Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for..... (Due date - Monday 5th February, 2018 DUE IN 10 HOURS FROM NOW)

Engineeringcommunityengagementpartnerships_Investigatingmotivationnatureandstructure.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help > Dissertation Annotated Bibliography for..... (Due date - Monday 5th February, 2018 DUE IN 10 HOURS FROM NOW)

30 08 14

PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance

Department

Julia Thompson

Engineering Community Engagement Partnerships: Investigating Motivation, Nature and Structure

Doctor of Philosophy

Brent Jesiek

Alice Pawley

William Oakes

Dwight Giles

Brent Jesiek

Ruth Streveler 12/11/2014

To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Thesis/Dissertation Agreement, Publication Delay, and Certification/Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.

ENGINEERING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS:

INVESTIGATING MOTIVATION, NATURE, AND STRUCTURE

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty

Purdue University

Julia D. Thompson

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2015

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ProQuest 3720049

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest Number: 3720049

This dissertation is dedicated to all those who are studying engineering.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although it is my name on the front of this document, this journey was not taken

alone. Amazing individuals accompanying me walked along side, pushed, pulled and

held me up at various points. I want to take this time to thank these people, because

without them, I could not do it.

First, I want to give my gratitude to the department as a whole, which is set up to

be an incubator for exploration in the engineering education domain. I was surrounded by

individuals who encouraged me to thrive and shared my passion. The rich conversations

in the hallways and the thought provoking courses allowed me to deconstruct my notion

of engineering education, so I can rebuild it – and then deconstruct it again. The

professors of my classes, including Alice Pawley, Robin Adams, Monica Cox, Ruth

Streveler, Demetra Evangelu, Nadine Dolby, Riall Nolan and David Radcliff encouraged

and supported me. For each of these individuals, I can point to times when they touched

me, and let me know that I could do it. That I was capable of becoming a doctor.

My colleagues in the department provided me with a space to investigate research

ideas, as well as deep friendships. I want to acknowledge the support I received from

Mel Chua, Cole Joslyn, Andrea Mazzurco, Kavitha Ramane, Mariana Tufur, James Huff,

Deepika Sangam, Qin Zhu, and Kelsey Rogers to name a few. I am extremely grateful to

have been able to have this time of my life and my research adventures with these

incredibly brilliant and loving individuals. These friendships will last a lifetime, and I

look forward to see their own progress in the coming years.

The single most influential person of my journey has been my advisor, Brent

Jesiek. He has pushed me when I needed to be pushed, and many times told me to take a

deep breath and examine the situation when I needed that. His open door policy allowed

me to come in and talk through ideas in research, and lean on him during periods of high

stress. He was an excellent advocate for me, as I knew that he would support me if any

challenges would come. I could not have gotten through this journey without his

guidance, support and belief in me.

The other committee members on my dissertation, Alice Pawley, William Oakes,

and Dwight Giles, Jr., where amazing researchers who went above and beyond their duty

to insure that I had the needed research support, and my methodology and findings were

grounded. I am completely blessed that I had a committee that believed in me, and

wanted me to succeed.

Outside of the campus environment, I had my family, and the community in

Lafayette. My Father came every summer to visit me during my time here, and he helped

me move multiple times. He and my Brother were regularly an ear to my troubles. My

Nom traveled to Lafayette three times in the months leading up to my defense, cooking,

cleaning and packing. Doing the needed housework that I did not have the time or

energy for. Both my parents were a source of continuous love and support, and I am

grateful.

From one of my first weeks at Purdue, I started going to a group in Lafayette,

Drinking Liberally. This is a group of liberally minded individuals who meet every

Thursday night at the Lafayette Brewing Company. Over the years, these people became

like a local family for me. Checking in on my progress, encouraging me, and being a

source of joy. I want to give special thanks to Meredith Richmond, Cecilia and Nick

Lebonte, Whitney Williams, Matt Woenker, Ben Alkire, Leslie Alvin, Stewart, Warren

Ekels, and Walt and Emma Dalsimer. Without your company, support and friendship my

time would have been much different. In addition, I also want to give a special

acknowledgment to Yixi Yang, a roommate of mine who took salsa dancing with me, and

Gipsy Durzo, who provided me with a creative outlet and regular home cooked meals.

Last, but not least, I want to give appreciation to my partner Elizabeth Trybula,

who supported me in many ways during the dissertation phase. She was a source of joy

and adventure. She knew what I needed when I had reached my tipping point. Even

though she was on the other side of the world during the actual defense, she hired movers

and cleaners for the house, and made sure there was a pitcher of margaritas waiting

during the celebratory dinner. With her support, I was able to do it.

Again, thanks everyone for helping me. We did it ☺.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xi

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Defining Key Concepts ........................................................................................... 4

1.3 Outline of the Chapters ........................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 9

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Historical Perspectives on Engineering Community Engagement ....................... 10

2.3 Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Problem Based Service Learning (PBSL) in

Engineering ........................................................................................................... 17

2.4 Service Learning Research Overview ................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Partnerships in Service Learning Research ..................................................... 24

2.4.2 Review for Research Question 1: Motivations and Challenges of Community

Partners ............................................................................................................ 25

2.4.3 Review for Research Question 2: Theoretical Models of the Nature and

Structure of Partnerships ................................................................................. 28

2.4.3.1 Structure of Partnerships ........................................................................... 29

2.4.3.2 Nature of Partnerships ............................................................................... 31

2.4.3.3 Relating Structure and Nature ................................................................... 36

2.4.4 Review for Research Question 3: Where is the Project in Project-Based

Service Learning?............................................................................................ 37

vii

Page

2.5 Summary of the Literature Review ....................................................................... 38

CHAPTER 3. METHODS ................................................................................................ 40

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 40

3.2 Case Study Research Strategy ............................................................................... 42

3.3 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 43

3.4 Site Selection ......................................................................................................... 44

3.4.1 EPICS at Purdue University ............................................................................ 45

3.4.2 GPP at Worcester Polytechnic Institute .......................................................... 47

3.4.3 Community Playground Project at LSU .......................................................... 48

3.4.4 Summary Overview of the Programs .............................................................. 50

3.5 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 55

3.6 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 59

3.6.1 Data analysis for Research Question 1 ............................................................ 59

3.6.2 Data analysis for Research Question 2 and 3 .................................................. 61

3.6.2.1 Phase 1: The Phillips-Ward Framework ................................................... 61

3.6.2.2 Phase 2a: The TCC Framework for GPP-US ............................................ 65

3.6.2.3 Phase 2b: The TCC Framework for the CPP and EPICS Cases ............... 74

3.6.2.4 Research Question 2 and 3 Phase 3: Comparison of the Three Sites ....... 75

3.6.2.5 Reporting the Frequency of Findings ........................................................ 75

3.7 Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................... 76

3.8 Conclusion of the Methods ................................................................................... 79

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH QUESTION 1 ....................................... 80

4.1 Introduction for Research Question 1 Findings .................................................... 80

4.2 Theme 1: Motivations Connected with the University Students ........................... 83

4.2.1 Students: Learning Objectives ........................................................................ 85

4.2.2 Student: Community Engagement .................................................................. 88

4.2.3 Student: Professional Development ................................................................ 91

4.2.4 Student: Personal Growth ................................................................................ 94

4.2.5 Student: Combining Social Responsibility and Professionalism .................... 97

viii

Page

4.3 Theme 2: Motivations Connected with Personal Benefits .................................... 99

4.3.1 Personal: Educating ....................................................................................... 100

4.3.2 Personal: Community Engagement ............................................................... 101

4.3.3 Personal: Connections ................................................................................... 103

4.3.4 Personal: Learning and Professional development ....................................... 107

4.4 Theme 3: Organizational Motivations ................................................................. 110

4.4.1 Organizational: Products/Process .................................................................. 111

4.4.2 Organizational: Expertise .............................................................................. 116

4.4.3 Organizational: Partnerships ......................................................................... 118

4.4.4 Organizational: Broader Impacts .................................................................. 120

4.5 Discussion for Research Question 1 .................................................................... 123

4.6 Implications and Recommendations ................................................................... 125

4.7 Conclusion for Research Question 1 ................................................................... 127

CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH QUESTION 2 & 3.............................. 128

5.1 Introduction for Research Question 1 ................................................................. 128

5.2 Theme 1: Purpose ................................................................................................ 131

5.3 Theme 2: Overall Structure ................................................................................. 140

5.3.1 Overall Structural Influence of EPICS .......................................................... 142

5.3.2 Overall Structural Influence of GPP-US ....................................................... 149

5.3.3 Overall Structural Influence of CPP .............................................................. 152

5.3.4 Evaluation of the Overall Structure’s Influence of the Programs ................. 158

5.4 Theme 3: Partnering Agency ............................................................................... 159

5.5 Theme 4: Individuals ........................................................................................... 170

5.5.1 Individuals in EPICS and GPP ...................................................................... 170

5.5.2 Individuals in CPP ......................................................................................... 173

5.5.3 Evaluation of Individual’s Influence in the Nature of the Partnerships ...... 176

5.6 Theme 5: Projects ................................................................................................ 177

5.6.1.1 Transactional Projects ............................................................................. 179

5.6.1.2 Cooperative Projects ............................................................................... 186

Page

5.6.1.3 Communal Projects ................................................................................. 191

5.6.1.4 Conclusion of Project Theme .................................................................. 194

5.7 Theme 6: The role of Students ............................................................................ 195

5.8 Overview of the Research Question 2 and 3 ....................................................... 197

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, & CONCLUSION ................ 201

6.1 Introduction for the Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion ................ 201

6.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 201

6.2.1 Technocratic Culture Influence on each of the Programs ............................. 202

6.2.2 Review of the TCC framework ..................................................................... 204

6.2.3 Contributions to the Literature ...................................................................... 211

6.2.3.1 Contributions to the Service Learning Literature .................................... 211

6.2.3.2 Contribution to the Learning Through Service (LTS) Community ........ 214

6.2.3.3 Contribution to Engineering Education Community .............................. 216

6.3 Recommendations for Programs ......................................................................... 218

6.3.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 218

6.3.2 Overall Structure ........................................................................................... 221

6.3.3 Type of Agency ............................................................................................. 222

6.3.4 Individuals ..................................................................................................... 223

6.3.5 Projects .......................................................................................................... 223

6.3.6 The Intersection of Students and the Curriculum .......................................... 224

6.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 225

6.4.1 Limitations and Future Research ................................................................... 225

6.4.2 Personal Desires and Next Steps ................................................................... 228

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 229

APPENDICES

Appendix A Interview Questions ............................................................................ 240

Appendix B Participation Email ............................................................................. 243

Appendix C Participation Consent Form ................................................................ 244

VITA ............................................................................................................................... 246

LIST OF TABLES

Table .............................................................................................................................. Page

Table 2-1: Synthesis of Motivations from the Literature Review ..................................... 28

Table 3-1: Overview of Methods ...................................................................................... 41

Table 3-2: Program Characteristics Comparison of EPICS, GPP-US and CPP

Community Engagement Programs based on the Twelve Categories

identified by McCahan et. al (2012) .............................................................. 51

Table 4-1: Motivation based on Participant ...................................................................... 82

Table 4-2: Motivations Connected to Students’ Learning based on Role ......................... 83

Table 4-3: Motivation Connected to Personal based on Role ........................................... 99

Table 4-4: Motivations Connected to Organizational Benefits based on Role ............... 111

Table 4-5: Synthesis of Motivations from the Literature Review and Findings ............. 123

Table 5-1: Overview of the Codes for each Interviewee ............................................... 130

Table 5-2: Characteristics of Projects ............................................................................. 179

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ............................................................................................................................ Page

Figure 2-1: Bringle et al. (2009) SOFAR model ............................................................... 30

Figure 3-1: Center A – An image of MS Excel worksheet highlighting the Phillips-

Ward framework dimension for extent dimension. ....................................... 63

xii

ABSTRACT

Thompson, Julia D., Ph.D., Purdue University, May 2015. Engineering Community Engagement Partnerships: Investigating Motivation, Nature, and Structure. Major Professor: Brent K. Jesiek.

Engineering community engagement programs have increased in popularity over

the last decade or so, with related research and scholarship in this area focused primarily

on student motivation and learning outcomes. Since 2000, however, the wider service-

learning field has started investigating partnerships and community voice. Building from

the existing service-learning literature, this study aims to better understand community-

university partnerships in engineering community engagement programs from the

perspectives of both the academic program and the served community. This study

addresses three research questions: (1) Why are individuals and local community

organizations involved in engineering service-learning partnerships?, (2) How does

engineering community engagement program structure relate to the nature of the

partnerships?, and (3) What is the role of the project in community engagement

partnerships?

A multi-site case study approach was used to address these questions, which

included interviews with community partners, faculty, and program administrators at

three engineering community engagement programs at three different U.S. universities

each of which maintains long-term domestic partnerships. These cases include:

Engineering Projects In Community Service (EPICS) at Purdue University, select U.S.

project centers for Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s Global Projects Program (GPP-US),

and the Community Playground Project (CPP) at Louisiana State University (LSU).

Primary study participants were advisors, community partners, administrators and

students (n=30) who are familiar with the partnerships and programs. From Spring 2011

xiii

to Spring 2014, I conducted semi-formal interviews with them about their experiences.

Informal conversation and observations, as well as literature and program policy

materials, were also used to triangulate findings. Data analysis and reporting were carried

out as separate procedures for the first research question and then the second and third

questions together.

Data analysis for the first question, on motivation, involved use of deductive

codes, based on previous research examining service learning partnerships not specific to

engineering, along with inductive analysis using a combination of thematic analysis and

typological analysis. The motivations of the programs and partners/sponsors were

organized in three categories: motivations connected to students, personal motivation,

and organizational motivations. Most of the motivations found within this study are

similar to motivations found in other service learning literature. However, there were

some differences between the stakeholders, with the community partners more likely to

focus on having the students learn about the specific organizations, while the advisors

were more likely to focus on the learning objectives of the course.

The second and third research questions involved two phases of analysis. The first

involved application of the Phillips-Ward framework in an attempt to find the stage of

development of each partnership under investigation, and the second phase involving

development and use of the Transactional, Cooperative, and Communal (TCC)

framework for coding the data. The TCC framework categorizes interactions and

activities as: transactional, which increases the boundaries between stakeholders;

cooperative, which attempts to blur the boundaries; and communal, which transcends the

boundaries for a higher purpose. Additionally, six structural themes were found to

influence the nature of the partnerships: program purpose and objectives, overall program

structure, type of partnering agencies, characteristics of participating individuals, types of

projects, and the role of students.

