Colleges and universities are using community engagement as a means to connect with their communities; the debate about the purpose of higher education has prompted many higher education institutions to align campus resources with community needs as a way to address higher education’s mission towards public good (Wiewel & Knapp, 2005). Chapter 1 introduced the role of community engagement, and the literature review in Chapter 2 highlighted the important elements and the critical need to have community perspectives within the sphere of engagement planning, assessment, and sustainability. Meeting the ideals of mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationships necessitates that both sides of the partnership understand the experiences of community stakeholders. The University of Texas at Austin has made great strides in improving not only its perception with its surrounding community and beyond but has also implemented a division dedicated to community engagement. However, community engagement is not a static entity; continuous learning and work need to be invested to ensure that community engagement practices at higher education institutions meet the needs and hear the voice of their community stakeholders. As a result, this study utilized a research methodology that focuses on the lived experiences of community stakeholders in the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement at UT Austin.
This chapter will present the methodology used for the study. It will first describe the purpose of the study and the research questions that guided the study. As research questions guide the type of methodology used, the following section will describe why a qualitative study was chosen and why phenomenology was a justified approach for the
purpose of the study. The researcher’s influence, epistemology, and positionality are also presented to better address ethical considerations within the study. A justification is made as to why The University of Texas at Austin is an ideal research study site by providing historical, societal, and racial contexts of the university and the city of Austin. The plan of how participants were selected is also described. The chapter will further describe the data collection procedures and instruments, which include a questionnaire, interviews, document analysis, as well as the idea of reciprocity. In terms of analysis, the chapter will discuss descriptive statistics from the questionnaire, codes and themes from the interviews, and validation and evaluation of the study.
Purpose of the Study
Community engagement provides an outlet for community stakeholders and higher education institutions to engage with one another and other entities to address a variety of societal, educational, economical, and other persistent issues. Higher education institutions are microcosms of the societies in which they reside, and often when an issue affects their surrounding communities, it affects those institutions. Thus working together through community-university partnerships is beneficial for both entities. However, most literature on community engagement and community-university partnerships has focused on the evolvement of community engagement in higher education (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002; Martin et al., 20005; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008); indicators of effective community-university partnerships (Dempsey, 2010; Sadler et al, 2012; Suarez-Balcazar et al, 2005); and few empirical studies on community-university
partnerships (Creighton, 2006; Gerstenblatt, 2014). Those empirical studies that center on community engagement or community-university partnerships often are either from the higher education perspective (Gesner, 2013; Norman, 2014) or are concentrated on service learning initiatives (d’Arlach, Sanchez, & Feuer, 2009; Worral, 2007). The few studies that mention the community side of community-university partnerships underscore the need for empirical research on this area (see for example, Cruz & Giles, 2000; Sandmann, 2008; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008).
Since community stakeholders are dealing with the issues firsthand that they are engaging with higher education institutions to work together on, then it is imperative that their experience through community-university partnerships is better understood within and outside of academe. Thus, this study sought to answer these questions:
1. How do community agents define mutually beneficial and reciprocal community- university partnerships?
2. How do community agents, who represent community partners with the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement at The University of Texas at Austin, make meaning of their experiences in a community-university partnership?
3. How do community agents’ experiences connect to their definition of mutually beneficial and reciprocal community-university partnerships?
Research Design
The gap in the extant literature on community engagement and community- university partnerships points to a need to understand the experiences of community
stakeholders. As research questions guide the methods of any study, the research questions stated above indicated the appropriateness of a qualitative research design. This is because qualitative research leads to an in-depth examination of a particular phenomenon (Mertens, 2010). People’s meaning making of phenomena allows qualitative research to move beyond the breadth of an issue and towards the depth of it. According to Hays and Singh (2012), qualitative researchers “listen to individuals’ accounts of a phenomenon, engaging actively, and integrating new perspectives into their own ways of understanding participants, the context, phenomenon, or all three” (p. 4). In addition, a qualitative approach recognizes that knowledge creation occurs from both the research and the participants (Haverkamps & Young, 2007 as cited in Hays & Singh, 2012), which mirrors a key characteristic of community-university partnerships: both sides of the partnership create knowledge. A qualitative design can further allow for a better alignment between research and practice (Hays & Singh, 2012); this is an important consideration in any field, including community-university partnerships, which are a melding of research and practice in themselves. In the following section, a further look into the characteristics and elements of a qualitative design will be expounded on to show the alignment between the research questions and focus and a qualitative study.
