Catalyst for Democracy? Outcomes and Processes in Community-University Interaction

Abstract

Regional colleges and universities are unique in their historic commitment to serve the economic, social, and cultural interests of particular communities. Drawing on the findings of a multi-site case study of two regional institutions, this paper outlines the goals of community-university interaction, then focuses more specifically on the processes of collaboration as distinct from the participants’ desired outcomes. Separating goals from process in this way allows us to explore the civic/democratic impact of these initiatives beyond their economic impact. Findings suggest that when community-university engagement initiatives focus too narrowly on economic development goals, project leaders sometimes neglect the potential of engagement initiatives as catalysts for participatory democracy, thereby limiting input from traditionally under-represented groups. Scholars and practitioners can draw from community development literature, as well as the scholarship related to community-university engagement, allowing simultaneous attention to the nature of relationships between universities and the communities they serve and the process of building inclusive relationships.

Beyond survival: Strengthening community‐based support for parents receiving a family service intervention

“…Although limited in regional areas, services such as kindergartens and parent's groups may act as focal points in facilitating social cohesion (Webb, 2006), providing opportunities to enhance bonding and bridging social capital. Evidence also suggests that access to a range of social supports, healthcare, counselling and educational services are protective factors in supporting family well‐being (Moore et al, 2016; Smart, 2013), and barriers to accessing these supports may result in weaker community ties (Hancock, 2001). The challenges parents face in accessing health and wellness services or other learning and education services reflect those from existing research.…”

Community engagement in youth justice program design

“…The next levels involve various approaches to consulting, collaborating with representatives, with the highest-level involving engagement approaches that are empowering to the community. Therefore, it is argued, higher levels of community engagement involve fuller collaboration between service systems and communities, with empowerment occurring when (a) community decisions are fully adopted in program and service responses and (b) on-going partnerships are formed and committed to ensure that community values and perspectives continue to shape the service system (Moore et al., 2016). A direct result of effective and committed community engagement is a greater sense of ownership and higher levels of participation with services that, in theory, results in programs that are better tailored to the unique context, values and ecology of the community, thus generating new types of evidence about the ways in which programs affect the interests of stakeholders (Lavery, 2018; Moore et al., 2016).…”

“…This approach is characterised by local decision making, organisational support, co-design of programs, and community capacity development and involvement in exploring flexible approaches to funding (Jesuit Social Services, 2017; Papatraianou et al., 2018). Place based concepts of community engagement contrast with more traditional program development models that focus on population-level change, based on program design that involves the imposition of centralised key performance indicators and prescriptive, ‘evidence-based’ program models (see Moore et al., 2016).…”