The findings from this study contribute to the existing literature in at least three

major ways. First, they provide additional insights about how engineering community

engagement partnerships can be examined as a series of relationships among individuals

and/or as organizations. Second, the research findings, and specifically the TCC

xiv

framework, can help support programs within the engineering community engagement

programs reflect on and improve their relationships with their partner organizations and

wider communities. And third, findings suggest how a project-based approach, coupled

with the TCC framework, can further expand the ontology of engineering. That is, by

having engineers work with community, the students’ mindsets can be challenged, and

their way of doing engineering and being engineers could essentially transform. I

conclude the study with an overview of the limitations and future research, as well as my

desired outcomes and next steps. It is my hope that community engagement programs

will reflect on the desired nature of their own partnerships and make intentional decisions

to align the purpose of the program with the structure of the program (including policies

and procedures), the type of agencies they work with, the individuals involved, and the

projects they do. This way, the programs will more likely reflect the nature of the

partnerships they wish to cultivate.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

During my time as an undergraduate chemical engineering student, I had an

epiphany that the current engineering educational system was disconnected from social

context, and this educational system resulted in engineers who had high levels of

technical training yet did not have the social skills and awareness needed in our current

society. At that time I discovered my passion: to bridge the gap between engineering and

social implication. From when I graduated in 2006 until 2008, I worked as an energy

consultant, analyzing energy efficacy programs for industrial and commercial

organizations. Then in 2009, I decided to enter graduate school in engineering education

to expand and build upon my personal passion.

In Fall 2010, I was supported by a Purdue Research Foundation (PRF) grant to

research university-community partnerships in the context of engineering Project-Based

Service Learning (PBSL) programs. During this period, I had discussions with

administrators of the two interdisciplinary engineering PBSL programs at Purdue: Global

Design Teams (GDTs) and Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS). I

decided to focus on EPICS since the administrators displayed an interest in the topic and

saw value in better understanding the motivations of their partner organizations.

Additionally, EPICS had been established for fifteen years, which meant the partners

knew the students and the program well, and I could conduct a larger number of

interviews with the local EPICS partners.

This study expanded the project to include engineering community engagement

programs at three universities: Purdue University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and

Louisiana State University. The difference between service learning and community

engagement is discussed in the definition section. Focusing on partnerships in the United

States (US) allowed me to talk with more organizations, get a richer sense of what

engineering partnerships are like within the US, and understand how these partnerships

impact their local communities.

Engineering community engagement can be seen as part of a wider movement

across academia to create both curricular and extracurricular experiences where students

have opportunities to serve local and/or global stakeholders. Such programs allow

students to practice engineering in context while being a part of a larger community and

providing service to others, thereby helping to bridge the gap between technical

knowledge and its application.

There are many types of community engagement programs within engineering,

such as students who work as tutors to teach science and engineering topics at local

schools (Berkeley Engineers And Mentors [BEAM], 2013), build a kiosk for a local

children’s museum (Engineering Projects In Community Service [EPICS], 2012), or

design appropriate technologies for remote villages (Duffy, 2008). Much of the prior

research on engineering community engagement has focused primarily on students.

Bielefeldt, Paterson, and Swan (2009) outline four areas of research that have focused on

students. The first is knowledge and skills, specifically knowledge and skills associated

with ABET criteria and other knowledge outlined by professional associations. The

second area is attitude and identity, which is seen as a long-term transformation in

students, and has been a focus of research on Purdue’s EPICS program and the Service

Learning Integrated throughout the College of Engineering (SLICE) program at UMass

Lowell, both of which have long-term histories. The third area focuses on recruitment

and retention, highlighting that engineering service learning is more likely to attract

women and racially/ethnically underrepresented groups into engineering. The final area is

professional performance. Research on this area focuses on the professional trajectory of

students and the involvement of companies sponsoring community engagement

experiences.

However, little research to date has focused on the experiences of the community

partners, which is somewhat surprising given that their participation makes such

programs possible. This study aims to fill this gap by developing a richer understanding

of community-university partnerships in engineering community engagement from the

perspectives of academic programs and served communities. The specific research

questions I ask are:

1. Why are individuals and local community organizations involved in

engineering community engagement partnerships? Relevant sub-questions

include: How do community members describe the motivations of their

involvement in engineering community engagement? Does this differ from

community members in other kinds of community engagement experiences?

And what do the program and faculty perceive to be the motivations and

challenges of community partners?

2. How does engineering community engagement program structure relate to the

nature of the partnerships? The relevant sub-question is: How does the

program structure support and/or hinder the partnerships between the

engineering community engagement program and the community with which

they work?

3. What is the role of the project in community engagement partnerships?

Now is a pivotal time to systematically include the community partner’s voice in

the research on engineering community engagement partnerships, especially to better

understand the dynamics of partnerships from the perspective of organizations and

communities. Engineering community engagement has increased in the last two decades

and communities’ voice has had limited inclusion in research (Bielefeldt et al., 2009).

However, community perspectives have been a focus of research in the general service

learning literature for more than a decade (Bringle & Clayton, 2012). This research will

address this gap in the extant literature by exploring partnerships at three sites:

Engineering Programs In Community Service (EPICS) at Purdue University (West

Lafayette, Indiana), Global Project Program United States project centers (GPP-US) at

Worcester Polytechnic Institution (WPI) (Worcester, Massachusetts), and Community

Playground Project (CPP) at Louisiana State University (LSU) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana).

This study will examine the research and frameworks developed in the general service

learning literature and build from them to understand the community engagement

partnerships in engineering.

This study makes a number of contributions to both the engineering education and

wider service learning fields. The first question will help clarify any misunderstandings

that the engineering programs and community have relative to partner motivations and

challenges. These findings can be presented to community partners to help them make

more informed decisions, especially as these findings explain appropriate expectations

when working with engineering service learning programs and students. The results can

also help programs run better. If the university intends to serve the community,

understanding the challenges and benefits of the community and its organizations will

allow community engagement programs to improve their processes accordingly. The

second question will link the nature of the partnership to the structure of community

engagement programs, which will help clarify how program elements may benefit – or

detract from – partnerships. These findings can provide insight for improving program

structures and may also inform further investigations of international partnerships by

providing a baseline of US partnerships. The third question potentially offers original

insights by showing how projects function within the partnerships. Project-based learning

is common within engineering engagement programs, and all the sites in this study

focused on a project-based learning model. This is different than service learning

programs outside of engineering, as explained in the definition of key concepts.

1.2 Defining Key Concepts

To help frame the questions posed, I discuss a number of key concepts: service

learning, community engagement, partnership, structure, nature, and project. The first

two concepts, service learning and community engagement, go hand in hand. I often refer

to service learning outside of engineering, specifically looking at the literature and

history of the community and scholarship. There are certain characteristics of service

learning that are also common, such as it being curricular (taken for course credit and

receiving a grade), and involving structured student reflection. For this study, I am

grounding much of my literature in the service learning literature, though one of my

programs does not define itself as service learning. Instead, the program leadership points

to the fact that they do not require student reflection, and their purpose is not to have an

equal portion service and learning – although they are clear that part of their intention is

related to student learning. In this way, they do not fit within a common definition of

service learning; however, the program does represent one comparable type of

community engagement that is used in the engineering education community. I therefore

use community engagement programs as a broader concept that generally refers to a

program where students have interactions with and provide a type of service for not for

profit or governmental organizations.

The act of service learning is often presented with a hyphen, to highlight the

reciprocity of the relationship of the service offered and the learning present (Sigmon,

1994). The hyphen is not included in this research, and this is connected to the definition

of partnership used in this study. I denote “partnerships” as individuals or organizations

that work together for an intended mutual benefit. It is commonly recognized in the

service learning literature that partnerships must strive for reciprocity (Jacoby, 1996,

2003), which implies an effort to move beyond charity and into the elimination of need

within a community and where all participants are both the learners and the teachers.

Additionally, it is often recognized that partnerships should be rooted in deeper values

such as closeness, equity, and integrity (Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010).

However, I chose to broaden this definition to include any organizations that have

decided to work together for a perceived benefit. This broadening of the definitions is due

to the lack of discourse on reciprocity in the engineering education community compared

to the service learning community. I wanted to include interactions and relationships that

may not strive for reciprocity or grounded in closeness, equity, or integrity.

The last three concepts are connected to the last research questions. I define the

“structure” of a program to refer to as formal or informal processes, logistics, and

program policies. The literature review examines previous research focusing on structure

within the service learning and the engineering education communities. For example,

there is discussion on the structure taking on the form of a series of personal relationships

(Clayton & Bringle, 2012) or an organizational structure (Janke, 2012) with set roles and

responsibilities within the program. I define the “nature” of a program as the quality of

interactions or interpersonal dynamics within a partnership. In this study, I developed the

Transactional, Cooperative and Communal (TCC) framework to code for the nature of

interactions, activities and language within partnerships. Lastly, a “project” within this

study is an assignment by the student that has a final outcome of their work. This can be a

physical object, such as a kiosk or a playground, or it can be a written report, such as a

needs assessment. This definition of project varies from the service learning literature,

where projects “focus on defining problems and their solutions and implementing well-

conceived plans for achieving those solutions” (Morton, 1995, p.21). The difference in

definition is that the project in the context of this study is at the center of the student’s

educational experience. They have worked on a project and will provide a deliverable to the

partnering organization. In Morton’s definition of project, the project is centered on the

community, and thus it can be something like as an afterschool program where university

students could work as tutors for the program to meet a specific community need. This

example would be considered project as defined by Morton, but not in the context of this

study.

1.3 Outline of the Chapters

This dissertation is organized into six chapters. This introductory chapter provides

a brief description of the gap in the research that this study is attempting to fill, some key

terms and definitions for the study, and an overview of the chapters.

The second chapter is the literature review, which is split into four sections that

provide: a historical perspective of engineering service learning, an understanding of

problem- and project-based learning (PBL) in engineering, an overview of relevant

research in the wider service learning literature, and research specifically concerned with

partnerships in both service learning and engineering education fields. The last section of

the literature review is focused on the literature most relevant to each of the research

questions.

The third chapter focuses on the methods used in this study, including the case

study method, methodology, site selection, data collection, data analysis and

trustworthiness. The case study method is based on Yin (2002) and is appropriate for the

research design given the specific research questions. The methodology is based on a

constructivist paradigm, which is rooted in the notion that individuals construct reality.

There can be similar constructs across groups and cultures. The site selection focuses on

three engineering community programs, and this section describes how these programs

were chosen and the unique history of these programs. The data collection section

describes the data gathered in this study, and the analysis describes how the data

collected was analyzed and presented as findings. The final section in the third chapter is

that of trustworthiness, which overviews how the study methods improve the validity of

the findings.

The fourth chapter presents the findings for the first research question, which is

organized by motivations related to: students, individual inclinations, and organization.

These motivations were found in all three-project sites, and are similar to previous

research that did not focus exclusively on engineering. The chapter also provides an

examination of some similarities and differences across all three programs studied.

The fifth chapter addresses the second and third research questions by exploring

six structural themes that were found to influence the nature of partnerships: purpose,

overall structure, partnering agency, individuals, projects, and the role of students. This

chapter provides in-depth examples of how each of the structural elements of the

programs influenced the nature of the partner interactions. For example, the partnering

agency structural theme focuses on how the nature of the partner organizations will

influence the nature of the partnerships. If the partner organization tends to be more

transactional in nature, they will more likely approach the engineering community

engagement program in a transactional way, focusing on an exchange of education for the

university students for a valuable product for the organization. Additionally, the third

research question is explored in the project structural theme and in the discussion of the

final chapter.

The final chapter includes the discussion, recommendations, and conclusion. The

discussion has two parts: the TCC framework and the contributions to the literature. The

TCC framework gives an overview of the framework developed and compares it to other

similar frameworks. In the contributions to literature subsection I discuss how the

research provides insights regarding the influences of organizational structure and the

individual relationships in service-learning partnerships. These insights can provide a

common framework to examine partnerships in engineering community engagement

programs while also providing a new lens for thinking about the ontology of engineering.

Actively involving engineers with communities can challenge dominant images of both

who engineers are and what they do. This challenge is especially enhanced by project-

based pedagogy, since it involves teaching new kinds of engineering practice in context.

The recommendations for existing or new engineering community engagements

programs are organized around the six structural themes outlined in Chapter 5. This

chapter intertwines the discussion of motivation and projects, relating to the first and

third research questions. I conclude with some additional comments on limitations,

directions for future research, as well as my desired outcomes and next steps. Based on

the limitation of site selection, observations and interviews as data sources, and my own

personal capabilities, I suggest that further research is needed to examine partnerships,

including more intensive observations. Additionally, the study of global partnerships is

discussed as another opportunity, as these types of relationships will likely have

additional complexities involving cultural and geographical limitations that were not

large issues within this study.

I hope that this study furthers ongoing discourses around the role of community in

engineering education, and helps redefine current and future engineers to be more

community driven. I plan on expanding this work by offering workshops to individuals

interested in starting engineering community engagement programs, and am looking into

avenues to be more of a community-driven engineer myself.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This literature review is split into four sections. The first provides a historical

overview of service learning, highlighting significant factors that have shaped community

engagement in engineering from the Morrill Act to the formation of the programs

examined in this study. The second section gives an overview of the Project-Based

Learning (PBL) pedagogical method, which is the most common method used by

engineering community engagement programs. The third section provides an overview of

existing research within the service learning literature. This research emphasizes student-

learning outcomes, but also with increasing emphasis on institutions, faculty, and

community after 2000. Embedded in this literature are debates on education, democracy,

and society, informed by critical theory that raises issues of power and privilege when

highly-regarded educational institutions “serve” under-resourced communities.

The fourth section reviews the literature most relevant to the study. I have

organized the fourth section by research question to highlight gaps in the literature

addressed by the proposed study. In particular, I have synthesized three large-scale

studies in order to understand the motivations and challenges commonly faced by service

learning community partners. This synthesis informed the deductive approach to the first

research question. I explored existing theoretical frameworks that model the structure and

nature of community engagement partnerships for the second and third research question.

