Organizational Transformations in Community Design Centers: An Analysis through Giddens’ Theory of Structuration Framework

Tural, Elif

doi:10.1080/10705422.2017.1309610

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Focusing on student learning outcomes, Smell and Packard (2019) examined the impact of conducting applied research within the auspices of the Applied Research Center, housed in the sociology department at the University of Northern Colorado. Adopting a broader lens, Tural (2017) compares a set of seven university‐based community design centers, seeking to understand whether and how they have changed over time, and identifying three distinct organizational structures. All these studies share a common assumption—that UBRCs are valuable resources and have the capacity to facilitate significant contributions.…”

Section: Examining Project and Institutional Outcomes Of Ubrc Ces—a P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Community‐Engaged Sociology Within an University‐Based Research Center: Successes and Challenges in Doing the Work and Meeting Outcomes in an Institutional Context

Smith

2023

Sociological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I focus on community‐engaged sociology (CES) conducted by faculty members, in partnerships between universities and community partners, and situated within the context of a university‐based research center (UBRC). There has been scant research on UBRCs and their impacts, and I highlight the role that these centers can play in contributing to or impeding outcomes in CES. Beginning with an overview of the institutional context within which I conduct CES, I then discuss three case studies of collaborations with different traits and varying degrees of success. I examine some common challenges that all three collaborations faced, discuss the differences between project (easier to achieve) and institutional (more difficult to achieve) goals, and analyze the reasons for differential results in meeting outcomes. Finally, I conclude by proposing recommendations on how we can better support and boost the work of UBRCs in CES.

show abstract

Section: Examining Project and Institutional Outcomes Of Ubrc Ces—a P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Community‐Engaged Sociology Within an University‐Based Research Center: Successes and Challenges in Doing the Work and Meeting Outcomes in an Institutional Context

Smith

2023

Sociological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were, however, some creative solutions presented, including iterative Live Projects, where successive 'courses' built on gains made by the previous group, yet within the context of a single project (Johnson, 2018); or a simultaneous, multidisciplinary effort, where different groups tackled different aspects of the project at the same time (May et al, 2019) Other common administrative challenges include the management of risk relating todoing activities outside the normal studio environment. These typically include extensive risk management assessment (particularly for programmes relating to construction), liability, insurance, medical issues and other similar considerations (Tural, 2017;Gaber, 2014;Middlebrook & Maines, 2016;Corroto, 2014;Fowles, 1984;Clayton et al, 2002;Schwartz et al, 2014;Hughes, 2014). These can place a substantial administrative burden on the educator, especially in the risk-aversehigher education environment (Canizaro, 2012;Harriss & Froud, 2015).…”

Section: Administrative and Logistical Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These can place a substantial administrative burden on the educator, especially in the risk-aversehigher education environment (Canizaro, 2012;Harriss & Froud, 2015). Furthermore, liability for the project's output (be that built or propositional) is a significant issue for higher education institutions whose raison d'etre is education, not necessarily commercial production (Schwartz et al, 2014;Corroto, 2014) Finally, cost issues, including difficulty obtaining and maintaining funding together with the resourceintensive nature of Live Projects, were a barrier cited by 16% of papers (May et al, 2019;Sara & Jones, 2018;Amer, 2015;Black & Doorn, 2015;Clayton et al, 2002;Akerman, 2017b;Ascher-Barnstone, 2002;Cranz, 2018;Fisher & Lofthouse, 2014;Middlebrook & Maines, 2016;Schwartz et al, 2014;Tural, 2017;Warren, 2014;Malmqvist et al, 2004). Once more, this is a significant challenge in an environment of tightening higher education spending and intensive commercialisation and competition.…”

Section: Administrative and Logistical Barriersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Widder, 2014, p. 31) The main objective of e-d/b curricula is to expose the student to the design and actual construction of a building, outdoor spaces such as playgrounds, bus shelters, constituent building componentry, exhibits and objects, including furnishings. (Verderber, 2021, p. 704) Other scholars, such as SayedSaleh et al (2021) and Tural (2017), describe live projects as a means of exposing students to community issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Live projects: a mixed-methods exploration of existing scholarship

