the end of the project, graduate students were generally upbeat on the potential of their work to inform decisionmaking; high school students were mixed in the extent to which they believed they had the power to affect positive change in their school during the first year but were much more enthusiastic during the second year. All students recognized the unique characteristics of the community engaged service project. Overall, one conclusion is that this “joined-up” model of service learning, while logistically challenging, can be effective for giving voice to those who generally do not perceive themselves to have such power; however, for the high school students who experience their lives continually subjugated by the conditions of their neighborhood and family life, the continued lack of perceived power suggests the need for on-going collaborative partnerships such as these. To do otherwise (i.e., one-time research partnership, followed by departure of the university) would perhaps be more damaging to the students’ efficacy. What follows are more detailed findings from the student journals. Uniqueness of the Community Engaged Teaching Experience This was a fully unique experience for all parties involved. Graduate students who had prior opportunities for service learning projects were in a position to assess the difference, and some of them offered their conclusions. “I have done service-learning projects in previous classes before, but the Evans High School focus groups were different because it actually allowed me (and my peers) to interact with the individuals that would be affected directly by the outcome of our research.” Similarly, another student offered that “not all of [my prior service learning courses] have students civically engage in the activities such as finding the problems a particular community faces, and addressing those problems through offering the best alternative and practice.” The most unique part of this project, of course, was the “joined-up” partnership between graduate and high school students. Graduate students seemed to learn more from the high school students than vice versa; indeed, the high school students lamented a lack of overall interaction during the first year but reported great enthusiasm and desire for more opportunities in the second year. Those high school students who did respond positively to the

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

77

interaction discussed how they observed professionalism, but they longed for more of a mentoring relationship. Graduate students, on the other hand, were split between gaining inspiration from the high school students and, like the high school students, finding the interactions to be limiting during the first year. On a practical note, one graduate student considered how “working with the students was very enlightening because it showed me their dynamics as a student and what they wish to see in a future school.” Another student wrote that the “collaborations with the students surpassed my expectations; the students were very interactive during the focus groups and offered innovative ideas.” This student continued: “The [high school] students are great students that really want to see their school become a safe, fun, and productive learning environment for them.” Similarly, one graduate student noted the commitment and empowerment of the high school students: “This project isn’t something that the students are just letting happen to their school; they want to be a part of the transition. The students have actually made me more excited about this project.” One student summarized this positive outlook: “I feel that working with them was inspiring and gave me hope that this project would be a success.” Still other students saw the unique partnership as a mentoring or even parental relationship. One graduate student wrote that he sees a need to ensure the “unheard” have a voice. Another wrote: “I hope that through the class interaction with the students and community we have shown them that they do have a voice and the leaders of Evans Community School want to hear what they have to say.” In the parental frame, one graduate student stated that “as college students and faculty interacting with students, we serve as role models for them and encourage them that higher education is a possibility.” More directly, another student wrote that “what’s important is that we invest in those children, not only funds, but leadership that guides them to college, while more emphasis is placed on high school students being prepared for college overall.” Though some of the graduate students readily adopted this mentoring role, it was not designed as such and was not perceived as such by the high school students. Anticipatory Contributions High school students were more muted in what they thought they could contribute, as they never had this kind of prior experience. For those who did state some kind of anticipation, the comments reflected a strong desire to see their community improve. For instance: “I personally just hope to contribute some ideas that might benefit my community and make Pine Hills a better place for everyone.” Another offered: “My expectation for this project is to

78

Chapter 5

help Evans High get a better name and not be a school that people look down to.” Graduate students saw their role in less personal terms but, consistent with the graduate professional degree they were seeking, perceived themselves as playing a small part in a larger narrative of change. One student summed it up with the parable of the ant: “In short, the interest in and commitment to the high ideals here, belief and trust I have, sharing the same goals and responsibilities with other stakeholders will help me at least pour a bucket [of] water to extinguish this societal fire. Perhaps, I will not be able to see the outcomes; however, my side will be determined to the public good as a deliberative ant said. When sarcastically asked ‘why’ an ant, it said that I may not be able to extinguish the fire with the water I carry in my mouth; however, my side is determined. This is enough for me.” More straightforward, a student offered that he “hopes to be able to say that I assisted in putting together a project which will improve the community of Pine Hills.” Others spoke more broadly about the opportunity to “give back to the community.” In recognizing their role as agents of change, however minor, students saw the unique opportunity to assist those who are in need. “I believe it is a wonderful idea that we are joining privilege[d] students with students that are misfortunate. This connection allows students to actually become involve[d] with the external disadvantages of other[s] rather than to just read about it.” Another offered: “My background is extremely different than those that live in the Pine Hills area, and it will be interesting to gain insight of how I can reach out more and help my community.” Recognizing these two worlds, another student wrote how he wished to “get their voice heard through ethical research, dedication to presenting accurate information, and working with group members and classmates to obtain the best result possible.” Another student hoped to serve as a “catalyst for younger people to be actively engaged citizens.” Overall, across high school and graduate students, there was palpable desire to engage with the project and to pursue change in the community. The differences were in intensity and personalization; high school students, with the lived experience in the community, were more intent on pursuing an improvement in their own lot in life. Empowerment and Achievement Self-empowerment can be realized through observable achievement. As one graduate student suggested: “Engaging ourselves in field work brings us a sense of fulfillment, as we can see first-hand the results of our labor, class lectures, readings, and theories discussed.” Students reflected on some of what they think they achieved. “I think we contributed also with our ap-

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

79

proach to the data collected. We worked hard to encourage participation from each stakeholder, including students, teachers, administrators, and community, faith and business leaders of the Pine Hills area.” Another graduate student reflected on his work and the link to an improvement in the community: “I have through my work contributed to Evans High School and the Pine Hill community in that through the focus groups I helped facilitate communication between stakeholders, brought my unique understanding of the course content I learned, and have exhibited a professional demeanor that show cased UCF in a good light—as did we all!” Other students reflected on their own self-fulfillment and hope for desired change. For instance, a graduate student offered that he “continues to remain optimistic that our project can build knowledge and provide feedback that may prove valuable to the Pine Hills community.” Another related that he is “so much happy and consider myself lucky since I have been involved in this public participation process, feeling and hoping wholeheartedly that a more stable, secure, and prosperous neighborhood in Pine Hills will be a hub for our children, our future.” When asked if they felt empowered, high school students also responded affirmatively: “I think I do because if I make good grades I can help Evans better its name. To let people know that Evans kids are smart. I feel that I can change that.” Another offered simply that “I do because I’m shaping the future of my school.” Despite these general feelings of optimism and empowerment, both graduate and high school students recognized through their observations or their own self-awareness that change is challenging. The graduate students recognized the challenges ahead based on their learning in the course. “My optimism has had a glimpse of reality after learning so much about the difficulties encountered in a cross-sectoral effort. I understand that the road to success will be hard and filled with mishaps.” Another stated: “Collaboration across sectors is difficult. It’s tempting to think of only yourself and the agency you may represent. As if individual internal struggles weren’t enough, one has to take into consideration that everyone involved in collaboration has their own beliefs and doubts as to whether or not they are working for the right cause.” The high school students who raised concern were more introspective, given their personal lived experience in the environment that is the subject of change. “Not that I don’t think I have the power, but I don’t think I would be willing to start a change on my own. It takes time, a dedicated leader, and others to back you up.” This same student, paralleling the graduate student’s ant parable, reflected: “I really enjoyed being part of the change that I would like to see.” There were, however, a number of high school students who did not, after the completion of the project, feel empowered to effect change, most particularly in the first year. Though it must be noted that these responses were collected prior to the release and presentation of the final report and recom-

80

Chapter 5

mendations, and one student cited this as the reason for lack of felt power: “. . . because I have not seen the result of us participating.” Besides this explanation, students offered a variety of justifications for their feeling. • No decision authority. “I do not feel I have the power to shape Evans because I can sit here and demand a million things, but when I will actually see the effect of that is years from now until I see change. We begged for a new school for years and now we got it because somebody with power somewhere decided it.” • Lack of passion. “I feel that I do not have that power. I feel that way because I’m just one little person, and I don’t have enough drive and passion for this project.” • Lack of control. “I feel that I don’t have the power to shape the future of Evans Community School. A lot of people might want to shape it for the better, but it is unknown if we will succeed or not. It all depends if the future students of Evans High keep it on positive and for the best.” • Lack of support. “I feel that I don’t have the power, because I feel people wouldn’t cooperate.” These perceptions largely changed in the second iteration of the project, with students finding more power given their closer working relationship with graduate students and participation in the final presentation to community leaders at the end of the semester. One student summarized the hope, optimism, and gratitude embedded within the partnership model within an anonymous journal and without prompt: Thank you for the opportunity to be part of the community school focus group process. I speak on the behalf of Evans High students when I say we appreciate your efforts to try to make our school not feel like a school, but a home, and for that we are grateful. We know that you do not have to do these things for us, most people don’t know us and don’t know how great we can be and the things we can do or our talents and hopes and dreams that we hold. They don’t know what we go through and the pain and struggles we deal with. Evans is my home. I walk these halls and I see my brothers and sisters fall, they fall into the temptations and cruelty of this world. I see how great and stunning they are, things other people will never see. So on behalf of my family I say thank you UCF . . . Thank you.

CONCLUSION ON PEDAGOGICAL EXAMPLE The good life, defined as meeting basic needs of health, respect, security, personality, harmony with nature, friendship, and leisure, can be pursued for individual students and broader members of communities served by students through community engaged teaching efforts that bridge community engaged

Example of Pedagogy: Joined-Up Service Learning

81

teaching and participatory action research. The case addresses these needs on a couple of levels. First, individual students, through the process of stakeholder engagement and partnership in research with diverse students, developed a capacity for greater respect, an opportunity to share their unique personalities, and a chance to forge new potential friendships. Their research activity was aimed at providing more healthy communities to residents, enhancing security or mitigating through their recommendations the chance that crime or poverty would disrupt their lives, and exploring their relationship with the natural and manmade environments around them. The project helped students strive for community change to facilitate the pursuit of the good life by others, while simultaneously empowering students to effect the change they perceived as necessary. The project further incorporated the four vistas of higher education: developer of citizens, creator and disseminator of knowledge, trainer of workers, and creator of jobs. Figure 5.3 summarizes how these purposes were enacted in the case, all combining to empower individuals in pursuit of the good life, leading, in the long-term, to stronger communities. The project helped develop citizens by forging social relationships across high school and graduate students, and between students and various institutions in the community. Further, students came to develop their political intelligence, realizing both the limits of their power as well as the institutional and organizational entry points to affect desired change. As a creator and disseminator of knowledge, the project went beyond Freire’s (2011) banking method of education typified by depositing bits of information into the vaults of students’ minds. The project experientially created the political intelligence needed by students to effect change (as well as recognition of their own limited power without support from appropriate officials) and created social awareness of the complex needs of communities. The latter was particularly true for graduate students, who gained exposure to lifestyles and customs that were unique to their own, given the different socio-economic context of students living in an urban poor environment. Last, the project helped train (future) workers and create jobs by conducting research that can lead to the strengthening of community foundations. Students reflected on this long-term potential, recognizing both that the necessary change will take time and that, once in place, the change will help families gain a more firm financial foothold in their community. The community itself, in the longer-term, might become a center for new businesses to open or existing businesses to expand. As skill developer, students developed skills, such as in inter-personal communication, stakeholder engagement, and leading in diverse communities. Such skills can be valuable for future academic and career pursuits.

82

Figure 5.3. Learning.

Chapter 5

Integrating Higher Education Narratives in Joined-Up Service

Chapter Six

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

The Center for Public and Nonprofit Management (CPNM) at the University of Central Florida was launched as the Capacity Building Institute in 2003. It was developed initially to respond to community demand for assisting smallto medium- sized nonprofit organizations develop capacity for strategic planning, board governance, volunteer management, grant writing, collaboration, performance measurement, and employee development. It operated as the Capacity Building Institute for five years, receiving in excess of $1 million to build nonprofit capacity, funding which was leveraged by the nonprofits assisted for organization growth, fundraising, staff development, and sustainability. In 2008, the Institute was recast as the CPNM under the founding directorship of Dr. Naim Kapucu. It adopted a broader focus to include research on civil society, public participation, and emergency management. From 2008 until 2011, the CPNM received nearly $4 million in grant funding for community engaged research projects and continued capacity building efforts. In 2011, the CPNM evolved again and began the process of “democratizing education” as a formal imperative. This was accomplished by specifically engaging faculty associated with the CPNM in research and communitybased projects. For instance, the CPNM engaged in a study of food security and nutrition in a low-income urban area, engaging community partners in both education and information gathering; it similarly engaged in a study of education in two rural counties. Notably, the CPNM received a grant from the U.S. Corporation for National and Community Service to host an Ameri83

84

Chapter 6

Corps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) project intended to build the capacity of government, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations to better meet the needs of homeless students in k-12 education. These are only a few of the initiatives. This chapter reports on the initiatives and the governance structure of the CPNM, which utilizes a community-based advisory council model to strategically align faculty research with community members who can most benefit from the research. Finding this alignment between university and community is vital for achieving the purpose of higher education, as defined in this book: to train citizens, develop skills, create and disseminate knowledge, and create jobs. GOVERNANCE The CPNM is led by a faculty director who performs the role as an administrative service in addition to performing other faculty roles (e.g., teaching, research, service); it is managed on a daily basis by a full-time assistant director and is supported by part-time student assistants and other grantbased project directors. Four faculty members serve as coordinators of research activity in distinct areas (democracy and citizen engagement; diversity and inclusiveness; collaborative governance; sustainability). This team, in addition to the director of the School of Public Administration and full-time assistant director of the center, acts as the oversight committee for the CPNM, providing monthly policy and program guidance. A core governance feature of the CPNM is the use of a community advisory council that has the mission of helping ensure the research activity of faculty and students and is relevant for and responsive to the needs and interests of the community. This means that the members help identify and support grant opportunities, translate academic papers using language better fit for the community audience, develop recommendations for practice based on faculty and student research, and share those recommendations with their networks in order to achieve the widest and deepest impact of research activity in the community. Two instruments used to communicate research findings are research and issue briefs. Issue briefs are six- to eight-page documents that summarize core research in visually appealing ways, with ample use of graphics. Research briefs are one-page documents that summarize research in 150 words and provide recommendations for practitioners. Both are designed and supported with consultation from the community advisory board and other stakeholders who are intended users of the documents.

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

85

INITIATIVES The initiatives described here are assessed by their ability to integrate across these areas and achieve, ultimately, what I call a Return on Engagement (ROE). They have focused on enhancing citizenship skills and creating a culture of active, ethical citizenship, both for students within the university as well as for other members of society (DEMOS). They have sought to create processes for skills development among students and community members alike, to disseminate knowledge in ways meaningful and accessible by the diverse stakeholders of the CPNM (e.g., scholarly community, students, practitioners, citizen-volunteers, et cetera). Last, though they have not directly created jobs, the information developed had (and continues to have) the potential to persuade budget makers to create new paid employment opportunities to meet performance or skills gaps identified through CPNM activities. Figure 6.1 summarizes each of the CPNM’s reviewed initiatives in terms of how they address the four university narratives/purposes, thus answering the question: what is the CPNM’s Return on Engagement? Five initiatives are reviewed as a demonstration of DEMOS and a demonstration of achieving Return on Engagement. ROE focuses not on cost-benefit analyses but on how the input of faculty and students on the ground, embedded in community, achieve short- and long-term results, where some-

Figure 6.1.

Return on Engagement.

