Community-engaged research through the lens of school closures: Opportunities, challenges, contributions, and lingering questions

Abstract

This article expands upon and problematizes the practice of community-engaged research (CES) through the lens of school closings. Rather than employ a one-dimensional view of CES that portrays university researchers and community partners as collaborating equally on all stages of the research, we suggest a broader, more flexible understanding that incorporates various contextual factors. Drawing on local examples, from New York City and Baltimore, and one national effort to resist school closings, we present three forms of CES: participatory action research (PAR), in which university researchers and community partners collaboratively engaged in almost all aspects of the process; the engaged learner, in which the researcher documented a community organizing campaign with the full support of the campaign organizers; and a grassroots listening project implemented without university partners. In each case, participants had to navigate the thorny issues of power differentials, race and racism, ownership and voice, and presentation and representation. Difficulties notwithstanding, CES has made important contributions to both the literature on and practice of school closings. We conclude the article with a discussion of some of the lingering tensions that characterize community-engaged scholarship.

Experiencing service learning partnership: A human development perspective of community members

“…These dimensions are central in ensuring that service–learning partnerships are equitable, inclusive and empowering in terms of design, implementation and evaluation of outcomes (Bringle et al, 2009; Mtawa, 2019). In this context, many proclaim that such forms of university–community partnerships produce knowledge that can be used by community partners to contribute to positive change and the wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities (Agard et al, 2019). Similarly, Reynolds and Sariola (2018: 257) argue that: [.…”

“…What is clear from the literature is that the university often dominates the process of designing and implementing service–learning initiatives. For example, Agard et al (2019) critique power and privilege in research that involves community engaged scholarships such as service–learning. ‘Access to resources, implicit legitimacy, and social capital rich networks significantly elevate the status of university-based research vis-à-vis their community counterpart’ (Agard et al, 2019: 10).…”

“…Higher education institutions have motivations for and perceived benefits of service–learning that differ from those of community partners. Universities are largely driven by academic motivation or academic mission (Agard et al, 2019; Stoecker, 2017), while communities enter into partnerships mainly because they hope partnerships would contribute to addressing challenges facing them or advancing their social agendas (Kezar, 2006; Strier, 2011, 2014). Many scholars are critical of the overemphasis on the value or benefits of service–learning for the university (students and staff) (Stoecker, 2016).…”

“…A combination of power imbalances, tensions between instrumental and social value and the context in which service–learning operates as presented above, contribute to different ways in which staff, students and community members are positioned and labelled in service–learning partnerships. Although some argue that issues of power and privilege are not one dimensional (Agard et al, 2019; Sandmann and Kliewer, 2012), the tension between instrumental and social values, as well as the conditions under which service–learning partnerships operate, undermine community partners’ voices and ability to create meaningful partnerships based upon commitment to equality. For example, Stoecker (2016: 25) reminds us ‘how often we tell students that [.…”

“…It has been one of the long-standing criticisms of service–learning field that the complexities and tensions of service–learning partnerships largely contribute to the marginalisation and lack of community members’ voices and experiences in service–learning literature and practice. Although much has been done over the past few decades to understand communities’ perspectives of service–learning partnerships (Agard et al, 2019; Machimana et al, 2018; Williams and Nunn, 2016), to date, and particularly in South Africa, the question of whether community members participate and benefit on an equal footing with their counterpart in service–learning partnerships continues to surface. For example, Davis et al (2019: 147–148) argue: If our goal is to strive toward a more equitable exchange of information and co-creation of knowledge, there must first be an assumption that all stakeholders – students, faculty, universities, and community partners – are equally valued and speaking a common language.…”