1 / 40

Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to INSTITUTIONS

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

wind
Download Presentation

Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to INSTITUTIONS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Framing a Theory-Grounded Research Agenda Related to INSTITUTIONS Julie Hatcher, Barbara Holland, Kevin Kecskes, LorileeSandmann

  2. 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)

  3. 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.”

  4. 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.”

  5. Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment • I. STUDENTS • II. FACULTY • III. COMMUNITIES • IV. INSTITUTIONS • V. PARTNERSHIPS

  6. Section: INSTITUTIONS • Institutionalization • Engaged departments • Institutional leadership

  7. 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 ….

  8. Critical review of research to date: INSTITUTIONS (+) (Δ) Participants? Authors?

  9. The Engaged Department:Research, Theory, and Transformation of the Academic UnitKevin KecskesAssociate ProfessorHatfield School of GovernmentPortland State UniversityIARSLCE, Baltimore, MDSeptember 24, 2012

  10. > PSU’s Integrated Approach Institutional Engagement Student Engagement Departmental Engagement Faculty/Staff Engagement

  11. PSU Developmental Model:Faculty Development Approaches Individual Faculty Engagement Scholarship of Engagement Service- Learning Community- Based Learning Departmental Level Engagement Community- Based Research Community Service Civic Engagement Institutional Level Engagement

  12. 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/productCd-1933371021.html

  13. Department Specific Components

  14. Department Specific Components

  15. Testing the Utility and Validity of the Conceptual Framework –Display of Analysis

  16. Select Findings – Summary Histograms

  17. Departmental Engagement Resources Available from PSU on the Web http://www.pdx.edu/cae/departmental-engagement Why departmental engagement Examples of departments that work Strategies that work Measuring departmental engagement

  18. Three Connected Theoretical Frameworks IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH 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)

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. 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)

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. How does it all fit into place?

  30. 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) 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.

  31. Now What? IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH 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

  32. Institutional LeadershipL. Sandmann & W. Plater

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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 & Contreras-McGavin, 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

  36. IUPUI SERIES ON SERVICE LEARNING RESEARCH Distributed Leadership Accountability

  37. 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…

  38. 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…

  39. iarslceproceedings2012.wikispaces.com/Framing+a+research+agenda+-+institutionsiarslceproceedings2012.wikispaces.com/Framing+a+research+agenda+-+institutions

More Related