86

Chapter 6

times the results are ambiguous (e.g., citizenship). The calculation assumes the need for “paying it forward,” where a return or measurable outcome may be two or more years away. This is indeed a benefit of academia. The institution if not unduly pressured to conform to singular measures of short-term success (e.g., graduation rates, job placement rates) can take a long view to experiment with and study social and economic interventions free from (direct) political pressure and what one CPNM advisory council member likes to refer to as, to borrow the popular phrase, the “fierce urgency of now.” Thus freed (for the most part) from some of these pressures, we turn to five initiatives. The first is the CPNM’s AmeriCorps VISTA project to enhance capacity for meeting needs of homeless students in central Florida. The second is a program found around the globe but lacking in the region around the university: walking school bus, designed to encourage more kids and families to walk safely to school rather than drive in individual automobiles. Third is a partnership with the City of Orlando on their Orlando Cares: Cities of Service Initiative, seeking to make volunteerism a central core of municipal service delivery. Fourth is the CPNM’s partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service to study and recommend ways to enhance an initiative called Together for Tomorrow, which promotes community partnerships to strategically deploy volunteers in an effort to improve academic behavior and performance in low-income schools around the nation. Last is a community-engaged nutrition analysis in a “food desert” community where access to fresh fruits and vegetables is limited. AmeriCorps VISTA National service programs like AmeriCorps VISTA are designed to help alleviate poverty through the dedicated work of citizen-volunteers. These programs have generally received bipartisan support but have been challenged with empirically demonstrating impact within specific policy areas or sustainably over time (Nesbit and Brudney 2010). A university is in an ideal position both to serve as a coordinating mechanism for local national service initiatives and to evaluate those initiatives over an extended period of time using advanced analytic techniques (Bryer et al. 2013). Typically, single organizations apply directly to the Corporation for National and Community Service for one or a small group of VISTA members. There are two potential limitations to this approach. First, separating VISTA members into organizational silos without any connection between them may prevent or otherwise limit the ability to coordinate VISTA service to achieve deep impact in a specific social or policy area. Second, the individual organizations may vary in their level of sophistication to track and ultimately measure outcomes associated with VISTA service. As a program and a federal agency that,

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

87

despite its bipartisan support, is habitually under threat of defunding, the ability to both achieve and rigorously demonstrate impact is vital. Since the 1930s and more specifically since the 1960s, the U.S. government has promoted volunteer service as a core attribute of active citizenship. Whereas Republican and Democratic presidential administrations have varied in their approach to promoting the ideals of citizenship and their philosophy regarding the role of the federal government in such promotion, both parties have been consistent in their emphasis on volunteerism and national service (Bryer 2012-a). The Franklin Roosevelt administration was the first to venture into the concept of federally sponsored volunteer service as a means to achieve broader societal goals. At that time, the administration was concerned with putting able-bodied men to work in the thick of the Great Depression, while simultaneously working to preserve and rebuild an expanding acreage of national forests—twin interests that gave rise to the Civilian Conservation Corps (Egan, 2009). In the 1960s, the United States saw a renewed interest in fighting poverty, and governmental leaders sought avenues for citizens to serve the community and nation at home, just as they were able to do internationally through the Peace Corps. Thus, during the Johnson administration, we saw the launch of VISTA, Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired Senior Volunteer Program—all initiatives to engage citizens in service activities to strengthen communities and fight poverty. As described to VISTA members in their official handbook: [T]he purpose of VISTA, as authorized in the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA) of 1973, as amended is: To strengthen and supplement efforts to eliminate and alleviate poverty . . . in the United States by encouraging and enabling persons from all walks of life, all geographic areas, and all age groups, including low-income individuals . . . to perform meaningful and constructive volunteer service in agencies, institutions, and situations where the application of human talent and dedication may assist in the solution of poverty and poverty related problems.

The sacrifice expected of volunteers was apparent. President Johnson stated, in swearing in the first 20 VISTA members in 1964, “your pay will be low; the conditions of your labor often will be difficult, but you will have the satisfaction of leading a great national effort, and you will have the ultimate reward which comes to those who serve their fellow man” (Corporation for National and Community Service 2006). VISTA members commit to one year of service, receive a small living allowance, access to health services, and they get an educational grant at the end of their year of service. George H. W. Bush’s administration was next to renew attention on national service, with his creation of the Commission on National and Community Service to support full-time service and encourage service learning in

88

Chapter 6

schools. The Clinton administration followed and ushered in the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and AmeriCorps. VISTA was placed under this umbrella to stand as it does today as AmeriCorps VISTA, a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations increased popular and financial support to national service programs. President Bush called on Americans to devote two years of their lives or 4000 hours to service and volunteerism; President Obama’s first legislative accomplishment was the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which increased funding for the range of CNCS programs, including AmeriCorps VISTA. Since 1994, there have been over 800,000 AmeriCorps and VISTA members who have served the nation with over one billion hours of service (Corporation for National and Community Service 2013). VISTA members have engaged in a range of activities to help alleviate poverty through government, faith-based, and nonprofit capacity building, through cultivation of new programs, development of new systems of volunteer management, and creation of donor database systems to communicate with donors and track donations. Continued support for national service programming is backed by research indicating a number of benefits. For instance, those who participate in service are more likely to continue volunteering, to engage civically and politically in their community, and seek a career in government or nonprofit service (Nesbit and Brudney 2010). Further, data suggest that AmeriCorps has maintained neutrality in its volunteer activities and populations served, without bias in gender or race (Simon 2002). National service programs are not without challenge however. There remain questions on the ability of public policies, such as national service programs, to increase volunteering beyond levels that would otherwise be achieved, as well as the ability of volunteerism to have lasting impact on pressing social issues (Nesbit and Brudney 2010). The difficulty of measuring outcomes associated with volunteerism presents perhaps the most significant challenge for continued support to entities and programs like the CNCS and AmeriCorps (Reingold and Lenkowsky 2010). It is also one challenge which strategic partnerships between government agencies and higher education institutes and centers can help to address. The AmeriCorps VISTA project hosted in the CPNM seeks to take advantage of the program’s strengths and mitigate its challenges. Specifically, the project has aimed to capitalize on the volunteer passion and commitment that has defined VISTA since its inception during the Lyndon Johnson administration while applying the rigor of skilled academic research to measure and ultimately demonstrate impact of the project, beyond anecdote and beyond the “feel good” of volunteerism. With this combination, the project’s ROE is high on all four higher education dimensions: development of citi-

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

89

zens, creation of jobs, training of workers, and creation & dissemination of knowledge. Exit memos written by VISTA members are called upon here to add to the robustness of the discussion that follows on each of these points. Developer of Citizens VISTA is part of a menu of national and volunteer service programs supported by the U.S. federal government. Unlike VISTA, which limits volunteers to capacity building activity, other service branches permit direct service to client populations, such as students, homeless individuals, et cetera. For instance, AmeriCorps City Year places volunteers directly in schools with children; Senior Corps places older citizens in direct relationship with other individuals who need assistance. Across these and other national service arenas, a fundamental shared value and outcome is the cultivation of citizenship. Volunteers, through their work in the community, develop new social connections, learn how to use those connections to achieve social and economic ends, and come to understand better the levers of authority and power in community, thus enabling greater efficacy in the volunteer effort. Let us take a look at a couple of examples from CPNM VISTA members. In developing citizens, we look for how individuals become more socially connected and more politically intelligent. On the political intelligence side—how individuals understand the dynamics and processes required to achieve change—one VISTA member reports: The community service I had been involved with prior to VISTA service never addressed issues as complex as these and until I was involved in them directly, it was easy to assume that solutions could be reached with enough hard work and dedicated individuals. I know now that finding solutions to these problems is much more complicated than it seems to be, even with the work of people that have a sincere desire to make a difference.

Another VISTA member more passionately reflected on his realization that change in practice to address homelessness is not simple: “I am quite frustrated at what I have learned in that so much is all talk and no action. The red tape and bureaucracy MUST cease. We are dealing not with widgets but with human souls.” Still another reflected on the challenges of implementing a law passed specifically to aid in providing resources and assistance to homeless students (the McKinney-Vento Act): “What’s even more surprising that I have learned is that even though this law is in place, there are still schools that will not enroll these students due to other issues with the number of children to teacher ratios, or other political reasons that have nothing to do with the rights of these homeless students.” VISTA members clearly expanded their political intelligence, recognizing the challenges of both creating new policy and implementing laws that

Chapter 6

90

are already on the books. From a social connection perspective, VISTA members reported new connections with different organizations, such as the National Center for Homeless Education (center.serve.org/nche), the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (naehcy.org), and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (nlchp.org). Additionally, they realized the value of networking and building relationships across other individuals in the community, with one VISTA member stating: From the beginning of service, the other VISTA [members] and I were informed of the importance of networking. Even though I heard this advice, I didn’t internalize and act on it. Networking can be beneficial not only to you personally but also to your [work]site. I wish that I pursued more networking opportunities, particularly to help my site become more known in the community. I recommend taking some time every week to research interesting networking opportunities, and then committing to attend a certain number of networking events every month or so.

Creator of Jobs The VISTA program does not directly create jobs in the manner presupposed by observers of universities as economic engines (Berman 2012); the jobs created are not necessarily high wage nor local economy altering. However, the process of the job creation is essentially the same. Just as university faculties and students might help craft a new technology or innovation that can be commercialized, thus creating jobs, the VISTA members create capacity for organizations that did not previously exist. With increased capacity comes the potential for new employment positions to fulfill the greater potential. For example, VISTA members developed an initial template for a newsletter intended to communicate the success of the organization and to solicit charitable contributions. The organization subsequently sought a permanent graphic designer to produce the newsletter on a recurring basis. This is not an economy-transforming job, but it is a position that can transform the organization while supporting the employment needs of the local community. Trainer of Workers The VISTA program focuses on organizational and community capacity building. Hosting the program within the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management within the university, VISTA members received weekly skills building and professional development courses, which they could then take to train organizational members at their worksites. Subjects included in train-

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

91

ing are tied to the task assignments of the VISTA members, such as volunteer management, grant writing, networking, strategic planning, and fundraising. One VISTA member commented: “For our training opportunities we were presented with many different topics to aid our…duties and tasks as well as professional development for during and after VISTA. Being able to participate in different conferences and networking events aided in being able to gain skills with networking that was not a strong area for me and also to gain some important contacts that may help with future plans.” Another simply commented: “between the faculty, the library, and the trainings, there were an incredible amount of resources at our fingertips.” Creator and Disseminator of Knowledge VISTA members directly gain exposure to different social and economic settings and experiences. Thus, increasing social awareness is a core and fundamental characteristic of the VISTA experience. This is accomplished through education about issues like homelessness and poverty but also forced living under very tough financial conditions, with the members earning just a little over the official poverty line in the region they are serving. One VISTA member summarized these lessons as such: The most important lesson that I have taken away from my work this year is an understanding of the broad scope and multifaceted nature of issues such as poverty and childhood homelessness . . . Another lesson I learned is how quickly and easily families enter into homeless situations, sometimes through no fault of their own. Throughout the year, I heard many stories of families losing their homes after one instance of job loss, illness, or accident. I had no idea how precariously many families live on the edge of losing stable housing, and I had no appreciation for how that stress affects each member of the family, especially children.

Another VISTA member reflected on the development of greater empathy, stating: I do not think my perception has been drastically changed because it has been changed through previous experiences with homeless families outside of the school context, but it has helped me to empathize more with what we consider “difficult” students. My husband is a teacher and has had to deal with some children that made his life difficult. This has helped me to rethink how I view those students, realizing that I often have no idea what the child is facing, where they slept the night before, or what other challenges have resulted in the behavior.

One final example comes from a VISTA member who also had some previous exposure to homelessness but not in the expansive way revealed during

92

Chapter 6

the program: “Before starting as a VISTA, I volunteered with a ministry that served the homeless, and had the image of a single, middle-aged people in my mind when I thought of homelessness. This past year introduced me to another side of homelessness which is much more prevalent than commonly believed—child homelessness.” We turn now to another project embedded within the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management, with similar purpose in capacity building but some very different approaches to using citizen development, job creation, skills development, and knowledge dissemination to strengthen communities and help more citizens pursue the good life. WALKING SCHOOL BUS Walking School Bus (also commonly known as Safe Routes to School) is a program implemented in countries throughout the world, most prominently in Europe but gaining traction in the United States. The object of the program is to encourage and facilitate students who live within a couple miles of their school to walk rather than be driven. Walking is hypothesized to lead to improved physical health (measured by BMI and cholesterol) as well as improved academic performance. Much of the research on Walking School Bus programs has been single case studies, and there has been little systematic review across cases. In one review of the literature, Sirard and Slater (2008) find that active transportation (i.e., walking and bicycling) to school led to overall more active lifestyles given that there is “no evidence that children who actively commute to school are less active at other times of the day” (392). However, active transportation to school does not necessarily lead to or correlate with reduced weight. The challenge identified in the review was that there was no common data collection process and framework across the case studies available, thus making definitive conclusions about the benefit of the program uncertain. Thus, there is a need for ongoing and systematic assessments of Walking School Bus programs to determine what works, how it works, and under what conditions it works. In 2013, the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management signed a twoyear contract with the Florida Department of Transportation to help expand the Walking School Bus program to elementary schools within a nine-county region in central Florida. The center hired a new assistant director for the program, who in turn hired four student research assistants. Center staff members were charged with building the capacity of schools and other community organizations to design, implement, and sustain the Walking School Bus program. To accomplish this aim, center staff developed program manuals, volunteer recruitment and training guides, and provided assistance and tools for mapping safe walking routes.

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

93

As with the VISTA program, the Walking School Bus program contributes to the four purposes of the university, each integrated and contributing to the strengthening of communities and pursuit of the good life, in this case for students who walk, volunteers who lead the walks, parents of students, as well as participating university students. Developer of Citizens Walking School Bus programs rely on volunteer citizens to monitor children on the walk to and from school and to ensure child safety. In so volunteering, they and the children with whom they are walking have the opportunity to forge new social connections with fellow parents and volunteers. Concurrently, they have the opportunity to learn about safety in neighborhoods, including availability and width of sidewalks, grassy areas between street and sidewalk, speed limits, and stop signs. Along the walk, they may likely find instances of less than ideal safe walking conditions, thus creating an opportunity for civic engagement to address the safety gap. This can be a positive step towards the development of more socially connected and politically intelligent citizens. Creator of Jobs It is the ambition of this project to develop capacity of schools and community organizations to run Walking School Buses on their own, without the assistance of the center. Ideally, the enhanced capacity and demand for the program, once demonstrated effective, will lead to schools and community organizations creating new or adding to existing positions to manage the program. This is an area where research still needs to show if this happens over time, but it is the ambition that it does. Trainer of Workers The project provides training to volunteers on pedestrian safety, a competency appropriate for any citizen. Additionally, through a creative service learning alliance with a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning class, students are being trained both in pedestrian safety and in the urban design principles that facilitate safer pedestrian neighborhoods. These students apply this training to assist schools in planning their Walking School Bus program by conducting “walkability audits” of the neighborhoods around a given school. Creator and Disseminator of Knowledge The aim of knowledge dissemination is to enable greater social awareness. Running and promoting this program enables dissemination of knowledge on

94

Chapter 6

significant health, safety, and education policy issues to diverse stakeholders. These include not only the program participants and volunteers but school officials, policymakers, and other parents in the community. If the program successfully communicates the importance of physical activity and its link to educational achievement, as has been empirically documented, then greater awareness of health and educational disparities becomes possible. This in turn can lead to increased public pressure and improved policies to reduce such disparities, creating more opportunity to pursue the good life for all. ORLANDO CARES In 2009, mayors from 17 U.S. cities launched an initiative called Cities of Service, designed to encourage volunteerism as a core strategy to address pressing social and economic concerns. With support from the Bloomberg Philanthropies, the initiative has spread to more than 100 cities around the country, with 20 cities receiving funds to hire a full time Chief Service Officer (CSO). The initiative is described on its website as follows (http:// www.citiesofservice.org/about/): As part of Cities of Service, mayors from across the nation have committed to work together to engage citizens in addressing critical city needs through impact volunteering. The coalition aims to create a vibrant and growing network of municipal governments effectively leveraging citizen service as a reliable, viable tool to achieve measurable impact on pressing local challenges. By accelerating the service movement at the most local level—connecting local needs to the supply of willing volunteers in innovative and impactful new ways—Cities of Service aspires to create a new chapter in America’s longstanding history of service while making local government more effective.

