Reinvention Fellowship Proposal.
Richard Huggins, Assistant Dean, Social Sciences and Law. Oxford Brookes University.
Developing A Community Based-Research Scheme for Oxford Brookes University.
1.
Introduction.
This project will explore the development of a community-based research programme at
Oxford Brookes University through a series of pilot student project activities, partnership
work and the development of support materials and resources. The project will provide
students with the opportunity to become involved in a number of activities and projects under
the over-arching umbrella of a themed project1 entitled "Baby ASBOs? Why Not?" This
project, which will run from October 1st 2007- May 31st 2009, looks at early intervention2
practice and opportunities in the broad theme of social inclusion. The project will explore - in
partnership with statutory, non-statutory and voluntary agencies - the context and nature of
early intervention possibilities and opportunities (including socio-economic, moral, political
and other aspects) in an attempt to explore what does, can and could work in this area.
2.
Project Outline.
Community-based research offers students in higher education a distinctive form of engaged
scholarship and a transformative approach to undergraduate research, teaching and learning
and critical engagement (Jansen et al, 2006, Kiely, 2005, McIlrath and Mac Labhrainn, 2007,
Mobley, 2007). In addition, it offers the opportunity for students to place their discipline
within a wider social context that enhances both learning and the student experience (Parilla
and Hesser, 1998), This project proposes the development of a model of community based
research that is genuinely collaborative and driven by community interests in terms of
identifying the issues for investigation, research and analysis. In this sense this project builds
on central aspects of the Reinvention Centre’s founding ethos which seeks to develop
elements of Boyer’s work in terms of civic engagement, reinvention of the undergraduate
learning experience and the role of university’s within their communities (Boyer, 1990, 1996,
Boyer Commission, 1999).
Boyer’s work has been very influential in the US and, of late, in the UK. The Carnegie
Foundation3 has continued to fund major projects building on his work4 and a variety of
models and projects, for example the Reinvention Centre, Stony Brook, New York
University5, Imagining America: Artist’s and Scholars in Public Life6 or the Arts of
Citizenship Program at the University of Michigan7 provide various examples of the critical
engagement with “the scholarship of engagement” within and across various institutions.
1
See Appendix One and Two for details of the project launch and initial project details.
For example, Sure Start, Children and Family Centres, the Thames Valley Partnership’s Never too Early
project (see www.thamesvalleypartnership.org/?page_id=13), Early Intervention Projects within the Thames
Valley Police force area.
3
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org
4
Boyer Commission, (1999), Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research
Universities, Stony Brook, NY, Carnegie Foundation for University Teaching.
5
http://ws.cc.stonybrook.edu/Reinventioncenter/
6
see http://www.ia.umich.edu
7
http://www.umich.edu/~mserve/artsofcitizenship
2
1
Such developments pose interesting questions concerning the role and scope of university
education and learning and reflect considerable scholarly concerns with the scope of active
learning, citizenship, student and university community engagement and the application of
knowledge and skills outside the classroom (Brew, 1999, 2003, Harkavy, I, 2006, Janesen, et
al 2006).
The project will draw on examples of best practice from programmes in the USA (for
example Michigan, Penn State, Tufts, Boston, MIT) and work in the UK (for example,
FDTL-5, Birkbeck, Liverpool Hope, Roehampton) – with which the project lead has
established links – to develop a sustainable model of community-based research that will
facilitate civic and outward facing student engagement that will support a number of strategic
objectives within the Brookes Student Learning Experience Strategy, including linking
research, learning and teaching, enhancing student personal development, development of
project and transferable skills and enhancing employability (Barnett, 2007, Taylor, 2007).
