framing a theory-grounded research agenda related to institutions

Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to

INSTITUTIONS

Julie Hatcher, Barbara Holland, Kevin Kecskes, Lorilee Sandmann

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)

Theory

Design

Practice

Measurement

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.”

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.”

Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment

• I. STUDENTS• II. FACULTY• III. COMMUNITIES• IV. INSTITUTIONS• V. PARTNERSHIPS

Section: INSTITUTIONS

• Institutionalization• Engaged departments• Institutional leadership

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 ….

Critical review of research to date: INSTITUTIONS

(+) ( )Δ

Participants?Authors?

The Engaged Department:

Research, Theory, and Transformation of the Academic Unit

Kevin KecskesAssociate Professor

Hatfield School of GovernmentPortland State UniversityIARSLCE, Baltimore, MD

September 24, 2012

Institutional Engagement

Departmental Engagement Faculty/Staff

Engagement

Student Engagement

> PSU’s Integrated Approach

PSU Developmental Model: Faculty Development Approaches

Community Service

Service-Learning

CivicEngagement

Individual Faculty

Engagement

DepartmentalLevel

Engagement

Institutional Level

Engagement

Scholarship of Engagement

Community-Based

Research

Community-Based

Learning

Capturing Stories from the Field

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

2006:- Considered nearly 100 departments- Invited 25% to submit abstracts for evaluation- Selected 11 departments for inclusion in book- Performed contextual analysis to identify common themes- Developed “characteristics” framework- Tested framework with PSU departments

Engaging Departments:

http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1933371021.html

Dimensions Components

I. Mission and Culture Supporting Community Engagement

Mission Definition of Community Engaged Teaching Definition of Community Engaged Research Definition of Community Engaged Service Climate and Culture Collective Self-Awareness

II. Faculty Support and Community Engagement

Faculty Knowledge and Awareness Faculty Involvement and Support Curricular Integration of Community Engagement Faculty Incentives Review, Promotion, and Tenure Process

Integration Tenure Track Faculty

III. Community Partner and Partnership Support and Community Engagement

Placement and Partnership Awareness Mutual Understanding and Commitment Community Partner Voice Community Partner Leadership Community Partner Access to Resources Community Partner Incentives and

Recognition

Department Specific Components

Department Specific Components

IV. Student Support and Community Engagement

Student Opportunities Student AwarenessStudent Incentives and RecognitionStudent Voice, Leadership & Departmental Governance

V. Organizational Support for Community Engagement

Administrative SupportFacilitating EntityEvaluation and AssessmentDepartmental PlanningFaculty Recruitment and OrientationMarketingDissemination of Community Engagement Results Budgetary Allocation

VI. Leadership Support for Community Engagement

Department Level LeadershipCampus Level Leadership from Departmental FacultyNational Level Leadership from Departmental Faculty

Testing the Utility and Validity of the Conceptual Framework – Display of Analysis

0

1

2

3

4Level of Support

1=Low 2=Medium-Low 3=Medium-High

4=High

Mis

sion

and

Cul

ture

Facu

ltySu

ppor

t

Com

mun

itySu

ppor

t

Stud

ent

Supp

ort

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Supp

ort

Lead

ersh

ip

Dimensions

Department 1: Levels of Support for Community Engagement

Displayed by Dimensions

Select Findings – Summary Histograms

0

1

2

3

4Level of Support:

1=Low2= Medium-Low 3=Medium-High

4=High

Dep

artm

ent

1

Dep

artm

ent

2

Dep

artm

ent

3

Dep

artm

ent

4

Dep

artm

ent

5

Dep

artm

ent

6

Levels of Departmental Engagement Displayed by Dimensions (Departments 1 - 6)

Mission and Culture Faculty Support Community Support Student Support Organizational Support Leadership

0

1

2

3

4Level of Support:

1=Low2= Medium-Low 3=Medium-High

4=High

Dep

artm

ent

7

Dep

artm

ent

8

Dep

artm

ent

9

Dep

artm

ent

10

Dep

artm

ent

11

Dep

artm

ent

12

Levels of Departmental Engagement Displayed by Dimensions (Departments 7-12)

Mission and Culture Faculty Support Community Support Student Support Organizational Support Leadership

Departmental Engagement Resources Available from PSU on the Web

http://www.pdx.edu/cae/departmental-engagement

• Why departmental engagement• Examples of departments that work• Strategies that work• Measuring departmental engagement

Three Connected Theoretical Frameworks

• Organizational change theory and academic unit transformation (Kotter, 1996, 2008; Kotter and Cohen, 2002)

• Institutional theory and connecting community with academic departments (Cook, 1996; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Scott, 1987; Selznick, 1948, 1992; Sirianni & Friedland, 1995)

• Cultural theory and community-academic unit partnership development (Douglas, 1970, 1982; Thompson et al, 1990; Hood, 1998; Kecskes, 2006)

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

Four conceptual “frames” or “worldviews”

• Individualist• Egalitarian• Fatalist• HierarchistSee:Kecskes, K. (2006). Behind the rhetoric: Applying a cultural theory lens to community-campus partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Spring, pp. 5-14.

