Exploring Community- University Partnerships through Multiple Frameworks

1. Lina D. Dostilio, Duquesne University Neivin M. Shalabi, University of Denver Tracy M. Soska, University of Pittsburgh Exploring Community- University Partnerships through Multiple Frameworks

2. How does research assist in crossing boundaries between campus and community partners?

3. Consideration of Enos and Morton’s Theory of University-Community Partnerships Application of Democratic Engagement to Community-University Partnerships Exploration of Pragmatic Community-University Partnerships from Frameworks of Collaborationand Social Capital

4. Neivin Shalabi Consideration of Enos and Morton’s Theory of University-community partnerships

5. Campus-Community Partnerships: Enos and Morton’s (2003) Theory • Transactional and transformative relationships • Typology for the development of campus-community partnerships • Directions for future research • Areas of convergence & divergence

6. Transactional Relationships • Operate within existing structures in which partners connect together because each has something that the other perceives as useful, • Instrumental and project-based, • Characterized by limited commitments and minimum disruption of the regular work of the parties involved, • By the end, partners feel contented with the outcomes, but not much changed.

7. Transformative Relationships • Progress in less defined manners, • Expectations that things may be altered and order may be disrupted, • Characterized by genuine and long-term commitments, • Partners reflect deeply on their organizations and examine the way they define and comprehend problems, • Lead to the development of new values and identities for partners.

8. Typology for Development of Campus-Community Partnerships Time One-time events and projects Depth and Complexity Short-term placements Ongoing Placements, mutual dependence Core partnerships, interdependence Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledge Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Building partnerships for service-Learning (pp. 20-41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (p. 27)

9. Adaptation Shalabi, N. (2010). University-community service-learning partnerships. Paper Presented to the Committee Members of the Doctoral Comprehensive Examination Paper Proposal at the Morgridge College of Education. The University of Denver. (p. 9). Depth and Complexity Transformation, joint creation of work and knowledge Core partnerships, interdependence Ongoing Placements, mutual dependence Short-term placements One-time events and projects Time • Sizes of the levels are reversed to reflect the expected time for each level, • Directions of the axes are reserved to indicate positive signs and growth, • Directions of the levels are reversed to show the development of each level over time.

10. Critical Question? • Are transformative relationships appropriate for all types of university-community engagement???

11. Research Findings • Bushouse’s (2005) study: community participants explicitly expressed their strong inclination to developing transactional relationships with the partnering universities. • Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison’s (2010) study: faculty repeatedly described their relationships with community partners as transactional, with some hoping for transformational relationships.

12. Scholarly Arguments • Expectations for transformational relationships—if they are neither desired nor convenient to one partner—may paralyze the relationships which operate successfully at the transactional level (Clayton et al., 2010).

13. So Now What? • Should we give up our aspirations for transformative partnerships between the academy and the community???

14. NO, rather • We need to be careful not to make broad generalizations; each partnership is unique. • It is critical that university and community partners discuss the goals and expectations of their partnerships at the initiation phase of their collaborations. • The barriers to developing partnerships must be confronted and addressed. • The goals and aspirations of each partner must be honored.

15. Critical Questions & Suggestions for Future Research • What are the institutional/organizational factors that facilitate the development of transformative partnerships between universities and community-based organizations? • What hinders the progress toward transformation? Are there logistic, institutional, cultural, or capacity barriers? Future research should solicit the perspectives of all the parties involved.

16. Lina D. Dostilio Application of Democratic Engagement to Community-University Partnerships

17. Democratic Engagement Framework Process of Partnering Democratic Engagement Whitepaper: Saltmarsh et al., 2009

18. Roles, Processes, and Purposes

19. Building Out: Making Extensions • How do community and university stakeholders arrive at such roles and processes? • Prilleltensky’s (1994) Empowerment Theory • Friere’s (1970)concept of Dialogic Action

20. Tracy Soska Exploring Pragmatic Community-University Partnerships fromFrameworks of Collaborationand Social Capital

21. DEFINITION • Collaborationis a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals This relationship includes commitment to: • Definition of mutual relationship and goals • Jointly develop structure and share responsibility • Mutual authority and accountability for success • Sharing of resources and rewards

22. DEFINITION • SOCIAL CAPITAL (Robert Putnam) “…social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations.” (Making Democracy Work, 2000, 1993 and reinforced in Bowling Alone, )