The project will involve students directly in research activities that take place in directly in
community settings and involves community members and groups in the design and
implementation of research projects and the dissemination of results. This project will be
linked to the students’ area of study; will facilitate the development of research skills, critical
engagement with their discipline and the opportunity to work through their disciplinary
knowledge and skills within an external environment. Students will be able to participate in
this project in a number of ways (see section 3) and will be able to undertake work that may
lead to credit bearing assessment (such as an ISM or a dissertation) or may focus on
participation in ways that facilitate reflective and experiential learning that may not
necessarily result in credit but offer significant research and learning opportunities for the
students involved. In this sense the project seeks to develop of elements of “active
citizenship” and a critical scholarship of engagement which encourages students to reflect on
both the nature of their discipline and the critical skills that there discipline can bring to
action and understanding in the social world (Mcintyre, 2006, McIlrath and Mac Labhrainn,
2007, Reardon, 1994)
The project will conclude with a student-organised conference at which the outcomes of the
project work will be presented and discussed. In addition, the project will result in the
completion of a project report, various support materials and a “blueprint” for the
development of a Community Based Research, Resource and Community Engagement
Centre at Oxford Brookes University.
3.
Student Project Activity
Students who join in the project may undertake a series of research and practical activities
that might include –




Joining a work-group (made up of practitioners, statutory agencies communitygroups, activist and academic staff on a project theme).
Creating and participating in networks of activity and information resources
Participate in discussions and analysis of issues within the theme across different
working groups
Undertake key research activity such as policy/literature reviews, data-retrieval,
qualitative and quantitative document/data analysis, policy and programme analysis
and evaluation, policy modelling, interviewing (where appropriate ethical clearance
2






has been obtained), joint tasks and projects with statutory agencies, communitygroups and practitioners as agreed.
Developing briefings, interim findings and information
Preparing case-studies
Identifying and sharing good practice
Mapping structures and processes
Conducting assessed and credit bearing academic work (dissertations/independent
study modules)
Organisation and delivery of the end of project conference Oxford Brookes
University.
Student Project Outputs will include –
4.






End of Project Conference
Development of Practice Case-Studies
Work-group reports
Policy and practice recommendations
Outline strategies for intervention
Project student publications
Staff Outputs will include –

Development of a sustainable model of community based research and a “blueprint”
for the development of a Community Based Research, Resource and Community
Engagement Centre at Oxford Brookes University

Development of web-based support materials including –
1. Guidance on Community Based Research and Learning for Staff, including
examples of good practice, models of assessment, advice on working with
community groups/placement providers ethics, practice and guidance for
placement learning.
2. Guidance on Community Based Research for Students including advice on
working with community groups/placement providers ethics, practice and
guidance for placement learning, a introduction to project skills for placement
learning.
3. Materials covering ethical considerations and a statement of good or preferred
practice for community based research, partnership working and community
engagement.




Development of elements of “active citizenship” and a critical scholarship of
engagement which encourages students to reflect on both the nature of their discipline
and the critical skills that there discipline can bring to action and activity in the social
world.
Development of materials and their adoption across the participating schools and
departments.
Qualitative feedback from student participants regarding the student experience and
the contribution to their overall programme, learning and skills development.
Publication of (at least) two refereed articles in relevant academic journals.
3

5.
Participation in internal and external dissemination and development events
Project Partners –
The role of partners in this project and its future is critical and an important part of this
project will be in developing guides and examples of good practice for colleagues across
Brookes and other organisations in association with these project partners (Awe, et al, 1998,
Kari, N and Skelton, N, (2007).
The following partners have expressed firm commitment to being involved in the project and
are already contributing to or have outlined ways in which they will contribute to the project.
This includes direct opportunity for student research activity, short-term project placements,
access to research materials, data and other resources, project work and critical engagement
opportunities. The contribution of these partners to the success of the project and the
completion of project outcomes will be central.
Community and Voluntary Groups
Learning Communities Initiative (Rose Hill, Blackbird Leys and Barton)
SMART CJS
Elmore Team
Oxford User Team
Thames Valley Partnership
Statutory Organisations
Thames Valley Police
Oxfordshire County Council
Oxfords City Council
Student Groups
Oxford Brookes University Student Union
STAX
6.
