Preventing Graduate Student Heroic Suicide in Community-Based Research: A Tale of Two Committees

1. Preventing Graduate Student Heroic Suicide in Community-Based Research: A Tale of Two Committees Nancy Franz-Iowa State University

2. Dr. Nancy Franz ISU Extension and Outreach Director, Professional Development Professor, School of Education

3. Nancy’s Background • 32+ years with Extension in five states 4-H agent, volunteer, department head, district liaison, state specialist, project administrator, graduate student, administrator • Youth and adult education in all program areas • Research in TL and E&R community engagement

4. Overview • Graduate students value being engaged with communities • Hard to find faculty to support them • More opportunities needed for developing knowledge and skills for community-based scholarship • Research stakeholder advisory committee (RSAC) is an important support

5. Community-Based Education and Research Renaissance • Boyer • Kellogg Commission • NOSC/ESC • Campus Compact • Engagement Academies • Carnegie Classification • Journals – JHEOE, JCES, JOE, JHSE

6. Challenges for Young Scholars • Academic heroism (vs. team) • Appropriate graduate committee members • The “academic only” graduate experience • The master-apprentice model of education • Hierarchical structure of higher education • Community values conflicting with higher education values

7. Collaboration for Learning and Research • Countering the heroic culture • Enhance empowerment, development, synergy, transformation • Decrease isolation • Focus on common good • Public scholarship focuses on collaboration as a best practice • Counters the dissertation “sole scholar” model

8. Preparation of Graduate Students • Emphasis on more than research productivity • Socialized to be community scholars • Supports needed • Networks • Prioritizing efforts • More focus needed on context, not just content (disciplinary training) • Focus on co-learning and co-creation

9. Graduate Community-Based Research Preparation • Observe and develop community-engaged research skills • Multiple dimensions of scholarship • Stakeholder perspectives and ethics • Community-based/appropriate methods • Public scholarship logistics • Leadership skills • Professional development opportunities

10. Why a Research Stakeholder Advisory Committee • Situate research in authentic community-based public scholarship principles • Adhere to academic requirements • Prevent heroic academic suicide • More effectively engage with communities

11. RSAC Characteristics • Created by the student • 3-10 stakeholders • Deep interest in student success • Value research process and implications • Members may need academic affiliations for credibility

12. Roles of RSAC • Devil’s advocate • ID and select research partners • Review/pilot research tools • Connect with research participants • Provide feedback or insights on findings to improve data quality • Insights on implications • Student support to stay on track/navigate

13. Comparison of Dissertation Research Committees

14. RSAC Lessons Learned • Students need to expect conflicts between the two committees • RSAC may take extra time • Little support on campus for RSACs • Student is the bridge between the two • Graduate committee trumps RSAC • Faculty involved need to be co-learners, not just experts

15. RSAC Lessons Learned • Better research can result • Some community members highly value mentoring/working with students • Academic-community partnerships requires patience and persistence • Student and academic schedules can result in episodic research/projects • Academia is difficult for community members to navigate • Many supports needed for all doing this work • Academia needs to more fully integrate community members into co-leading academic efforts

16. So? What are your experiences with helping graduate students navigate the pathways of community-engaged research?

17. Thank you nfranz@iastate.edu