2.2 Historical Perspectives on Engineering Community Engagement

The history of service learning and community engagement outside of

engineering is different than its history within engineering. In order to establish an

understanding of engineering community engagement programs, it is imperative to be

grounded in both these histories. In general, community engagement has spread widely in

the last three decades to many American colleges and universities. Yet the rise and

current standing of community engagement in America is also more deeply connected to

historical social transformations. Two pivotal transformations that have influenced

service learning are the Morrill Act of 1862, which linked the state’s needs to the mission

of many public universities, and cultural turmoil in the 1890s that questioned the

relationship between capitalism and democratic society, which is referred to by Morton &

Saltmarsh as the “Crisis of Community” (May, 1959; Morton & Saltmarsh, 1997).

The Morrill Act, passed during the Civil War, gave each state land to establish

universities with the following purpose:

Without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including

military tactic, to teach such branches of learning as are related to

agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the

States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and

practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and

professions in life. (Congress, 1862)

This piece of legislation called for improved access to higher education for the industrial

classes in order to address the state’s needs in the agricultural and mechanical arts,

including engineering. After the Civil War, the second Morrill Act of 1890 required

states with segregated universities to fund at least one Black Land-Grant Universities in

order to receive funding for the white Land-Grant Universities (Redd, 1998). These acts

altered the role of higher education that had previously focused on education of the elite,

namely by improving accessibility of the lower and middle classes and minority

populations to more practical forms of education (McDowell, 2003).

Although the universities increased access to education within the states, many

needs of the state were not addressed adequately. The Hatch Act of 1887 responded by

establishing agricultural experimental stations to allow the universities to conduct

necessary and useful research for the states. Yet information still failed to reach many

communities in the state because most knowledge remained at the universities. The

Smith-Lever Act of 1914 addressed this issue by creating a Cooperative Extension

System that aimed to better educate the citizens and communities within the states about

the knowledge produced by universities (McDowell, 2003). These two pieces of

legislation strengthened the community’s relationship with the university and made them

more legally dependent on each other. However since the passing of the Morrill Act in

1862, the demographic of the country has shifted from sixty percent in agriculture to two

percent. This shift in demographics has not replicated in the services of the cooperative

extension system, and attempts to change the extension services by leadership often

failed. McDowell states that the farmers are wanting the continuation of services focusing

on farm practices, and has fought to keep these services in place even though other skills

such as business would be more beneficial for the farmers and the state at large, “farmers

are used to getting what they want and in many cases are not getting what they need”

(McDowell, 2003, p.13). Overall, these acts have established an interdependence of the

universities and the states.

The other historical influence on service learning is connected to what Morton

and Saltmarsh (1997) refer to as The Crisis of Community, expanded from Historian

Henry May’s (1959) writing on the “problem of community.” This is a period during the

1890s where there was cultural turmoil regarding the relationship between capitalism and

a democratic society, where people were being seen as consumers rather than citizens.

Jane Addams and John Dewey wrote about and took direct actions to develop a sense of

community in the culture and saw this restoration necessary for a well-functioning

society. For instance, Jane Addams started Hull House in Chicago, a housing project to

“humanize and moderate the more destructive aspects of capitalism” (Morton &

Saltmarsh, 1997, p. 137). John Dewey, who was a friend of Jane Addams, approached the

“crisis of community” through philosophical concerns of education and referred to this

change as a loss of community. Dewey took issue with the deterioration of local

communal living destroyed by the industrialization of “The Great Society” (Giles &

Eyler, 1994). Dewey’s ideological method to build “The Great Community” centered

upon education. His work as a philosopher examined the connection of education and

democracy, and he argued for “a society in which every person shall be occupied in

something that makes the lives of others better worth living, and which accordingly

makes the ties which bind persons together more perceptible - which breaks down the

barriers of distance between them” (Dewey, 1916).

Although these two individuals took differing approaches, Dewey and Addams

both sought to incorporate social justice in their life work. Today this ethos is still

embedded in parts of the academy, and especially so in the area of service learning.

Morton and Saltmarsh (1997) credit Addams’ work at Hull House for helping define

sociology as a discipline and for redefining the power dynamics of service, where service

involved meeting community-defined needs. Prior to this time, there was a charity model

that focused more on the individuals with resources going to a community and addressing

the projected or imagined needs of the privileged. Deweyian philosophy points to the

importance of incorporating democratic values into the classroom, and is used by many

service learning scholars to ground their work (e.g., Deans, 1999; Giles & Eyler, 1994;

Hatcher, 1997; Saltmarsh, 1996, 2007).

Throughout the 20th century there have been many efforts to integrate community

service and education (National Service Learning Clearing House, 2012). A number of

researchers have investigated the history and journey of the current pathway of service

learning (e.g. Kenny & Gallagher, 2002; Sigmon, 1996; Stanton, Giles Jr, & Cruz, 1999).

The term, “service learning,” was first used in 1967 in reference to an internship program

where students participated in community service and received academic credit for their

work. Service learning gained considerable popularity in mid-1980s, in part due to the

establishment of Campus Compact in 1985 (Kenny & Gallagher, 2002). Campus

Compact was started by a group of university and college presidents who “believed that

college students would willingly serve their communities if they were given the

opportunity,” (Morton & Troppe, 1996, p. 24) and who wanted to counter the notion of

the “me-generation,” or the perceived moral decline of college students. The Campus

Compact office was created and staffed at Brown University to offer support and

mentoring to campuses. The initial focus was to promote volunteerism on campus while

also working with legislators. Campus Compact later supported legislation that became

the AmeriCorps program. AmeriCorps was founded in 1993, and gave volunteers

educational stipends that could be used to pay off educational debt or pay for future

education. Through the various revisions of Compact, the organization has made huge

steps toward making service a core mission of many institutions. In fact, Campus

Compact now includes 1,200 schools and continues to offer support and grants that aid in

the research and development of service learning (Morton & Troppe, 1996).

While service learning is well established at many academic institutions, not all

academic institutions do service learning for the same purpose. Kenny and Gallagher

(2002) state that the intent of service learning can vary by institution and program.

Common purposes include “development of citizenship… the moral and religious

development… the preparation of students for careers… and the partnering of the

university and the community in ways that enhance both the learning of university

students and the intellectual, economic, and social resources of the community” (Kenny

& Gallagher, 2002, p.17). Pollack (1999) makes a similar argument, highlighting

different purposes based on institution type. For example, professional schools, such as

engineering, often emphasize career training, while liberal arts colleges more often have

personal development motives.

Engineering community engagement has had particularly strong connections to

professional development throughout its history. For example, Worcester Polytechnic

Institute (WPI) has the oldest engineering program that integrates interacting with a

community as a degree requirement. However, it has never been referred to as “service

learning,” and the primary intention has been the development of professional skills. In

the 1960s faculty members wanted to provide a unique learning experience for

engineering students through a program called the Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP)

during their junior year (Vaz, 2011). Students in this program have the opportunity to

work on interdisciplinary teams and with diverse government, business, and charitable

organizations. The school gets money for some of the projects the students complete

based on each organization’s ability to pay (H. Ault, personal communication, September

26, 2012). IQP has students work with organizations for credit, while developing needed

skills for requirement. The level of engagement and the type of organizations that the

students work on will vary.

Another one of the first engineering community engagement programs,

Engineering Projects In Community Service (EPICS) at Purdue University, had the

motivation to introduce service learning into engineering when it was started in 1995.

According to Jamieson (2012), the initial purpose of EPICS was to train engineering

students for professional skills, and it was only when industry did not exhibit interest in

partnering with Purdue that local non-government and government organizations were

contacted. Additionally, Coyle, Jamieson and Oakes, (2005) have grounded their

rationale for engineering community engagement in development of professional skills,

where “[professional engineers] will be expected to interact effectively with people of

widely varying social and educational backgrounds. They will then be expected to work

with people from many different disciplines to achieve these goals. They thus need

educational experiences that help them develop these skills” (p.1).

Accreditation mandates, and especially Engineering Criteria 2000 (Lattuca,

Terenzini, Volkwein, & Peterson, 2006) have also often been mentioned as a rationale to

introduce service learning in engineering ( e.g. Barrington & Duffy, 2010). This

reasoning relates to professional skills training, since EC2000 was in part established as

an outcomes-based framework to ensure programs were preparing students to be

proficient engineers with both technical and professional capabilities (Lattuca, et al.,

2006). These requirements emerged from discussions among industrial leaders,

engineering deans, technical society liaisons, and others in order to address the lack of

essential non-technical skills of recent engineering graduate students, such as related to

teamwork and communication. The accreditation progress changed from an inputs-based

approach, focused on a fixed set of courses mapped to specific bodies of knowledge, to

an outcomes-based approach, focused on specific learning outcomes for graduates.

Examples of the ABET criteria that are often linked to service learning include “an ability

to function on multidisciplinary teams,” “an ability to communicate effectively,” and “the

broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,

economic, environmental, and societal context” (ABET, 2012).

Driven by changes in the accreditation processes and other trends, there has been

a notable growth of service learning and related programs in engineering, both

domestically and internationally. Additional examples of the expansion of service

learning in U.S. engineering schools since the early 2000s are the SLICE at UMass

Lowell and the expansion of EPICS. Launched in 2004, SLICE has students work on

service learning throughout the engineering curriculum. This program is mandatory, as it

is integrated into the engineering courses, and aligned with accreditation requirements.

The SLICE program requires service learning in the classroom and has the aim of having

each student be involved with a service learning experience each semester (Duffy,

Barrington, West, Heredia, & Barry, 2011). Additionally, SLICE recognizes the many

benefits of service learning in addition to professional skills, including increasing student

motivation, preparing engaged citizens, etc. EPICS has also developed a model to be

replicated and has been integrated at universities, colleges, high schools and even some

elementary schools (EPICS, 2012). As of 2014, there are EPICS programs with active

sites at 20 universities within the US (EPICS, 2014). In addition, IEEE is working with

EPICS to expand the program globally, so the EPICS model is being used in countries

throughout the world (IEEE, 2014).

Two large-scale international engineering community engagement programs,

Engineers Without Borders (EWB) and Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW),

highlight increased student and faculty interest in supporting international project work,

often in developing countries and communities. Since these organizations are often

extracurricular, they are typically not formally linked to degree requirements or

accreditation. It is worth re-iterating that because this is not for credit, it is not considered

service learning, but it is engineering community engagement. Lucena, Schneider, and

Leydens (2010) labels this trend of engineering working with international communities

as “engineering to help.” They critique the process of emphasizing economic

competiveness while frequently neglecting community needs. While not all programs

make these errors, from my own experience I am concerned about the quality of many of

these international partnerships and the lack of discussion of reciprocity. It seems that the

mindset is that of ‘charity’ rather than ‘service.’ Though my study will not include

international programs, this study may provide an improved foundation for understanding

international partnerships.

The field of engineering service learning has also continued to expand through

scholarship. The International Journal of Service Learning in Engineering (IJSLE) was

founded in 2006, serving as a publication outlet for research on service learning in

engineering. A new American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) division

dedicated to Community Engagement was also formed in 2013 and serves as a home for

community engagement scholarship in engineering at the ASEE conference (Community

Engagement Division, 2014). Also, NSF has funded the Engineering Faculty Engagement

in Learning Through Service (EFELTS) project that focuses on providing professional

development among engineering faculty who are interested in conducting service

learning. The grant started in September 2010 and finished in August 2014 (Kazmer,

Duffy, West, & Lee, 2010).

Overall, community engagement in engineering is growing rapidly and may

benefit from research done in general service learning, especially given the rapid growth

in service learning research following the creation of Campus Compact in 1985. A great

deal of service learning research is being conducted, and new avenues of dissemination

are being established. At the same time, the driving purpose of service learning in

engineering has been largely focused on students, especially professional skill

development, but the motives are expanding to recognize such things as responsible

citizenship.

In engineering community engagement, there has been a large emphasis on

project-based learning, so the students are providing some type of deliverable to their

partnering community. The next section will explore project-based learning and its

relationship to problem-based learning and project activities in engineering. This section

will provide a foundation for the types of pedagogies used for service learning and

community engagement in engineering.

2.3 Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Problem Based Service Learning (PBSL) in

Engineering

In the1960s and 1970s, problem-based learning emerged in the medical fields the

United States and project pedagogies became more common in Denmark (de Graff &

Kolmos, 2007). Problem-based learning was first established in the late 1960s at

McMaster Medical School in Canada. The notion of the problem-based learning was that

students learned the material in the same context in which it would be used (Donner &

Bickley 1993). At McMaster University, the science is not learned through a discipline-

oriented class, nor tested through examinations. The lecture sessions are replaced by

tutorial sessions to review cases given to students that simulate real problems. The

students go through practice sessions through simulated patients and work at local clinics

while learning basic science. Donner and Bickley state that the goals of the problem-based

pedagogy was for the students to learn the subject matter, learn how to use that knowledge

to solve problems, and to develop the skill sets needed to be life-long learners.

While problem-based learning was being established and implemented at

McMaster, two universities in Denmark, Roskilde in 1972 and Aalborg in 1974, were

founded on a project-based pedagogy approach. This pedagogy had students work in

partnership with teachers. Berthelsen Illeris, and Poulsen (1977), state that “the role of

the teacher is not only to communicate knowledge, but in particular to act as initiator,

inspiration, frame-builder, and consultant. The works is to result in a concrete project, be

it an oral presentation, a written report or expressed in other media or actions” (cited in

de Graff & Kolmos, 2007, p.4) The main learning principals of both problem-based and

project-based pedagogies are outlined by de Graff and Kolmos (2007) in three parts: (1)

learning is organized around a problem/project, in context that increases motivation, (2)

the content is interdisciplinary, breaking traditional subject boundaries, and (3) process is

social in nature due to team work where students learn from each other and learn team

working skills.