Project Timeline.
This project will run from October 1st 2007 – July 31st 2009. The project will be delivered
against the following timeline.
Date
Activity
October 1st – 17th
October 17th
Organisation of Project Launch (with partners)
“Baby-ASBOs? Why Not? Workshop and
Seminar, 1.30-4.30 Lloyd 102.
Recruitment of student participants, identification
of projects and research opportunities (with
project partners)
Paper to be delivered to the C-SAP Teaching in
October 17th – 31st December
November 21st-23rd
4
January 29th 2008
January 1st – 31st May 2008
June 1st – 30th September 2008
1st October 2008 – 20th December 2008
8th January – 30th April
May 2009
30th April – July 31st 2009
7.
Public: The Future of Higher Education
Conference, Cardiff.
Project Seminar – including a visit and talk by
Edenis Guilarte, a popular educator trained at the
Simon Rodriguez Experimental National
University in Caracas, Venezuela.
1st Student Cohort
Review and analysis of stage one of project
2nd Student Cohort
Organisation of Student Conference
Student Conference, Oxford Brookes University.
Completion of project report, support materials
and “blueprint” for the development of a
Community Based Research, Resource and
Community Engagement Centre at Oxford
Brookes University.
Proposed costs breakdown as follows –
Activity
End of project Student Conference
Details
Organisation, AV, food and drink,
conference packs, publicity and
materials
Project Support
0.1 U/G administrator (equivalent)
for 12 months – project
administration and conference
organisation
Materials development
Web-pages and hard-copy materials
Conference attendance, travel and
Plan to attend at least one highaccommodation
profile conference to deliver
academic paper based on the
project.
Travel, accommodation and subsistence Plan to visit two “best-practice”
for institutional visits for “best
locations to develop programmes
practice” development and case studies organisational depth and networks
Travel and Subsistence for students,
Various costs to enable delivery of
staff and partner participating in the
detailed project activities and
project Support to project participants.
outputs.
TOTAL
5
Total
1,500
2,500
1,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
10,000
8.
References:
Atweh, J.M., Holly, M.L., and Kasten, W.C., (Eds), (1998), Action research in practice:
Partnerships for social justice in education, London, Routledge.
Barnett, R, (2007), ‘Recovering the Civic University” in McIlrath, L and Mac Labhrainn, I,
(eds), Higher Education and Civic Engagement: International Perspectives, Aldershot,
Ashgate, pp 25-36
Boyer, E.L., (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Princeton,
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E.L., (1996), ‘The Scholarship of Engagement’ Journal of Public Service and
Outreach, 1, 1, 11-20.
Boyer Commission, (1999), Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for
America’s Research Universities, Stony Brook, NY, Carnegie Foundation for University
Teaching.
Brew, A, (2003), “Teaching and Research: New Relationships and their Implications for
Inquiry-based Teaching and Learning in Higher Education” Higher Education Research and
Development, 22, 1, 3-16
Brew, A, (1999), “Research and Teaching: Changing Relationships in a Changing Context”
Studies in Higher Education, 24, 3, 291-301
Harkavy, I, (2006), “The Role of Universities in Advancing Citizenship and Social Justice in
the 21st Century” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1, 1, 5-37
Jakubowski, L, M., and Burman, P., (2004), ‘Teaching Community Development: A Case
Study in Community-Based Learning’ Teaching Sociology, 32, 160-76
Jansen, Th., Chioncel, N and Dekkers, H, (2006), ‘Social cohesion and integration: learning
active citizenship’ British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 2, 189-205.