The City of Orlando is one of the cities granted funds to hire a CSO; as part of their grant, they were obligated to conduct an analysis of the state of volunteerism in the city, as well as within the specific areas of social and economic concern of interest to city officials. This analysis would be used to develop the official Service Plan, which would identify specific volunteer initiatives and measurable outcomes tied to those initiatives. Ultimately, the volunteer initiatives would lead to impact on social and economic conditions within the city, or what the Bloomberg Philanthropies calls impact volunteering. A summary of the Orlando Cares initiative is as follows (http:// www.orlandocares.net/summary.htm): Mayor Buddy Dyer’s citywide service plan—ORLANDO CARES—will connect Orlando residents to volunteer efforts that target pressing local challenges with a clear focus on impact. Orlando is a proud member of the Cities of

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

95

Service coalition and is one of 20 cities in the nation to receive a Cities of Service Leadership Grant, funded jointly by the Rockefeller Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, to develop a high-impact service plan. By joining Cities of Service, Mayor Dyer pledged that Orlando would unite in a nationwide effort to achieve the goals of the historic Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. Through this landmark legislation, all Americans have been called to volunteer their time to address their community’s pressing challenges. ORLANDO CARES is the product of a seven-month planning process, led by Mayor Buddy Dyer and coordinated by Orlando’s Chief Service Officer, Marcia Hope Goodwin. This process engaged hundreds of community stakeholders and service experts from the public and private sectors, including businesses, non-profits, neighborhood associations, faith institutions, schools, universities and every-day citizens. ORLANDO CARES is designed to insure that Orlando will be a leader in answering the call to service.

Working through the CPNM and a class of nine public affairs PhD students as part of a service learning/community-engaged research experience, I facilitated the landscape analysis, assessment, and reporting for Orlando Cares. The work involved the students conducting focus groups and surveys of key stakeholders. Collectively, they surveyed four stakeholder groups: school principals (n=46), nonprofit managers (n=40), city and county officials (n=16), and neighborhood leaders (n=32). Response rates were above 50% in all categories. Additionally, approximately 250 stakeholders from the above categories and faith organizations participated in focus groups at Orlando’s City Hall and the Amway Center. The full Service Plan is available online at: http://www.orlandocares.net/serviceplan.pdf. Developing Citizens and Disseminating Knowledge This initiative achieved, and continues to achieve as pro bono research consultation continues at the time of this writing, objectives tied to two of the four narratives. First, as an initiative it furthers the interests of developing or cultivating citizens, both among the students who work on the landscape analysis and for the people of the city of Orlando, who have the enhanced opportunities for engaging with and through their community to strengthen their community. These opportunities emerge thanks partially to the analysis completed and also through the partnership enjoyed between the CPNM and the City of Orlando. In the first year (April 2011-September 2012) of the initiative, across six volunteer projects, Orlando Cares recruited nearly 3,000 volunteers and successfully trained 1,318 volunteers across projects. These projects clearly provided an outlet for Orlando residents to be active citizens in their community to address issues, in this case, of youth education and delinquency.

96

Chapter 6

The initiative, from the university’s perspective, also enabled the creation and dissemination of knowledge to both advance the practice of volunteerism in the urban environment and to, through engagement of diverse citizens as volunteers, educate more citizens about the social and economic conditions of others in the community. Thus, the initiative bore witness to and has helped evaluate how volunteerism has achieved impact in youth education and delinquency, while providing data and data analysis for sharing with the broader community. The potential for greater community-wide social awareness of pressing issues is elevated through this partnership between the university and the city. Overall, the initiative has been able to show the impact of citizen volunteers on literacy of youth, engagement of high-risk youth in safer outside-of-school activities, and increased readiness to learn for more kids who enroll in preschool—just to name a few examples. TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW In 2010, the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnership, U.S. Department of Education, and Corporation for National and Community Service launched an initiative to help strategically deploy volunteers from community and faith organizations in low-income schools. The initiative developed across five pilot cities initially (Bryer and Toro 2013) and was given a different name in each place, such as the Interfaith School Turnaround Pilot Project in Orlando, Florida. Ultimately, to unify the effort and message nationwide, it was re-branded by the federal partners as Together for Tomorrow. Though formal evaluations are limited, in Orlando at least, preliminary data on the impact of the initiative on student success in targeted schools suggests positive results both for the student-recipients of volunteer service and for the volunteer-supplying organizations (Bryer 2014). Under the auspices of the CPNM and in partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service, a masters-level class conducted telephone interviews with stakeholders in each of the five pilot cities to learn about and document the formation of partnerships to benefit students at Title I schools. Divided across stakeholder groups, teams of students conducted five to thirty interviews lasting from approximately ten to sixty minutes, with certain stakeholders groups interviewing fewer individuals with a longer set of questions. The groups included VISTA sponsor organizations, as these were the entities that coordinated the capacity development for partnership formation using AmeriCorps VISTA resources. Additional stakeholders included school officials, volunteers serving as mentors in schools, and community partners. The Corporation for National and Community Service jointly developed research and interview questions with the students and professor and provided initial contact and important follow-up to the key stake-

Example of Institutional Design: Sustained Partnership with Community

97

holders. The end product of the study was a comprehensive report, complete with interview notes taken during the study process, and a national webinar coordinated by the Corporation for National and Community Service, during which class representatives presented findings and recommendations for an audience of approximately 100 community leaders. This initiative is an example that accomplishes two objectives: knowledge creation and dissemination, and skills development/trainer of workers. Student researchers helped raise awareness of the need for partnerships to address academic performance and behavior at schools in low-income communities. Through their comprehensive report and webinar, they communicated the significance of the issue and recommended actions communities can take to engage the issue successfully. Following the student effort, the CPNM published a graphically rich eight-page issue brief for broader dissemination, adding to the potential for dissemination of knowledge critical for community strengthening. The project also developed skills of workers by focusing on the specific skillset of partnership development; through the knowledge dissemination efforts community leaders and stakeholders were permitted to gain new insights in this area, including the opportunity to adopt and practice applied recommendations. FOOD DESERT More than 23 million Americans are reported to live in food deserts (U.S. Department of Education 2013), with more than half of this number also low income. The USDA defines food deserts as follows: Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options. The lack of access contributes to a poor diet and can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.

In 2012, the CPNM joined with a giving circle called 100 Women Strong to study the geographical, financial, and cultural barriers to healthy eating in an urban poor community called Pine Hills. A giving circle is a body of individual donors who join together, pool their charitable contributions, and democratically decide how to invest (Eikenberry 2009). In this case, the giving circle chose to invest in the promotion of healthy and nutritious food in the Pine Hills community. Before determining how to invest specifically (e.g., community garden, mobile food truck, healthy cooking classes), they desired a systematic assessment of need and opportunity.

98

Chapter 6

Faculty and staff affiliated with the CPNM worked through community and faith-based organizations to develop trust (however temporary) and gain access to community residents for data collection through surveys and focus groups. It was through these relationships that the research team created knowledge and then disseminated knowledge, so community members both provided data and received an integrated analysis about their context and condition. Importantly, the knowledge they received in return for their information contribution was actionable. This was a small project in the context of other CPNM initiatives but an impactful one. Thus, it is a good example of how impact and return on engagement can be achieved. Institutionally, the mechanisms for ongoing and sustainable impact and return on engagement, walking across all four narratives, are several, and suggestions are expounded in the next chapter.

Chapter Seven

A New Model for Higher Education

The ultimate purpose of higher education is to empower students and citizens to pursue the good life and strengthen communities. This “higher level” purpose consolidates the previously disparate functions/narratives/vistas of higher education: civic training, skills development, knowledge creation and dissemination, and job creation. All of these component parts are essential to achieve the higher end. Unfortunately, as expressed in chapter 3, many modern-day reforms are focused on one function at the potential expense of others. For instance, focusing on skill development and job creation, vital needs in today’s uncertain economy (and in the uncertain economies that will inevitably be experienced in the future), may result in lost focus on citizenship development. Further, a singular focus on economic motivations may devalue the benefits of knowledge creation and dissemination, thus allowing the legitimation of the opinion that anything more than 1000 scholarly publications about Shakespeare or Shakespeare’s works are useless (a perspective discussed in the first chapter). Significantly, what I suggest here is a path for higher education that does not follow management fads from business and government, adapting them as their own despite a high potential for ill fit. This has been the trajectory of fads and innovations over the past several decades (Birnbaum 2000). Budgeting reforms such as Management by Objectives, Program Performance Budgeting System, and Zero Based Budgeting were launched in governmental settings and transferred after a little time to higher education, each with very limited if any success. Benchmarking—or the act of comparing one’s own institution against that of another—similarly moved from the private sector to higher education. Even the process of strategic planning moved to higher

99

100

Chapter 7

education from use in other sectors, but like the budgeting systems, found obstacles to success (Birnbaum 2000). Strategic planning is an interesting example, in that it persists today, there are courses taught on it, and, as I tell nonprofit organizations engaging in strategic planning processes, there is a very high probability that the plan will sit on a shelf and not be used—that is, unless there is a commitment to its use from various stakeholders throughout the organization. In a university the list of stakeholders can include faculty, unit chairs or directors, associate deans and deans, and up into the upper administration of the institution. One—at least one—significant critique of strategic planning is that is has the potential to take management fads or other unproven techniques, establish them as formal goals or strategies, and effectively clothe them in the veil of rationality. Done well, a strategic planning effort with strategic implementation can lead an organization—and a multi-faceted institution like a university—to effectively fire on all cylinders, so to speak, achieving outcomes tied to the four narratives of higher education. Thus, what I call for through this book and in the recommendations that are specified in this chapter, is an effort to break the silos of strategically motivated segments of the university and achieve strategic integration. The potential of the university as a unique social and economic instrument—so unique that fads from other sectors cannot be simply replicated—can only be achieved through integration, through the yin and yang of the competing forces of markets, citizenship, jobs, and knowledge. Further, I argue for bottom-up innovations, rather than borrowed techniques from more hierarchical government organizations or more market-centered private-sector settings. Universities are unique if treated as a whole, if perceived and managed as a university and not a multiversity. In this chapter, I suggest how universities can promote an integrated focus across vistas, across disciplines, and across the university-community divide. They are ideas, concepts, notions that may not work or may not work universally across academic institutions. They are intended to spread virally like the best or worst fads discussed by Birnbaum (2000). They are intended as points of discussion, debate, and dialogue across units, across disciplines, and across the keepers of the insulated narratives in higher education. Topics to be addressed include: • Assessing (and planning for) Impact • Performance Funding • Graduation Requirements for Undergraduate, Graduate, and Doctoral Students • Tenure and Promotion Standards • Internationalization of Higher Education • Knowledge Dissemination, Open Access Journals, and MOOCs

A New Model for Higher Education

101

Any of the suggested institutional enhancements rely on institutionalization processes that are inclusive of both appropriate internal to the university and external stakeholders (Jacoby, 2009). Faculty buy-in is a must (Bringle and Hatcher 2004; Furco and Holland 2004) but may be hard to achieve, thus separate incentive and reward mechanisms may be necessary. There also must be alignment throughout the hierarchy in rationale for the reform efforts; there must be supportive infrastructure so that faculty and staff who jump on the bandwagon are not left in the wilderness; last, there must be financial support for the initiatives (Furco and Holland 2004). With these thoughts in mind, let us proceed to a few strategic suggestions. ASSESSING (AND PLANNING FOR) IMPACT What is the best way to assess impact of higher education? Reformers who focus on the role of higher education as job creators will suggest such measures as graduation rate and alumni job placement rate. These may be important measures, but an institution with a diverse set of disciplinary areas of focus and a multifaceted mission cannot be judged on these limited measures alone. Linking budget to these measures is even more problematic for the same reason. Instead, I suggest an assessment framework that captures both process outcomes and community impacts. Most fundamentally, this framework removes the focus on ROI (or Return on Investment). This focus is too narrowly concerned with financial gain or material achievement. For instance, if we provide additional funding to grow or develop academic program XYZ, what additional tuition revenues will be generated, what kinds of jobs will graduates be able to get, and what additional exposure will it generate for the university? These are more market-based concerns. Instead, the focus of the assessment framework I prefer is ROE (Return on Engagement). For instance, if we strategically align program XYZ through teaching, research, or service with the community, what new knowledge is created, what new community results are achieved (including economic results), and how are citizens empowered? The first question in monitoring and tracking the impacts of the community-engaged university is to define the variety of community relationships happening throughout the university. Whether the engagement is through research, teaching, or service, there are a range of possible relationships across the university and community—who designs the engagement? Who administers the engagement? Who interprets the output from the engagement? Who makes recommendations to the community based on the engagement? From the literature on action research particularly, we can identify numerous examples ranging from the university actor controlling the whole process to the community partner controlling the engagement. The most

102

Chapter 7

productive engagements are those where university and community work in partnership with each other to design, administer, interpret, and make recommendations based on the engagement (Herr & Anderson 2005; Ospina et al. 2004). The second question in assessing the community-engaged university concerns process outcomes. These outcomes are tied to more “typical” measures of academic success, such as generation of publications and external funding of research and other initiatives. The first outcome is trust with community increased. In action research generally, universities may sometimes get a bad rap as entities that enter a community, conduct a study, and then leave, never to be heard from again. In other words, the “standard research model” or the service or public intellectual traditions model (Peters 2010) does not include partnership with community in the design, administration, interpretation, and recommendation-making processes tied to research or teaching activities. Indeed, service learning not conducted well can be harmful to the community, as can research that doesn’t follow through with actually changing conditions in the community based on the research (Stoecker and Tryon 2009). A strategically implemented community-engaged project can develop trust bonds, thus permitting the achievement of social and economic outcomes in the community through combined efforts of university faculty and students, with community members. The second outcome is new funding opportunities for the university for research, scholarships, applied service contracts, et cetera. The pursuit of gold should not be the gold standard for community-engaged activities, but once those activities demonstrate the capacity and community-interests of the university—a process of “paying it forward”—then gold may certainly follow. Likewise, once capacity is demonstrated new opportunities for students should emerge through new service learning opportunities, the third outcome. When research achieves impact in the community, we can expect to see recognition of the community from outside academic circles, such as in newspapers or formal recognition by community partners. From an academic perspective, done well, faculty and students should be able to produce more publications not only on the research for knowledge dissemination but on the process of the research. Thus new faculty scholarly publications are an important outcome, as are new practitioner-focused publications that are necessary for achieving impact potentially beyond the narrow confines of the specific community-engaged project. Last, we should expect to see from a citizenship perspective, increased student and stakeholder engagement within the community as a result of the empowerment process embedded within community-engaged research or teaching initiatives. Overall these process outcomes ensure the vital interests of the university are met, particularly around publications and funding. The third question to

A New Model for Higher Education

103

ask in assessment is with respect to community impact, or the measures to ensure something—socially, economically, physically—is different and improved because of the community-engaged activities. Most fundamentally, what are the social, economic, or health indicators that can demonstrate that a study on healthy eating or a service learning project on education led, over time, to improved conditions for the target population? Were the recommendations made by a class regarding healthy eating implemented? If so, did that implementation lead to improved health outcomes? Second, is there organizational, institutional, or policy change resulting from the engagement? Next, is there new program/organization funding available to the community because of the research output? Last, are citizens and researchers more aware of issues facing communities than they were prior to the engagement? If so, this is a victory in that public attention on challenges can lead to more innovative thinking, more opportunities for research, and more experiments with interventions to address the challenge. Let’s take a couple of examples from previously explored cases. The AmeriCorps VISTA project was designed by both university professors and staff in coordination with community partners; similarly the relationship required joint administration with the university providing overall oversight and supervision and community partners providing daily management of VISTA members. Data produced were recorded by community partners, communicated to university officials, and jointly interpreted; plans for future growth of the program were also made jointly. The process has led to increased trust between university and community, and has produced new grant funding for the university and new charitable contributions to community partners. Engagement in the project by the university opened doors for new service learning experiences that have been successfully designed into courses (Bryer and Toro 2013), and the work has been recognized with attention in local media. Resulting from the project have thus far been two scholarly publications, three scholarly presentations, and additional practitioner-oriented presentations. A CPNM issue brief is, at the time of this writing, being prepared for practitioner distribution. Last, the project has engaged more students and community partners in the important work of meeting the social, physical, emotional, and academic needs of homeless children. We also see community impact in the project, with an increase in documented homeless students in the school district, increased test performance by homeless students, and thus, in the long term increased chance of future life and job success. The project has also led to increased stakeholder and public awareness of homelessness. By these measures, this is a success. These measures, importantly, align with the four narratives of higher education.

