Higher educational leaders have used the term ‘engagement’ to describe a renewed relationship between higher educational institutions and the public they serve (Sandmann & Weerts, 2008). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, one of the leading organizations of U.S. based education policy and research, defines community engagement as “the collaboration between higher educational 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 (New England Resource Center for Higher Education, 2015). As of 2015, 240 colleges and universities have received the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Classification. Temple University received its “R1” status from the Carnegie Foundation also in 2015, the highest research classification the foundation grants. Neil Theobald, President of Temple University said that the classification of Temple as an R1 institution “amplifies [Temple’s] ability to attract top faculty and more research dollars, so that we can aid in the community through our discoveries”. Theobald continued, “we’re committed to creating new knowledge so that the people of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can lead better lives” (Verghese & Jelesiewicz, 2015).
Similar to the Carnegie Foundation, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities define an “engaged university” as an institution that is “fully committed to direct two-way interaction with communities and other external constituencies though the development, exchange and application of knowledge, information and expertise for mutual benefit (American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2002) “For mutual benefit” is the key phrase that universities struggle with adhering to the most, given their position in the social world as a powerful cultural symbol of authority over knowledge and an active participant in what Slaughter and Rhodes (2000) refer to as “academic capitalism”. The president’s remarks situate Temple as the constructor of knowledge that will somehow trickle-down and aid in the lives of ordinary citizens. Much like the rhetoric associated with our current brand of neoliberal capitalism, trickle-down academics positions the already symbolically powerful university as the gatekeepers and benefactors of knowledge by being the site of knowledge production. Eventually, innovations that drive academic capitalism and line the pockets of universities reach the public for general consumption via interventions and innovations that come to the general market.
Many universities, including Temple, conduct projects that support the ‘community engagement’ component of the urban university’s mission, which continues to be an important agenda item of urban research universities and supported by such prestigious organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities as illustrated above. Universities accomplish this goal through participating in both ‘engaged scholarship’ as well as the ‘scholarship of engagement’. While related, engaged scholarship refers to scholarly outreach activities that reflect a knowledge-based approach to teaching, research and service for the benefit of external audiences. Likewise, the scholarship of engagement is when faculty reflect on, study, write about and disseminate scholarship about their engagement activities (McNall, et al, 2008). Temple University is currently involved in projects that have engaged scholarship and scholarship of engagement components within neighborhoods of North Philadelphia.
For example, Temple University has been a lead partner is the Choice Neighborhood Initiative, which was granted by the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the Philadelphia Housing Authority in 2013. Through the grant, the College of Education at Temple is committed to providing resources in terms of instructional support, practicum students, leadership development and afterschool programing for the Norristown Apartment neigborhood, which encompases two elementarty schools: the Paul Laurence Dunbar School and the Tanner G. Duckrey School (Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development, 2013). Both schools have historically struggled on measures of student achievement and performance most notably in math and reading (according to the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA), 2012) and have been identified as among the lowest performing schools in the city of Philadelphia (Davis, personal communication, February 28, 2017). According to the lead faculty partner in the project, Dr. James Earl Davis from the College of Education, sees Temple’s role as a ‘facilitator’, which he defines as a partner that strategically aligns university resources and community-based transformative agencies in support of the project’s overall mission (Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development, 2013).
In addition to acting as a facilitator between Temple and the community, Temple has hired an educational engagement coordinator, created a pre-K and after-school program for children attending Paul L. Dunbar and Tanner Duckrey Elementary schools and created a college career-readiness program for students attending Benjamin Franklin High School. A workforce and education center housed in the Paseo Verde apartments also offers a wide range of job-training and employment-placement-counseling programs and services (Burton, 2015).
Since the initiatives have been in place, Temple reports five implications that support community well-being: schooling and learning; community development; employment opportunities; crime and safety; and out of school time and activities. For example, Dr. Davis noted that since 2010, there has been an 87% increase in student PSSA performance in reading and 82% increase in math at the Paul L. Dunbar and Tanner Duckrey Elementary schools. According to a survey, 100% of parents report that Temple is directly responsible for their child’s improvement on the standardized tests and administrative staff in the school’s’ math and reading departments report higher levels of engagement (Davis, personal communication, February 28, 2017).
What remains unclear from the articles written about the Choice Neighborhood Initiative and the personal communication from Dr. Davis, is now much authentic participation arose from community members and organizations in these various projects. The published accounts documenting the Initiative all highlight Temple’s and individual faculty members’/staff’s esteemed role as principal investigators or directors of the projects as well as tout the accomplishments of the projects, citing Temple as the reason for the positive outcomes. Hearking back to what President Theobald noted, what these documents demonstrate, is the prestigious cultural symbol of the Ivory Tower within a community – granting power and voice to faculty members, who are the experts here to solve ordinary people’s problems. This may or may have not been the intent of Temple University when they joined the Initiative, however, the documented evidence gives credence to the traditional role of the urban university participating in a neoliberal ‘academic capitalistic’ system where prestige is the form of capital gained.