Smith

Dupré

Crough

2022

ARCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate trends and themes within the literature pertaining to live projects, and in so doing, highlight possible areas of future exploration and research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper utilises a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR) method, wherein keywords and phrases are entered into selected citation databases generating a reproducible list of literature. This is then refined using a specified list of criteria and read for relevance. The resulting literature forms the basis of qualitative and quantitative analyses and review.FindingsThe reviewed scholarship demonstrates a surge in publications since the early 2000s, with 75% of publications originating from the USA, Canada, or the UK Furthermore, themes related to live project definitions, outputs and rationales were examined, demonstrating that common factors such as “community”, “construction” and “pedagogy” are not mutually exclusive but tend to overlap, making the topic hard to define. These results also demonstrate a proclivity for projects with a built output. Barriers to live projects were also assessed, and it was found that administrative hurdles, such as time and budget constraints, were the biggest concern to live project practitioners. Finally, critical voices were examined and showed that live projects need to reflect on the nature of their engagement with the community.Research limitations/implicationsThis method, while capturing a substantial portion of the published scholarship, does not capture all live project literature due to limitations such as language and a strong focus on peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, this research only captures literature that has been published. It does not reflect the variety and extent of live project activity occurring globally. For reasons such as unfamiliarity and inconsistencies with the use of live project terminologies, doubtless many unpublished live projects are conducted–yet not represented in these findings. This study may help live project execution by providing valuable examples of existing trends.Originality/valueThis paper captures the metadata from 110 live project publications, allowing for wide-ranging analysis, categorisation and discussion on the topic.

show abstract

“…Structuration theory posits a recursive relationship between agency and social structure. Structure is defined as rules, routines, and customs, such that individuals create and reinforce informal community structure through their social actions, which are themselves driven by the rules and customs that constitute those structures (Giddens, 1984; Ling et al, 2020; Tural, 2017). As people of different backgrounds and social upbringings come together, they change the social fabric of a community (Giddens, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Community in the HIV Online Intervention Space: Lessons From the HealthMPowerment Intervention

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mobile health platforms can facilitate social support and address HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) stigma but pose challenges for intervention design and participant engagement. Giddens’s structuration theory, that individuals are shaped by—and shape—their communities through rules and resources that give them power to operate within these environments, provides a useful analytic framework for exploring these dynamic intervention spaces. Method Data were drawn from an online randomized controlled trial intervention (HealthMpowerment) for young Black men who have sex with men to reduce condomless anal intercourse. We applied a conversational analysis informed by structuration theory to 65 user-generated conversations that included stigma content. We aimed to understand how the interdependent relationship between the intervention space and participants’ contributions might contribute to behavior change. Results Thirty five intervention participants contributed to the analyzed conversations. Our analysis identified three types of conversational processes that may underlie behavior change: (1) Through intervention engagement, participants established norms and expectations that shaped their discussions; (2) participants used anecdotes and anonymity to reinforce norms; and (3) intervention staff members sought to improve engagement and build knowledge by initiating discussions and correcting misinformation, thus playing an integral role in the online community. Conclusions The lens of structuration theory usefully reveals potential behavior change mechanisms within the social interactions of an online intervention. Future design of these interventions to address HIV stigma should explicitly characterize the context in which individuals (study staff and participants) engage with one another in order to assess whether these processes are associated with improved intervention outcomes.

show abstract

Organizational Transformations in Community Design Centers: An Analysis through Giddens’ Theory of Structuration Framework

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Community‐Engaged Sociology Within an University‐Based Research Center: Successes and Challenges in Doing the Work and Meeting Outcomes in an Institutional Context

Community‐Engaged Sociology Within an University‐Based Research Center: Successes and Challenges in Doing the Work and Meeting Outcomes in an Institutional Context

Live projects: a mixed-methods exploration of existing scholarship

Building Community in the HIV Online Intervention Space: Lessons From the HealthMPowerment Intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About