Kari, N and Skelton, N, (2007), ‘Place Matters: Partnerships for Civic Learning’ in McIlrath,
L and Mac Labhrainn, I, (eds), Higher Education and Civic Engagement: International
Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 173-184
Kiely, R, (2005), ‘A Transformative Model for Service-Learning: A Longitudinal Case
Study’, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 12, 1, 5-22
McIlrath, L and Mac Labhrainn, I, (eds), (2007), Higher Education and Civic Engagement:
International Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Mcintyre, A, (2006), ‘Activist Research and Student Agency in Universities and Urban
Communities’, Urban Education, 41, 628-647
6
Mobley, C, (2007), ‘Breaking Ground: Engaging Undergraduates in Social Change Through
Service Learning’ Teaching Sociology, 35, 125-137
Parilla, P., and Hesser, G., (1998), ‘Internships and the Sociological Perspective’ Teaching
Society, 26, 4, 310-329
Reardon, K. M., (1994), ‘Undergraduate research in distressed urban communities: An
undervalued form of service-learning’ Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 1,
(1), 44-54
Taylor, R, (2007), ‘Concepts of Citizenship in the Context of Political Education’ in
McIlrath, L and Mac Labhrainn, I, (eds), Higher Education and Civic Engagement:
International Perspectives, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 3-12
7
Appendix One – Project Launch Invitation.
Dear colleagues,
As a number of you may know I am a Reinvention Fellow
(seehttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/research/cetl/) and my fellowship project is
to develop a model for community-based research and engagement for undergraduate
students. As a consequence I am currently working with the Thames Valley Partnership,
Thames Valley Police, Oxfordshire City and County Councils and a number of community
groups on a project entitled "Baby ASBOs? Why Not?". This project, which will run from
October 1st 2007- May 31st 2009 is looking at early intervention practice and opportunities
in five main areas * Substance Misuse
* Young Offenders
* Domestic Abuse
* Child Abuse
* Anti-Social Behaviour
The project will explore - in partnership with statutory, non-statutory and voluntary agencies
- the context and nature of early intervention possibilities and opportunities (including socioeconomic, moral, political and other aspects) in an attempt to explore what does, can and
could work in this area.
We are looking for students to participate in the project in a number of ways - but the purpose
of this email is to ask you if you have SECOND YEAR Stage 2 students who might be
interested in becoming involved in the project with the objective of using their experience
and work undertaken as a basis for their final year dissertation - either directly or indirectly.
Clearly this opportunity may lend itself to some disciplines more than others - but given the
diverse expertise within the School I wanted to highlight this project to all colleagues.
Students will, generally, not be carrying out research with human participants (although this
will be possible where appropriate ethical clearances are obtained) - but will be undertaking
literature and policy reviews, case-study analysis, secondary data analysis, and theoretical
explorations of key ideas and issues. We will be hosting a conference at the end of the project
and are planning to publish a set of outputs from this work.
Please could I ask you to draw this project to the attention of any students who might be
interested and to encourage them to attend a project launch and briefing on* October 17th
1.30 - 4.00 in Lloyd Board Room* - Refreshments provided. Staff colleagues welcome to
attend too if they wish.
Best regards
Richard Huggins
8
Appendix Two: Background Paper for 17th October Student Briefing.
Baby ASBOs or Appropriate Intervention A topic for discussion and further study
“Prevention is better than Cure” sounds uncontroversial but Tony Blair’s statement about
targeting children in the womb has provoked a furore.
Can society target individuals who might be at risk of offending at a very early age? Can we
really predict? Is it morally right to try? There are both practical and ethical issues involved
but it appears that the notion of truly early intervention causes concern – even alarm – even
amongst those who normally argue that “prevention is better than cure”.
Early intervention is well established as the principle behind the Sure Start programme and
the new Children’s Centres to give children “the best start in life” and focus on those most at
risk. Every Child Matters takes as given that we should invest in children with five ambitious
outcomes – and an assumption that this investment has benefits in the longer term. Youth
Offending Services have a remit to work earlier so their definition of preventive work tends
to be focused around those who are already in some form of trouble.
