An Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-University Collaborations for Research and Action

Abstract

Community-university partnerships for research and action are at the heart of many fields in the social sciences including public health, urban planning, education, and community psychology. These partnerships involve individuals from different backgrounds and disciplines working together to address social issues of importance to the community. This article proposes an interactive and contextual model for developing and sustaining community-university partnerships. The phases in the model include gaining entry into the community, developing and sustaining a mutual collaboration (developing trust and mutual respect, establishing adequate communication, respecting human diversity, establishing a culture of learning, respecting the culture of the setting and the community, and developing an action agenda), and recognizing the benefits and outcomes of partnership work. The model also includes the potential challenges that might threaten the partnership, such as resource inequality and time commitment.

Child Welfare Partnership for Research and Training: A Title IV-E University/Community Collaborative Research Model

“…University-community partnerships are valuable in educating students for professional practice, advancing knowledge, and leveraging resources to address social problems (Barnes, et al, 2009;Begun, Berger, Otto-Salaj, & Rose, 2010;Buys & Bursnall, 2007;Gutheil & Heyman, 2010;Suarez-Balcazar, Harper, & Lewis, 2005;Wertheimer, Beck, Brooks, & Wolk, 2004). Title IV-E training programs strive to maximize the potential of university-community partnerships in preparing students for practice in public child welfare settings (Collins-Camargo & Hoffman, 2006;Risley-Curtiss, 2003;Zlotnik, 2003).…”

Institutional processes to determine community engagement impact : a collective case study.

“…McNall, Reed, Brown, &Allen, 2009;Schulz et al, 2003), philosophical and structural components (Buys & Bursnall, 2007;Norris-Tirrell et al, 2010), equity-generating processes (e.g. Bess et al, 2016;Officer et al, 2013), or power-responsive practices (Sandmann, Kliewer, Kim, & Omerikwa, 2010;Suarez-Balcazar et al, 2005). Elements of partnership processes illustrate how outcomes are generated and provide context for the development of institutional procedures to track and assess engagement.…”

“…Amey et al (2007) suggest that context "typically involves internal and external organizational factors, sociopolitical climate, human resource concerns, and timing" (p. 7), which must be navigated within higher education's increasing culture of austerity (Getto & McCunney, 2015). Other contextual elements relate to the historical traditions of academe, involving in part the transition from positivist epistemological assumptions of distanced objectivist research (Boser, 2006) to a more applied, intentional connection of theory to practice (Mayfield, 2001;Suarez-Balcazar et al, 2005).…”

“…Other institutions and partnership initiatives may utilize related but variant forms of the Carnegie definition tailored to their own context. For example, SuarezBalcazar, Harper, and Lewis (2005) define partnerships as "an explicit written or verbal agreement between a community setting…and an academic unit to engage in a common project or common goal, which is mutually beneficial for an extended period" (p. 85). In practice the "explicit" agreement may be more loosely or tightly understood, but this characterization is helpful to demonstrate how language may vary, as will the nature of activities pursued.…”

“…While relationship-building is widely accepted as a foundational element, partnership functioning is also dependent on the ability to navigate contextual and environmental conditions, available resources, assets, and capacities, as well as timing, seasonality, and continuity (Ferman & Hill, 2004;Fogel & Cook, 2006;Suarez-Balcazar et al, 2005). Amey et al (2007) suggest that context "typically involves internal and external organizational factors, sociopolitical climate, human resource concerns, and timing" (p. 7), which must be navigated within higher education's increasing culture of austerity (Getto & McCunney, 2015).…”