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
Vol 2B: Communities, Institutions, &
Partnerships
(Stylus 2013)
Theory
Measurement
Design
Practice
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: PARTNERSHIPS
• Conceptual frameworks
• Organizational partnerships
• Student partnerships
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:
PARTNERSHIPS
(+)
Participants?
Authors?
(Δ)
Conceptual Frameworks for
Partnerships in Service Learning
Robert G. Bringle, Ph.D., Phil.D.
Appalachian State University
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Patti Clayton, Ph.D.
PHC Ventures
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
New England Resource Center for Higher Education, UMass-Boston
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?)?
Relationship > Partnership
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)
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
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
SOFAR
Students
5
1
10
Faculty
4
Administrators
2
9
6
8
7
Community
Organization
Community
3
Residents
SOFAR
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
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
Research: Additional Directions
• Need to collect data from the rest of
SOFAR’s relationships
• Need longitudinal studies
• Need to consider perspective
Partnership Analysis
Person 1
Person 2
Actual Similarity
Perceived
Similarity
P1 perception of P2
Understanding
Perceived
Similarity
P2 perception of P1
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
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
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
Student Partnerships in Service
Learning: More Questions than
Answers
Barbara Jacoby, Ph.D.
bjacoby@umd.edu
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
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 CommunityCampus Partnerships.
Social Change Model
of Leadership Development
Individual
• Consciousness of self
• Congruence
• Commitment
Social Change Model
of Leadership Development
Group
• Collaboration
• Common purpose
• Controversy with civility
Community
• Citizenship
Social Change Model
of Leadership Development
Ultimate goal: CHANGE
SCM Potential Research Questions
• What is it about student 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?
• Questions?
• Ideas?
• Implications?