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
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: 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
(+)
Participants?
Authors?
(Δ)
The Engaged Department:
Research, Theory, and Transformation of
the Academic Unit
Kevin Kecskes
Associate Professor
Hatfield School of Government
Portland State University
IARSLCE, Baltimore, MD
September 24, 2012
> PSU’s Integrated Approach
Institutional
Engagement
Departmental
Engagement
Student
Engagement
Faculty/Staff
Engagement
PSU Developmental Model:
Faculty Development Approaches
Scholarship of
Engagement
ServiceLearning
CommunityBased
Learning
Community
Service
Civic
Engagement
CommunityBased
Research
Individual
Faculty
Engagement
Departmental
Level
Engagement
Institutional
Level
Engagement
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING
RESEARCH
Capturing Stories from the Field
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/produ
ctCd-1933371021.html
Department Specific Components
Dimensions
Components
I.






Mission
Definition of Community Engaged Teaching
Definition of Community Engaged Research
Definition of Community Engaged Service
Climate and Culture
Collective Self-Awareness



Faculty Knowledge and Awareness
Faculty Involvement and Support
Curricular Integration of Community
Engagement
Faculty Incentives
Review, Promotion, and Tenure Process
Integration
Tenure Track Faculty
Mission and Culture Supporting
Community Engagement
II. Faculty Support and Community
Engagement



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
IV. Student Support and Community
Engagement
Student Opportunities
Student Awareness
Student Incentives and Recognition
Student Voice, Leadership &
Departmental Governance
V. Organizational Support for
Community Engagement
Administrative Support
Facilitating Entity
Evaluation and Assessment
Departmental Planning
Faculty Recruitment and Orientation
Marketing
Dissemination of Community
Engagement
Results
Budgetary Allocation
Department Level Leadership
Campus Level Leadership from
VI. Leadership Support for Community
Departmental Faculty
Engagement
National Level Leadership from
Departmental Faculty
Testing the Utility and Validity of the Conceptual
Framework – Display of Analysis
Department 1:
Levels of Support for Community Engagement
Displayed by Dimensions
4
Dimensions
Leadership
Organizational
Support
Student
Support
Community
Support
Faculty
Support
0
Mission and
Culture
Level of Support
3
1=Low
2=Medium-Low 2
3=Medium-High
1
4=High
Select Findings – Summary Histograms
Levels of Departmental Engagement Displayed by Dimensions (Departments 1 - 6)
4
Mission and Culture
3
2
Faculty Support
Community Support
Student Support
Department
6
Department
5
Department
4
Department
3
0
Department
2
1
Department
1
Level of Support:
1=Low
2= Medium-Low
3=Medium-High
4=High
Organizational Support
Leadership
Levels of Departmental Engagement Displayed by Dimensions (Departments 7-12)
4
Mission and Culture
3
2
Faculty Support
Community Support
Student Support
Department
12
Department
11
Department
10
Department
9
0
Department
8
1
Department
7
Level of Support:
1=Low
2= Medium-Low
3=Medium-High
4=High
Organizational Support
Leadership
Departmental Engagement Resources
Available from PSU on the Web
http://www.pdx.edu/cae/departmentalengagement
• Why departmental engagement
• Examples of departments that work
• Strategies that work
• Measuring departmental engagement
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING
RESEARCH
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)
Four conceptual “frames” or
“worldviews”
• Individualist
• Egalitarian
• Fatalist
• Hierarchist
See:
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?
Cultural Theory and Community-University
Partnership Overlay
High “Grid” Tendencies
(Highly constrained by rules
or social conventions)
Low “Group”
(collective)
Tendencies
(Individual will more
important than
collective will)
A Fatalist Way
Skeptical or critical approach,
low cooperation, rule-bound,
and suspect of planning.
Application:
Helpful to keep partnership
expectations realistic.
A Hierarchist Way
Rule-bound and
organizationally cohesive.
Application:
Technology transfer by
experts.
An Individualist Way
Singular approaches
emphasizing bargaining for
competitive advantage.
Application:
Creative visioning, market
orientation toward growth.
An Egalitarian Way
Collective decisions
influenced by reciprocity.
Application:
Community-based learning
or research featuring shared
agendas.
High “Group”
(collective)
Tendencies
(Individual will
subordinated to
collective will)
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.
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING
RESEARCH
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
Institutional Leadership
L. Sandmann & W. Plater
IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH
• 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 & ContrerasMcGavin, 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…
iarslceproceedings2012.wikispaces.com
/Framing+a+research+agenda++institutions