104

Chapter 7

It is perhaps easy to take an existing project and overlay it on an evaluation framework and declare a success. The power of the framework is more in its ability as an aid in planning new initiatives. Thus, professors and administrators in planning a research project or service learning undertaking can ask: will this initiative lead to all the process and community outcomes that are valued by me, by my institution, and by society? For example, I am developing a large-scale service learning project. In determining the “pay-out” of the project, I need to anticipate potential benefit to me, to my institution, to my students, to my community partners, and to society. If there is any gap in that list of stakeholders, then the “cost” of developing and implementing the project is perhaps not worth incurring. Breaking it down . . . What Kind of Research? The project would be co-designed with a community partner, the Community Hope Center (CHC). CHC is a nonprofit organization founded by a local Presbyterian church and aims to serve as a one-stop service center for homeless individuals and families who reside in one of a strip of hotels along what is known as the 192 corridor in Osceola County, Florida. This is a tourist area, a few minutes from Disney World, and is in many ways the epicenter of homelessness in central Florida. In fall 2013, the director of CHC approached me to learn how the CPNM or the university can help with some research and capacity building. Specifically, she wanted to conduct a community needs assessment—with a twist. Not only did she want to learn about the needs of the homeless families and the challenges they face in accessing needed services, she wanted to learn about the talents and strengthens the homeless families felt they could contribute back to the community (Corbett and Fikkert 2012). Essentially, she did not want a study that treated the homeless families as needy or as victims but instead as empowered individuals, who, if given the right resources, could be full participants in the transformation of their community. To ensure responsiveness to community need, co-designing a project is necessary; as the project is being conceived as a large-scale service learning initiative, joint administration is also essential. The other research questions—interpretation and recommendation making—can be negotiated further down the line. Before agreeing to do the project, questions about probable process and community impacts need to be addressed. First and fundamentally, what is the likelihood of a scholarly publication emerging through this initiative? Given the unique design of the desired study, there is opportunity both for a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning article as well as an empirical article that focuses on the personal and life outcomes tied to empowerment of homeless individuals in a research pro-

A New Model for Higher Education

105

cess. Such work would need to be more fully fleshed out, but the opportunity is clearly there. Likewise, there is opportunity for practitioner publications, particularly building on the work of Corbett and Fikkert (2012). Their book, When Helping Hurts, is both an academic text but also written for the faith community. Implementing their ideas in research outside of the context of faith organizations and church-based ministries can potentially validate their ideas in the secular context and provide insight for the faith community in the enactment of the notions of empowering those who would be otherwise treated as needy clients and victims. The project would also provide opportunity for at least the one-off service learning project required of this particular study. Importantly, if it works, future service learning opportunities would become available with the same and similarly oriented community-based organizations. This is important, as such relationships take time to develop; to go through that relationship development process for a one-off affair may not be worth the cost in time and other resources. Additionally, though the relationship would begin with a nocost service learning partnership with the community agency, if successful, it could lead to paid contract and grant opportunities to further assist the agency and other similarly situated agencies. Thus, doing the project can be interpreted as a “paying it forward” initiative with a reasonable expectation for future funded research opportunities. In terms of community impact, this project clearly has potential, as it would collect original data from a unique population, help document homeless family needs and challenges to accessing services, and, uniquely, identify potential avenues for homeless families to “give back” to the agency and to the community given their unique strengths and assets. Thus, overall, the project seems to have the potential for a high Return on Engagement and is worth the “risks” of sunk time and other resource expense to move the project forward. We turn now to the question of linking these and specific other measures to university budgets. PERFORMANCE FUNDING Public universities are manipulated by the budgeting formula and tuition flexibility permitted by the state. Budgets can be tied to specific measures of outcome, such as graduation or job placement rates. Tuition can be adjusted to promote or encourage students to study certain subjects, such as lower tuition for science, technology, engineering, or math majors. Indeed, money and budgets are often thought of as the tools of public policy to best manipulate behavior and alter the social and economic landscape. Thus, these are

106

Chapter 7

potentially important tools to encourage (or discourage) certain behaviors of institutions and the people serving within. According to Rabovsky (2012), the most common indicators for measuring performance in higher education institutions are: (1) graduation rates, (2) retention rates, (3) minority or low-income student outcomes, (4) research productivity and external funding for research, (5) student or faculty diversity, and (6) student pass rates on exams and licensure tests. Some examples from specific states include the following. In Texas from 1999 to 2003, some funding was based on the “number of students defined as unprepared for college who successfully complete remedial coursework” (Rabovsky 2012, 683); Virginia from 2005 through today, used “retention, access for underprivileged populations, tuition, external research grants, [and] contribution to economic development” (683). Sixteen other institutions are on record as using similar measures. Kansas may be unique, in that individual institutions could select their own indicators, though the selection was largely consistent with what other institutions around the country were tracking. Interestingly, in his analysis, Rabovsky found that performance funding policies within state university systems have not altered institutional spending priorities. One reason for this may be that the performance dollars have appeared only at the margin, meaning the bulk of university budgets seems to continue to be input-based (e.g., student enrollment) rather than output-based (e.g. percent students graduated, percent students getting and keeping a job) or outcome-based (e.g., average alumni salary). According to Farmer (2013), most universities and colleges that have performance funding in place typically have only about 10% of their budget determined in this way. Thus, even in the universities that report on these measures to state benefactors, the net benefit is relatively minimal, as a percentage of total budget. Of course, this may be a blessing, as the measures that are part of the dominant “academic capitalism” ethos are hurtful to the other narratives, as they threaten to subsume rather than integrate. Should a greater percentage of university budgets be subject to performance funding in this context, the university would transform into a more singularly focused economic machine. This, of course, assumes a logical application of measures and a development of measures that are feasibly collected with buy-in from all necessary stakeholders. South Carolina officials learned this lesson the hard way, after assigning 100% of their university budgets to performance funding, only to abandon the effort seven years after its 1996 enactment (Farmer 2013). What I suggest here is the need for more of university budgets to be tied to outcomes and less tied to outputs and inputs; Massachusetts is now experimenting with a 50-50 split for its community colleges, focusing on outcomes tied to skill development to meet current job demand. The outcomes, in my argument, need to reflect the four narratives together and the ultimate objective of stronger communities and pursuit of the good life. These are, of

A New Model for Higher Education

107

course, potentially less quantifiable concepts, but indicator measures can be constructed; however, these measures are better recorded on a multi-year basis. Thus, funding for universities on an outcome-based, multi-year cycle is potentially best. Multi-year funding would allow for more strategic planning and management, permit more intensive engagement with community without fear of budget shifts that threaten community relations, and allow for systematic measurement of impact of faculty, students, and alumni in local, regional, national, and global communities. Table 7.1 summarizes potential, cross-narrative, and end goal outcomes and potential measurement indicators that can be linked to budget. These stand alongside the “process outcomes” previously discussed. Translating these measures into budgets for universities is ultimately up to the boards and legislatures in the various states and across institutions. Overall, though, balance is necessary for budgeting. Balance does not imply mediocrity across goal areas/narratives, as in the case of an elementary school evaluation I conducted. In that case, I found my subject school suffered bigger achievement gaps across academic subject areas than demographically similar schools, but the scores from both economically well-off and economically struggling children were higher in the subject school. In the comparison schools, there was more parity but the parity was centered on a mediocrity that we might suggest is not acceptable. The gaps are preferable, as the scores overall suggest a significant potential for balance at a higher level of performance. In the context of higher education, institutions should strive for benchmarks that are contextually appropriate but that also encourage excellence across narratives, as excellence only, I suggest, is likely to lead to strengthened communities and the pursuit of the good life for all. The logic of this budgeting model is similar to an outcomes-based citizen participation process (Bryer 2010). Establishing local government citizen participation requirements that are purely input based (e.g., hold X number of meetings, advertise in Y places) pushes governments to do the bare minimum to engage citizens (Innes and Booher 2004). Holding X meetings may lead to two citizens participating; this is hardly satisfactory. In similar manner, asking universities to report on enrollment and graduate rates (an input and an output) may indirectly (or maybe directly) push universities to add to their student numbers and get more students to finish, even though “finishing” is not necessarily linked to any measure of future economic success or ethical active citizenship. Instead, with citizen participation, local ordinances and state statutes might better require jurisdictions to report on percent of citizens who participate, the representativeness of participating citizens, and the preparedness of citizens to contribute meaningfully to the decision-making process (Bryer 2010). In the same manner, universities are better served—as are the local, regional, national, and global communities they serve—by assessing the outcomes suggested in table 7.1.

108

Chapter 7

Job Creation In the job creation category, I offer five potential indicators. These are indicators that would require time, administration, and resources to collect valid, reliable, and regular data, but they are only perhaps a step beyond what the state of Florida is currently asking of its universities in the form of average salary of alumni. What I suggest here are more nuanced measures that do not, for example, penalize or potentially penalize a university for graduating students who choose lower-wage public service careers as compared to more lucrative private sector careers. Thus, I suggest the measure of “average alumni salary five and ten years post-graduation.” This requires long-term tracking of alumni—something universities have an interest to do anyway—and also allows for alumni to move beyond their starting salary doldrums before reporting their success to the university. I further suggest that this salary calculation be broken down by sector (i.e., government, private, nonprofit, self-employed, faith-based) in order to clearly show success of graduates at effectively rising towards the top within their respective sectors of employment. In similar vein, we can gather data on the “percentage of alumni in public service careers.” These measures as well would require manipulation of data to exclude (and report elsewhere) those alumni who voluntarily leave the workforce to care for children or elderly parents. Salary is only one measure of success that can be examined. In considering job creation, it is important to know three things: (1) number of alumni who started new for-profit businesses or nonprofit organizations, (2) percentage of new business or nonprofit ventures started by alumni that are located within the state/jurisdiction of the university, and (3) number of successful patent applications of university-affiliated faculty, staff, students, and alumni. These are the efforts that will create jobs in communities, and to the extent those communities are in the general vicinity of the university that shaped the student, all the better. Nonprofit and for-profit ventures are treated the same, regardless of the pay differentials that would likely exist across the two sectors; the work of public service through nonprofit organizations holds social value in a way successful for-profit business ventures hold economic value. Skills Development Skills development concerns the success of preparing students for jobs of today, though the measures here and in the job creation outcome area could rhetorically be placed in either category with little resistance (on my part at least). In this category, I suggest five potential indicators. Three are related and are fairly straightforward. They ask whether alumni have successfully

A New Model for Higher Education Table 7.1.

109

Integrating Higher Education Narratives in Performance Funding.

Outcome Area

Sample Indicators

Job Creation (economic selfsufficiency)

• • • •

•

Skill Development (economic-selfsufficiency)

•

•

•

• • Citizenship Cultivation (socially connected; politically intelligent)

• • • • • •

Average alumni salary five and ten years postgraduation (calculated by sector of employment) Percentage of alumni in public service careers (annual) Number of alumni who started new for-profit businesses or nonprofit organizations (average over five years) Percentage of new business or nonprofit ventures started by alumni that are located within the state/ jurisdiction of the university (average over five years) Number of successful patent applications of universityaffiliated faculty, staff, students, and alumni (recorded every five years) Percentage of employers who hire alumni who require retraining for alumni-employees (average over five years) Percentage of alumni within five years of graduation who pursue continuing or adult education to fill a gap in skills knowledge (average over five years) Percentage of alumni who find full-time employment within their discipline within one year of graduation (average over five years) Percentage of alumni employed full time within their discipline five and ten years post-graduation Percentage of alumni employed full time within the state/ jurisdiction of the university Percentage of alumni who volunteer two or more hours per week in their community (annual) Percentage of alumni who contribute 5%-7% of their household income to charity per year (annual) Percentage of alumni who contribute 8% or more of their household income to charity per year (annual) Percentage of alumni who voted in their most recent local election (bi-annual) Percentage of alumni who voted in the last federal election (bi-annual) Percentage of alumni who have worked with others in their community within the past year to address a public concern (annual)

Chapter 7

110 Knowledge Dissemination (socially aware; politically intelligent)

•

•

•

•

Percentage of current students (divided across undergraduate and graduate levels) and alumni who show empathy towards others (annual) Percentage of citizens in surrounding communities who show empathy towards others (recorded every five years) Number of government, nonprofit, private, or faith-based organizations that have partnered with or been served by some combination of university faculty and students (annual) Percentage of government, nonprofit, private, or faithbased organizations that have partnered with or been served by some combination of university faculty and students who report that their organization is stronger as a result of the engagement (annual)

Strengthened Communities

[Measures of social, health, economic, or cultural enhancement defined by each university]

Pursuit of the Good Life

[Measures of intellectual, emotional, mental, and physical enhancement defined by each university]

found and kept full-time employment in the area of their study. Granted, this is potentially ambiguous and would rely on alumni self-report (for instance, the anthropologist working in an advertising agency may not at first glance appear to be using her academic training but may in fact be doing so). There is no preference or bias for sector of employment in these measures; an engineer working full-time in a lower-wage government agency would be considered equally as successful as an engineer making a wage comfortably in the six-figure range. The three measures here are: (1) percentage of alumni who find full time employment within their discipline within one year of graduation, (2) percentage of alumni employed full time within their discipline five and ten years post-graduation, and (3) percentage of alumni employed full time within the state/jurisdiction of the university. The last of the three, as in the previous category, assumes an interest in cultivating local skill and talent and avoiding the infamous “brain drain” in which, though the education is of exceptional quality, the surrounding community does not hold sufficient attraction or quality of life for the alumni and their families. This ties into the bigger goal strengthening communities and promoting the good life for all, achievable, I suggest, through strategic integration of the four narratives/ outcomes. Two additional indicators in this category are the “percentage of employers who hire alumni who require retraining for alumni-employees” and “percentage of alumni within five years of graduation who pursue continuing or adult education to fill a gap in skills knowledge.” These measures address the

A New Model for Higher Education

111

“relevance” of applied skills and knowledge taught to students during their period of study at the university. Citizenship Cultivation Indicators suggested thus far are consistent with demands of the “academic capitalism” ethos, but they are refined to be more nuanced and thus more balanced. In the category of citizenship cultivation, I suggest six indicators, though other can be chosen based on the unique context of individual universities and their particular civic challenges. These measures are adapted from several sources, such as the Volunteering in America (www.volunteeringinamerica.gov) study produced by the Corporation for National and Community Service, which shows the extent of citizen volunteering, relationship of citizens with their neighbors, and voting. The National Coalition on Citizenship (www.ncoc.net) reports on similar measures as well as citizen contributions to charity. Across these two outfits and others that exist, the indicators I suggest are perhaps those that cross-context the most but by no means relate specifically to unique community situations. The indicators suggested here are as follows: (1) percentage of alumni who volunteer two or more hours per week in their community, (2) percentage of alumni who contribute 5-7% of their household income to charity per year, (3) percentage of alumni who contribute 8% or more of their household income to charity per year, (4) percentage of alumni who voted in their most recent local election, (5) percentage of alumni who voted in the last federal election, and (6) percentage of alumni who have worked with others in their community within the past year to address a public concern. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, as of 2012, U.S. citizens give an average of 4.7% of their discretionary income to charity. The indicators suggested assume in an aspirational way that graduates of universities ought to, given their cultivation as active and ethical citizens, give above this average. As a proxy, what we see instead is a decline in percent of discretionary income given as income increases—from 6% for households with $50,000-$99,999 in annual income down to 4.2% for households with $100,000-$199,999 and $200,000-plus. Universities that aim to develop and cultivate citizens should expect more from their graduates (and not just donations back to the university!). Knowledge Dissemination I suggest four indicators for knowledge dissemination. Two of the indicators focus on empathy, as this is a key ingredient of being socially aware as well as socially responsible towards others. The first of the two focuses on current students and alumni (“percentage of current students and alumni who show