As mentioned in the historical perspectives section above, engineering service

learning is most commonly based on a project-based approach, leading us to the acronym

Project-Based Service Learning (PBSL). Consistent with other professional disciplines,

the most cited rationale of service learning in engineering is professional training as

opposed other intentions (e.g. character development), (Barrington & Duffy, 2010;

Pollack, 1999). Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, and McGourty (2005) review the professional

skills that are outlined by ABET and highlight how programs are using service learning

and global service as a way for students to learn these outcomes. The professional skills

that are addressed include: communication, teamwork, understanding ethics and

professionalism, engineering within a social context, lifelong learning, and contemporary

skills. Shuman et al. describe many programs, which are able to focus the education on

professional development while student teams did project-based work with local and/or

global communities. A movement within engineering education has worked to broaden

the definition of service learning to encompass more than work for academic credit,

including extracurricular activities such as those undertaken by EWB student chapters.

This has led to adaption of a new term, Learning Through Service (LTS), to capture this

wider umbrella of approaches (McCahan, et al., 2012). This term was not used within this

paper, and the community engagement term was used instead since the WPI program did

not identify as service. This is clarified in the Defining Key Concepts sub-section in the

introduction.

Some of the research in engineering community engagement has focused on the

description of programs in the context of student learning (e.g. Coyle, et al., 2005; Duffy,

2008). In addition, research has focused on assessment of knowledge and skills. Until

recently, most of the assessment has focused on self-assessment, (Schuman et al., 2005)

with more recent trends towards developing assessment instruments (e.g. Bielefeldt,

Paterson, & Swan, 2010; Mazzurco, Huff, & Jesiek; McCormick, et al., 2014). In

addition to professional skills, research has shown to increase students’ motivation,

especially with of underrepresented groups (Barrington & Duffy, 2007; Matusovich,

Oakes, & Zoltowski, 2013; Ropers-Huilman, et al., 2007).

There has been limited research published other stakeholders and partnerships in

engineering service learning or community engagement. As mentioned in the history

section, the EFELTS groups focused their efforts on learning about faculty and advisors

experience in LTS (Kazmer, Duffy, West, & Lee, 2010). Research has examined the

motivation, strategies and barriers faced by faculty (Pierrakos et al., 2012), and principles

of maintaining sustainable partnerships with the community (Tucker et al., 2013).

Findings have included challenges with faculty workload, partnership coordination, and

lack of recognition in tenure and promotion. Benefits have focused on students’

educational experience, both through learning about the content and increased the

motivation.

There is some research headed by Vanasupa at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo that has

recently started to examine partnerships in community engagement context. This work

includes looking at engagement in a transformative learning context and reflecting on

conflict, existential crisis, transformation, and renewed vitality that emerged through an

action research experience that involved a safe and caring community (Vanasupa et al.,

2014). There was additional work categorizing the partnerships that are formed within

engineering community engagement programs (Vanasupa & Schlemer, 2014). This work

is reviewed in more detail in the review of partnerships in the following section.

Overall, project-based learning is the most common pedagogy used in engineering

community engagement. Research on community engagement has primarily focused on

students, specifically looking at professional skill development, and a recent trend

focusing on student assessment. There has been one group of researchers who examined

the benefits and challenges faculty see in service learning, and one researcher examining

partnerships in community partnerships. The examination of other stakeholders is more

common within the wider service learning (outside of engineering). The following

section will give a macro overview of the research conducted in service learning,

including by presenting some common debates in the literature.

2.4 Service Learning Research Overview

In 1991, Giles, Honnet and Migliore published a research agenda that described

the top research questions in service learning. This agenda was a result of the Wingspread

Conference organized by The National Society for Internships and Experiential

Education (NSIEE). All participants saw a need for more research, believing a common

set of questions should guide future investigations. Giles and Eyler (1998) later revisited

these questions, developed a “top ten” list, and investigated related publications and

developments since the first call. The questions were grouped around the different

stakeholders connected to service learning

Students

1. How can service learning enhance subject matter learning?

2. How can we define the learning and skill outcomes that are

expected in service learning?

3. What are the processes of effective service learning and how do

they relate to learning in general?

Faculty

4. What factors explain faculty involvement in service learning and

how are they affected by participation?

Institutions

5. How does service learning affect educational institutions,

especially in regard to higher education reform?

6. What institutional policies and practices support and enhance

effective service learning?

Community

7. What elements and types of community partnerships are important

for effective service learning?

8. What value does service learning bring to the communities in

which service takes place?

Society

9. What impact does service learning have on students' citizenship

roles, community service, and other forms of social participation in

later life?

10. How does service learning contribute to the development of social

capital and a social ethic of caring and commitment? (Giles &

Eyler, 1998, p. 65):

Giles and Eyler (1998) found the research primarily focused on the effects on

students, or questions one through three. Students’ personal development, enhanced

learning, and increased commitment to social responsibility were some of the main

research topics investigated. For question four, few studies had focused on faculty.

However, these studies found that faculty involvement was motivated by their desire to

promote student learning, and the faculty often faced practical barriers in implementation

of service learning experiences. The authors called for more investigation of these

barriers. The field’s prior discussions on institutions (questions five and six) focused on

the role of service learning in academic institutions, with the main question focusing on if

service learning should be marginal or mainstream. Giles and Eyler called for more

research on whether and how service learning pedagogy was transforming the culture on

university campuses. The authors found that research on partner communities and

organizations (questions seven and eight) had also been very limited. There had been

discussion identifying the need to know the outcomes of the community and to have

community involvement in the research process, yet there was little empirical evidence

showing that these actions were taking place. Finally, in the area of service learning and

society (questions nine and ten) the authors reported that the participating students

showed an increase of moral development, but there was a need for more longitudinal

studies to see if service learning was affecting citizenship in the longer term.

Following this review, the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

(MJCSL) put out a special issue titled Strategic Directions for Service-Learning

Research in 2000. This special issue outlined the main areas of research in service

learning and the topics that needed to be addressed. One of the articles in this piece was

Cruz and Giles (2000) paper titled Where's the community in service-learning research?

This paper highlighted the lack of community voice within the research and that there

was a need to have university-community partnerships as a focal point of research. Since

2000, the literature has expanded to encompass research focusing on the multiple

stakeholders, such as the faculty and the community. The methodological approaches

also expanded to encompass different types of quantitative, qualitative, and action

research. Examples that exemplify this trend are provided below in the section for the

second research question associated with the proposed study.

Questions about the inclusion of the community voice is situated within key

debates that are commonplace in the broader service learning literature, especially as

related to issues such as education, service, and democracy (Pollack 1999). In a study on

the pioneers in service learning, for instance, Stanton, Giles and Cruz (1999) found that

each pioneer entered the field through one of these three main issues. The first issue

Pollack (1999) discusses is the role of service learning within education. As mentioned in

the introduction, the role can vary by institution. Pollack suggests that Liberal Arts

colleges often cite moral reasons related to student character formation for service, while

the Professional Schools, including engineering, place greater emphasis on service

learning for professional training. Pollack describe this disagreement using the political

theorist William Connolly’s (1983) notion of “contested terms,” where definitions are

“entangled in competing moral and political commitments” (Pollack, 1999, p. 17). This

theme also connects to the second area of debate, the role of education in a democracy.

The core of this debate centers on the question: “should education provide students with

the skills and knowledge base necessary to fit into the existing social structure or prepare

them to engage in social transformation?” (p. 18). The third debate is that of the

relationship of service to societal change. More specifically, this is the conflict between

charity and addressing social injustices. Pollack states that charity addresses immediate

needs while the latter focuses on lasting changes in social structure.

Intertwined with these debates in the literature is a discussion of the power

dynamics within university-community relationships and how best to achieve equality.

“Reciprocity” is standard rhetoric in describing the ideals of community partnerships.

Jacoby describes reciprocity as each group in the partnership having agency in

determining the partnership outcomes, and each should learn from the partnership

(Jacoby, 1996). However, how to achieve reciprocity in the context of various types of

service learning experiences has been debated. Morton (1995) highlights that the

continuum is typically described for the differing approaches to service learning, where a

program progresses from charity to project to social change, with charity having the

lowest amount of reciprocity and social change involving the highest amount of

reciprocity. According to Morton, charity is a direct action for a community by providing

resources or service; a project is done to “make something happen” (p. 22), and social

change focuses on addressing root causes of inequality. The notion of charity, as

mentioned in the introduction, is frequently looked upon as creating a superior-inferior

relational dynamic. In this view, the “privileged” give to the “needy” – thus potentially

creating a dependent relationship. As mentioned in the definitions in the introduction, a

project-oriented approach in service learning is different than the project-based learning

pedagogy in engineering. A project-oriented approach refers to a program that finds a

need within a community, and establishes a program to meet that need, such as offering

services to the community. Project-oriented service learning can also be linked to

unintended consequences, including inequalities amongst community organizations and

members. Morton gives an example of a service learning mentorship program that would

create inequalities within a family, where one child gets the services but the other siblings

do not. In contrast, social change is thought to be the highest form of relationship because

it is aimed to change root causes through process; this can be directly empowering the

powerless. This can be done through community building or advocacy.

Morton suggests that there is not a hierarchy of the three approaches, but that each

one represents differing paradigms of service and each has the potential of being done

poorly or well. He uses the metaphor as “thin” and “thick” versions, concepts taken from

the anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973). For example, charity’s thin version is “self-

serving charity that imposes services on unreceptive ‘others;’ projects that magnify or

institutionalize inequalities of power, produce outcomes that are worse than the original

problem, or lead to unrealistic and unsustainable dependencies” (p. 28). By contrast, the

thick versions are “grounded in deeply held, internally coherent values … Insisting on the

humanity of another person in the face of sometimes overwhelming pressure to deny that

humanity can be a motive for charity, for project and for social change” (Morton 1995 p.

28). Morton argues that each of the three service learning methods can be done either

“thin” or “thick,” and each one of them constitutes its own paradigm. The thick versions

of each of the paradigms each support social justice within communities while the thin

versions will magnify injustices.

Morton’s framework provides a useful view of how program types potentially

affect communities. I also agree that service learning experiences can each be done well

or poorly. However, I have not seen studies linking the program type to the experience of

the community that can confirm this framework. Although I will not directly attempt to

use this framework because my study will only focus on project-based community

engagement, I will examine how the program structure is connected to the nature of the

partnership through the second research question of the proposed study. This framework

also gives a good overview to the nature of partnerships that are included in the second

research question. The next section will go into more detail on research that has focused

on partnerships and the inclusion of community voice. This research is focused

specifically on the three questions of this dissertation. I will draw on the research and

highlight some key literature gaps that this study will attempt to fill.

2.4.1 Partnerships in Service Learning Research

This section of the literature review is broken into three subsections that parallel

the research questions. The first goes over common motivations and challenges of

community partners. There is a gap in this area regarding the motivations and challenges

of partners explicitly working with engineering community engagement. The second

subsection describes the models of program structures in the service learning literature

and in engineering education literature. The second subsection also discusses a

framework of looking at the nature of the partnerships. My research project will involve

connecting these two areas in the context of engineering. The final subsection is linked to

the third research question, the role of projects in project-based service, and builds on the

model presented for the second question. There has been no research looking at how the

project influences the community-university relationship. In the analysis, I included this

question as part of my second research question.

2.4.2 Review for Research Question 1: Motivations and Challenges of Community

Partners

For more than a decade, the service learning field has increasingly recognized a

need to focus more research on community partnerships (Bringle & Clayton, 2012).

Since then, a handful of studies have looked at what motivations drive community

partners to get involved with service learning programs. This section reviews and

synthesizes studies by Sandy and Holland (2006), Worrall (2007), and Stoecker and

Tryon (2009). These studies were chosen for the literature review because each of them

examined a large number of community partners and classified their motivations for

participating in partnerships, while also highlighting challenges faced. While this review

is not inclusive of all studies of service learning partnerships, the three together provide a

good overview of the reasons community members engage in service learning

partnerships. The methods of the studies are briefly reviewed, and a summary synthesis

of their findings focuses on the motivations described by community partners, which in

turn inform the deductive data analysis method employed in this study.

Sandy and Holland’s study addressed “community perspectives on effective

partnership characteristics as well as their own voices regarding the benefit, challenges,

and motivations they have regarding partnership with an academic institution” (Sandy &

Holland, 2006, p. 32). Their research involved focus groups with 99 community partners

in California, including academic institutions located throughout the state that spanned

urban and rural settings, research-oriented and liberal arts schools, etc. The data was

collected by: summarizing participant responses on poster paper, taking notes, and

recording the focus group sessions. The audio recordings were then transcribed. To

improve integration of the partners into the study, “participants were involved with

approving the thematic interpretations, finalizing the reports designed to inform and

improve their particular partnership, and the ‘meta-analysis’ that includes a cross-analysis

of all the data generated from all of the focus groups” (p. 33).

Worrall focused on community partners involved with service learning initiatives

at DePaul University. The primary research questions were: “What are the factors that

motivate community organizations to work with DePaul’s service-learning program?” (p.

8) The first round of data collection included surveys to the service learning center

collected by the partnering organizations from 2000 to 2004. The author then used the

surveys to inspire questions about the partnerships, specifically: “What effect do [the

students] really have on the they serve? How do [Community Based Organizations]

CBOs perceive their roles in the service-learning partnership? Why do CBOs initially

become involved with the Steans Center? Why do they stay involved?” (p. 7) The second

round of data collected included 40 one-on-one one interviews conducted across 12

organizations, at least two from each site. The author was also the director of the service

learning center. Recognizing that the directorship was likely to influence the responses,

the author ensured anonymity. For most of the interviewees, the author was not the main

point person. Interviews were transcribed and coded for emerging patterns and themes if

two or more individuals mentioned the same perception from the same organization.

Finally, Stoecker and Tryon’s (2009) study was motivated by the larger question,

“Who is served by service learning” (p.1). It was conducted as an action research project

within a course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, headed by the authors and

performed in conjunction with participating students and NGOs. They conducted 67

interviews, and participating students identified themes based on the research questions.

The results were reported in a book, titled Unheard Voices, where each chapter was

tailored to a research question and had distinct sets of authors who were students within

the course.

The three studies highlight a wide range of perceived motivations, benefits, and

challenges among community partners in service learning programs. Across all three

studies, common reasons for community partners to participate in service learning

included: promoting student learning, realizing personal and/or organizational benefits,

and building relationships. These themes are listed in Table 2-1. Sandy and Holland also

mentioned social justice as a reason for engagement among some partners. This section

will review these findings in more depth.

