Reciprocity: Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say

Abstract

Reciprocity is a foundational concept in service-learning and community engagement, yet it is frequently referred to in the literature without precise conceptualization or critical examination, in effect suggesting a shared understanding of the concept among practitioners and scholars. However, understandings and applications of the term vary widely, and unexamined or unintentionally differing conceptualizations of reciprocity can lead to confusion in practice and can hinder research. This article examines meanings of reciprocity from multiple perspectives and highlights the larger implications of how we characterize the concept in research and practice, using the method of concept review. In this concept review we examine the ways in which the concept of reciprocity has been and could be produced and given meaning within the existing body of service-learning and community engagement literature and in other disciplines and epistemologies (e.g., philosophy, evolutionary biology, leadership, Indigenous meaning-making). Central to this concept review is the goal of distinguishing broad categories of meaning so that we and our community engagement colleagues might be able to make more explicit our position with regard to the specific meanings of reciprocity we intend, which in turn can inform our development of research constructs, practices, and interpretations. ********** Vignette 1: Public schools in a particular community have been defined as under-performing according to standards established by the federal government. Due to budgetary constraints, the school district is limited in its capacity to offer additional academic remediation to students. Concurrently, education majors attending a nearby university seek opportunities for practical experience as teachers. School administrators and faculty members from the university recognize an opportunity to form a partnership. Faculty members coordinate students to organize and lead an after-school tutoring program throughout the school district. Vignette 2: A coalition of individuals from various community and university entities are engaged in a health disparity research project. They recognize that their differing positionalities and experiences (e.g., social class, race, gender, community histories, organizational cultures) influence their perspectives and expectations of the collaboration and, therefore, that they may possess different perspectives on how to best accomplish the project. They intentionally consider each others' ways of thinking and acting and choose to conduct the project in a way that reflects the collective group's priorities and values. The process of consideration iteratively alters their process of engagement with one another, outcomes of the research project, and meaning-making of their findings and future research and practice. Vignette 3: Within a city and its surrounding townships rapid population growth has led to significant expansion of housing construction, commercial development, and creation of recreational amenities on previously undeveloped land. A group of community organization staff, residents, students, and university faculty who had been working together on various other projects realize they share a concern about the future of the area's natural open spaces. They begin to come together once a week to discuss the significance of those open spaces (e.g., historical, ecological, educational, spiritual, metaphorical). This combination of various perspectives, relationships to the area, and community building over time eventually move them in the direction of cataloguing the unique natural resources that will be lost without protection and developing land management protocols for these areas. As the group works together, meeting by meeting and year by year, an organizational identity emerges: an entirely new initiative that transcends the scope of the university, existing community organizations, or citizen groups. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 104 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.