112

Chapter 7

empathy towards others”); the second focuses on citizens in the surrounding community, however defined by the university (“percentage of citizens in surrounding communities who show empathy towards others”). Why include citizens outside of the direct “control” of the university? We interpret such citizens as part of a broader obligation of the university (SEEing DEMOS, per the fourth chapter). As reported in the second chapter, empathy has been declining since 2000 (as measured beginning in 1979) among college students (Konrath et al. 2011). Specifically, empathy has declined on a measure of Empathic Concern, which “measures people’s other-oriented feelings of sympathy for the misfortunes of others” (181) and on the measure of Perspective Taking, which measures “people’s tendencies to imagine other people’s points of view” (181). The second two indicators address the propensity of university actors to serve community organizations and to strengthen them through their service. Of particular interest is the breakdown of service and partnership to include not only faculty but students as well (as, for instance, through service learning and community-engaged teaching). The first indicator is: Number of government, nonprofit, private, or faith-based organizations that have partnered with or been served by some combination of university faculty and students; the second is: Percentage of government, nonprofit, private, or faith-based organizations that have partnered with or been served by some combination of university faculty and students who report that their organization is stronger as a result of the engagement. These indicators would require a systematic data collection and processing method, both to receive information from faculty and student groups but also from the organizations across sectors that have (or have not) benefited from the engagement. Once collected, though, the data are invaluable to demonstrate the efficacy of knowledge dissemination for the practitioner audience beyond the “walls” or “towers” of the university. Strengthening Communities and Pursuit of the Good Life Last, I suggest universities should systematically collect data that indicate the strengthening of communities and the overall ability of students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members to pursue the good life. These are measures of social, health, economic, or cultural enhancement for communities and intellectual, emotional, mental, and physical enhancement for individuals. They are best defined by each institution, based on the unique needs, values, and characteristics of the communities in which they are embedded and the communities they serve. For instance, in central Florida, the university might focus on income disparity and homelessness, or access to healthcare as community indicators. Perhaps functionally subunits across disciplines identify their own areas of focus, or a single or small set of foci might

A New Model for Higher Education

113

be selected through a dialogic process that engages the campus community. By focusing on one or a small set of social, economic, cultural, or health concerns, university units can be incentivized to pursue interdisciplinary research and service, which has high potential for generating creative thinking and creative solutions to challenges that have not been satisfactorily addressed within the silo of a single discipline or economic sector. Crossing boundaries is imperative, both for tackling the most intractable problems we face in our communities and for fulfilling the promise of universities, working across narratives. Measuring outcomes and tying those measures to future budgets—performance budgeting—is not a new idea but it is a notion that, if fully embedded, can shift the institution of the university—and communities around the university—dramatically. GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGRADUATE, GRADUATE, AND DOCTORAL STUDENTS So long as graduation rates continue to appear as an output measure of interest, as inevitably they will, it is incumbent upon higher education professionals and faculty members to consider graduation requirements that align strategically with the desired outcomes. This includes the competency-based questions of what do we want graduates of our university to know and what do we want graduates of our university to be able to do. It also includes a broader character question at the heart of notions of citizenship and the good life: who do we want graduates of our university to be? Suggestions for graduation requirements across levels of university education should have impact across at least two of the four higher education narratives, lest the efforts to instill citizenship or develop skills are created within the very silos that I argue throughout this book need to be broken apart. First, we can make a reasonable suggestion then that some combination of mandatory volunteerism or participation in service learning classes be required for graduation, ideally across levels of education, undergraduate through doctoral. Where this question has been asked, there seems to be supportive evidence. According to a Corporation for National and Community Service study, volunteer service builds social relations or networks and develops skills desirable in the workplace, thus leading to increased job prospects across gender, racial, ethnic, and geographic differences (Spera et al. 2013), though this study does not focus exclusively on college-aged youth. In terms of propensity for future volunteer service, there is even more evidence to suggest service through required volunteerism and through more structured service learning is likely to lead to future volunteer service. These findings are consistent across disciplines and types of universities (Astin and Sax 1998; Metz and Youniss 2003; Tomkovick, Lester, and Flunker 2008;

114

Chapter 7

Stukas, Snyder, and Clary 1999; Walker 2002). Much of the research from a pedagogical perspective has focused on undergraduate level education, and thus additional study is necessary to validate these findings at higher levels of education. Second, students should be required to study ethics in a standalone class or in some kind of experiential process. Such formal training holds the promise of enhanced ability to think ethically, to navigate complex moral terrain, and to identify unethical behavior as it occurs in our business, political, and cultural institutions. However, more systematic research is necessary to show precisely how such training can and does help distinguish those who take an ethics class from those who do not. Available research suggests such differences exist, however tentatively. Weber (1990) found that students who studied ethics improved in their ethical awareness and ability to reason, though not necessarily in the long run. Delaney and Sockell (1992) discover in an analysis of alumni from Columbia University Graduate School of Business from 1953-1987 that those who participated in employer-sponsored ethics training programs benefitted in their work life, but even here a full two-thirds of alumni employers had such programs. Other studies report a generally positive perception of ethics classes, though without longer-term empirical results to show specific outcomes. For instance, Wyatt-Nichol and Franks (2009) find chiefs of police are generally very receptive to ethics training in their units across ranks, though such training might only serve to perpetuate a broken status quo (Conti and Nolan 2005). More work is clearly necessary to identify the best strategy and delivery system for ethics training within the context of higher education. Third, at the risk of succumbing to a fad, we might consider cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary classes in subjects like social enterprise and entrepreneurship—a still emergent field of study that has the potential to strategically integrate across fields of business, politics, bureaucracy, social service, engineering, and beyond. Essentially, the basis of the question in this area of study is how can businesses, governments, and nonprofit organizations do good and do well simultaneously and often in a coordinated manner? Teaching students to think and act across disciplines to accomplish economic and social needs concurrently is a powerful notion, but, as Haugh (2005) observes, how to build classes and structure trainings around it is still a work in progress in need of further experimentation and research. In all of these cases, we need to consider how to go beyond “check-box education” where students perform service or take an ethics course, check it off their graduation requirement list (alongside the credit-hour requirements, the no outstanding fee requirement, and the no outstanding library loans requirement), and move on. There needs to be a means to assess the student, while he is enrolled, so, like a swimming test or a driving test, if there is no demonstration of competence or capacity for future competence, the student

A New Model for Higher Education

115

does not graduate. This is not as radical is it might sound, as we regularly ask that students earn a certain minimum grade in core classes. The requirement here would be the same. TENURE AND PROMOTION STANDARDS Boyer (1990) attempts to break apart the research, teaching, and service trio as the indicators of an effective scholar worthy of tenure and/or promotion. He and others rightly suggest service often gets short shrift, relegated to an “additional duty” but not as significant as the external dollar-generating research or the high scores of teaching evaluations. At my institution, I recall a debate in a Faculty Senate meeting about the expansion of a university-level award for service. There are awards that provide a $5,000 bump to base-pay for research excellence, for teaching excellence, and, impressively, for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Thus, the question was raised: should there be an award of the same magnitude for service, rather than a mere $2,000 one-time merit payment to two faculty members each year. One senate member raised an objection, asking something along the lines of: “Why should we give awards for sitting in committee meetings?” This, I fear is more likely the rule than the exception in faculty perception about what service can be. To jump beyond such conceptions and to promote the value of service, Boyer (1990) reframed the three core functions of the academic career to focus instead on four forms of scholarship. First, the scholarship of discovery concerns creation of new ideas whereby the “advancement of knowledge can generate an almost palpable excitement in the life of an educational institution” (17). Second is the scholarship of integration which concerns “placing the specialties in larger context” (18) and working across disciplines and ways of knowing. Third is the scholarship of application, in which scholars ask “How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems?” and “Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation?” (21). This third form of scholarship is what we would otherwise consider an example of service, except it is elevated to a higher plane here. Fourth is the scholarship of teaching, which recognizes that “pedagogical procedures must be carefully planned, continuously examined, and relate directly to the subject taught” (24). Elevating teaching beyond the perception that it is a “routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can do” (23) creates space for advancing the serious study of pedagogy and pedagogical innovation of the kind required when institutions strive to SEE DEMOS. These four forms of scholarship align well with the demands of the four narratives about higher education, but there are barriers to their enactment, among both faculty and administrators.

116

Chapter 7

Whenever I give talks about service learning or the scholarship of teaching and learning, I hear a common refrain: “I can’t take time to plan or implement these projects, or write them up for a journal, because this kind of work is not valued in tenure and promotion decisions.” As I hear this refrain, and variations of it, from colleagues around the United States, I become increasingly aware that I work in an exceptional place that does value this kind of work. My argument here is not to eliminate the common tenure and promotion standards, such as for multiple peer reviewed publications in top tier journals, etc. Nor is my argument to accept articles in non-peer reviewed outlets intended for practitioner audiences as equal outputs to peer-reviewed articles. My argument is that practitioner-oriented publications should be recognized as valuable work that should follow (or precede) many publications written for scholarly audiences. For instance, for every two or three scholarly outputs, there can be a practitioner output. This may raise the bar for tenure and promotion, but if integrated well, the two streams should complement each other, not distract from each other. Similar benchmarks and incentives can be constructed for grant writing, teaching, and service activities. This challenge is expressed as well by Driscoll and Sandmann (2004, 58): Among junior faculty there is an uneasiness and insecurity about pursuing the scholarship of engagement, and they are often without colleagues with whom they can discuss their work. With that isolation comes the fear that colleagues will not know how to judge their scholarship. It is not uncommon for administrators, department chairs, or deans to advise new faculty to wait until after they have been granted tenure before pursuing a civic engagement agenda. There’s a spirit of “being safe” about early scholarship—staying within the box of traditional scholarship—to protect academic position.

To address these kinds of concerns, scholars from across disciplines with a record of community-engaged scholarship and teaching formed the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement in 2000. A primary function of this board was to provide independent and knowledgeable reviewers of tenure and promotion files, specifically on the aspect of the portfolio addressing community-engaged scholarship. The assumption here is that not all universities would have in-house expertise to adequately assess the performance of faculty working in this area. Criteria for assessment were broken into six categories (Driscoll and Sandmann 2004, 61): Goals/Questions: (1) Does the scholar state the basic purposes of the work clearly? (2) Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable? (3) Does the scholar identify intellectual and significant questions in the field? (4) Is there an academic fit with the scholar’s role, departmental/university mission?

A New Model for Higher Education

117

Context of Theory, Literature, Best Practices: (1) Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? (2) Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to the work? (3) Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward? (4) Is the work intellectually compelling? Methods: (1) Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals or questions? (2) Does the scholar effectively apply the methods selected? (3) Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances? (4) Does the scholar describe rationale for selection of methods in relation to context and issue? Results: (1) Does the scholar achieve the goals? (2) Does the scholar’s work add consequentially to the field? (3) Does the scholar’s work open additional areas for further exploration? (4) Does the scholar’s work achieve impact or change? Are those outcomes evaluated? Communication/Dissemination: (1) Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present the work? (2) Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to the intended audience? (3) Does the scholar communicate/disseminate to multiple audiences? (4) Does the scholar present information with clarity and integrity? Reflective Technique: (1) Does the scholar critically evaluate the work? (2) Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to the critique? (3) Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work? (4) Does the scholar synthesize information across previous criteria? (5) Does the scholar learn and describe future directions?

These criteria are at once broad and demanding; they ask scholars to demonstrate that their community-engaged scholarship is strategic, well planned, well executed, and appropriately and effectively reported. At the same time, they ask for a demonstration that the engaged scholarship is fully consistent with university objectives and culture. If a professor is completing work that is not aligned with the university mission, the granting of tenure at that institution may not be appropriate—this is true, I suggest, for communityengaged scholars and all others. Perhaps the best attribute of these criteria is that they provide a firm platform from which institutions can craft their own context-specific criteria. For instance, they might define criteria more specifically around community impact and demonstration of impact, or the placement of articles in scholarly journals, or the assessments of practitioner publications by practitioners that are necessary to deem the publications of high quality. For teaching, performance standards may include criteria in addition to “typical” measures of student perception of instruction, course preparation

118

Chapter 7

activity, and activities of teaching skill enhancement. For example, if professors are actively engaged in community-engaged teaching or other innovative teaching and learning activities, there might be an expectation for publication in scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) journals. Not only should such publication activity be encouraged, it should be expected within disciplines and at universities where SEEing DEMOS or general commitment to community-engaged teaching and scholarship is judged to be important. Out of the standard set of professorial roles—teaching, research, and service—the third is usually relegated to the bottom tier, meaning it is least consequential in annual performance reviews and tenure and promotion decisions. To redirect the university as institution towards an integration of the four higher education narratives, service, or the scholarship of application as Boyer (1990) discusses, is essential. Of course, service to university and to profession is important; what I mostly suggest here is service to community—the ideal of achieving impact through research and teaching and engaged scholarship. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Munck et al. (2012, 24) offer the following advice: “To promote a grounded local university means to recognize that the world of knowledge is global but also that knowledge must be applied and grounded to be effective. The new grounded university would be well placed to articulate global citizenship as a key element of the student experience.” This is a balance—between global and local knowledge creation and dissemination—the label “glocal” based on the SONY Corporation’s notion of global localization. Many universities, particularly research universities, have the means and ongoing experience to both study and help shape global affairs, or local affairs globally. This kind of glocal activity should be cultivated through creative faculty exchange programs, study abroad opportunities, and international conference travel supported for faculty from across disciplines. Generally more expensive to support, international conference travel is vital to the development of crosscultural and institutional relationships. As with the above suggestions, additional research systematically conducted can shed light on the precise benefits to faculty and thus transferred from faculty to students. KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION, OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS, AND MOOCS Democratization of information is laudable. In the United States, efforts have been underway in recent years to make government more transparent, to

A New Model for Higher Education

119

provide more raw data from more agencies to the open public thus permitting creative analysis to address destructive community challenges, and to engage more citizens more fully in community and governance with the power of data in their hands. Transparency alone can have an ugly head. Within the State of Florida’s website, any citizen can click through a few buttons and learn my salary, along with the salary of other state employees. This is helpful for citizens to see who is paid what and for what they get in exchange for that salary . . . except the “what they get in return” piece is not communicated in the same space, if anywhere. Thus, transparency might actually be harmful as citizens can look at my salary and ask: “Why should some academic who teaches a couple nights per week make that much money?” Transparency without context can be dangerous. Another danger of transparency is how information is communicated, accessible for what type of individual? For example, we can look at the Federal Register and a web portal created to allow citizens to access proposed rules and regulations with calls for public comment. The portal, regulations.gov, is intended to make it easier for citizens to make comments on regulations that may affect them and enhance efficiency of rulemaking. The first goal conflicts with the second, particularly when information is presented in a way that is legalistic and generally inaccessible to the “average” citizen (Bryer 2013-b). Such presentation may create more distance between citizen and government, not less. Transparency without accessibility is dangerous. How do these issues translate for democratization and transparency of higher education? The “costs of democratization” (Bryer 2011) are potentially high in both government and higher education, meaning more harm than benefit might potentially come from democratizing knowledge, if certain criteria are not met. One, the democratization of knowledge must include clear expectations for the recipient of knowledge, meaning the student or other knowledge recipient must understand the possibilities and limitations of the knowledge dissemination vehicle. Second, the democratization of knowledge must include the communication of information in a usable manner for the intended or potential audiences. Third, the democratization of knowledge must establish a full context so information presented in the process of knowledge dissemination is not misused in the advancement of practice or influencing of policy. With these criteria in mind, I discuss two knowledge dissemination vehicles that can potentially achieve aims of increasing social awareness and political intelligence, as well as other desirable personal and collective community outcomes. First are open access scholarly and practitioner journals, contrasted with journals that are limited to individual or institutional subscribers. Second are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), an emergent