All three studies placed primary emphasis on community members’ dedication to

students’ learning. Many community organizations see themselves as having education

and outreach roles, and their interactions with students helps fulfill their organizational

missions. Many partners even see this as the primary reason for the service learning

partnership. Partners also want to prepare students for their future careers. More

specifically, Worrall emphasized the desire for the community to teach students about

and expose them to diversity while addressing their misconceptions about the

communities of interest, while Bell and Carlson (Chapter 2 of Stoecker and Tryon’s book)

highlighted how some community partners expressed a desire to train students to get

involved with the non-profit world. For example, some partners got interested in working

for NGOs after doing service learning in college.

All three studies also found that both the community partners and their

organizations benefited directly from student work. For instance, Worrall discussed

partners’ appreciation of the ten-week commitment students gave. Since many

organizations were largely run by volunteers, the organizations appreciated having

students committed during that term. Studies by Worrall and Sandy and Holland also

mentioned the positive impact of the students’ presence in the community, such as having

college students mentor younger community members, thereby providing community

members with positive role models and revealing college as a more tangible option. Bell

and Carlson also discussed increasing organizational capacity by leveraging student

capabilities not otherwise available in the organization, such as web design skills.

Additionally, all of the studies mentioned that students brought new ways of

looking at situations that were beneficial to the organization. For example, Sandy and

Holland coded students’ different views under “organizational and personal development,”

since their views brought a sense of self-reflection to the partners, allowing them to learn

from their mistakes and grow as an organization. Bell and Carlson made a similar

observation and coded it under “capacity enhancement.” Worrall did not elaborate on this

finding, but did indicate that interviewees commonly mentioned similar themes.

Each study also discussed the relationship of the campus to the community as

being a motivation for many partnerships. Bell and Carlson discussed how organizations

used it as a way to get their name out and get access to other resources. Yet many

partners said they often felt pressure to join a partnership because of such resources, since

access to professors and research in the organization’s field might not be available if they

did not commit to service learning. Yet Worrall added that the community’s perceived

image of the university became more positive with service learning, and Sandy and

Holland mentioned that there were potential resources for communities within the

relationships.

Some partners also saw the students and or university participation in partnerships

as a sense of responsibility to the community. For instance, Sandy and Holland included

social justice as a motivation for some community partners. While this particular

motivation was not a common topic in the study, Sandy and Holland included it because

it was discussed at length in a few focus groups.

Table 2-1 presents a summary of the findings from all three studies, which were

used to inform deductive coding of the data collected for this study.

Table 2-1: Synthesis of Motivations from the Literature Review

Code Motivation relating to:

Student learning students’ learning.

Organizational benefit supporting organizational mission.

Personal benefits professional development within the organization.

Relationship building the benefits community gains within the partnership.

Social justice the responsibility of community as a whole.

2.4.3 Review for Research Question 2: Theoretical Models of the Nature and Structure

of Partnerships

The literature in this subsection synthesizes the research on partnerships in service

learning and engineering education literature by reviewing frameworks and examining

studies that have incorporated these frameworks. I start with structure of partnerships,

examining Bringle, Clayton and Price’s (2009) SOFAR model, Janke’s (2013) paper on

organizational partnerships and McCahan et al.’s (2012) characteristics of engineering

Learning Through Service (LTS) programs. I follow this with a review of the nature of

partnerships, including an overview of levels of partnerships (Sockett, 1998), Enos and

Morton’s (2003) development of a framework on transactional and transformative

partnerships, paths of engagement defined and developed by Dorado and Giles (2004),

the two-dimensional approach to assessing transformative campus/community service

learning partnerships advanced by Phillips and Ward (2009), relational and transactional

relationships in engineering community engagement (Vanasupa & Schlemer, 2014), and

client and cooperative logic in informal science education (Feinstein & Meshoulam,

2014).

As described in more detail below, the first phase of analysis for this study was

based on the Phillips-Ward framework, and the second phase of analysis involved

development of a new coding structure, the Transactional, Cooperative, Communal (TCC)

framework. The TCC framework was grounded in the reviewed literature (Dorado &

Giles, 2004; Enos & Morton, 2003; Feinstein & Meshoulam, 2014; Sockett, 1998;

Vanasupa & Schlemer, 2014). I conclude the literature review with studies that have

examined how the connection between structural characteristic(s) and nature of the

partnerships in the service learning literature.

2.4.3.1 Structure of Partnerships

There are three different approaches to framing the structure of community

engagement partnerships. The first explores partnerships as a set of individual

relationships, the second suggests grounding partnership research in organizational theory,

and the third proposes a set of distinctive characteristics of engineering Learning Through

Service (LTS) programs.

Bringle and Hatcher (2002) focused on individual relationships in service learning

and argued that examining relationships through this lens can allow individuals and

institutions “to initiate, develop, maintain, and nurture a healthy partnership with the

community” (p. 505). Additionally, Bringle et al. (2009) developed the SOFAR structural

model, as presented in Figure 2-1, as a way to describe and analyze these partnerships,

namely as a network of individual relationships between Students, Organizations, Faculty,

Administrators and Community Residents. Each of these roles consists of individuals in

relationships with one another. Bringle et al. (2009) argue that there are ten key

relationships in this structure. The term “relationships” is a broad definition that refers to

any interaction and that each of these relationships can develop into a partnership when

the interactions have closeness, equity and integrity.

Figure 2-1: Bringle et al. (2009) SOFAR model

However, Janke (2012) and Giles and Eyler (2013) suggest that focusing solely

on individuals overlooks another level of complexity, namely that of organizational

relationships. Janke (2012) says that service learning can incorporate organizational

theory from business management literature to better understand the phenomena that is

taking place within service learning partnerships, and more specifically suggests two

conceptual frameworks that could be used to analyze partnerships: “interorganizational

relationships (i.e. relationships between organizations)” and “partnership entities (i.e.

distinct organizational entities that are, to an extent, separate from the parent

organizations from which they originated)” (p. 388).

The difference of the examining partnerships by individual relationships and

organizational relationships came up within the findings of my second research question.

The organizational qualities of the GPP-US and EPICS programs influenced the nature of

the partnership, and the individual relationships were seen as a larger influence in the

CPP partnership. This is discussed in more detail in the findings of the second research

question, theme 2, overall structure.

Within the engineering education literature there has not been much research that

models or categorizes the structure of engineering Learning Through Service (LTS)

programs. As noted earlier, LTS is an umbrella term that is used in the engineering

education domain to include a wider variety of service-related programs, including for-

credit and extracurricular. One paper that categorized LTS programs is the work of

McCahan et al. (2012). The model highlighted twelve defining characteristics of

engineering service learning programs in four categories. The first category is academic,

including learning outcomes, deliverables, assessment, and civic outcomes. The second

category includes program design characteristics, such as program positioning and

student group size and disciplines. The third category is management/ administration,

which includes size of program, geographical context, duration, and interaction. The final

category includes technical content and social/cultural content. McCahan et al. suggest

that these characteristics be used for comparison, development, and assessment of LTS in

engineering. The twelve dimensions were chosen to encompass the breadth of LTS. In

the methods section, I use these dimensions to highlight the differences and similarities

across the three programs.

2.4.3.2 Nature of Partnerships

Prior to Cruz and Giles’ call in 2000 to examine university-community partnerships,

there were limited discussions and research regarding service learning partnerships. One

notable exception is a study by Sockett (1998), which categorized partnerships into four

types:

• Service relationships, where an individual or unit volunteers/sells support

for an institution-related function,

• Exchange relationships, where the parties exchange resources for their

mutual benefit,

• Cooperative relationships, where the parties plan together and share

responsibilities, and

• Systematic transformative relationships, where the parties share

responsibility for planning, decision making, funding, operations and

evaluation of activities, and in which each institution is transformed

through the relationship (p. 76).

Further, Sockett saw these as not hierarchical, but rather a categorization of different

types of partnerships.

Following the call in 2000, researchers’ efforts to examine the concept of

partnerships also involved developing new theoretical and conceptual lenses. For instance,

Enos and Morton (2003) offered a theoretical framework examining the nature of

partnerships by proposing two fundamental types of partnerships: transactional and

transformative. Enos and Morton describe “transactional relationships [as] those that are

instrumental, designed to complete a task with no greater plan or promise. The parties

engage together because each has something the other finds useful” (p. 24). In contrast,

they define transformative relationships as: “proceed[ing] with less definition, with an

openness to unanticipated developments… here, there is an expectation that things may

change, that the order may be disturbed, and that new relationships, identities, and values

may emerge” (p. 24). Enos and Morton suggest that most partnerships are transactional,

and for a partnership to be transformative it must go through a development process over

time. Clayton et al. (2010) added another category to this framework which they called

“exploitative.” This category was added after the authors discussed the framework with

faculty involved with service learning who said that in some cases transactional was not

an accurate representation, and that some relationships were instead “so unilateral that,

intentionally or unintentionally, they take advantage of or harm one or both parties” (p. 8).

Dorado and Giles’s (2004) research on partnerships in service learning provided

an alternative way of understanding the nature of partnerships. The authors built on the

notion of service learning partnership from the organizational studies literature and used a

grounded theory method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to understand

the pathways for partnership. In a study including twenty-seven interviews in thirteen

partnerships, the authors establish three codes for partnership behaviors: learning,

aligning and nurturing. These codes were then used to determine the engagement path of

each partnership. The developmental process with three paths of engagement included:

tentative, aligned and committed. As they explained:

Partnerships in a tentative engagement are likely to be brand new and

involve instructors and/or community agencies inexperienced with service

learning. Partnerships in an aligned engagement are those that have

successfully traveled the tentative path and whose members are actively

engaged in improving to better fit the needs of students and communities.

Partnerships in a committed engagement are characterized by their parties’

commitment to the partnership beyond a particular project. (Doraldo &

Giles, 2004, p. 26)

In the tentative path, the learning behaviors are dominant. In the aligned path, the

aligning behaviors are dominant. In the committed path, the nurturing behaviors are

dominant. One of the key findings was “that service learning partnerships are likely to

either stagnate at the tentative path or advance rather quickly into a committed one; time

spent in the aligning path is likely to be rather limited” (Doraldo & Giles, 2004, p.31).

The one partnership that did maintain aligning behaviors had a “bad start.” In the method

section, I draw on this study based on the importance of organizational theory in the

service learning research, the method of coding specific interactions or behaviors and the

notion that a partnership can vary in the path of engagement over time. The authors

highlight that there is not one stage or level partnership is on, but rather it is more

complex and can change with the age of the partnership.

Another study that worked to establish a development framework was Phillips

and Ward’s (2009). Phillips established a 2-dimensional matrix on the type and extent of

partnerships, each having four stages describing the development of partnerships that I

refer to as the Phillips-Ward framework. The framework was built on an array of

publications to categorize partnerships (Bringle, Games, & Malloy, 1999; Dorado &

Giles, 2004; Enos & Morton, 2003; Percy, Zimpher, & Brukardt, 2006; Torres, 2002;

Zimpher, Percy, & Brukardt, 2002). Phillips and Ward used this framework to create a

tool for assessing partnerships. I used the Phillips-Ward framework for the first phase of

my data analysis, since I am interested in understanding the contextual nature of the

partnerships and this framework clearly categorizes different stages. My analysis

attempts to categorize the partnerships into stages using the type and extent dimensions.

The first dimension, type, is primarily based on Enos and Morton’s (2003) paper,

and is defined as “the degree to which practices and services engage in by the community

partnership embrace and utilize the skills of both partners, so that each has a stake in the

outcomes,” (Phillips &Ward, 2009, p. 106). According to this typology, partnerships are

on a continuum of four stages. The beginning phase, static, describes partnerships where

the university or course does not have any stake in a particular organization, and the

organization does not distinguish between the service learning students and other

volunteers. Communication is kept strictly logistical, and service learning is seen as

useful and may support related coursework (Phillips & Ward, 2009). As the partnership

develops through the alters and expands stages, the way of teaching and the way the

organization does business starts to break away from traditional methods. The notion of

“expert” and “knowledge” begin to be questioned. Assets are brought together to address

the community’s needs, as deeper synergies are recognized. Interdisciplinary approaches

to education emerge, and new academic programs are started. Students’ goals are shared

with the community partner, the partner influences the teaching, and the community

contributes to the educational outcomes.

In the transforms stage, “there is no distinction between where the boundaries of

education end and service to the community begins. No distinction exists between

traditional educational experiences and service learning experiences. The tripartite focus

of learning, research, and service of the academy are seen as fulfilled through the practice

of service learning as embodied in the partnership” (Phillips, 2007, p. 120). In this stage,

knowledge is also created for and shared within the partnership. The community is seen

as a learning space, and resources are amassed to expand the scope of education and

service to the community.

The second dimension, extent, refers to “the degree to which the

campus/community partnerships move towards a joint communal identity” (Phillips &

Ward, 2009, p. 106-7). This dimension is based on the work of Furco and Holland (2004),

Dorado and Giles (2004), and Torres (2000). In this categorization, there are four stages

starting from individual relationship to communal identity. In the individual relationship

stage, the partnership is limited to one or two faculty and one or two members of the

community. The depth of the relationship can be deep, but this would be considered an

anomaly. In the institution/organization support stage, there is institutional support from

the university and the agency. There is often a center to support the partnership, and the

missions of the institution and the agency support the partnership. In the community

mobilization stage, the actions of the partnerships are visible across the campus and the

community. In this stage, steps are taken to bring together community leaders, everyone

in the partnership is invested in promoting civic engagement, and resources are shared to

reach common goals. In the highest stage, communal partner identity, the partnership has

been transformed as “the partners work to deepen and expand the partnership through

long-range plans to improve the quality of life for the shared community.” (Phillips, 2007,

p. 114) There is also recognition the university and the organization being equal partners,

and the resources are determined by the partnership as a whole.

Despite this growing body of research in the broader service learning literature, I

was only able to identify one paper in the engineering education literature that examines

the nature of partnerships, namely Vanasupa and Schlemer’s (2014) work on

transactional and relational community engagement. The authors created a conceptual

model based on an action research project where they categorize community engagement

into four groups depending on the learning outcomes and relationships with the

community, these include: volunteerism, development, service learning, and collaborative

co-creating. Each of these categories has a unique relationship with the program and the

community, ranging in closeness and overlapping desired outcomes.

Since there was limited research done on the nature of relationships within

engineering, I broadened the scope of my literature review by including studies of

partnerships with community in Informal Science Education (ISE) organizations.

