The core aspirations of service-learning, to increase civic engagement in students and narrow the distance between universities and communities (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 2007; Mattson, 1998; Morton & Saltmarsh, 1997), appear to have lost momentum (Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2008). Social problems are as difficult as ever (e.g., economic crisis, immigration and health care reform, Afghanistan and Iraq invasions) and service-learning is better positioned, in terms of legitimacy, funding, research, and following, to fulfill its mission than in the past (Billig & Eyler, 2003; Kiely, 2005). So why the plateau in this urgent movement (Brukardt, Holland, Percy, & Zimpher, 2004)? Saltmarsh et al. (2008) argue that universities might be suffering from a survival instinct that prevents further advancement of service-learning. The very legitimacy of the university depends on being perceived as having expert, objective, universal knowledge to impart. The university's very existence might be questioned if those without credentials or degrees manage to solve society's ills (Brukardt et al., 2004; Saltmarsh et al.). Service-learning advocates an opposing epistemology: a need for knowledge to be local and co-created with (rather than for) the community. There has been a loud call for more reciprocal exchanges between universities and communities to awaken service-learning from its inaction (Saltmarsh et al.). This age-old call (see Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1992) has powerful rhetoric but difficult application. For example, how do you teach democratic civic engagement while remaining apolitical? Many university-community partnerships are funded by entities (e.g., federal government) that would frown at a political agenda or partisanship (Saltmarsh et al., 2008). How do you equally serve the needs of the community members and university students, when only one pays tuition? How do you conduct research without imposing the academy or funders' lens on the data (Patton, 2002)? It is easy for the university, financially dependent and behaviorally entrenched in its expert role, to see the community as deficit-based and impose expert solutions (Himley, 2004). Thus, instead of creative, reciprocal, empowering partnerships to alleviate poverty, for example, service-learning takes the form of tutoring the poor. Tutoring is a safe choice: the university benefits from community exposure and the community members receive needed help. But safe does not necessarily mean transformative, as these uninspired interventions tend to replicate existing patterns of power. Listening to the Community The 'recipients of service' are likely to provide the most honest assessment of the success of service-learning. If service-learning is bridging the distance between ivory tower and brick houses, transforming neighborhoods, or increasing civic participation, the community members would take notice. Service-learning research on the community perspective is rare and recent (Worrall, 2007), as it lacks financial and motivational backing (1). The little existing research on the community focuses on the partnership between the university and community as the unit of analysis (Clarke, 2003; Dorado & Giles, 2004; Worrall). Results show that the community benefits from partnering with the university by gaining access to resources and knowledge (Eyler, Giles & Gray, 1999). Also, the community is more receptive to service established collaboratively (Clarke; Dorado & Giles). The more engaged the community is in planning and implementing the service, the more committed the partnership grows over time (Worrall). Though encouraging, these studies inevitably cast the university in a positive light. Administrators of community-based (generally nonprofit and small) organizations are unlikely to repudiate or jeopardize a partnership with a well-funded university by making negative comments in a university-sponsored survey. …
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 120 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.