Brokering Community–University Engagement

Abstract

Although substantial areas of agreement exist regarding the characteristics of effective community-university partnerships for research, there is little empirical research on the relationship between the characteristics of such partnerships and their outcomes. In this study, we explored the relationship between partnership characteristics and partnership outcomes. Analyses of the relationships between partnership dynamics and perceived benefits show that (1) effective partnership management is associated with increased research on a community issue, problem, or need; (2) co-creation of knowledge is Outreach and Engagement, Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Minnesota. His research and scholarship focus on program evaluation and the evaluation of university-community partnerships.Celeste Sturdevant Reed is an evaluator with University Outreach and Engagement at Michigan State University. She has an M.S.W. from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Social Science/Labor and Industrial Relations from Michigan State University. Her current evaluation projects focus on comprehensive early childhood services and out-of-school time (K-12) programs.Robert E. Brown is the Associate Director of University-Community Partnerships, Michigan State University Outreach and Engagement. He brokers, facilitates, and participates in university-community partnerships that are scholarly, community-based, collaborative, responsive, and capacity-building for the public good. He has a master's degree in public administration from Western Michigan University.

Sustainable Engagement? Reflections on the development of a creative community-university partnership

“…This article is a reflective piece that fits within a type of scholarship of engagement (McNall et al 2009), informed by my experiences and observations in the 'doing' of engaged scholarship as it relates to NENu over the course of the past two years. These reflections should not be taken as a comprehensive history or effectiveness analysis of NENu or any of the processes discussed herein.…”

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

“…Hatcher, 2002), environmental andcontextual conditions (e.g. 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).…”

“…These factors include previous collaboration, the community's response to identified problems, geographic or cultural diversity, as well as structural factors such as how membership and formalization of processes are managed (McNall et al, 2009). Important within processes is shared leadership, two-way and open communication, cooperative development of goals and a shared vision, participatory decision-making processes that are flexible and build consensus, and recognition and resolution of conflicts (Barnes, Altimare, Farrell, Brown, Burnett, Gamble, & Davis, 2009;Sargent & Waters, 2004).…”

“…This harkens back to the key process element of creating a shared vision (e.g. McNall et al, 2009;Norris-Tirrell et al, 2010). Literature indicates that individual-level efforts are the first in a chain of levels of accountability, which arc toward a more comprehensive understanding of how individual processes accumulate and conceivably create community-level change.…”

“…Institutionalization is cited as a goal of engagement processes (e.g. McNall et al, 2009;Schulz et al, 2003), yet reviewing an institutionally engaged campus as put forth by Furco and Miller still leaves the question of how the five elements directly translate into improved outcomes within the community.…”