Feinstein and Meshoulam (2014) examine different institutional logics in regard to equity

in ISE organizations. Institutional logics are frameworks that tend to guide how

organizations act, and competing logics can result in different actions, even if the goals

are similar (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Feinstein & Meshoulam identified

two institutional logics in ISE approach to equity, one that is based on client logic, where

the interactions and activities enhance boundaries between the community, and

cooperative logic, where the interactions and activities blur the boundaries. Feinstein and

Meshoulam argue that one of the logics is not seen as superior, yet each one has its own

benefits on how an institution can approach the community. This study was a pivotal

piece in the second phase of my analysis, the development of the TCC framework.

2.4.3.3 Relating Structure and Nature

Additionally, few studies have examined the effect of the structure of the service

learning or community engagement program on the nature of partnerships. One exception

is Dorado, Giles and Welch’s (2009) study. The authors examine specific structural

elements, how out comes are determined, either by pre-defined and co-defined, and the

connection of these outcomes to how the partnerships are delegated, either by a

coordinator on campus or directly with the faculty member. For pre-defined outcomes,

the purpose of the experience was defined prior to the partnership. For co-defined

partnerships, the outcomes are co-created with community and university. The delegation

is a structural element of the program, and occurs when the coordination is done

separately, so there is a person that arranges the service learning experience, but is not

engaged in the partnership. According to the authors,

[The study] highlights that the same structural factor—delegation—can

simultaneously have two, opposite effects. It can facilitate the formation of

a partnership by creating a more efficient path to identifying partners, and

it can discourage the staff involved from identifying outcomes other than

those predefined before the engagement. (p. 18)

As this quote indicates, the authors found that the structural element, delegation, can

influence the nature of the partnership.

Another relevant study by Clayton et al. (2010) combined the Bringle et al. (2009)

SOFAR structural model and layered it with Enos and Morton’s (2003) conceptual

framework for partnerships and Mashek, Cannaday, and Tangney’s (2007) work on

community collectedness to design an assessment tool to study partnerships. They then

implemented it with faculty involved in service learning. They found that “closeness”

was predictive of transformative relationships, i.e. the relationships that were most likely

to be transformative were personal in nature.

In summary, there has been limited work exploring how the structure of programs

influences partnerships, and I was unable to find any studies specifically within

engineering community engagement programs. My study adds to this work by examining

general themes of structure in relation to the nature, and clarifying different typologies of

nature in engineering community engagement partnerships.

2.4.4 Review for Research Question 3: Where is the Project in Project-Based Service

Learning?

Project-based service learning (PBSL) is one paradigm of service learning where

students work on a project with a community. Discussion of PBSL partnerships in the

larger service learning literature has been limited. Notable exceptions include Enos and

Morton (2003), who use project-based learning as a generic example of a transactional

partnership, and Stoecker’s (2010) description of an approach to PBSL with the intention

of creating community change, one that is deeply transformative. By engaging with

community through participatory action research, Stoecker argues that projects identified

by a community to meet a fundamental need can create deep-rooted change. Yet this

raises the question: what role does the project play within the partnership?

This research seeks to better understand how projects fit within the relationship of

a service learning project. Answering this question will provide a deeper understanding

how community and faculty view the purpose of the project within the relationship. If the

project is pivotal to the community, the program should alter their program accordingly.

If it is a side project, that would be useful information as well. Also, this could add depth

to the current program structures, since they do not depict the types of service being

offered. There might need to be different frameworks for different paradigms of service.

2.5 Summary of the Literature Review

This chapter provides a review of foundational literature related to engineering

community engagement programs and partnerships. The chapter starts with a discussion

of the historical trajectory of community engagement within engineering education, and

that of the wider service learning field. Orienting engineering programs to serve local

communities originated with the Morrill Act of 1862, which provided the funding to

develop universities in order to address the mechanical and agricultural needs of the

states. The deeper historical foundations of service learning can in part be traced back to

the Crisis of Community experienced at the beginning of the twentieth century, while

using service learning as a pedagogy became more popular in the mid-1980s with the

establishment of Campus Compact. Having engineering faculty and students work with

local non-profit and governmental organizations can be traced back to at least the 1960’s,

yet it is only in the last few decades that engineering community engagement have

increased in popularity, with recent journals and conference divisions focusing on

research and scholarship on engineering community engagement. In engineering

community engagement, most of the current research has focused on the students, with

minimal research focusing on faculty and partner experiences.

This study is attempting to fill gaps in the extant literature by investigating the

motivations, nature, and structure of partnerships in community engagement programs

from the point of view of administrators, advisors, community partners and students with

extensive understanding of the partnerships. The final section of this chapter reviewed

the literature that is most directly connected to each of the research questions, and

specifically previous studies that examined the motivations of community partners or

looked at the structure and nature of partnerships. The methods chapter that follows

provides an outline of the steps taken to undertake this research including the

methodology, site selection, data collection and data analysis within this study.

CHAPTER 3. METHODS

3.1 Introduction

This study is based on a descriptive and exploratory qualitative research design

that follows a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2002). The case study approach allows

the context of the data to be included, and integrated as an important part within the study

findings. The unit of analysis is the engineering community engagement programs, and

three are included in this study: Engineering Programs In Community Service (EPICS) at

Purdue University (West Lafayette, Indiana), Global Project Program United States

project centers (GPP-US) at Worcester Polytechnic Institution (WPI) (Worcester,

Massachusetts), and Community Playground Project (CPP) at Louisiana State University

(LSU) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana).

This chapter is organized around six sections: case study method, methodology,

site section, data collection, analysis, and trustworthiness. The first subsection, the case

study research strategy, highlights how the research method design is influenced by the

research questions, the lack of control the researcher had in the research context, and the

focus on contemporary issues. The methodology of this study is based on a reality-

oriented approach, where there is the assumption that a reality exists, and a truth is worth

striving for. The study sites were chosen from among those that maintain long-term

partnerships and provide course credit to formally recognize the educational experience

for participating students. Data collection included interviews with community partners,

faculty, staff, administrators, and students with extensive experience in community

engagement and/or significant motivation. As described in the data analysis section, the

first research question was addressed separately from the second and third questions.

Particular attention is paid to the data analysis process for the second and third

questions, namely to describe development and use of the Transactional, Cooperative,

and Communal (TCC) framework. Table 3-1 gives a summary overview of the

methods for this study, which are discussed more extensively in the remaining

sections of this chapter. The final section of this chapter describes how the methods

used in this study are related to the rigor of qualitative research.

Table 3-1: Overview of Methods

Section Explanation

Case Study Research Strategy

Case study method is appropriate because: The research questions are explanatory and exploratory The researcher does not have control over the situation The research focuses on contemporary issues (Yin 2002)

Methodology Constructivist Paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) – reality

is created by individuals.

Site selection

Long-term partnerships. Participating students receive course credit

Data collection

Semi-formal interviews (protocol in Appendix A) with partners, advisors, administrators and students who knew the partnerships well

Literature and policy documents when appropriate.

Data Analysis RQ1: A combination of typological (Hatch, 2002) and thematic

analysis (Braun, 2006) to understand trends related to the motivations of the affiliates and the partners of the engineering community engagement programs

RQ2&3: Phase 1 – Typological analysis grounded in the Phillips-

Ward framework (Phillips& Ward, 2009) Phase 2 – Typological and interpretive analysis using the

TCC framework (Hatch, 2002) Phase 3 – Comparative analysis across the case sites (Patton, 2002)

3.2 Case Study Research Strategy

This study utilized a case study research design and method based on Yin

(2002). According to Yin, there are three primary conditions that need to be

considered when determining an appropriate research strategy: (1) the research

question(s), (2) the control the researcher has over the environment, and (3) the focus

on historical or contemporary issues. My first two research questions in this study are

explanatory, as I want to understand why individuals are involved in community

engagement projects and how the structure of the program influences the nature of the

relationship. The third question is exploratory, as I wanted deeper insights regarding

the role of projects within the context of the partnerships. Explanatory questions are

ideal for a case study approach, while exploratory can be done through a variety of

methods, including case study. The second condition is the control the researcher has

over the context. For this study, I do not have control over the phenomena. That is, I

do not have the ability to manipulate the context in order to create an experiment.

Not having control is appropriate for a case study, as I need to examine the context of

the phenomena. The third condition is the historical or contemporary issue. This

study focuses on contemporary issues, as I am interested in current partnerships.

Contemporary issues are appropriate for a case study research method.

The case study approach guides the research design, which links the initial

research question to the data collection and analysis. The case study method focuses

on distinct entities for the unit of analysis (Yin, 2002). For this study, the units of

analysis are the engineering community engagement programs, and the sub-units are

the individuals within the programs. The selection of the units is described in the site

selection section of this chapter. For each program, there were eight to eleven

participants within each unit. The analysis process analyzes each unit distinctively, so

that the context of the specific program could be captured. The context was then

included and discussed within the reporting of the results.

3.3 Methodology

The guiding methodology of the present research is based on a constructivist

paradigm. This paradigm impacts the research questions, design, and analysis by

providing a way of viewing the world. The constructivist ontology is based on the

notion that:

Realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental

constructs, socially and experimentally based, local and specific in

nature (although elements are often shared among many individuals

and even across cultures), and dependent for their form and content on

the individual persons or groups holding the constructions (Guba &

Lincoln, 1994, p.110).

This implies that the realities of an experience are subjective, and constructed by the

individual participants. Knowledge within this paradigm is a consensus by a group of

individuals who hold the same mental construct, but there can be different

constructions across different groups of individuals (i.e. gender, race, history, location,

etc.). The goal of constructivism is to understand, as opposed to a positivist or post-

positivist approach that aims to explain with the intent of predicting phenomena

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

The constructivist paradigm is appropriate for this study’s research questions

because they seek out to understand the motivations, structure, and nature of

partnerships while recognizing that the context associated with each partnership has a

high degree of influence on the partner experiences and relationships. There is

recognition that each participant will have a different notion and experience of the

partnership, and there for the partnerships will vary based on the individuals and

context and will not be consistent within or across programs.

However, there are certain techniques and assumptions I made that were more

aligned with a post-positivist paradigm, as it provided a greater degree of clarity as I

worked toward answering the research questions. This included the assumption that

by asking the participants questions about their experiences, the researcher can

discover their true motivations, interests, the structure of the program, and the nature

of the partnerships. What the research subjects say is taken explicitly. For the first

research question, there is little interpretation beyond what is said, and patterns were

counted numerically and color-coded to highlight their prevalence in the data. For the

analysis of the second and third research questions, an interpretive analysis was used,

which recognizes more of my own subjectivity in the findings. These findings,

however, were still explained and contextualized through a constructivist paradigm,

recognizing and articulating the unique situations of the cases. The second question

utilized an interpretive approach, as the process inserted my own voice and

subjectivity within the data. However, I also went through a series of checks to

insure that the data was in the voice of the participant. The steps I took are outlined

in the analysis subsection.

Within this paradigm, the validity of results is often evaluated based on the

notion of the “trustworthiness” of the findings. Triangulation of data sources can

increase accuracy and improve the credibility of the findings. For instance, talking to

multiple stakeholders and reviewing program policy documents allowed me to

triangulate the findings presented below. Establishing rapport with the participants

also improved trustworthiness. Further explanation regarding the validation of the

study findings is presented in a subsequent section of this chapter.

3.4 Site Selection

The main units of analysis for this study are the engineering community

engagement programs. The sub-units are individual partnerships. I chose engineering

engagement programs based on two conditions: that the program had long-standing

community partnerships, and offered credit for the students’ experience. The fact that

the programs had long-term partnerships insured that the participants could speak in-

depth about the partnership. The criteria of offering students credit highlights that

there is a degree of recognition within the programs regarding the educational value

of the engagement process. The study initially began focusing on partnerships in the

EPICS program as part of a Purdue Research Foundation (PRF) grant. Then as the

study evolved into a larger dissertation research project, my committee helped me

think through and contact other programs that were project-based, worked with

predominantly engineers or other STEM students, and had longstanding relationships

in the community. Through these networks and personal connections, I was able to

identify the three appropriate programs: Engineering Programs In Community

Service (EPICS) at Purdue University (West Lafayette, Indiana), Global Project

Program United States project centers (GPP-US) at Worcester Polytechnic Institution

(WPI) (Worcester, Massachusetts), and Community Playground Project (CPP) at

Louisiana State University (LSU) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana). The following

subsections will provide an over for of each program.

3.4.1 EPICS at Purdue University

Purdue is a land-grant university located in West Lafayette, Indiana. More

with more than half students are studying STEM fields, and Purdue is has a reputation

of excelling at engineering. In the 1990s there were discussions on the need to

increase professional skills within engineering graduates. As a result, Engineering

Projects In Community Service (EPICS) was started in 1995 to provide an avenue for

the engineering students to learn these important professional skills (Coyle, Jamieson,

& Oakes, 2005). The program initially attempted to have students work on projects

for industry, yet decided to work with community organization when industry was not

interested and there was a recognized need among local organization (Jamieson,

2012).

EPICS is an is an interdisciplinary service learning program at Purdue

University where engineering students are teamed with students from across campus

to work on projects, primarily for local community non-profit and government

organizations. Working with these partner organizations, students might develop an

exhibit for a local science museum, perform energy audits of office buildings, create a

bike share strategy for a local municipality, or develop software solutions for local

government agencies.

In Fall 2011 there were 388 students enrolled in EPICS, and 315 of these (or

81%) were enrolled in engineering. Many engineering students are able to count

EPICS as a technical elective. In certain departments, such as the School of Electrical

and Computer Engineering, students can also elect to take EPICS for capstone design

credit if they are working on a project related to that discipline (e.g., electrical

engineering students designing a robotic arm).

Currently, there are around 30 teams in EPICS, each having a different theme.

Within each team there might also be multiple projects. Sometimes a single

individual from the partner organization is the primary point of contact for all projects,

while in other instances there are multiple contacts. Students work on the projects for

one or more semesters and are assessed through “documented individual

accomplishments and learning and skill development per the course learning

objectives as well as the team’s accomplishments” (EPICS 2013).

