Utilizing a Model of Social Change to Examine and Foster Equitable, Democratic, and Mutually Beneficial Networked Community Partnerships

Abstract

Establishing a networked framework of equitable, democratic, and mutually beneficial partnerships in campus-community collaboration is essential for promoting positive social change. Furthermore, the utilization of tools developed to assess both the network and the individual partnerships, with the purpose of improvement over time, is necessary, especially in the context of ever-changing circumstances. This article discusses a study that examined the efficacy of using a model of social change created by stakeholders at one institution as a lens for examining a range of initiatives aimed at producing positive and holistic impact in the community. Perceptions were analyzed using mixed methods and triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative data from faculty and community partners. Overall, the model was useful in the design and implementation of the assessment of both individual partnerships and the network of initiatives. Furthermore, the model's components effectively guided participants in their reflection on how to strengthen their collaboration and enhance the future positive impact.

Antiracist Praxis in Community Engagement: A Partnership Rubric

“…Accordingly, much recent scholarship has outlined antiracist best practices for combating White supremacy for use by university-based SLCE practitioners working with community partners (Gilbert & Masucci, 2004;Harkins et al, 2020;Mitchell, 2008;Mitchell et al, 2012;Morton & Bergbauer, 2015;Santiago-Ortiz, 2019;Stanlick & Sell, 2016;Stoecker, 2016). 1 Although SLCE scholars have developed a robust antiracist scholarship and best practices, the need for assessment in universities has also increased (Brackmann, 2015;Mitchell & Chavous, 2021;Sgoutas-Emch & Guerrieri, 2020). As SLCE practitioners must justify our work to administration, so too have SLCE scholars developed several rubrics focused on community partnerships to support such reporting.…”

“…In the latter half of the 20th century and continuing today, universities in the United States began to transform according to a neoliberal logic that administers universities as businesses, not public goods (Stoecker, 2016;Urciuoli, 2018). Under such governance models, assessment is an important means of articulating SLCE's significance in universities as SLCE programs increasingly struggle to survive (Brackmann, 2015;Clayton et al, 2010;Fleisher et al, 2022;Mitchell & Chavous, 2021;Sgoutas-Emch & Guerrieri, 2020). Having rubrics that highlight the value of SLCE is now fundamental to the survival and future of SLCE offices in neoliberal universities.…”

Global Service-Learning: A Systematic Review of Principles and Practices

“…Scholars in both international development and service-learning are conscious of troubling rates of program failure (Grady et al, 2014;Hartman et al, 2018), which has led to research focused on monitoring, evaluation, and program redesign (Ika et al, 2012;Lawler, 2011), as well as tools for assessing servicelearning community-campus partnerships (e.g., Model of Social Change, TRES Framework, SOFAR Model-see Kniffin et al, 2020;Sgoutas-Emch & Guerrieri, 2020). Similarly, a number of critiques of GSL projects point out the potential for tremendous community damage in poorly designed GSL (Hartman et al, 2018;Illich, 1968).…”