Democratic Civic Engagement and Stewards of Place

The Big Picture

Bonner High Impact Institute

Crucible Moment
• “…opportunities for civic learning and
democratic engagement remain optional
rather than expected on many campuses,
and peripheral to the perceived ‘real’
academic mission of too many others.”

• “While the civic reform movement in
higher education has affected almost all
campuses, its inﬂuence is partial rather
than pervasive…optional rather than
expected…”

To Serve a Larger
Purpose:
Education for
Democracy and the
Transformation of
Higher Education

Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M. eds.
(2011) Temple University Press

Questions catalyzing the Kettering Colloquium
(2008):
• Why has the civic engagement movement in higher
education stalled and what are the strategies
needed to further advance institutional
transformation aimed at generating democratic,
community- based knowledge and action?

• Is the civic engagement as it is practiced on
campuses changing higher education or is higher
education changing the way that civic engagement
is being practiced?

• What would need to happen for civic engagement
as it is practiced in higher education to be more
democratic?

Our work has attempted to do two things:

• provide a framework of democratic
engagement as a way to focus attention on
the purposes and processes of
engagement practices and the implications
of democratic engagement for changing
institutions; and

• link engagement practice to institutional
change, examining the kinds of
engagement practices that perpetuate/
reinforce the status quo and the kinds of
engagement practices that compel change.

Technocratic
• Engagement in this sense reflects the
dominant academic culture of higher
education, often characterized as
“scientific,” “rationalized,” “objectified,”
or “technocratic,” meaning that the
approach to public problems is
predominantly shaped by specialized
expertise “applied” externally “to” or
“on” the community, providing
“solutions” to what has been
determined to be the community’s
“needs.”

Democratic
• The norms of a culture of democratic
education are determined by values such as
inclusiveness, participation, task sharing and
reciprocity in public problem solving, and an
equality of respect for the knowledge and
experience that everyone contributes to
education and community building. These
democratic processes and purposes reorient
civic engagement to what we are calling
“democratic engagement.”

Isn’t all engagement
democratic?
Engagement “requires going beyond the
expert model that often gets in the way
of constructive university-community
collaboration…calls on faculty to move
beyond ‘outreach,’…asks scholars to go
beyond ‘service,’ with its overtones of
noblesse oblige. What it emphasizes is
genuine collaboration: that the learning
and teaching be multidirectional and the
expertise shared. It represents a basic
reconceptualization of…community-
based work.” and Rice, Faculty Priorities Reconsidered (2005).

O’Meara

Comparing Civic Engagement Frameworks

Civic Engagement Democratic Civic Engagement
(Focus on Activity and Place) (Focus on Purpose and Process)
Partnerships and mutuality Reciprocity
Deficit-based understanding of community Asset-based understanding of
Community Relationships community
Academic work done for the public Academic work done with the public
Applied Inclusive, collaborative, problem-
Knowledge production/research oriented
Unidirectional flow of knowledge Multi-directional flow of knowledge
Positivist/scientific/technocratic Relational, localized, contextual
Distinction between knowledge producers Co-creation of knowledge
and knowledge consumers
Primacy of academic knowledge Shared authority for knowledge creation
Epistemology

University as the center of public problem- University as a part of an ecosystem of
solving knowledge production addressing public
problem-solving

Apolitical engagement Facilitating an inclusive, collaborative,
Political Dimension and deliberative democracy

Knowledge generation and dissemination Community change that results from the
Outcome through community involvement co-creation of knowledge

Transformation through change in institutional culture.

First-Order Change Second-Order Change
Aim is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness Aim is to alter the fundamental ways in which
of what is done - to make what already exists more organizations are put together. These changes reflect
efficient and more effective. major dissatisfaction with present arrangements.

Does not disturb the basic organizational features, or Second-order changes introduce new goals,
substantially alter the ways in which faculty and structures, and roles that transform familiar ways of
students perform their roles. Those who propose doing things into new ways of solving persistent
first-order changes believe that the existing goals problems.
and structure are both adequate and desirable.