Community-engaged scholarship ideally involves reciprocal and equitable engagement from all partners involved (Boyer, 1996). While there is considerable agreement over what makes an effective university-community partnership (McNall, et al, 2008), many scholars believe that university researchers can successfully collaborate with agencies in a relationship of mutual respect to support the application of evidence-based practice (Bellamy, et al., 2008 cited in Archer-Kuhn & Grant, 2014). However, critics of such arrangements between communities and universities caution that all partnerships exist within social and political contexts that produce differentials in power and need (Sandmann & Weerts, 2008, p. 20).
Sandmann and Kliewer (2012) identify three areas of concern that can be potential roadblocks to creating and maintaining authentically reciprocal partnerships between universities and communities. Organizational structures both in the university and within community organizations can negatively impact a partnership. Often, outsiders have difficulty finding an entry point into a highly organized, hierarchical and formal institution (such as a university) to initially form a partnership. Once inside, navigating a bureaucratic structure without fully understanding the institution’s vague and implied cultural norms can offset power dynamics of the relationship before the project’s goals are finalized. This is especially the case if community members lack certain cultural capital necessary to perform within the walls of academia (p. 21). The academic calendar can also pose a threat to realizing egalitarian relationships between university and community partners. Academic activity runs from August to December and again from December to May and academic standards encourage faculty to develop carefully designed courses and research agendas within these timeframes (p. 22). Community members can see this restrictive, as no other business norm allows for a nearly complete shut-down over the winter holidays and summer. Moreover, the pace of work and time it takes for departmental and grant approvals for a project can also allow for higher education as being perceived as less flexible and dynamic than other business partners. Finally, in line with Slaughter and Rhodes’ (2000) framework of academic capitalism, neoliberal forces that allowed for the devaluing of research that supported the ‘public good’ can change the type of knowledge that is produced from a university-community partnership (p.23). Basic inquiry-based research that promotes the general welfare of the community is likely to not be supported by departmental or grant-donating agencies. Thus, restrictions on the type of outcomes and products produced from university-community partnerships become restrictive, in order to support the innovation-for-market-gain role of the neoliberal university.
If urban universities take seriously their mission to facilitate resources within their communities to serve the public good, then deconstructing culturally nuanced power structures embedded in relationships between universities and communities should be at the forefront to establishing reciprocal and mutually beneficial partnerships. This means to first acknowledge the historical and political role of a university as a closed-door Ivory Tower open to the cultural and social elite. It also means building trust and mutual respect through initiatives that are derived from community-based needs and limiting the bureaucratic roadblocks enacted by the university. Finally, outreach and press about projects need to reflect the critical roles both partners played in every step of the process: from forming the partnership, setting project goals, conducting project research and crediting and disseminating the outcomes. These are small, but noteworthy steps that move the balance of power from the Ivory Tower to the community and situate the university as a egalitarian partner and true neighbor.
References
Archer-Kuhn, B., & Grant, J. (2014). Challenging contextual factors in university-community partnerships. Journal Of Community Engagement & Scholarship, 7(2), 40-49.
Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
Burton, J. (2015). College of education news. Retried from http://education.temple.edu/news/temple-partners-city-create-education-and-training-opportunities-north-philadelphia
McNall, M., Reed, C., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (2009). Brokering community–university engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 317-331.
Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development. (2013). Temple University college of education builds school and community partnerships via the choice neighborhood initiative. Retrieved from http://education.temple.edu/news/college-education-builds-school-and-community-partnerships-choice-neighborhood-initiative
Sandmann, L. R., & Kliewer, B. W. (2012). Theoretical and applied perspectives on power: Recognizing processes that undermine effective community-university partnerships. Journal of Community Engagement & Scholarship, 5(2), 20-28.
Sandmann, L. R., & Weerts, D. J. (2008). Reshaping institutional boundaries to accommodate an engagement agenda. Innovative Higher Education, 33(3), 181-196. doi:http://dx.doi.org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1007/s10755-008-9077-9
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2000). The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum, 6, 73-79. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40342886
Verghese, A. & Jelesiewicz, E. (2015). Temple University reaches height of Carnegie research classification. Retrieved from http://news.temple.edu/news/2016-02-01/temple-university-reaches-height-carnegie-research-classification
Hoods, Schools, and People 