The Social Exclusion Unit recognises that despite many attempts government initiatives have
failed to impact on the most excluded/deprived in our society. Reducing the exclusion and
relative deprivation of the bottom 5% has proved elusive across a range of Government
polices in housing, education, crime and poverty. Recent research suggests that despite
significant attempts in the last ten years our society has become more polarised because those
at the very bottom of the pile have not benefited from economic or social improvements
experienced by the rest of society. Earlier intervention could also be justified by the research
evidence on repeated cycles of violence and abuse which suggests that those who are
themselves abused, neglected or subject to violence at an early age tend to repeat those cycles
in later life either as victims or as perpetrators. Significant percentages of those in young
offender institutions, prisons and mental hospitals have been abused in their early years.
Research also consistently points to the implications of early failure and disengagement in
education with consequences for crime, poverty, mental illness, teenage pregnancies etc.
As a society therefore we understand that some of the risk factors associated with criminality
(as well as those those linked with long-term poverty, economic disadvantage, mental and
physical health etc) may be identified really early on – and possibly even in the womb.
Recent neurological scientific evidence suggests that early development of the brain is crucial
for social and emotion functioning in later life, so that babies who do not learn attachment in
the first year of their life will find relationships more difficult. We know that babies can be
affected by drug taking or alcohol dependancy during pregnancy and research on diet may
highlight similar risks.
So why are we so reluctant to think of targeting in the womb? Presumably in some cases
enough is known about the family and social circumstances of the family and social
circumstances of that the unborn child to confirm that many of those risk factors are already
in place- and known. How is it that the tabloids have grabbed the headlines referring to this
positive intervention as baby ASBOs? How is it that the term ASBO is here being used in a
pejorative way– even by newspapers which have supported ASBOs and tend to call for
punitive sanctions?
9
Is it about the nanny state, the fear of over intervention in people’s lives. Or is it too
expensive or too difficult to divert funding from dealing with the consequences to prevention.
The economic costs of prison, mental health, drug abuse and crime are very rarely weighed
against the costs of family support services, children’s play and early reading initiatives.
Is it the dangers of getting it wrong? – a failure to recognise the protective factors in a family
which might help the disruptive, violent and hyperactive three year old to manage and control
their behaviour and go on to learn pro-social behaviour. Or the failure to recognise that for
some the risk is masked by withdrawn or introverted behaviour which is more easily
overlooked.
Or maybe it’s about whether we know what to do. How can early intervention can be done
effective and without stigmatising? For many years there has been a concern about “net
widening” working into the criminal justice system those whose behaviour is a minor concern
but thereby labelling them as offenders from an early stage with consequences. Some
practitioners in Child Protection and Criminal Justice system recognise that even well
intentioned interventions can be damaging.
The Thames Valley Partnership’s Family Matters programme builds on ten years of
experience of early intervention and overtly targets children at an early age because of the
risk of future criminality. By working with the children of offenders and prisoners we are
explicitly saying that these children are likely to be more at risk - because of the social
circumstances, difficulties of parenting, the disruption to family life and the damaging effects
of imprisonment itself.
Our experience shows that a child focused approach can engage parents in positive family
support work which otherwise they would find intrusive. An emphasis on linking them into
universal services such as children’s centres, is already demonstrating that highly
disadvantaged, dysfunctional and excluded families can benefit from high quality mainstream
services for children. This engagement in turn helps practitioners in education, health and
probation service engage more effectively with families who normally would resist
interventions whether freely offered or coerced.
So does the Thames Valley Partnership’s Family Matters programme offer a solution to this
difficulty? Could the same approach be adopted with the children of drug addicts for
example? How could we possibly measure the success of this when the outcomes are likely
to be felt only in ten to fifteen years time? Can we make an economic case based on any
other kinds of projections? Even if it does work is it morally justifiable to use general
research evidence to effectively label and stigmatise individual families to “offer support”?
Would it be better simply to target geographical neighbourhoods of deprivation and hope that
those most in need benefit? How can we avoid a priority for targeted being developed at the
expense of universal services? How do we help people access services but not penalise them
if they don’t take up the offer?
Why are there so many academic and principle objections to early intervention when this is
what many of us have been asking for, for some time?
Sue Raikes/Richard Huggins
October 2007.
10