Does not require changes that alter the culture of the Is associated with transformational change, defined
institution, those which require major shifts in an as change that (1) alters the culture of the institution
institution’s culture—the common set of beliefs and by changing select underlying assumptions and
values that creates a shared interpretation and institutional behaviors, processes, and products; (2)
understanding of events and actions. is deep and pervasive, affecting the whole
institution; (3) is intentional; and (4) occurs over
time.

Focuses on institution-wide patterns of perceiving,
thinking, and feeling; shared understandings;
collective assumptions; and common interpretive
frameworks are the ingredients of this ‘invisible
glue’ called institutional culture.

Figure 1
Transformational Change

Depth
Low High
Lo
w
Adjustment Isolated Change
Pervasiveness
(1) (2)

Hig
h
Far-Reaching Transformational
Change Change
(3) (4)

Adapted from Eckel, Hill & Green (1998)

low

3-
Dimensional high
Model high
II IV

(“Johnson
Cube”)
President Melvin
Johnson, Tennessee
I III
State University

[Saltmarsh & Clayton
(2011)]
[Graphic by K. Buchner]

low
low high

low

ed
3-

at
gr
Dimensional high

te
In
Model high
II IV

(“Johnson VI VIII
Cube”)
President Melvin
Deep

Johnson, Tennessee
I III
State University

[Saltmarsh & Clayton
(2011)]
[Graphic by K. Buchner]
V VII

low
low Pervasiv high

e

Why does it matter that we
frame our work around
democratic engagement?
Implications for

1. Partnerships
2. Faculty and Staff Practice
3. Institutional culture and change

Generating new knowledge
• “We must search for a new epistemology of action
more appropriate to reality than the positivism
which has to date dominated all our teaching.”

• “We must, in a conscious way, develop a much
more symbiotic interaction with the world around
us. This will require a two-way ﬂow of
communication with a wide variety of
constituencies, leading to a sharing of
responsibility for decisions in many areas which to
date we have solely considered our own domain.”

Ernest A. Lynton, (1983) Re-examining the Role of
the University: A Crisis of Purpose

Advancing Knowledge
• “…the pursuit of knowledge itself demands
engagement. Increasingly, academics in many
disciplines are realizing that their own intellectual
territory overlaps with that of other knowledge
professionals working outside the university sector…
Knowledge is being keenly pursued in the context of
its application and in a dialogue of practice with
theory through a network of policy-advisors,
companies, consultants, think-tanks and knowledge
brokers as well as academics.”
Association of Commonwealth Universities (2002)

Democratic Civic Engagement and Stewards of Place

Curriculum

Epistemology

Transdisciplinarity

Pedagogy

Curriculum

Epistemology

Transdisciplinarity

Learning Outcomes

Research

Pedagogy

Curriculum

Epistemology

Transdisciplinarity

Learning Outcomes

Knowledge Creation

Institutional Environment

Research

Pedagogy

Curriculum

Epistemology

Transdisciplinarity

Learning Outcomes

Knowledge Creation

Structures, Policies, and Culture

A Crucible Moment
• A Civic Ethos governing campus life:
“the infusion of democratic values into
the customs and habits of everyday
practices, structures, and interactions”
as the “deﬁning character of the
institution…”

A Crucible Moment
• Personal and Social Responsibility
Index (PSRI): “students want their
colleges to foster a stronger
institutional emphasis on contributing
to the larger community.”

Being a Steward of Place
• “…our colleges and universities must
be actively engaged in the
enhancement of their communities and
regions.”

Institutional Stewards of Place
• “From their earliest days, state colleges and
universities have diligently served in their role
as stewards of place, answering the call to
join with public and private partners in their
communities and regions to take advantage of
opportunities and confront challenges. On
issues ranging from economic development to
school reform to regional planning to
environmental protection and more, public
higher education institutions have teamed up
with a wide range of local stakeholders to
identify problems, explore potential solutions,
and test those solutions in real life.”