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH STUDY
Hays and Singh (2012) point out the key characteristics found in qualitative research. They are: “inductive and abductive analysis; naturalistic and experimental settings; importance of context; the humanness of research; purposive sampling; thick description; and interactive, flexible research design” (Hays & Singh, 2012, p. 5).
Creswell’s (2013) description of qualitative research also echoes many of the same elements. Through these two types of analyses, inductive and abductive, qualitative research can work towards refining the research study and building theory while abductive analysis allows for the interpretation of new concepts that can emerge from the analysis (Hays & Singh, 2012). Creswell uses inductive and deductive logic to form complex reasoning needed throughout the research study. Morgan (2007) explains that a pragmatic approach is based on the use of abduction to connect theory and data.
The role of context is better presented in naturalistic settings; thus, this research study interviewed participants in their own natural settings–where they felt most comfortable in order to provide the needed context of their lived experience in a community-university partnership (Hays & Singh, 2012). This helped the researcher to directly engage with the participants and see how they act within their own contexts (Creswell, 2013). Patton (2002) explains that a naturalistic inquiry allows for understanding the participants’ real worlds, which leads to how they experience the phenomenon.
Another element of qualitative research is the importance of context. Through a naturalistic setting approach, the research study highlights the role of context. Hays and Singh posit that the importance of context shows how participants make meaning of their social experiences. This is an essential part of a phenomenological approach as well. Context is not only important in terms of setting; it is also important for the individual as a whole (Hays & Singh, 2012). A holistic understanding of the participants will garner a more in depth approach to recognizing their experiences and meaning making. In
addition, the humanness of research, also known as Verstehen, identifies the subjectivity that a researcher has with her own research and participants (Hays & Singh, 2012; Patton, 2002). Through purposive sampling, a qualitative study can focus on quality–the depth that participants can bring–over quantity–their numbers for a sample size.
Thick description is another attribute commonly ascribed to qualitative research and justifiably so. According to Hays and Singh (2012), “the term thick description is used when there is ample detail about the research process, the context, and the participants. Qualitative researchers aim for insight and deeper understanding to illustrate a phenomenon fully, rather than for generalizability to the larger sample” (p. 8). However, thick description moves beyond simply providing details; rather, thick description provides a holistic view, the full picture, of the phenomenon and how the participants experience it (Creswell, 2013). Finally, having a flexible research design is imperative; Creswell describes this as an emergent design. Since qualitative research studies the ‘real world’ experiences, then just as things happen in the real world that lead to change, then so must that everyday flexibility be included within a study on the real word of a group of participants (Hays & Sigh, 2012).
Creswell (2013) highlights other important characteristics of qualitative research that were applied in this research study. The researcher herself is an important instrument within the study, in addition to other qualitative methods that may be utilized. While the overall goal of this qualitative study was to highlight the experiences and perspectives of the community stakeholders, the analysis was still through the lens of the researcher. That is why, throughout the research process, participant involvement were
used through validation measures to ensure that their voice and meanings are heard throughout the data and the analysis (Creswell, 2013). In addition, the use of different sources of data added to the strength of the research analysis. This allowed for a more in depth connection between the research and participants. It is also important to acknowledge the power relationship between the researcher and participants. Given the historical trends in community engagement (see Chapter 2 for more information), it was important for the research study that a concerted effort was made to minimize any power issues within the researcher-participant relationship. Creswell (2013) recommends including participant collaboration within the research study to mitigate power issues. Thus, participant involvement during the study was underscored during the data collection and analysis, and hopefully in future collaborations pertaining to this subject matter.