120

Chapter 7

phenomenon that has the potential to transform substantial segments of higher education institutions. Open Access Journals The business of academic journal publishing is a big one, and the costs of, for instance, copyediting, layout, and printing are not necessarily low. The availability of the internet to publish, or self-publish, potentially disrupts this business model while simultaneously making scientific and philosophical and research and writing available to a much broader population either directly or channeled through the media. (For instance, see the Directory of Open Access Journals at http://www.doaj.org/). It is thus important to ask about the tradeoffs; what is gained by opening access to journals, and what is lost by shifting the cost and revenue centers of journal production from the professionalized to the voluntary? Are there sacrifices in quality of articles published if not screened in the same peer review manner, or if authors are asked to pay to publish rather than have publishing houses/journals cover the cost of publishing? These are questions that need to be asked. There is significant opportunity in the democratization of knowledge, so long as the tradeoffs are properly addressed and scholars are not sucked (or suckered) into publishing their work in journals with no reliable peer review process. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) MOOCs are an emergent technology intended to democratize education and learning opportunities for a more diverse population that would not otherwise enroll in higher education courses. The Department for Business Innovation & Skills (DBIS) out of the United Kingdom summarizes these emergent initiatives as belonging “in a larger story of education technology. From the microphone to the online lecture, technology innovations have allowed institutions to teach even larger numbers of students” (2013, 20). There is a difference, the report finds quoting Clay Shirky, between legitimate universities offering MOOCs and other online degree granting institutions that are “just asset-stripping student loans” (20). The record and the suggested prospects for MOOCs and their impact on the higher education community are mixed and uncertain. Proponents discuss the potential for making knowledge from the best professors within the best universities available to the global masses; critics argue that learning is too context dependent and a one-size-fits-all online learning environment does not serve the learning needs of diverse cultures and contexts. According to the DBIS report (2013), there are four types of individuals/ learners who engage on MOOCs: auditors, samplers, disengagers, and completers. Auditors watch lectures throughout a course but do not take any

A New Model for Higher Education

121

assessments; samplers watch a few videos from multiple classes; disengagers begin a course fully with assessments but drop out; completers proceed through an entire class. The more advanced courses are dominated by samplers; the lowest level classes have fewer samplers but both more disengagers as well as completers. Course participants have been more fully broken down according to their level of activity inside the course (DBIS 2013). Lurkers sample a few items in a class; drop-ins engage for select topics in a class only; passive participants consume all information presented but do not engage in any interactive course components; active participants are fully engaged through all or most of the available technology. Overall, though there are views on either extreme as to the disruptive potential of MOOCs on higher education, the general view is that, at least in the short-term, MOOCs will not threaten the status quo. Student engagement is variable with high levels of satisfaction among those who complete courses but also a great deal of confusion for those who find much of it to be overwhelming and not clearly structured. The technology represents an avenue to disseminate knowledge to a broader population; whether full courses are what is needed or most appropriate to meet the demand is not certain. It might be that more limited content offerings that provide access to selected content for more targeted and “glocal” audiences is a better strategy for improved democratization and knowledge dissemination that is clear with intent, expectation, context, and outcome. CONCLUSION In this chapter, I offered suggestions for higher education reform that can potentially help realize the potential of an integrated university that blends and strategically pursues objectives linked to each of the four narratives, and the larger end outcomes. These are intended as discussion items and not necessarily as fixed recommendations, though some of them might be. The areas discussed consisted of assessing (and planning for) impact, performance funding, graduation requirements for undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students; tenure and promotion standards; internationalization of higher education; and knowledge dissemination, open access journals, and MOOCs. In the closing chapter, I suggest broader implications of the perspective advanced in this book, restate the importance of this discussion happening now, and identify places and spaces for the dialogue that is necessary to advance this agenda.

Chapter Eight

Band of Brothers

Perhaps it is easier to find agreement about what universities ought not to be, rather than what they ought to be. It seems reasonable to suggest that universities ought not to be “knowledge factories” that take the input of student minds, mold and shape them in efficient processes, and churn them out the other end. It also seems reasonable that we ought not want universities that will treat students as customers, aiming to please them with education that is more entertaining than substantive. Peter Sacks (1996) exemplifies this kind of university with his “sandbox experiment.” In this experiment, Sacks responds to concern about his teaching performance by altering the relationship with his students, treating the classroom as a kindergarten sandbox. His aim was to please the students with small talk, entertainment, and the awarding of grades above what he felt the student deserved. Sure enough, his teaching evaluations improved substantially—but we ought to agree that this is not the type of university we want. Is it also reasonable to assume that we ought not to want universities that focus on building cogs for a jobs machine? Perhaps we cannot agree about that. Can we agree that universities should not offer classes unrelated to the job market? Perhaps we cannot agree about that. Is it reasonable to assume that we ought to want universities that prepare students to be good and ethical citizens? To share knowledge with those who can use it best for strengthening communities socially and economically? To develop innovations through science, math, and technology that can lead to commercialized business practices? Perhaps we can agree that these are all valuable functions, but the challenge is to then identify which functions are most important. In the preceding pages, the argument advanced is that each of these functions is valuable but can be more valuable if integrated strategically in fur123

124

Chapter 8

therance of a higher-order objective: strengthening communities and providing opportunity for all individuals to pursue the good life. This is the purpose of higher education. In conclusion, I speak more broadly and hopefully compellingly as to why this is important generally and why this is important now. Boyer (1990, 81) compellingly closes his book, in which he calls for revisiting the meaning of scholarship. Though it may be difficult to “top” these concluding words, they are certainly words that can be built upon. American higher education has never been static. For more than 350 years, it has shaped its programs in response to the changing social context. And as we look at today’s world, with its disturbingly complicated problems, higher learning, we conclude, must, once again, adapt. It would be foolhardy not to reaffirm the accomplishments of the past. Yet, even the best of our institutions must continuously evolve. And to sustain the vitality of higher education in our time, a new vision of scholarship is required, one dedicated not only to the renewal of the academy but, ultimately, to the renewal of society itself.

What does this renewal look like? In my discipline of public administration, Farmer (2011) writes of the importance of scholars and practitioners to examine the lived life, to learn from our experiences, and to grow through the lessons learned. This is not a new idea, as Socrates introduces the fundamental philosophy that an unexamined life is not worth living; we need to ask ourselves, as individuals and institutions, who are we? Why do we do what we do? For whom do we do what we do? How do we enhance our identity and improve our action? As Boyer writes in the quote above, “It would be foolhardy not to reaffirm the accomplishments of the past” but only in the context of adapting for the future. The unexamined life (of an individual or institution) is dangerous, as it prevents learning. The examined life is perhaps equally if not more dangerous as the lessons learned may be artificially constrained and inappropriately biased; reflecting with oneself may lead to rationalization of past decisions and constrained creativity for future action. If we are not aware, as individuals or members of a learning organization (Senge 1990), of our biases and constraints, we may merely serve to manipulate ourselves into deceitful selfpreservation, perpetuating the norms, values, and actions that also perpetuate the unlived life. Renewal of society and renewal of the academy requires examination of the unlived life, perhaps more than examination of the lived life. The unlived life is the ought or should in Saul Alinsky’s (1989) distinction between understanding the world as it is and the world as it ought to be. We are constrained by the status quo—the world as it is—but are potentially empowered by the prospect of change towards a different world, an altered culture, and a more comprehensively responsive university.

Band of Brothers

125

THE UNLIVED LIFE OF THE UNIVERSITY Of course universities and other institutions of higher learning, dating to antiquity, have enjoyed a rich life, filled with moments of plenty and moments of poverty, moments of political intrigue and interference and moments of freedom, moments of universally acclaimed success and moments of public ridicule. The life of the university as an institution is really a question of the lives of the university as an institution, with the biography changing depending on who is telling the tale. These lives have intersected at times but, like an individual with a multiple personality disorder, one life may never fully know or understand the other lives that exist and occasionally emerge as the dominant. Through this book, these different lives, or narratives of higher education, have been discussed, and suggestions have been offered to integrate across them in pursuit of a larger, common objective. The unlived life of the university that needs to be examined is the integrated life. Parker Palmer (2007), in his popular book The Courage to Teach, discusses the importance of individual professors to live an integrated life. It is necessary, he argues, for students to truly see a professor’s passion and that passion may often reside within the “personal” world of the professor. Why teach a class on statistics or organization theory in a dry, textbook fashion, with or without service learning, without revealing personal motivation behind the choice of readings, lectures, case studies, or community experiences? Transparency of self reveals passion; integrating the personal with the professional in the act and art of teaching potentially unleashes more creativity on the part of the professor and, in response, from the students. The same applies to the integrated university. Greater outcomes are possible when students are empowered and education is democratized (SEEing DEMOS) in the context of an integrated institution that recognizes and rewards innovation in citizenship cultivation, skills development, job creation, and knowledge dissemination, while also incentivizing relationship building across these narratives. This, though, is another piece of the unlived life of the university in need of examination: cross- or interdisciplinary engagement. In interdisciplinary initiatives, designed to encourage collaboration and creativity when one discipline or unit of the university alone cannot address a complex research or practical issue, there can sometimes be a tendency to sacrifice depth for dialogue. Without depth of all disciplines and sectors engaged, interdisciplinary initiatives risk becoming artificial, symbolic, and feel-good processes (i.e., we all enjoyed dynamic discussion, and boy do we feel energized), and thus entirely suboptimal outputs and outcomes. Dialogue is not a substitute for depth, just as depth within a single sector or discipline is insufficient for fully addressing complex challenges.

126

Chapter 8

The unlived life of the university is one in which the four narratives, when at times brought together, are not pursued as a collective whole, each with its own history and context. Instead, depth of each narrative seems to be sacrificed for the efficiency of making one or more narratives subservient to another. In practice, this takes the form of citizen cultivation advocates altering their measures of citizenship to accommodate and align with the academic capitalism or job creation narrative, succumbing to the easily point-in-time measurable at the expense of the qualitative and long-term dynamics of citizenship. A final aspect of the unlived life of the university that needs examination is the practice of service through scholarship and scholarship of service. Boyer (1990) addresses these points as scholarship of application and scholarship of teaching, but, particularly for research institutions, service and scholarship tied to service remains a neglected piece of the higher education puzzle. Administrators, professors, and students alike, along with community partners, should form around a vision of the service university that is beyond unmodified self-interest (i.e., self-interest not seen as a reflection of the interests of others). As we seek examination of a university’s unlived life, we should encourage or actively promote students and faculty in university systems to examine their unlived lives. This takes two forms: first is the unlived life of an ethical, active citizen; second is the unlived life that is lived by another. This process is part of the enhancement of social awareness. Campus communities can engage in mutual and self-reinforcing self- and other-examination. For instance, campus organizations can develop programming where students, faculty, and staff learn about the plight or privilege of others—the hunger banquet described in a previous chapter is such a case. In similar processes, community members can ask of themselves and others what might be different if they were more politically and civically engaged? Let’s take the story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” by Ursula Le Guin. In this extended metaphor, readers are asked to imagine themselves in an idealistic setting with beautiful people, laughing children, infectious music, wonderful weather, and obedient animals. The setting, the reader is told, should not include armies or weapons and does not need the temptation of alcohol and drugs. This idealistic place, the reader is told, remains as such on the condition of a single child sitting alone, malnourished and abused in a cellar or broom closet. In other words, the happiness of all requires the sacrifice of one. This is, of course, an excellent story for discussion on ethics—deontological versus utilitarian, and it would be right for the university community to engage that ethics discussion at the very least in the context of the required course on ethics discussed in the previous chapter. The story goes beyond the ethical dimension to reveal that citizens of this idealistic city, one by one, choose to leave, not looking back, not informing

Band of Brothers

127

neighbors of their decision, et cetera. The guilt they experienced knowing they lived a happy existence at the expense of the one child was too much— an excellent example of the personal distress form of empathy that has not declined in the past several years (see the second chapter discussion of social awareness). From a civic perspective, this is also a problem, as citizens of Omelas chose to walk away rather than engage the issue to improve the situation they deemed undesirable (if only for selfish reasons of feeling too much guilt). Engaging students through ethics courses, campus events, and community dialogues on this issue and parallel real-world examples of, for instance, hunger and homelessness can lead to fruitful examination of the unlived life. This in turn can enhance campus community social awareness, other-oriented empathy, and felt responsibility to engage civically to address the issues. WHY NOW? This book is about potential contradictions in higher education that can, if strategically aligned, achieve greater harmony and superior community and societal results than if kept as silos. There is one more tension, one last duality, to consider in closing, and it is one that threatens to derail this entire thought experiment and practical dialogue. This is the difference between the desire for the university and its component faculty actors to be independent of mind and voice and the call for greater partnerships between the university and its component faculty and stakeholders in the community. How can both independence and interdependence be achieved, to be both a critic of others and of society, while being a partner to those others within society to achieve more? We can suggest that in today’s economic and political environment, the independence of the university is threatened, as it has been in previous generations; today, the threat is being met with what might appear as capitulation to market demands, political pronouncements, and a normative desire for increased partnership. In this closing discussion, I suggest how the university might both be a good partner while resisting the powers that could overtake an independent-minded and critical agenda. Derrida (2002) discusses universities as institutions of resistance to sovereign powers that might interfere with the domain of the university; these are powers of the state, the economy, the media, and so on. Failure to put up resistance places the university at risk of “becoming a branch office of conglomerates and corporations” (p. 206). Yet, resistance alone does not necessarily lead to prevented cooptation; indeed, blocking engagement with certain powers may harm the part of the university mission that seeks, above all, to encourage knowledge creation, or what Readings (1996) calls Thought. The work of the university, according to Derrida, needs to include applied

128

Chapter 8

works that reach beyond the walls of the traditional university, to practice as a university without conditions, meaning a university with professors who are free to challenge the status quo. The implication of Derrida’s philosophy is that partnerships that link the university to outside entities are vital to the success of the resistance to established powers. As Siplon (1999) found the ability to both study communities of people living with AIDS and become embedded within those communities, so too can professors concurrently partner with community without sacrificing a critical perspective on the community. It is a fine line to travel but, if done successfully, partnerships with multiple sectors can prevent subservience to any one. The key is promoting interdependence, not dependence in either direction (community to university, or university to community). Now is the time for this dialogue, this full exploration of the dualities and contradictions inherent in today’s multiversities. We, as members of scholarly and policy communities, require space for reflection with self and with others. Absent such reflection, the pressures to align with the job creation or economic narrative of education, at the expense of the other narratives, are perhaps too much for resistance. Resistance and autonomy are possible through strategic alignment and dialogue, across narratives, across sectors, and across disciplines. WHAT’S NEXT? It is my hope that this book is read by professors from a range of disciplines, students and alumni who are concerned about the future of the institutions to which they have given and hopefully received so much, higher education administrators, and policymakers who have influence over the future direction of higher education policy and budgeting. With and through this diverse audience the desired process outcome is dialogue—dialogue regarding the future of higher education as a central and active player in the social, economic, and intellectual dimensions of our diverse communities. Through such dialogue, of course, I hope for substantive changes in the pedagogical practice of individual faculty members as well as more systemic changes in higher education budgeting and assessment, faculty tenure and promotion, and expectations for student graduation. In closing, I offer a few ideas about how and where this kind of dialogue can occur on university campuses and beyond. First, this dialogue can occur within policymaking and advising bodies, such as the Florida Blue Ribbon taskforce that was created to study and recommend reform of higher education institutions. The input this body received and the recommendations made were perhaps most substantively skewed towards the job creation/ market narrative. Thus, a report openly asking a question about the value of