Individualist Worldview

• “Rivalry” and “competition” are the watchwords

• Possibilities are boundless• Low group, low grid• Advantage: ability to envision and enact

significant accomplishments. • Achilles’ heel: private self-interest is put

before public or collective interest

Individualist Worldview in Community-University Partnerships

• “We know our objectives, we have our plan, we will be happy to bring this out to the community and show them how and where we intend to move in our development strategy. If they wish to join in, all the better. We are certainly quite open to that kind of collaboration.”

• Personal communication with a senior campus development officer (January 2004)

Egalitarian Worldview

• “Mutual responsibility” are the watchwords• High group, low grid• an active orientation toward the world based on

the collective will of the group• Resources are precarious • Approach to action is often dialogue-focused,

generally based on a “town meeting democracy” process model, and guided by a communal viewpoint

• Bias for decentralized self-governing units

Egalitarian Worldview

• Positive– communal sense of belonging– empowerment– control over ones collective fate– large commitment when consensus is achieved

• Negative– endless debate– unchecked feuding– no higher authority to break deadlocks

Egalitarian Worldview in Community-University Partnerships

Community Engagement describes the collaboration between higher education institutions and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

- Carnegie Classification Project 2006

Fatalist Worldview

• “Resilience” is watchword• Low group (low trust), high grid (feelings of

constraint by externally imposed rules)• Emphasis on unpredictability and unintended

effects• Lack of control over destiny• World as resource poor• Advantage: resilience• Disadvantage: unwilling to plan

Fatalist Worldview in Community-University Partnerships

• Chorus in classical Greek theatre– Sideline commentators

• Randomness 1 (campus side)– Who comes to mind, or called recently

• Randomness 2 (community side)– Who showed up?– Partnership by lot

Hierarchist Worldview• Watchword is “steering”• High group, high grid• Experts use technology to tame the environment• Examples: Traditional Chinese society, American

military• Advantage

– Ability to focus technological and human resources on a challenge

• Disadvantage– Insufficient foundational questions can lead to disaster

Hierarchist Worldview in Community-University Partnerships

• Based on community needs and campus assets• Problems defined by campus• Leadership and authority (including fiscal) at

campus side• Awards bestowed to campus constituents• Community is compliant, mostly passive and

appreciative• Campus = purveyor of services• Community = recipient of services

How does it all fit into place?

A Fatalist WaySkeptical or critical approach, low cooperation, rule-bound, and suspect of planning.Application:Helpful to keep partnership expectations realistic.

A Hierarchist WayRule-bound and organizationally cohesive.Application:Technology transfer by experts.

An Individualist WaySingular approaches emphasizing bargaining for competitive advantage.Application:Creative visioning, market orientation toward growth.

An Egalitarian WayCollective decisions influenced by reciprocity.Application:Community-based learning or research featuring shared agendas.

High “Group” (collective) Tendencies

(Individual will subordinated to collective will)

Low “Group” (collective) Tendencies

(Individual will more important than collective will)

High “Grid” Tendencies(Highly constrained by rules

or social conventions)

Low “Grid” Tendencies(Barely/not constrained by rules or social conventions)

Source: Kecskes, K. (2006). Behind the rhetoric: Applying a cultural theory lens to community-campus partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Spring, pp. 5-14. Adapted from Douglas, 1982; Hood, 1998; and Thompson, Ellis, & Wildavsky, 1990.

Cultural Theory and Community-University Partnership Overlay

Now What?Ellis, R. & Thompson, F. (1997) Cultural theory and the environment. The American Political Science Review, 91, 885-897.

SO THEN…? ????? . (2013) Cultural theory and the university: Building engaged departments. MI Journal of Community Service Learning

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

Institutional LeadershipL. Sandmann & W. Plater

• Leadership may be present in a course, a program, an institution, or a movement

• Administrative leadership is central and occurs at multiple levels

• The context of leadership is increasingly complex

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

• Definitions of leadership:– A process whereby an individual influences a

group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2013)

• Innovation, change, culture, institutionalization, and technology

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

Range of Theories• Positivist leadership

frameworks– Trait, Behavior, Power and

influence, Contingency, Cognitive, Cultural/symbolic

– Critiques: leader-centered, individualistic, hierarchical, highly structured, universal assumptions about leadership, emphasis on leader’s power over followers, value-neutral assumptions

• New leadership paradigms (Kezar, Carducci & Contreras-McGavin, 2006)– Constructivism: influenced by

experience and background – Critical theory: explore power

dynamics and values– Postmodernism: critique

assumption of leaders as white male elites

– Distributed leadership: mobilizing leadership at all levels of the organization; collective patterns of leadership; focuses on the practice of leadership

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

Distributed Leadership

Accountability

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

• Defining leadership in service learning and community engagement

• Understanding distributed leadership in service learning and community engagement

• Developing leadership accountability in service learning and community engagement

• Effective leadership development practices for service learning and community engagement

• Useful, empirical research into leadership for service learning and community engagement

• More…

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

• Defining leadership in service learning and community engagement

• Understanding distributed leadership in service learning and community engagement

• Developing leadership accountability in service learning and community engagement

• Effective leadership development practices for service learning and community engagement

• Useful, empirical research into leadership for service learning and community engagement

• More…

IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH

iarslceproceedings2012.wikispaces.com/Framing+a+research+agenda+-

+institutions