As a result, these descriptors about qualitative research are exactly why a qualitative research design is necessary for the purpose of this study. Creswell (2013) defines qualitative research to include “the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher, a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and its contribution to the literature or a call for change” (p. 45). Community stakeholders’ voices are not present in the literature nor are their experiences of being part of community-university partnerships. Through a qualitative approach, this study can begin to remedy this shortcoming in community engagement literature and research since such an approach will allow for empowerment through which the participants voice will be heard (Creswell, 2013). In the following section, a phenomenological approach will be
presented and an argument will be made as to why this approach fit well with the purpose of a research study on community stakeholders.
PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH
This research study used a phenomenological approach in order to understand how community stakeholders make meaning of their community-university partnerships. Phenomenology “seeks the individual’s perceptions and meaning of a phenomenon or experience” (Mertens, 2010, p. 235). Through this approach, the researcher described the commonalities between the participants’ lived experiences to get to the “essence” of the experience (Creswell, 2013, p. 76). This is important in studying community partners given the diversity in background, focus area, and connections with the university. Having a way to examine what participants have in common provided a different approach to how community engagement occurs in higher education. While discussing the health field, Dyer (2004) expounds on the importance of phenomenological knowledge from community members that leads to purposeful community partnerships. Phenomenology looks at the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of an experience (Moustakas, 1994). Thus, it moves beyond just understanding what the participants experienced in terms of being part of a community-university partnership and looks towards how they experienced it. This study adds to the literature on community engagement that primarily focuses on what the indicators of community-university partnerships are. Indeed, it adds the personal aspect that partners experience as being part of community engagement relationships.
Of the two approaches for phenomenology, this research study relied on Moustakas’ (1994) transcendental phenomenology. This is because the focus of the research was on the experiences of the participants rather than on the researcher’s explanation (Creswell, 2013). As Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 highlight, the voice of the community partners is what is missing in the extant literature, and if van Manen’s (1990) hermeneutic phenomenology had been used, then their voice would have been muted in the conversation about community engagement (as cited in Creswell, 2013). However, that was the antithesis of the research study and its overall purpose. Consequently, in Moustakas’ approach, the researcher bracketed her experiences, also known as epoche, in order “to take a fresh perspective toward the phenomenon under examination” (Creswell, 2013, p. 80). While it is difficult for the research to be devoid of the researcher’s perspective, by addressing the researcher’s positionality and reflexivity before data collection, the overall focus can be on the participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2013). Overall, this allowed for a more authentic look at community partners’ experiences even if the researcher is from the higher education side.
A researcher takes a number of important steps in creating a substantial phenomenological study. The first is to understand if a phenomenology was the best fit based on the research problem. According to Creswell (2013) and based on Moustakas’ (1994) guidelines:
The type of problem best suited for this form of research is one in which it is important to understand several individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon. It would be important to understand these common experiences in order to develop practices or policies, or to develop a deeper understanding about the features of the phenomenon. (p. 81)
Once the phenomenon is identified, in this case, community-university partnerships, and the researcher bracketed out her experiences, then data collection can begin with participants who have experienced the phenomenon. By focusing on the two questions of what has been experienced and how it has been experienced provides the needed foundation of pinpointing the essence of the experience (Creswell, 2013). Since the concentration in a phenomenological study is on the participants’ perspective and the collective of their experiences, phenomenology, therefore, was the right research method for this study.