23. Community Practice Theories in Collaborations and Partnerships • Systems and Organizational Theory • Social Learning Theory • Reality Constructionist • Social Exchange and Network Theory • Inter-organizational Theory • Community Building – Assets & Capacities • Consensus Organizing strategies

24. Factors Affecting Collaboration • Wilder Foundation Collaboration Research study (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey; 2001) • Distilled and Benchmarked best practices • Identified 20 factors in successful collaborations • Dynamic Tensions in Collaborations (Mizrahi and Rosenthal; 1994) • Frameworks for understanding and assessing university-community partnerships • HUD Community Outreach Partnership Centers • Community Building and Consensus Organizing

25. Environmental Factors • History of Collaboration or cooperation in community • creating a common community narrative, • Inter-organizational relations • Collaborative Group seen as leader • Opportunities for social exchange • Strong network • Favorable social/political climate

26. Membership Factors • Mutual Respect, understanding, trust • Lao Tse on Trust • Open Systems - reciprocity • Dialogues of partnership • Appropriate cross section of community • Exchange opportunities and strong network • Collaboration in self-interest • Ability to compromise • Reciprocity • Balancing power

27. Process & Structure Factors • Stake in both process and outcomes • Multiple levels of decision-making • Flexibility • Clear roles and policies • Adaptability

28. Communications Factors • Open and Frequent Communications • Open systems • Exchange networks • Formal and informal communications • Opportunities for exchange across and within partners • Building the common narrative

29. Factors of Purpose • Concrete, attainable goals and objectives • Doable, winnable • Shared Vision • Organizational domain • Unique purpose • Inter-organizational work – can do best jointly

30. Resource Factors • Sufficient support • Funding • In-kind • Skilled Convener • Managing relations and exchanges • Creating powerful narratives

31. Dynamic Tensions - Challenges • Collaboration isn’t a natural act – Cooperation v. Conflict • Mixed Loyalties – Partnership v. Organization • Unity v. Diversity • Goal differences v. ideological differences • Managing power and resource differentials • Managing diversity • Consensus Organizing (Eichler)

33. Convergence • Reciprocity • Power relationships • Transformation

34. Reciprocity • Enos and Morton(2003): - Share one community, - Academic expertise may be challenged by the collective experience of all the parties, • Saltmarsh, Hartley, and Clayton (2009): “Democratic engagement seeks the public good with the public and not merely for the public as a means to facilitating a more active and engaged democracy” (p. 7).

35. Reciprocity (Cont.) • Reconceptualization of knowledge construction: inclusive, collaborative, flows in multi directions Pragmatic framework: • Social capital is best strengthened when it is grounded in a network of reciprocal social relationships (Putnam, 1993, 2001). • partners should share a shared vision and a stake in both the process and outcomes (Mattessich, Murray-Close, & Monsey, 2001).

36. Power • Enos and Morton (2003): - Community perspective, - Ongoing assessment • Saltmarsh et al. (2009): - Called for an “epistemological shift that values not only expert knowledge that is rational, analytic, and positivist, but also values a different kind of rationality that is relational, localized, and contextualized and favors mutual deference between lay persons and academics” (p. 10). • Pragmatic framework: - Pays explicit attention to the level and amount of power among all the parties (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1994).

37. Transformation • Enos and Morton (2003): - Implications for students, faculty, and community members • Saltmarsh et al. (2009): - “Second-order” change • Pragmatic framework: - Co-learning experience leading to negotiated change in both the campus and the community.

38. Divergence • Means to reach ends: - Enos and Morton (2003): Interdependence - Saltmarsh et al. (2009): Democracy & Politics - Pragmatic framework: Capacity building

39. Complementary Nature of Enos and Morton’s Typology and Democratic Engagement

41. Building Social Capital & Partnership • A Democratic Participatory Model (Putnam, R.; Making Democracy Work, 2000, 1993) • Supported by Social Exchange Networks • Builds and Strengthens Relationships of Commonality across differences – Consensus • Builds on Assets and Capacities of partners • Accentuates Collaborative factors for success • Reduces adverse dynamic tensions

42. Thank you & Contact Info. • Lina D. Dostilio Duquesne University dostilioL@duq.edu • Neivin M. Shalabi University of Denver nshalabi@du.edu • Tracy M. Soska University of Pittsburgh tsssw@pitt.edu