Band of Brothers

129

scholarly works about Shakespeare or Shakespeare’s plays was able to gain traction within the body (Vedder and Denhart 2012). According to the report authors, 35,000 such published studies about Shakespeare far exceeded their value to the economy or cultural knowledge. This is a short-sighted view that can be corrected with full dialogue on the multiple, equally legitimate narratives of universities. Second, dialogue can occur within faculty governance bodies, ranging from individual unit or program faculty meetings to faculty advisory bodies and senates. These are bodies that are charged with crafting policy and program recommendations to meet new and emergent challenges within the university environment. For instance, the Faculty Senate of the University of Central Florida approved a resolution in its 2012-2013 year entitled “An Advisory Urging Caution in the Implementation of STEM Initiatives.” The resolution was a response to the push by the governor, his appointees, and members of the legislature to focus more prominently on science, technology, engineering, and math programs, potentially at the expense of liberal arts and humanities. The first statement of the resolution affirms the value of citizenship as a core value that ought not be forgotten: “Whereas, the idea of universities as unified entities encompassing and valuing all fields of higher learning is necessary to cultivate an intellectually sophisticated and civically engaged citizenry for the sake of the common good of society as a whole.” The resolution closed with the following: “Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Central Florida urges the University of Central Florida administration that any plans and actions taken to emphasize the placement of students in STEM fields be balanced to maintain the identity and mission of the university as an institution that embraces and fosters learning in all academic fields.” Third, dialogue can occur in classrooms across levels of education and discipline, seeking and finding opportunities for cross-disciplinary classroom engagements when possible. For instance, a professor of engineering has invited me several times to speak in his honors seminar about the American political process so that those students too develop a sense of responsibility in the community and gain at least a basic political intelligence on how to go about advocating for their personal and community’s interests. Citizenship, after all, is not the sole domain of the social sciences. Fourth, dialogue can occur in the residence halls, as through Living Learning Communities discussed previously. These are prime spots for students to gather, socialize, learn, and act together. For instance, I recall from my own undergraduate years, the Living Learning Community focused on volunteerism brought residents out on a regular basis to help prepare and serve food at a local food kitchen. Students planned such events together as part of their living arrangement.

130

Chapter 8

Fifth and importantly, dialogue can occur in community. Advisory boards are potentially powerful entities to link the academy with the university, advising on the requirements of degree programs, the characteristics of future alumni, and topics for future research. As such, community members, if selected carefully so as not to bias institutional responses towards one of the four narratives, can propel universities forward to ensure ongoing responsiveness to community and vice versa. Overall, the values of the university—speaking generically and generally—need updating and integrating. Such efforts require administrators, policymakers, professors, staff, students, and community stakeholders together, engaging in mutual discourse and joint action; it is only then that the promise of strong communities and the pursuit of the good life for all individuals within communities becomes possible, with the university playing the integrated roles of job creator, knowledge disseminator, skill developer, and citizen cultivator. A FINAL WORD To close, we might reflect on the immortal words of one who rallied his countrymen to great sacrifice and ultimate triumph. They are words that speak well to the ideals expressed in this book, that we must work together to succeed and that we must put aside our fears of failure, our fears of ending the world that we know. The world that we know is not satisfactory; the university that we know is not contributing as it can. For university, for country, for global society, onward we must charge. Perhaps the immortal words from Shakespeare can teach us something still. From Henry V, rallying his troops before a battle that seems daunting (to say the least), first talking with his cousin and then to the assembled soldiers: Westmoreland: O that we now had here But one ten thousand of those men in England that do no work to-day! King Henry V: What’s he that wishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin: If we are mark’d to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires: But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive.

Band of Brothers No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England: God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more, methinks, would share from me For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made And crowns for convoy put into his purse: We would not die in that man’s company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’ Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars. And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’ Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he’ll remember with advantages What feats he did that day: then shall our names. Familiar in his mouth as household words Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember’d; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

131

References

Alinsky, Saul. 1989. Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 2002. “Stepping Forward as Stewards of Place.” AASCU Task Force on Public Engagement. Washington, D.C. Anderson, David M. and Michael Cornfield. 2003. The Civic Web: Online Politics and Democratic Values. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Astin, Alexander W. and Linda J. Sax. 1998. “How Undergraduates are Affected by Service Participation.” Journal of College Student Development 39(3):251–263. Baker, William H., H. Lon Addams, and Brian Davis. 2005. “Critical Factors for Enhancing Municipal Public Hearings.” Public Administration Review 65(4):490–499. Barber, Michael, Katelyn Donnelly, and Saad Rizvi. 2013. An Avalanche is Coming: Higher Education and the Revolution Ahead. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2005. Liquid Life. Malden: Polity Press. Bellone, Carl and George Goerl. 1992. “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy.” Public Administration Review 52(2):130–134. Bellone, Carl and George Goerl. 1993. “In Defense of Civic-Regarding Entrepreneurship or Helping Wolves to Promote Good Citizenship.” Public Administration Review 53(4):396–398. Berman, Elizabeth P. 2012. Creating the Market University. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Birnbaum, Robert. 2000. Management Fads in Higher Education: Where They Come From, What They Do, Why They Fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blank, Martin J., Reuben Jacobson, and Atelia Melaville. 2012. “Achieving Results through Community School Partnerships: How District and Community Leaders are Building Effective, Sustainable Relationships.” Center for American Progress. Bok, Derek. 2003. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Boland, Josephine A. 2012. “Strategies for Enhancing Sustainability of Civic Engagement: Opportunities, Risks, and Untapped Potential.” In Higher Education and Civic Engagement: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Lorraine McIlrath, Ann Lyons, and Ronaldo Munck, 41-58. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. Box, Richard C. 2008. Making a Difference: Progressive Values in Public Administration. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

133

134

References

Boyte, Harry C. 2004. Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Boyte, Harry C. 2008. Public Work: Civic Populism versus Technocracy in Higher Education. In Agent of Democracy: Higher Education and the HEX Journey, edited by David W. Brown and Deborah Witte, 79–102. Dayton: Kettering Foundation Press. Boyte, Harry C. and Blasé Scarnati. 2014. Transforming Higher Education in a Larger Context: The Civic Politics of Public Work. In Civic Studies, edited by Peter Levine and Karol Edward Soltan, 77-90. Washington, DC: Bringing Theory to Practice. Bringle, Robert G. and Julie A. Hatcher. 2004. “Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis: Advancing Civic Engagement Through Service-Learning.” In Public Work & the Academy: An Academic Administrator’s Guide to Civic Engagement and Service-Learning, edited by Mark Langseth and William M. Plater, 125–146. Bolton: Anker Publishing Co. Broder, David S. 2000. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money, New York: Harcourt. Bryer, Thomas A. 2014. “Together for Tomorrow: Improving Title I Education through InterSectoral and Governmental Collaboration.” Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 20(1). Bryer, Thomas A. 2013-a. “Designing Social Media Strategies for Effective Citizen Engagement: A Case Example and Model.” National Civic Review 102(1):43–50. Bryer, Thomas A. 2013-b. “Public Participation in Regulatory Decision-Making: Cases from Regulations.gov.” Public Performance and Management Review 37(2):263–279. Bryer, Thomas A. 2012-a. “Encouraging Citizenship in U.S. Presidential Administrations: An Analysis of Presidential Records.” In The State of Citizen Participation in America, edited by Hindy Schachter and Kaifeng Yang, 55-75. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Bryer, Thomas A. 2012-b. “Identity Crisis: Searching for Personal Responsibility, Justice, and Community in the Real Estate Market Crash.” Public Integrity 14(3):299–311. Bryer, Thomas A. 2011. “Linking Students with Community in Collaborative Governance: A Report on a Service Learning Class.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 17(1):89–114 Bryer, Thomas A. 2010. “Living Democracy in Theory and Practice: Getting Dirty in a Local Government Incorporation Process.” Public Administration and Management 15(1): 259– 304. Bryer, Thomas A., Maria-Elena Augustin, Mukta Barve, Norma Gracia, and Valerie Perez. 2013. “Fighting Poverty with Passion and a University Partner: The Creation of a High Impact AmeriCorps VISTA Program.” Journal of Nonprofit Management 16(1):46–60. Bryer, Thomas A. and Natalia Toro. 2013. “Together for Tomorrow: An Assessment of Partnership Formation.” Center for Public and Nonprofit Management, University of Central Florida. Bryer, Thomas A. and Daniel Seigler. 2012. “Theoretical and Instrumental Rationales of Student Empowerment through Social and Web-Based Technologies.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 18(3):429–448. Cahill, Caitlin. 2004. “Defying Gravity? Raising Consciousness through Collective Research.” Children’s Geographies 2(2):273–286. Cahill, Caitlin. 2007. “Doing Research with Young People: Participatory Research and the Rituals of Collective Work.” Children’s Geographies 5(3):297–312. Casper, Barry M. 2000. Lost in Washington: Finding the Way Back to Democracy in America. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Chronicle of Philanthropy. 2012. “How America Gives.” Accessed April 15, 2014. http:// philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/. CIRCLE. 2013. “Educating the Public When People Don’t Trust Each Other.” Accessed December 3. http://www.civicyouth.org/educating-the-public-when-people-don’t-trust-eachother. Colbert, Daiyaan. 2013. “Professor’s Social Experiment Highlights Controversial Laws in America.” Accessed December 3, 2013. http://researchmatters.asu.edu/stories/professorssocial-experiment-highlights-controversial-laws-america-2507.

References

135

Colby, Anne and Thomas Ehrlich. 2000. “Higher Education and the Development of Civic Responsibility.” In Civic Responsibility and Higher Education, edited by Thomas Ehrlich, xxi-xliii. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Cole, Jonathan R. 2009. The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensible National Role, Why it Must be Protected. New York: PublicAffairs. Conti, Norman and James J. Nolan III. 2005. “Policing the Platonic Cave: Ethics and Efficacy in Police Training.” Policing & Society 15(2):166-186. Cooper, Terry L. 2005. “Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century: Toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda.” Public Administration Review 65(5):534–535. Corbett, Steve and Brian Fikkert. 2012. When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poor and Yourself. Chicago: Moody Publishers. Corporation for National and Community Service. 2006. “The History of AmeriCorps VISTA.” Accessed March 1. http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vists/ vista-history Corporation for National and Community Service. 2013. “AmeriCorps Fact Sheet.” Accessed March 1. http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/media_kit/factsheet_americorps.asp. Crenson, Matthew A. and Benjamin Ginsberg. 2002. Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined its Citizens and Privatized its Public. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dalton, Russell J. 2009. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation is Reshaping American Politics. Washington: CQ Press. Delaney, John Thomas and Donna Sockell. 1992. “Do Company Ethics Training Programs Make a Difference? An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics 11(9):719–727. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2013. “The Maturing of the MOOC: Literature Review of Massive Open Online Courses and other Forms of Online Distance Learning.” BIS Research Paper Number 130. Derrida, Jacque. 2002. Without Alibi. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press. Dewitt, Dave. 2012. “McCrory Wants to Tie University Funding to Jobs. WUNC 91.5 North Carolina Public Radio.” Accessed December 3. http://wunc.org/post/mcrory-wants-tie- university-funding-jobs/. Dicke, L., S. Dowden, & J. Torres. 2004. “Successful Serving Learning: A Matter of Ideology.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 10(3):199–208. Driscoll, Amy and Lorilee R. Sandmann. 2004. “Roles and Responsibilities of Academic Administrators: Supporting the Scholarship of Civic Engagement.” In Public Work & the Academy: An Academic Administrator’s Guide to Civic Engagement and Service-Learning, edited by Mark Langseth and William M. Plater, 51–68. Bolton: Anker Publishing. Edwards, Keith E. and David A. McKelfresh. 2002. “The Impact of a Living Learning Center on Students’ Academic Success and Persistence.” Journal of College Student Development 43(3):395–402. Egan, Timothy. 2009. The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt & the Fire that Saved America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ehrlich, Thomas (Ed). 2000. Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Eikenberry, Angela. 2009. Giving Circles: Philanthropy, Voluntary Associations, and Democracy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Erie, Steven P., Vladimir Kogan, and Scott A. Mackenzie. 2011. Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Farmer, David. 2011. Public Administration in Perspective: Theory and Practice through Multiple Lenses. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Farmer, Liz. 2013. “Massachusetts’ Big Bet on Performance-Based College Funding.” Governing, 27(2):48–51. Frederickson, H. George. 1982. “The Recovery of Civism in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 42(6): 501–508. Freire, Paulo. 2011. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Furco, Andrew and Barbara A. Holland. 2004. “Institutionalizing Service-Learning in Higher Education: Issues and Strategies for Chief Academic Officers.” In Public Work & the

136

References

Academy: An Academic Administrator’s Guide to Civic Engagement and Service-Learning, edited by Mark Langseth and William M. Plater, 23–40, Bolton: Anker Publishing. Galston, William A. 2000. “Civil Society and the ‘Art of Association.’” Journal of Democracy 11(1): 64-70. Gillette, Howard Jr. 2010. Civitas By Design: Building Better Communities, from the Garden City to the New Urbanism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ginsberg, Benjamin. 2011. The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. New York: Oxford University Press. Goleman, Daniel. 2013. “Rich People Just Care Less.” The New York Times. Accessed December 3. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/rich-people-just-care-less. Gourley, Brenda M. 2012. “Higher Education as a Force for Societal Change in the TwentyFirst Century.” In Higher Education and Civic Engagement: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Lorraine McIlrath, Ann Lyons, and Ronaldo Munck, 31–38. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Graham, Bob. 2009. America, The Owner’s Manual. Washington: CQ Press. Haugh, Helen. 2005. “A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship.” Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1):1–12. Harkness, Peter. 2012. “Public Universities Reach a Tipping Point.” Governing. Accessed December 3. http://www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-public-univeristies-reachtipping-point.html. Hart, David K. 1984. “The Virtuous Citizen, the Honorable Bureaucrat, and “‘Public’” Administration.” Public Administration Review 44(Special Issue):111–120. Herr, K. and G. L. Anderson. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Howe, Daniel W. 1987. “The Political Psychology of The Federalist.” William and Mary Quarterly 44(3):485-509. Hyman, Louis. 2012. Borrow: The American Way of Debt. New York: Vintage Books. Imperial, M. T., J. L. Perry, and M.C. Katula. 2007. “Incorporating Service Learning into Public Affairs Programs: Lessons from the Literature.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 13(2):231–252. Inkelas, Karen K. and Jennifer L. Weisman. 2003. “Different by Design: An Examination of Student Outcomes among Participants in Three Types of Living-Learning Programs.” Journal of College Student Development 44(3):335–368. Innes, Judith E. and David E. Booher. 2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century.” Planning Theory & Practice 5(4):419–436. Jacoby, Barbara. 2009. “Civic Engagement in Today’s Higher Education: An Overview.” In Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices, edited by Barbara Jacoby, 1–4, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jefferson, Thomas. 1818. “Proceedings and report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia.” Kathi, Pradeep C. and Terry L. Cooper. 2005. “Democratizing the Administrative State: Connecting Neighborhood Councils and City Agencies.” Public Administration Review 66(5):559–567. Konrath, Sarah H., Edward H. O’Brien, and Courtney Hsing. 2011. “Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 15(2):180–198. Kramnick, Isaac (Ed). 1987. Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin. Lay, Stephen. 2004. The Interpretation of the Magna Charta Universitatum and its Principles. Bologna: Bononia University Press. Le Guin, Ursula. 1997. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Creative Education. Lepore, Jill. 2013. “Long Division: Measuring the Polarization of American Politics.” The New Yorker. Levin, Peter and Karol Edward Soltan (Eds). 2014. Civic Studies. Washington, DC: Bringing Theory to Practice. Levine, Peter. 2011. “What Do We Know about Civic Engagement?” Accessed February 8, http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp11/levine.cfm.