Well-qualified staff, including faculty members or practicing professionals,

serve in the roles of advisors. Senior Ph.D. students can be mentored as co-advisors,

yet graduate students do not act solely as advisors. There are some instances when a

project partner acts as an advisor, but this is not typical within EPICS. The human-

centered design approach used by EPICS requires that the partners sign off at varying

stages of the design process, so they are integrated into the design (Zoltowski et al,

2010). On the EPICS website, there are a list of expectations of project partners;

these include:

• Meeting with the students three times each semester

• Responding via email or phone every one or two weeks

• Agreement to assume the majority of liability for projects after

completed and delivered

• Agreement to participate in the maintenance and service of

delivered project

• Willingness to work with the student teams to identify projects,

specify requirements, and provide ongoing critical feedback

(EPICS, 2014)

That above list outlines the partner’s commitments to the program. In addition, the

EPICS website provides a description of the context in which EPICS works best, and

other contexts in which EPICS does not work well. EPICS works best when the

partners are to be engaged in the project definition, to be able to identify both long

term and short-term projects, and can support the student’s educational experience.

EPICS does not work well if there is an expectation for a quick completion times, or

if projects do not have engineering or computing design components. The website It

also specifies that EPICS students are only taking the course for one to two credits a

semester, and so expectations of the students dedication should be recognized as

limited.

3.4.2 GPP at Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) in Worcester, Massachusetts, is a

technical university. Since the founding of the university in 1865, WPI was grounded

in the values of applying theory and practice (Dorsey, 1999). During the 1960s, there

was recognition that the baccalaureate education offered by the school was no

different than other public universities, and if they were going to compete, WPI

needed to transform the degree requirements. This insight instigated a reorganization

of the degree requirements in what was called the “WPI Plan.” Some of the key

considerations of the re-organization were: 1. students needed to learn how to be

lifetime learners, 2. students need to understand social issues well enough to critically

engage in discussions about what problems should be pursued and why certain

technologies should be developed, 3. students needed to harness their own personal

motivation, and 4. the university needed to create a sense of community for the

students (Alstyne et al., 1969).

The “WPI Plan” involved major curricular changes. More specifically, the

semester system was discarded, and WPI started to instead have seven-week terms.

Also, the Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) was established as a graduation

requirement. The IQP requirement took up nine credit-hours, originally taking three

terms to complete in the junior year, where students had to work on a project at the

intersection of science, technology and society. In the 1970s, there was a realization

that this project could be done in one term for some federal agencies, state agencies,

NGOs, etc., and the students could work on a project while addressing the needs of

the partnering agencies. The first site became the Washington, DC project center.

This became a large success, and there were faculty regularly taking students down to

Washington, DC for a term, working with partnering agencies to complete the

students’ IQP requirements. Over time, there was also the development of additional

project sites throughout the US and around the world. In addition, a course was

created to help prepare students for these projects. In 2013 there were 3,893

undergraduate students at WPI, and WPI had admitted a first-year class of 1,103

students. About half of the students were majoring in an engineering discipline (WPI,

2013).

There is also a program that organizes the IQP off-campus experiences, the

Global Project Program (GPP). In the GPP, students in teams of three to four work

for two terms on a socio-technical project for an agency referred to as a “sponsor”.

This project is done outside of the student’s discipline, and is seen as detached from

disciplinary work. In the first term, students research the project and the organization,

and learn research techniques from social scientists. In the second term, the students

work on-site at a sponsoring agency. There are over thirty project centers throughout

the world, and each center sends students to four to six sponsoring agencies.

Occasionally a sponsor works with two teams at the same time. About half of the

students at WPI participate in GPP during their junior year.

This study specifically focused on US-based partnerships linked to centers in

the Eastern United States. I refer to these centers as GPP-US. Each center included in

this study has one or two center directors who are responsible for finding appropriate

projects for the students and maintaining the partnerships.

3.4.3 Community Playground Project at LSU

Louisiana State University (LSU) is a U.S. public Land-Grant university. In

1997, a faculty member started the Community Playground Project (CPP) to provide

students design experiences they could relate to. The program is instigated by a

single faculty member, yet LSU also has a Center for Community Engagement,

Learning, and Leadership to help coordinate service learning and other forms of

community engagement. Most of the university’s service learning classes use a model

where a whole class partners with a single agency or a small number of agencies for

the service learning experience.

The CPP assists in the design and building of playgrounds for public schools

within the East Baton Rouge school district. The CPP consists of two groups of LSU

students and numerous partnerships with schools, school districts and other

organizations within the community. One of LSU student groups is a first-year

biological engineering course, and the second is a design group consisting of

undergraduate and graduate students who have taken the first year course and

volunteer or are paid to work for the CPP. In the first-year course, teams of 3 or 4

students work together to design a playground for the partnering school. The LSU

first-year students are also required to go into the schools as reading or math buddies

for the elementary students to better understand the schools at a more personal level.

The elementary students and other stakeholders at the elementary schools provide

insight on what is appropriate for their school during the design process. Each first-

year class has around 30 students, and there are often two sections every spring

semester. If a student shows an interest in design and a capacity to engage with the

community, the student might be asked to work on the design team by the faculty

member. This group of design students will search for funding for the playgrounds

and see the projects to completion. They combine the first-year students’ reports to

finalize a design for a school and write up grant proposals as needed.

In addition to students, community partners are a part of the CPP. A critical

partner in the CPP is the Food & Grounds Inc. (F&G; pseudonymized). This

company provides the list of schools in need of a playground and offers manpower

and equipment for the builds based on the state of disrepair and safety violations of

existing structures. Also, there is a list of over 500 volunteers who have come out and

support the playground builds in various ways, from hauling surfacing to providing

meals. This group will also be asked to donate funds if a project is close to meeting

its funding goals.

3.4.4 Summary Overview of the Programs

This study examined partnerships at three engineering community

engagement programs: Engineering Programs In Community Service (EPICS) at

Purdue University (West Lafayette, Indiana), Global Project Program United States

project centers (GPP-US) at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) (Worcester,

Massachusetts), and Community Playground Project (CPP) at Louisiana State

University (LSU) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana). All three of the programs met the

requirements of having long-term partnerships within the United States, but yet have

differing program structures.

To get a better sense for the similarities and differences among the programs, I

outlined the twelve distinct program characteristics highlighted by McCahan, et al.

(2012). As presented in Table 3-2, this information helps highlight similarities and

differences across the three programs that are represented in my dissertation. These

differences and similarities were taken into account while identifying the themes in

the data analysis. The main similarities between the organizations are the rigor and

alignment of learning outcomes and assessment, and that they all support long-term

partnerships. The main differences include the size, curricular position, deliverables,

and ways they interact with partner organizations and communities. The EPICS and

GPP-US are both large programs that serve the institution, with over 500 students a

year. The CPP is limited to first-year Biological Engineering students and works with

around 60 students every spring semester. The deliverables also vary considerably.

For EPICS, students work on engineering-centered projects that are technical in

nature; for the GPP-US, there are more social science types of projects that focus on

integrating technology and society; and the CPP focuses on designing and building

playgrounds for local public schools.

Table 3-2: Program Characteristics Comparison of EPICS, GPP-US and CPP Community Engagement Programs based on the Twelve Categories identified by McCahan et. al (2012)

Theme Description EPICS GPP CPP

Learning outcomes

Rigor and clarity of the outcomes

Rigorous and well defined (EPICS, 2013) 1. Discipline Knowledge: ability

to apply material from their discipline to the design of community-based projects.

2. Design Process: an understanding of design as a start-to-finish process.

3. Lifelong Learning: an ability to identify and acquire new knowledge as a part of the problem-solving/design process.

4. Customer Awareness: an awareness of the customer.

5. Teamwork: ability to function on multidisciplinary teams and an appreciation for the contributions from individuals from multiple disciplines.

6. Communication: an ability to communicate effectively both orally and written with widely-varying backgrounds.

7. Ethics: an awareness of professional ethics and responsibility.

8. Social Context: an

Rigorous and well defined (WPI, 2004) 1. Demonstrate an understanding of

the project’s technical, social and humanistic context.

2. Define clear, achievable goals and objectives for the project.

3. Critically identify, utilize, and properly cite information sources, and integrate information from multiple sources to identify appropriate approaches to addressing the project goals.

4. Select and implement a sound approach to solving an interdisciplinary problem.

5. Analyze and synthesize results from social, ethical, humanistic, technical or other perspectives, as appropriate.

6. Maintain effective working relationships within the project team and with the project advisor(s), recognizing and resolving problems that may arise.

7. Demonstrate the ability to write clearly, critically and persuasively.

8. Demonstrate strong oral communication skills, using

Rigorous and well defined (Lima, 2013) 1. Define and discuss engineering and

biological engineering. 2. Be more confident in yourself and

your learning process, including why you picked this (or another) major.

3. Understand in some depth the area of biological engineering (or a different discipline) in which you want to study.

4. Communicate with your community partner(s) and your peers, and apply rudimentary techniques for effectively working together and resolving conflicts.

5. Understand the process of engineering design, including the following: what is engineering design, how does one approach a problem using the engineering method, impact of social and technical factors on design, evaluation methods in design, and effective communication of a design.

6. Be proficient with federal playground safety and design standards (well enough to pass the national exam for Certified Playground Safety Inspectors).

7. Create a playground design that captures “the soul of the community.”

Theme Description EPICS GPP CPP

appreciation of the role that their discipline can play in social contexts. (p. 2)

appropriate, effective visual aids. 9. Demonstrate an awareness of the

ethical dimensions of their project work. (p. 1)

8. Explain the connection between what you learned through service outside the classroom and instruction inside the classroom.

9. Understand the significance of communicating, and how it affects your strength as an engineering student. (p. 1-2)

Deliverables Are deliverables required, and what is the quantity and quality expected?

Deliverables required. Assignments and reflections throughout the semester. Products are delivered to the client when they are completed. Project can roll over each term.

Deliverables required. There is a set of assignments and discussions with advisors throughout the semester. A final report with an oral presentation to the sponsor is due at the end of the term.

Deliverables required. Assignments and reflections throughout the semester. After the student teams create their final reports, all the reports are reviewed by the playground team during the final design stage, once the funding has been allocated.

Assessment Is the assessment rigorous and aligned with the outcomes and deliverables?

Rigorous and aligned: Well defined learning outcomes and assessment rubrics to determine if learning objectives were met.

Civic outcomes

Are students expected to engage in self-reflection on the civic element, and is this included in assessment?

There is self-reflective element in the journal, where the students are required to reflect on the needs of the project partner.

This is not currently required, but there is discussion about including a required reflection component.

There is a self-reflective element required where the students are reflecting on how they designed for the soul of the community.

Theme Description EPICS GPP CPP

Curricular position

Is the LTS experience extra curricular, elective, or required?

It is an elective course, and can also be used for capstone design in some programs/disciplines.

An IQP is required junior year; about half of the students fulfill through the GPP-US.

It is a required course for all first-year Biological Engineering (BE) students. There are two sections that both are dedicated to CPP. Other students can take the course, but it is neither required nor systematically encouraged.

Group characteristics

Are the teams interdisciplinary? How large are the teams?

A team can be 8-24 students, but they are broken down into project teams that are smaller (typically 3-5 students). The teams are interdisciplinary (across campus) and vertically integrated (across academic levels).

A team is 3-4 students. They are interdisciplinary, yet these projects are seen to be outside the scope of the student’s discipline. All students have junior standing. There will be 4-6 teams assigned to a given site.

There are teams with 3-4 students, all who are BE students.

Size of the program

Are there many students, needing administrative support or small enough for a single faculty member to handle?

In Fall 2011, the program served 388 students from across campus (I collected data in Spring 2011). Administrative support is needed. They also are the center for the EPICS programs at other universities, both US and international. There is a coordinator who checks in on all the partnerships.

The program supports about 500 students in a given year. Administrative support is needed. The center directors and advisors oversee the partnerships.

There are two sections of the course with around 30 students in each section. There are some advanced students, some paid, who provide some coordination for this specific project. There is a service learning center on campus, but no administration delegated to the CPP.

Geographical context

Is the service local or global?

Focuses primarily on local, but has global dimension as well through activities of select teams. I focus on local partnerships in this study.

Focuses on global, but has local partners as well. This study focuses on partnerships in the Eastern United States.

All the partnerships are local and within the East Baton Rouge Parish (school district).

Theme Description EPICS GPP CPP

Duration Is the partnership for a short amount of time or over the length of years?

Partnerships are long-term, as the commitment to EPICS is expected to last multiple semesters.

Partnerships are confined to a single term, but can be recurring. There is a deliverable to the client at the end of the 14-week time frame.

Some partnerships, such as with F&G and the school system has lasted for years. Partnership length with specific schools depends on funding. Students work on the initial designs for a playground, and then another team will work to get funding and synthesize designs.

Interaction Is there little engagement with the partner or a full immersive experience?

Engagement varies based on the partnership. Some partners will be in regular communication, while others will meet with the partner a few times a semester and have regular email exchange. The partners are also invited to technical review sessions

The students are at the partner organization’s site for seven weeks while completing the project, and also have limited interactions with the partners in the preceding preparation term.

College students meet with the elementary school to understand the playground needs. The college students also read with the elementary students and involve the elementary students throughout the design process. The faculty member works closely with school administrators and community members throughout the design process.

Technical content

Is there technical content within the project, and if so, how complex?

The students design a product for the partnering organization. Technical content is present; complexity varies based on product.

The project is a socio-technical project. It can vary in technical content based on the project.

The students are required to understand a variety of structural components, safety issues, and access considerations related to playground design.

Social content Is there a social element within the project, and if so, how complex?

The emphasis on the social dimension varies based on the project.

The social content is complex and is the main purpose of the experience.

The students are required to build relationships with the community through the reading program, and work along side of children, teachers and community members during the builds.

3.5 Data Collection

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, my research questions target

experiences, structure and nature within engineering community engagement partnerships.

I assumed that there would be similar structure within various partnerships in engineering

community engagement programs, so I made the programs the main unit of analysis with

the sub-unit being individuals in partnerships. The main source of data was semi-formal

interviews. In congruence with the interviews, I also familiarized myself with each site,

and collected publications and documents related to the programs. I had discussions with

administrators, and participated in various events, including sitting in on meetings and

accompanying a classes of students to project sites. This helped familiarize me with the

programs.

