Research-Practice Partnerships as Community-Engaged Learning: Lessons Learned from a Collaborative Project with Youth Development Programs

Abstract

To bridge the gap between community-engaged learning and research-practice partnerships, we describe our experiences in a project jointly conceptualized and implemented by undergraduate students and youth development practitioners over the course of two academic semesters. The project offered students the opportunity to apply the skills they learned through coursework in a way that also supported the needs of community practitioners, providing both groups with opportunities to learn from each other. In this paper we describe the collaborative project, our process, the challenges we faced, and the impact of the project on the student researchers and the youth development practitioners. Written by representatives of both the student researchers and the practitioner collaborators, we hope this paper will inspire others to incorporate students in research-practice partnerships and that our reflections on the strengths and challenges of this process will facilitate more effective implementation of community-engaged scholarship in the future.

Evaluating differences in community-engaged learning and service-learning via the context, input, process, and product model

“…As discussed above, a strong desire to prioritize fostering collaboration between the community and academia likely gave rise to CEL. Defined as "a second-generation formulation of SL that emphasizes collaboration between students and community stakeholders around a civic issue, " CEL builds upon the principles of SL, adding focus on the interaction and teamwork that SL can entail (Saltmarsh et al, 2009;Strasser et al, 2009;Woodley et al, 2019;Agans et al, 2021). It is worth noting that the phrase and, by extension, the practice of SL have not been phased out.…”

“…Given the close relationship and overlap that SL and CEL have with each other, it should be no surprise that CEL's common outcomes are reportedly similar to those seen in SL. To reiterate, those outcomes included: (1) real-world application, (2) increased engagement, (3) increased critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and (4) professional development (O'Connor et al, 2011;Hou, 2014;Woodley et al, 2019;Agans et al, 2021). It is worth noting that although there are similarities in outcomes seen in SL and CEL, the extent to which they differ remains to be thoroughly explored in apparent literature.…”

“…SL and CEL are grounded in theory that was initiated by ideas from individuals like John Dewey, William James, and David Kolb (Deutsch, 1995;Petkus, 2000;Pacho, 2015;Williams, 2017;Sotelino-Losada et al, 2021). These two pedagogical techniques both entail combining classroom-based objectives with community involvement yet possess specific characteristics that distinguish them (Agans et al, 2021). SL studies, despite showing a degree of reciprocity, might have seen academic SL project stakeholders being responsible for much of the work (Buchanan et al, 2002).…”

“…Service-learning is a form of experiential learning that draws upon course material and intertwines it with the act of community service (Sotelino-Losada et al, 2021). Similarly, community-engaged learning, which has its roots in service-learning, has a focus on collaboration and reciprocation between community and academic stakeholders, which lends itself to a more inclusive approach to experiential learning (Saltmarsh et al, 2009;Strasser et al, 2009;Woodley et al, 2019;Agans et al, 2021). Referred to as SL and CEL for brevity, both are considered "high impact practices" (Anderson et al, 2001;Cain, 2013;Malotky et al, 2020) and are similar in principle.…”