INFLUENCE OF CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Reflexivity should not occur only during data collection and analysis; it is important for researchers to be reflexive about the subject matter and methodology of their study (Morgan, 2007). Creswell (2013) further points to reflexivity as an important element in any qualitative research study since if the purpose of a study is to learn of others’ points of views, it is important to display the researcher’s as well. In this section and the following one about epistemological stance, I will present what influenced me towards this research area and what I hope will result from this research study. I will further describe my positionality and why it is important to explain my bias before I began the data collection phase of the study.
In 2013, as I began my PhD program, I started a graduate research assistantship within the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement. The first major project that I worked on was on the university’s application for the Carnegie Classification for
Community Engagement. The application was an extensive process that included numerous sections and areas that addressed the complex nature of community engagement in higher education. While some areas were easier to answer than others were, the committee and I realized that the questions that we as a university needed to better address were issues surrounding community voice and whether there were systematic approaches in place to collect input and feedback. Even though The University of Texas at Austin has taken a proactive approach to engage with its community (see UT Austin, communities, and responses section for more information), the role of community voice piqued my interest. Since the role that community can play in higher education greatly depends on the college or university itself, it becomes important to see how institutions make an effort to engage not only in name but also in action with their surrounding communities. Indeed, in her assessment of Carnegie applications, Driscoll (2009) points to the common challenge that many institutions of higher education face: “communication and collaboration with community” (p. 10).
Consequently, the process of applying and receiving the Carnegie classification emphasized the importance that community engagement work continue to be engaged work: in order for it to succeed, continuous effort needs to be given by both higher education institutions and community members. While this research study did not seek to address all the challenges that arose from completing the Carnegie application, I hope to bring light to how community partners understand community-university partnerships and their role and experiences by being in one. From there, this research study could help
higher education institutions to reflect on their work with community partners and how better to align their practices with the experiences and perceptions of their partners.
EPISTEMOLOGY AND PARADIGM
Epistemology, according to Guba and Lincoln (2008), is “how we know what we know” (as cited in Hays and Singh, 2012, p. 35). The epistemology used for this study and in my own personal perspective of processing knowledge is pragmatism. While there continues to be a debate as to what encompasses an epistemology versus a paradigm or a theoretical perspective (see for example, Morgan, 2007), Hays and Singh’s (2012) reasoning on this matter helps alleviate the tension. They argue that “placing an ‘objective’ label on this process is difficult because qualitative researchers have varying ways of conceptualizing their values, assumptions, and orientations for qualitative inquiry, in general, and for a research problem, more specifically” (Hays & Singh, 2012, p. 33). As a result, regardless of descriptor, the ideals of pragmatism are used within this study to better understand community-university partnerships through the lived experiences of community stakeholders.
There are a number of reasons as to why a pragmatic approach was complementary to the nature of this study. First, pragmatists move beyond the concern about truth and reality–the metaphysical (Morgan, 2007)–and rather focus on creating “useful points of connection” (Mertens, 2010, p. 36). According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), a pragmatist should “study what interests you and is of value to you, study it in the different ways that you deem appropriate, and utilize the results in ways that can bring about positive consequences within your value system” (p. 30 as cited in
Mertens, 2010, p. 39). Additionally, given the perspective of pragmatists, either quantitative and/or qualitative methods are appropriate, depending on the overall purpose of the study (Mertens, 2010; Patton, 2002). While this study was not a mixed methods approach that is commonly found in pragmatic approaches (Creswell, 2013; Morgan, 2007), there are elements of quantitative methodology that were used to complement the overall qualitative methodology used throughout the study (see Data Collection and Instruments section in this chapter). Third, “pragmatist researchers look to the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of research based on its intended consequences–where they want to go with it” (Creswell, 2013, p. 28; Cherryholmes, 1992; Murphy, 1999). As a result, a pragmatic approach matched this study since the focus is on the research itself and its purpose, which benefits both the researcher and the participants.
For the purpose of this study, Creswell’s (2013) inclusion of pragmatism as a part of the interpretive framework for qualitative research was used. Creswell explains that “individuals holding an interpretive framework based on pragmatism focus on the