1 / 32

Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to PARTNERSHIPS

Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to PARTNERSHIPS Patti H. Clayton, Bob Bringle , & Barbara Jacoby. IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research. Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment Vol 2A: Students & Faculty

aletta
Download Presentation

Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to PARTNERSHIPS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to PARTNERSHIPS Patti H. Clayton, Bob Bringle, & Barbara Jacoby

  2. IUPUI Series on Service Learning Research • Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment Vol 2A: Students & Faculty Vol 2B: Communities, Institutions, & Partnerships (Stylus 2013)

  3. Focusing on theory “Bringle(2003) has advocated for theory from cognate areas to be clearly used as a basis of research. These could include theories from psychology about motivation, interpersonal relationships, and cognitive and moral development; from business about interorganizational relationships, leadership, and change management; from philosophy about value systems and decision-making; from political theory about individual and collective action; from history about social movements; from communication about conflict resolution.”

  4. Focusing on theory “The theory or conceptual framework might precede the data collection, or it might emerge from or be modified based on data analysis and interpretation. Procedures for measuring quantitative or qualitative aspects of attributes do not stand alone, and their meaningfulness is often a function of how solidly they are situated in theory.”

  5. Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment • I. STUDENTS • II. FACULTY • III. COMMUNITIES • IV. INSTITUTIONS • V. PARTNERSHIPS

  6. Section: PARTNERSHIPS • Conceptual frameworks • Organizational partnerships • Student partnerships

  7. Chapter template • Theoretical / conceptual frameworks • Critical review of past research • Measurement approaches and instruments • Implications for practice • Future research agenda • Recommended reading Lets do some of this same thinking together ….

  8. Critical review of research to date: PARTNERSHIPS (+) (Δ) Participants? Authors?

  9. Conceptual Frameworks for Partnerships in Service LearningRobert G. Bringle, Ph.D., Phil.D.Appalachian State UniversityIndiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisPatti Clayton, Ph.D.PHC Ventures Indiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroNew England Resource Center for Higher Education, UMass-Boston

  10. Gaps/Issues in Research/Theory • Neglect of partnerships • Campus-Community: Unit of Analysis • “Relationships” vs. “Partnerships” • Outcomes must be “equal” • LOTS of descriptive research • Can they be measured? • Can they be analyze? • Can they be improved (is that desirable, always?)?

  11. Relationship > Partnership

  12. IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH Theoretical Perspectives • Exchange Theory (Bringle & Hatcher) • Transactional/Transformational (Enos & Morton) • Identity and Relationships (Social Psychology) • Negotiated Order Theory (Dorado & Giles)

  13. Theoretical Lens: Exchange Theory • Relationships: Between persons • Outcomes = fn( Rewards – Costs) • Categories of Outcomes: Trust & Respect • Attraction = fn( Outcomes – Comparison Level) • Dependency = fn( Outcomes – Comparison Level for Alternatives) • Closeness = fn(Frequency of interaction, Diversity of interaction, Interdependency) • Equity: Similarity in ratio of outcomes/inputs • Transition from “My Outcomes” to “Our Outcomes” • Mini-Max Principle • Relationship Phases: (a) “shopping” (b) initiation, (c) development, (d) maintenance, (e) dissolution

  14. Recommendations for Future Research: Relationships • Expand perspective of relationships beyond “campus-community partnership”  • SOFAR model • Student • Organizational staff • Faculty • Administrators on campus • Residents or clients

  15. SOFAR Students 1 5 10 Faculty Administrators 2 9 4 6 8 7 Community Organization Community Residents 3

  16. SOFAR

  17. Recommendations for Future Research: Measurement TRES-I: 9-item self-report • Content • outcomes, • common goals, • decision making, • resources, • conflict • management, • identity formation, • power, significance, • satisfaction and • change for the better -Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010, MJCSL

  18. Recommendations for Future Research: Measurement TRES-I (Faculty respondents only) • r = .63 with Venn measure of closeness • r = .56 with composite measure of closeness • Desired > Current -Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010, MJCSL

  19. Research: Additional Directions • Need to collect data from the rest of SOFAR’s relationships • Need longitudinal studies • Need to consider perspective

  20. Partnership Analysis Person 1 Person 2 Actual Similarity Perceived Similarity Understanding Perceived Similarity P1 perception of P2 P2 perception of P1

  21. Research: Additional Directions • Can use SOFAR to analyze partnership qualities and deliberative dialog about improvement, if appropriate • Dewey emphasizes the importance of face-to-face interactions in building relationships and a sense of community, but how critical are they in a world of increasing technology-assisted communication? • Can compare quality of relationship(s) to other data sources • archival • records of communications • decisions about the distribution of resources

  22. Research: Additional Directions • Compare networks (more extensive vs. less extensive) • Study relationships over time • Compare to evidence of success and regression • performance indicators • program outcomes • student learning • constituency satisfaction • quality of life indicators

  23. Research: Additional Directions • Waller’s Principle of Least Interest • Focus on “casualties” • Regression and growth • TransactionTransformation • Differences in expectations • Measurement as an intervention • Network mapping by constituencies

  24. Student Partnerships in Service Learning: More Questions than Answers Barbara Jacoby, Ph.D. bjacoby@umd.edu

  25. Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks • The Foundational Work of Dewey and Freire • Student Development Theories and Frameworks *Musil’s 6 Phases of Citizenship *Social Change Model of Leadership Development *Peer Education/Leadership *Youth Empowerment

  26. Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks • Community-Campus Partnerships as Models for Student Partnerships *SOFAR, TRES *Campus Compact’s Benchmarks for Campus/Community Partnerships *CCPH’s Principles of Good Community- Campus Partnerships.

  27. Social Change Model of Leadership Development Individual • Consciousness of self • Congruence • Commitment

  28. Social Change Model of Leadership Development Group • Collaboration • Common purpose • Controversy with civility Community • Citizenship

  29. Social Change Model of Leadership Development Ultimate goal: CHANGE

  30. SCM Potential Research Questions • What is it aboutstudent partnerships in SL that leads to these desired outcomes? Is it the type of activity, the duration, the intensity, the reflection? • Do students who serve as partners in SL achieve any of these outcomes to a greater extent than students who are only participants? • Do student participants advance in the 7 Cs to a greater extent if student partners serve as peer leaders?

  31. Questions? • Ideas? • Implications?

More Related