References

137

Levine, Peter. 2014. The Case for Civic Studies. In Civic Studies, edited by Peter Levine and Karol Edward Soltan, 3-8. Washington, DC: Bringing Theory to Practice. Loss, Christopher P. 2012. Between Citizens and the State: The Politics of American Higher Education in the 20th Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Madrick, Jeff. 2012. Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present. New York: Vintage Books. Maurrasse, David J. 2001. Beyond the Campus: How Colleges and Universities Form Partnerships with Their Communities. New York: Routledge. Mehta, Vikas. 2013. The Street: A Quintessetial Social Public Space. New York: Routledge. Metz, Edward and James Youniss. 2003. “A Demonstration that School-Based Required Service does not Deter—but Heightens—Volunteerism.” PS-Washington 36(2):281–286. Mooney, Nan. 2008. (Not) Keeping Up With Our Parents: The Decline of the Professional Middle Class. Boston: Beacon Press. Munck, Ronaldo, Helen McQuillian, and Joanna Ozarawska. 2012. “Civic Engagement in a Cold Climate: A Glocal Perspective.” In Higher Education and Civic Engagement: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Lorraine McIlrath, Ann Lyons, and Ronaldo Munck, 15– 30. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. Murrou, Henri. 1956. A History of Education in Antiquity. London: Sheed and Ward. Musso, Juliet, Christopher Weare, Thomas A. Bryer, and Terry L. Cooper. 2011. “Toward ‘Strong Democracy’ in Global Cities? Social Capital Building, Action Research, and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Experience.” Public Administration Review 71(1):102–11. Nabatchi, Tina and Greg Munno. 2014. Deliberative Civic Engagement: Connecting Public Voices to Public Governance. In Civic Studies, edited by Peter Levine and Karol Edward Soltan, 49–58. Washington, DC: Bringing Theory to Practice. National Issues Forum. 2012. “Shaping Our Future: How Should Higher Education Help Us Create the Society We Want?” Accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.nifi.org/detail.aspx?catID=11496&itemID=22229. National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. 2012. “A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future.” Accessed December 3. http:// www.aacu.org/civic_learning/crucible. Nesbit, Rebecca and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 2010. “At Your Service? Volunteering and National Service in 2020.” Public Administration Review 70:S107-S113. Newfield, Christopher. 2008. Unmasking the Public University: The Forty-Year Assault on the Middle Class. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Newman, John Henry. 1852. The Idea of the University Defined and Illustrated. A Public Domain Book. O’Meara, KerryAnn. 2011. “Faculty Civic Engagement: New Training, Assumptions, and Markets Needed for the Engaged American Scholar.” In To Serve a Larger Purpose: Engagement for Democracy and the Transformation of Higher Education, edited by John Saltmarsh and Matthew Hartley, 177–198. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ospina, Sonia et al. 2004. “From Consent to Mutual Inquiry: Balancing Democracy and Authority in Action Research.” Action Research 2(1):47–69. Palmer, Parker J. 2007. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Peters, Scott J. 2010. Democracy and Higher Education: Traditions and Stories of Civic Engagement. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Peters, Scott J. and Timothy K. Eatman. 2013. “Countering the Single Story about Higher Education’s Public Purpose.” Accessed February 8, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ scott-j-peters/countering-the-single-sto_b_4003856.htm. Pew Research Center. 2013. “Economics and Personal Finance.” Accessed July 18. http:// www.pewsocialtrends.org/topics/economics-and-personal-finances/. Pine Hills Business Redevelopment Task Force. 2010. Neighborhood economic development and market analysis of the Pine Hills Area. Real Estate Research Consultants. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

138

References

Rabovsky, Thomas M. 2012. “Accountability in Higher Education: Exploring Impacts on State Budgets and Institutional Spending Patterns.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22:675–700. Readings, Bill. 1996. The University in Ruins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Redlawsk, David P. and Tom Rice. 2009. Civic Service: Service-Learning with State and Local Government Partners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reich, Robert B. 2011. Aftershock: The Next Economy & America’s Future. New York: Vintage Books. Reingold, D. and L. Lenkowsky. 2010. “The Future of National Service.” Public Administration Review 70:s114–s121. Rice, R. E. 1996. “Making a Place for a New American Scholar.” Working Paper Series 1. American Association for Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards. Riley-Smith, Tristram. 2010. The Cracked Bell: America and the Afflictions of Liberty. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. Ringer, Jeffrey M. 2012. “Liberating ‘Liberatory’ Education, or What Do We Mean by ‘Liberty’ Anyway?” In Education as Civic Engagement: Toward a More Democratic Society, edited by Gary A. Olson and Lynn Worsham, 277–297. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rosaldo, Renato. 1993. Culture & Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press. Sacks, Peter. 1996. Generation X Goes to College: An Eye-Opening Account of Teaching in Postmodern America. Chicago: Open Court. Salamon, Lester M. 2005. “Training Professional Citizens: Getting Beyond the Right Answer to the Wrong Question in Public Affairs Education.” Journal of Public Affairs Education 11(1):7–19. Saltmarsh, John and Matthew Hartley. 2011. To Serve a Larger Purpose: Engagement for Democracy and the Transformation of Higher Education. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Sandel, Michael J. 2012. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Senge, Peter. 1990. “The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations.” Sloan Management Review, 7–23. Shor, Ira. 1996. When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Simon, C. A. 2002. “Testing for Bias in the Impact of AmeriCorps Service on Volunteer Participants: Evidence of Success in Achieving a Neutrality Program Objective.” Public Administration Review 62:670–678. Siplon, Patricia. 1999. “Scholar, Witness, or Activist? The Lessons and Dilemmas of an AIDS Research Agenda.” PS: Political Science and Politics 32(3):576–578. Sirard, John R. and Megan E. Slater. 2008. “Walking and Bicycling to School: A Review.” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2(5):372–396. Skidelsky, Robert and Edward Skidelsky. 2012. How Much is Enough? Money and the Good Life. New York: Other Press. Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press. Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sloane, David C. et al. 2003. “Improving the Nutritional Resource Environment for Healthy Living through Community-Based Participatory Research.” Journal of Gen. Intern. Med. 18:568–575. Smidt, Corwin E., Kevin R. den Dulk, James M. Penning, Stephen V. Monsma, and Douglas L. Koopman. 2008. Pews, Prayers & Participation: Religion & Civic Life in America. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Snyder, R. Claire. 2008. Should Higher Education Have a Civic Mission? Historical Reflections. In Agent of Democracy: Higher Education and the HEX Journey, edited by David W. Brown and Deborah Witte, 53–78. Dayton: Kettering Foundation Press. Sowell, Thomas. 2009. Intellectuals & Society. New York: Basic Books.

References

139

Spera, Christopher, Robin Ghertner, Anthony Nerino, and Adrienne DiTommaso. 2013. “Volunteering as a Pathway to Employment: Does Volunteering Increase Odds of Finding a Job for the Out of Work?” Corporation for National and Community Service. Stanley, Mary. 2008. The Limits of Public Work: A Critical Reflection on the “Engaged University.” In Agent of Democracy: Higher Education and the HEX Journey, edited by David W. Brown and Deborah Witte, 29-51. Dayton: Kettering Foundation Press. Stassen, Martha L. 2003. “Student Outcomes: The Impact of Varying Living-Learning Community Models.” Research in Higher Education 44(5):581–613. Stoecker, Randy and Elizabeth A. Tryon. 2009. The Unheard Voices: Community Organizations and Service Learning. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Stout, Jeffrey. 2010. Blessed are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stukas, Arthue, Mark Snyder, and E. Gil Clary. 1999. “The Effects of “Mandatory Volunteerism” on Intentions to Volunteer.” Psychological Science 10(1):59–64. Sullivan, Teresa A., Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Lawrence Westbrook. 2000. The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1990. Democracy in America. New York: Vintage Classics. Tomkovick, Chuck, Scott W. Lester, and LaNette Flunker. 2008. “Linking Collegiate ServiceLearning to Future Volunteerism: Implications for Nonprofit Organizations.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 19(1):3–26. Truman Commission on Higher Education. 1947. Higher Education in American Democracy: Establishing the Goals. U. S. Department of Education. 2013. “Food Deserts.” Accessed November 25. http:// apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/foodDeserts.aspx. Vedder, Richard and Matthew Denhart. 2012. “Ten Principles of Higher Education Reform.” The Heartland Institute. Walker, Tobi. 2002. “Service as a Pathway to Political Participation: What Research Tells Us.” Applied Development Science 6(4):183–188. Watson, David, Robert M. Hollister, Susan E. Stroud, and Elizabeth Babcock. 2011. The Engaged University: International Perspectives on Civic Engagement. New York: Routledge. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weber, James. 1990. “Measuring the Impact of Teaching Ethics to Future Manager: A Review, Assessment, and Recommendations.” Journal of Business Ethics 9(3):183-190. White, Michelle J. 2009. “Bankruptcy: Past Puzzles, Recent Reforms, and the Mortgage Crisis.” American Law and Economics Review 11(1):1–23. Williams, Jeffrey J. 2012. “History as a Challenge to the Idea of the University.” In Education as Civic Engagement: Toward a More Democratic Society, edited by Gary A. Olson and Lynn Worsham, 49–69. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Wyatt-Nichol, Heather and George Franks. 2009. “Ethics Training in Law Enforcement Agencies.” Public Integrity 12(1):39–50.

Index

60 Minutes, 19 American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 33 American University, 59, 62 AmeriCorps VISTA, 49, 86, 87–92 Arizona State University, 47 Bayh-Dole Act, 40 Bradbury, Ray, 7 Bush, George H. W., 87 Bush, George W., 88 Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 16 citizenship: active, ix, 5, 15, 29, 32, 33, 43, 46, 85, 87, 95, 107, 111; civility, 7, 9, 10, 17, 35; duties, 8, 9, 10, 29, 36; dutiful, 29, 30, 31; faith organizations, 22, 45, 49, 68, 72, 83, 95, 96, 98, 105, 108, 112; Resolution for Citizen Competence in a Democracy, 15; trust, ix, 13–14, 15, 16, 17–18, 21, 31, 102; virtuous, 9–10, 30, 48; volunteerism, 14, 18, 34, 45, 59, 61, 86, 87, 88, 94, 113, 129 civic engagement. See citizenship. Civilian Conservation Crops, 87 Clinton, Bill, 88 College of Charleston: Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Center, 55, 57–58

community, strong, 5, 10, 21, 29, 81, 106, 130 community engaged teaching, 48–49, 65–66, 67, 73, 76, 80, 112, 117 Community Hope Center, 104 community engaged scholarship, 116, 117 Corporation for National and Community Service, 13, 83, 86, 87, 96, 111, 113 Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, 88, 94 empathy: empathic concern, 18, 111; empathy gap, 18; personal distress, 18, 126; perspective taking, 18, 111 empowerment: economic self-sufficiency, 12, 20, 21; political intelligence, 12, 15, 15–16, 18, 21, 38, 43, 81, 89, 119, 129; social awareness, 12, 18, 19, 20, 38, 43, 81, 91, 93, 96, 119, 126, 126–127; social connectedness, ix, 12, 14–15, 21; student, 47, 48, 55, 63, 75 Federalist Papers, 17 Florida: City of Orlando, 61, 86, 94, 95; Evans Community School, 67, 73–80; Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on State of Higher Education Reform, 1, 6, 38, 128; Orange County Children’s Cabinet, 54; Pine Hills, 67, 67–68, 77–79 food deserts, 50, 86, 97 141

142

Index

good life: basic goods, 9; pursuit of, 7, 8, 10, 12, 47, 80–81, 93, 106–107, 112, 130 Graham, Bob, 4, 15–16 greed, 21, 31 higher education: academic capitalism, 41, 43, 106, 111, 126; antiquity, 8, 25, 29, 30, 125; citizen cultivation, 126; cost, ix, 7, 28, 41; fads, 25, 99, 99–100; graduation rates, ix, 26, 68, 85, 106, 113; graduation requirements, 100, 113, 121; internationalization, 100, 118, 121; job creation, 4, 26, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 90, 92, 99, 108, 126, 128; knowledge dissemination, 37, 38, 92, 93, 97, 100, 102, 111–112, 118, 119, 121, 125; performance funding, 100, 105–106, 121; skills development, 5, 7, 26, 34, 36–48, 85, 92, 97, 99, 108, 125; tenure and promotion, 3, 42, 100, 115–118, 121, 128; yin and yang, 26, 27, 100 HIV/AIDS, 50, 53 homelessness, 18, 19, 22, 60–62, 83, 86, 89, 91–92, 103, 104–20, 112, 127 individualism, 2, 4, 8, 21 Ireland, 29 J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, 68 Jefferson, Thomas, 6, 30 Johnson, Lyndon, 87, 88 Johnston, Erik, 47–48 joined up service learning. See service learning, joined up Kapucu, Naim, 83 Living Learning Communities, 59, 62–63, 129 Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, 15 Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils, 49, 51 massive open online courses, 119, 120–121 McCrory, Pat, 2 McKinney-Vento Act, 89

National Issues Forum, 2–3, 27 National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement, 116 National Science Foundation, 42 National Task Force on Civic Learning and Engagement, 32, 34, 35 Neira, Alice, 22, 60–61 Nixon, Richard, 29 Obama, Barack, ix, 42, 88 Obama, Michelle, 50 open access journals, 38, 100, 118, 119–120, 121 Orlando Cares, 86, 94–96 participatory action research, 48–49, 52, 80 Pew Research Center, 16, 21 public work, 32, 34, 35, 49, 52 Pursuit of Happyness, 19 return on engagement, 85, 98, 101, 105 return on investment, ix, 40, 42, 101 Roosevelt, Franklin, 87 scholarship of teaching and learning, 104, 115, 117, 126 Scott, Rick, 1, 38 SEE DEMOS, 6, 12, 43, 45, 63, 75, 115 Seoul Metropolitan Government, 28, 31 service learning: Institutional Review Board, 66; joined up, 66, 67, 68, 71; liability, 72; outcomes, 76–80; rationale, 67, 75; reflection, 66, 67, 73–74, 74, 75 Shakespeare, William, 6, 38, 99, 128, 130–131 social connectedness, ix, 11–12, 14, 14–15, 21 STEM education, 3, 41, 129 Together for Tomorrow, 86, 96–97 Truman, Harry, 28 University of Central Florida: Business Incubation Program, 40; Capacity Building Institute, 83; Center for Public and Nonprofit Management, 55, 83, 90, 92; College of Education, 68; College of Health and Public Affairs, 31, 68;

Index faculty senate, 115, 129; hunger banquet, 61–62; John Scott Dailey Institute of Government, 53; School of Public Administration, 65, 84; Volunteer UCF, 59–60 United Kingdom, ix, 120 United Nations, 29 University of Illinois, 39–40 University of Seoul, 31 University of Southern California: Price School of Public Policy, 55–57; Sol

143 Price Center for Social Innovation, 56–57

Virginia Commonwealth University: Center for Public Policy, 58; Grace E. Harris Leadership Institute, 58–59 Walking School Bus, 86, 92–93 White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 96

About the Author

Thomas A. Bryer is director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management at the University of Central Florida, associate professor in the university’s School of Public Administration, and chair of the Section on Public Administration Education in the American Society for Public Administration. His research focuses on the design of institutions to enhance citizenship and public participation in government. He has won several awards for his scholarship, research, teaching, and professional service, and is widely published in the top public administration journals, including Public Administration Review, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, American Review of Public Administration, and Administrative Theory & Praxis. He serves on the Editorial Boards of Public Performance and Management Review and Public Administration Review. His PhD is from the University of Southern California.

145