Rethinking Community Engagement

1. Rethinking Community Engagement A conceptual framework

2. Content • Background/context • Traditional approach to community engagement (CE) • Rethinking community engagement • Conceptual framework- Critical pedagogy of place • Conclusion

3. Context • We are living at a time when the world is increasingly becoming unknowable, disruptive, unequal and disturbing. • Growing inequalities and other disturbing social ills marks society today. (Daily we read or hear about wars, civil strife and natural disasters) • The question in our context is: What can higher education institutions do to contribute towards addressing the many challenges in our societies today? • We are forced to start or begin to think about ways in which education systems can be used to bring students into and equip them for ‘being in the world’ in new ways. • New ways of being in the world must enable them to confront the dominant status quo in the process helping them to adopt ways of living that do not further perpetuate social injustice.

4. … • We are also compelled (HEI) to begin to interrogate our engagement practices with the community. • How do we conceptualize and implement community engagement such that it has an impact on both institutions and society.   • Many approaches that have been adopted when it comes to how the university engages with the community. • Universities have positioned themselves as sources of knowledge. • Some institutions recognize the importance of partnering with community

5. … • This is one of the reasons why HEI needs to rethink community engagement, how they conceptualize and implement CE. • This rethinking of community engagement is very important if universities are to play a significant role in addressing the challenges in society today • Universities must become responsive to the needs of society

6. Traditional approach to CE • Why rethinking community engagement? • For a long time the concept of community engagement has been perceived as a form of welfare, or something separate from the university activities • Perceived as an ‘add-on’ to the core functions of the HE institution. • HEI reach out to communities in an expert model of knowledge delivery • The concept has not been seen or systematically integrated to the core functions of HEI (teaching, learning and research) • Approach has been influenced by how HEI define the concept of engagement.

7. Rethinking CE • Engagement must become central to the core activities of HEIs. • If we are to rethink community engagement we need to begin to see it as: • ‘a process of creating a shared vision among the community (especially disadvantaged) and partners (local, provincial, national government, NGOs, higher education institutions, business, donors) in society, as equal partners, that results in a long-term collaborative programme of action with outcomes that benefit the whole community equitably’ (CHE 2007) • Connections with the community must reflect partnership in the creation of knowledge. Community and universities can co-create knowledge or solutions to societal problems. • When we engage in the process of rethinking community engagement, we are acknowledging the fact that not all knowledge and expertise reside in the academy but that it also resides in non-academic contexts.

8. … • Fitzgerald et al (2005) have defined community engagement as • the partnership of university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sector to enrich scholarship, research and creative activity, enhance curriculum, teaching and learning, prepare educated and civic responsibility among students and contribute to public good. • Engagement must not and cannot be divorced from core functions of any HEI (if HEIs are to become relevant to society).

9. How can this integration of CE to the core activities of HEIs be made possible? • We are suggesting that we begin to explore the possibilities of what David Gruenewald terms a critical pedagogy of place. • We propose that an engagement with the specificities of ‘place’ is a meaningful starting point for CE. • This must be done to avoid ‘distracting both teachers and students attention from, and distorting their response to the actual contexts of their own lives’ (Gruenewald, 2003)

10. … • Engagement with place is a necessary (although not of course sufficient) condition for moving towards consciousness on the part of the privileged educated elite.

11. … • The concept of ‘critical pedagogy of place’ emerges from the convergence of two mutually supportive education traditions i.e. place-based education and critical pedagogy (see Gruenewald, 2003).

12. … • Place-based education as described by Sobel (2005:7) • ‘a process of using the local community and environment as a starting point to teach concepts in language arts, mathematics, social studies and other subjects across the curriculum’. • It seeks to ‘create opportunities for young people to learn about and care for the ecological and social well-being of the communities they inhabit’ (McInerney et al., 2011:5). • Its primary goal is concerned with connecting place with self and community.

13. … • Critical pedagogy according to McLaren & Giroux (1990) • must address the specificities of the experiences, problems, languages and histories that communities rely upon to construct a narrative of collective identity and possible transformation. • For Bowers (1993) critical pedagogy is characterised by an emancipatory and transformative agenda. • Freire argues that critical pedagogies must lead learners to what he calls conscientizacao (Freire, 1970/1995). • Conscientizacao or ‘becoming conscious’ is seen as the ability to perceive social, political and economic injustices in society and to have the courage and audacity to take action against injustice (Freire, 1970; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998).

14. … • To enable coming to consciousness, Freire and Macedo (1987) support the idea of ‘reading the world in order to read the word’. • For critical pedagogues ‘coming to consciousness’ is a necessary condition for the emergence of the capability to reflect and to act on reflection in ways that advance justice rather than reproducing injustice (McLaren, 2003; Freire, 1970/1995).

15. … • Gruenewald (2003) argues that a critical place-based education must also enable students and teachers to begin to ‘ask questions and challenge perspectives that harm both their own lives and the lives of others through a process called ‘decolonisation’. • Thus decolonization involves learning to recognise disruption and injury and to address their cause: to confront a dominant system of thought in order to be able to craft just and sustainable ways of being in the world (Smith and Katz, 1993).

16. … • The process of decolonization is followed by reinhabitation: a process that involves learning to live in a place by being able to pursue the kind of social action that improves the social and ecological lives of the places people inhabit (Gruenewald, 2003).

17. … • A critical approach to place-based education presents a critical perspective as a starting point for education that promotes ‘civic engagement, democratic practices, an ethic care for others and the environment and fostering values largely absent from individualistic and utilitarian approaches to education’ (McInerney et al., 2011:13)

18. Possibilities of CPP • Contextual knowledge and understanding • Critical Inquiry grounded in our realities and Reflective action • Challenges dominant systems of thought • Developing identity, commitment and community • Integrate individual and collective interests (dual transformation) • Multi-disciplinary/interdisciplinary inquiry