Disruptive Organizational
Integration

Integration as a key dimension of
transformation change
1. Integration of practices

2. Integration of policies

3. Integration institutional priorities
(across practices, structures, and
policies)

Integration
It has been apparent for some time
that “our inability to build integrated
links among…reform efforts, in their
conception and in their practice,
ultimately limits our ability to effect the
kind of transformative change that we
might have hoped for.”

(Schoem, D. 2002. "Transforming Undergraduate
Education: Moving Beyond Distinct. Undergraduate
Initiatives.” Change Magazine. November/
December)

Disruptive Organizational Integration
The concept of disruptive organizational
integration borrows from the theory of disruptive
innovation (Christensen, 2011) but focuses on a
transformed organizational model instead of a
new business model driven by applications of
technology.

It also draws on the framework of democratic
engagement and the need for second order
institutional change that reﬂects major
dissatisfaction with present arrangements and
introduces new goals, structures, and roles that
involve new ways of solving persistent problems.

The integration that is pursued is intended to
disturb the basic organizational features,
substantially altering the ways in which
administrators, faculty and students perform their
roles.

Integration
Focusing on institutional interventions allows
for changes in culture that can alter conditions
and shape individual experiences and change
practice. It is associated with transformational
change, which Eckel, Hill, and Green deﬁne as
change that “ (1) alters the culture of the
institution by changing select underlying
assumptions and institutional behaviors,
processes, and products; (2) is deep and
pervasive, affecting the whole institution; (3) is
intentional; and (4) occurs over time” (1998, p.
3). Disruptive organizational integration is
not only deep and pervasive, but it has the
added dimension of being integrated across
the institution (practices, policies,
institutional priorities).

Big Picture Thinking About
Change

Academic Capitalism and the
New Economy

• An academic capitalist knowledge/
learning regime
• A public good knowledge/learning
regime

Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoads, 2004

Knowledge/Learning Regimes
Academic Capitalism Public Good
• “Values privatization • “Characterized by
and profit taking in valuing knowledge as a
which institutions, public good to which
inventor faculty, and the citizenry has
corporations have claims.”
claims that come before • “The Cornerstone of the
those of the public.” pubic good knowledge
• “Knowledge is regime was basic
constructed as a private science that led to the
good, valued for discovery of new
creating streams of knowledge within
high-technology academic disciplines,
products that generate serendipitously leading
profits as they flow to public benefits.”
through global
markets.”

Academic Capitalism and the
New Economy
• An academic capitalist knowledge/
learning regime
• A public good knowledge/learning
regime

• A public engagement knowledge/
learning regime

Public Engagement Knowledge/Learning
Regime
Involves partnerships of university
knowledge and resources with those of
the public and private sectors to enrich
scholarship, research, creative activity,
and public knowledge; enhance
curriculum, teaching and learning;
prepare educated, engaged citizens;
strengthen democratic values and civic
responsibility; address and help solve
critical social problems; and contribute
to the public good.

Public Engagement Knowledge/Learning
Regime
Conceptualizes ‘community groups’ as
all those outside of academe
and requires shared authority at all
stages of the research process from
deﬁning the research problem,
choosing theoretical and
methodological approaches,
conducting the research, developing
the ﬁnal product(s), to participating in
peer evaluation.

Engagement as a “core value” for the university of the 21st
century
Engagement implies strenuous, thoughtful,
argumentative interaction with the non-
university world in at least four spheres: setting
universities’ aims, purposes, and priorities;
relating teaching and learning to the wider
world; the back-and-forth dialogue between
researchers and practitioners; and taking on
wider responsibilities as neighbours and
citizens.
Association of Commonwealth Universities

Redeﬁning higher education for the 21st
century
Located squarely between the neoliberal,
market driven, highly privatized
university and the need for universities
to more effectively address social issues
and improve the human condition are
the issues of community engagement,
publically engaged scholarship, and
university-community partnerships.

Democratic Civic Engagement and Stewards of Place

More Related Content

What's hot (10)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Democratic Civic Engagement and Stewards of Place (20)

More from Bonner Foundation (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Democratic Civic Engagement and Stewards of Place

Editor's Notes