For each of the three program sites I conducted semi-formal interviews with key

constituents of the long-term partnerships (n=32). Of the participants interviewed thirty

interviews were analyzed: seven advisors, eighteen partners, two partner-advisors, two

students and three administrators. One partner interview was not included in the analysis

since the time lapse in participation was over five years, and many of the individual’s

answers did not provide enough detail to contribute to this study. Two of the partners

from the same organization asked to be interviewed together, and so the answers from

both the participants were analyzed together as a single interview.

There was no administrator interviewed in EPICS. However one of the advisors

had some administration responsibilities, such as curriculum development and was a part

of the EPICS research team. The lack of administration interviewed was due to a change

in research methods once the interviews begun, and the inclusion of the EPICS director

on my dissertation committee. During initial study designed, the partner-advisors were

thought to be more in a partner role, and the administrator was going to be conducted

after the main themes were analyzed. However, after the interviews were conducted, it

was clear that the Partner-Advisors were closer to affiliates of EPICS, and did not have

the same responses as other partners, so they were re-categorized. In order to keep an

even weight of affiliates and partners, and to have all the interviews for an each program

done together, the administration for EPICS was not included in the study. I brought in

the administration view in the study through the advisor who had a limited administration

role, the committee member, publication, policy documents, and workshops I attended by

the EPICS administrators.

Table 3-3 gives an overview of the interviews analyzed for the study. The

interviews were targeted for 45 to 90 minutes, with one lasting only 15 minutes because

of time constraints and the shortness of answers provided by the interviewee. For EPICS,

I transcribed all the interviews, and for GPP-US and CPP the interviews were transcribed

by a transcription agency.

Table 3-3: The Number and Role of Interviewees Analyzed in this Study

Partners Affiliates

Partner- Advisors Advisors Administrators Students

EPICS (n=11) 5 2 3 1

GPP-US (n=11) 6 3 2

CPP (n=8) 5 1 1 1

Total (n=30) 16 2 7 3 2

I also had formal and informal discussions with program administrators to review

my research questions, collected program material relating to the partnerships, and

collected published work about each program. The participants for this study were

recruited based on a variety of factors, including their commitment to the program, their

role in the partnership, and the type of organizations they worked with. I also limited the

study partners under investigation to non-profit and governmental organizations.

The interview protocol was set up to answer the three research questions. The

interview questions are in part based on findings from other research done on

community-university relationships (Sandy & Holland, 2006; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009; L.

Worrall, 2007). The interview protocol can be found in Appendix A. Before conducting

the interviews I sat down with the program administrators to identify the appropriate

participants, and review the protocol to confirm that the questions were appropriate for

the site.

For EPICS, 12 interviews were conducted and 11 analyzed and reported in the

findings. One interview was not used because the partner had not been involved for over

five years and most of their responses were generic, or they had difficulty remembering

details. Among these, there were five individuals who acted solely as project partners,

three that were solely in advisor roles, and two who served dual roles as both project

partners and advisors. The dual roles are not common within EPICS, yet this role

provided a unique perspective of both the roles of the advisor and the project partner.

Additionally, one interviewee was both a project design reviewer and former student.

This individual was included because s/he had a depth of knowledge on the partnership

since they had spent three-and-a-half years as a student in EPICS and had continued to be

involved in reviewing the work of EPICS teams, and were able to provide insight on the

partnership itself. While the participants had diverse disciplinary expertise, five had

backgrounds in engineering.

For GPP-US, I focused on three project centers located in the Eastern United

States, where I interviewed partners (the partners are referred to as sponsors in the GPP),

center directors, and administrators (n=11). During data collection, all of the center

directors interviewed had taken on their role within the last couple of years. For one of

the project centers, I interviewed two directors, one former director (who left the role a

year prior to the interview), and the current director. For another project center, I

interviewed the former director (he had been director for 10 years). For the third center I

did not interview a director because there had been recent changes and the new director

had not worked at the site yet. I also interviewed two administrators of the program. One

of the administrators had directed a project center that was included in this study;

however, the administrator also had many other experiences at international sites. In the

interview the experiences as the project director intertwined with experiences with the

international sites, so this participant was looked solely as an administrator and not for

their role as a center director. The interview provided information of the preparation

course, and the dynamic and overall goals of the GPP.

Each center director forwarded my recruitment email to partners with long-term

standing. I followed up with sponsors who contacted me from the initial recruitment

emails. I interviewed six sponsors total, two from each site. There were two individuals

included at one of the sponsor agencies. The length of the partnerships varied from 3

terms to over 20 years. I was unable to get information on the exact length of the longer

partnerships.

At the LSU site, I interviewed eight individuals: one faculty member, one former

administrator, one student, two F&G employees, and three partners from local elementary

schools. The faculty member, administrator, student, and F&G employees have been

involved with numerous builds, while the partners at the elementary schools were

familiar with their own builds.

The faculty member sent me a list of email addressed and I forwarded my

recruitment email to partners. I followed up with partners who contacted me from the

initial recruitment email. The length of the partnerships varied from one to 17 years. The

partnerships at the schools were shorter in length, and the partnerships with the F&G

lasted much longer.

My main data source is interviews. However, I ground the interviews in and

triangulated them with other sources, such as program documentations and publications.

Program policies, publications, flyers, etc. were collected, and brought into the analysis

to confirm policies and procedures of the programs. Program forms that were related to

partnerships such as partner agreement forms and course syllabi were collected to help

understand the partnership and the program structure. Since these programs are

longstanding, there are also relevant publications and research describing the programs

(i.e., Coyle, et al., 2005; Vaz, 2011). Such documentation was used as to confirm and

enrich the findings.

For each site, I spent time familiarizing myself with the programs in activities

outside of the interviews. This helped me get a sense of the organization and provided me

with more context of the programs. For example, at Purdue I attended numerous EPICS

design reviews and a workshop introducing the program to interested faculty. For WPI, I

went to a poster session where some students presented their findings from the GPP-US

projects they completed, and for LSU I attended working meetings where students were

designing playgrounds for local schools. Attending these activities added to my

knowledge of the site and increased my trustworthiness and rapport with individuals

within the program.

Through all of these actions, interviews, documentation gathering and

familiarizing myself with the program, I was able to gather the needed information to

address the research questions. The process of analyzing of this information is described

below. Human subjects IRB approval was obtained to insure ethical standards for this

study. The confidentiality agreement stated that there was a chance of the program staff

and administers being able to identify the participants. The participants were provided all

the excerpts used from their interviews, as well as the interpretation of the excerpts, to

insure both member checking and confidentiality. Additionally, Marybeth Lima, the

professor who started and oversaw the Community Playground Project, gave permission

to de-pseudonymize herself in this study, since the her work in the field is well known

and many researchers would be able to identify her based on the excerpts.

3.6 Data Analysis

The data analysis was done independently for research question one, and the

analysis for research question two and three was combined. For research question one,

the analysis of EPICS case provided an initial set of codes, expanded from previous

research that was then used for the GPP-US and CPP cases. For research question two

and three, the analysis was broken into two phases. The cases were each analyzed

individually, with an initial analysis of the GPP-US to provide the initial coding

framework that is then used to analyze the other cases.

3.6.1 Data analysis for Research Question 1

The analysis for the first research question consisted of two parts. The first part

focused on the analysis of the motivations for the EPICS site (Thompson & Jesiek, 2014)

and the second expanded the initial themes developed to encompass all three sites. The

analysis utilized a combination of approaches described by Hatch (2002) and Braun and

Clark (2006). Hatch outlines a method for conducting a typological systematic analysis,

while Braun and Clarke offer a process for thematic analysis. Hatch’s typological

approach is intended to divide the data into pre-determined groups in order to provide

more understanding of a phenomenon. The thematic analysis identifies patterns or themes

within the data, both from pre-determined partners and ones that emerge from the data.

The typological approach draws heavily pre-existing categories to analyze and group

results, while the thematic analysis approach allows new patterns to emerge. Using these

two approaches provided a systematic approach to categorize and identify the themes of

motivations among the participants of the study.

The first phase, according to Hatch, involves identifying the initial typologies for

the analysis. In the coding phase of the analysis, each of the EPICS excerpts was

summarized for main ideas in a summary sheet. I categorized the motivations according

to the typologies and started to make notes of various patterns, relationships, and themes I

saw across interview excerpts. I developed a coding framework based on a combination

of the emergent themes and the previous research. I reviewed these codes with my

advisors. I used Dedoose qualitative data analysis application software to code the

transcripts based on the new set of codes. These codes categorized the motivation of the

participants for being involved in the programs. I exported excerpts and sorted the codes

based on potential themes and sub-themes to determine what patterns were supported by

the data. I then reviewed previous literature and policy documentations for evidence

regarding the wider prevalence of these themes.

My advisor reviewed the themes and we refined the codes insuring that the

excerpts fit well within each theme. At this point, some of the codes were combined.

Once my advisor and I determined the themes, I recoded the EPICS data set to insure that

the themes adequately represented the data and referred back to policy documents and

research on the EPICS program to provide an additional validation check on the themes.

Special attention was paid to looking for data that potentially disproved or refuted the

themes. I then used these codes to analyze the interviews associated with the GPP-US

and CPP sites. In the analysis for CPP and GPP, a few new codes were added to highlight

variations found among the programs. The codes were clustered around three themes. All

the motivation themes were then read together, and each excerpt was summarized and

clustered together around the identified themes. In the findings for question one, I give

specific attention to incidences of both variation and similarity across sites and

stakeholders. The themes were then written up, and reviewed by my advisor.

3.6.2 Data analysis for Research Question 2 and 3

The analysis process for question 2 and 3 consisted of three phases. The first

phase uses the Phillips-Ward framework for data analysis of the GPP-US. From this

phase, there was the initial coding framework using the Phillips-Ward framework,

however, due to the unique context of the GPP-US, being an organizational structure as

described in the findings (Theme 2), a second phase was used which included the

development of the TCC framework to examine the interactions and activities within the

partnerships. The second phase is broken into two steps, the first step discusses the

analysis of the GPP-US and the second examines the CPP and the EPICS cases. The third

phase is a comparison analysis of all the three cases.

The analysis initially focused solely on question 2; however, in the course of

analysis one of the main structural themes that emerged was how the project influenced

the partnership, and thus question 3 emerged within this analysis.

3.6.2.1 Phase 1: The Phillips-Ward Framework

The first phase of analysis of question two examined the GPP-US transcripts and

linked them to the 2-dimensional framework defined by Phillips and Ward (2009). This

was done through a typological approach where the initial typological codes were

designated to be broad and focused on instances where the interviewee discussed

interactions and/or views of the partnerships. As mentioned in the literature review, there

are two dimensions of partnerships. The first, labeled type, is based on Enos and

Morton’s (2003) framework of partnerships moving on a continuum from transactional to

transformative. The second dimension, extent, categorizes transformation due to the

partnership, and is grounded in the works of Furco and Holland (2004), Dorado and Giles

(2004), and Torres & Schaffer (2000).

Each excerpt was documented in a summary sheet in Microsoft Excel in

accordance with the interpretive approach (Hatch 2002), with a note created for each

excerpt describing how the excerpt portrayed the nature of the partnership. I identified

themes by asking the question: What structural elements are related to the nature of the

partnership? I wrote up the key themes and my interpretation of the phenomena for each

center in the GPP-US and reviewed it with my advisor. Based on these conversations, I

updated the themes. In order to categorize each partnership into specific stages according

to the framework, I created two tables within Excel: one with the transformative

dimension and the other with the extent dimension (Phillips & Ward, 2009). I separated

each of the four stages of the two dimensions and classified each stage into a set of

characteristics and key identifiers in accordance with the framework. Figure 3-1-1 gives

an example of one section of the table.

For each characteristic and key identifier, I created a column in the sheet, and

each row was connected to how each participant described the partnership(s) with which

they associated. In Figure 2-1, the D1 and D2 refer to the directors associated with the

center interviewed, and P1 and P2 are the partners who I interviewed. In each cell

indicating the intersection of a given participant with a given characteristic/identifier, I

connected it to the structural element (S) in the program, and/or evidence within the

interviews (X). The policy documents and previous research on the program was used as

evidence for the structural elements when appropriate. I left the cell blank when no

evidence for a given criterion could be found in a certain interview or partnership. Also,

for each of the characteristics/key identifiers I wrote a memo on how each

characteristic/identifier potentially relates to the structure of the overall program. I paid

specific attention to the structural elements, which had both similarities and differences

across the three sites described in Table 3-2. The notes for each of the characteristics

were written in complete sentences in accordance with Hatch (2002).

Figure 3-1: Center A – An image of MS Excel Worksheet Highlighting the Phillips-Ward

Framework Dimension for Extent Dimension.

The first phase of analysis resulted in an understanding of how key characteristics

and identifiers are related to the nature of the partnership. This included how the

organizational structure of the GPP-US includes policies and procedures that in turn

influenced the nature of the partnership (Theme 2). In the course of this analysis, I

recognized that the Phillips-Ward framework did not adequately take into account the

organizational influence. The Phillips-Ward framework was developed based on an

extensive literature review of service-learning partnerships, which is grounded in

theoretical and empirical data. However, the partnerships in the GPP-US developed

differently, and thus this framework may not be appropriate.

Recognizing that the Phillips-Ward Framework fit for the agencies in several

aspects, it is worth further discussion of traditional service learning partnerships as

compared to the specific history and purpose of engineering community engagement

programs. All partnerships have their unique histories, and the purpose for involvement

can vary greatly. However, traditional service learning partnerships may have different

trajectories than engineering educational community programs, and these differences

could potentially alter the type and extent of the partnerships that develop. For example,

a hypothetical service learning partnerships trajectory could include a model where an

instructor worked with a local non-profit to provide the students with supplemental

experience for their course work, i.e. sociology faculty teaching about poverty by having

students work in a food bank. In this example, it is clear to see how this relationship can

go through the stages identified by Phillips and Ward (2009), where at first students come

in and do a service, and the agency does not care if students or other volunteers do the

work, and the instructor does not care which agency the students are serving. Yet through

time, the instructor could work with the agency and the community members to figure

out the best way to address poverty in the community. There could also be a break from

traditional disciplinary roles to address key needs, such as providing childcare or

lobbying a local congressional representative. The relationship can then grow, bringing

in a wider range of students, and radically changing the face of poverty in a community,

as well as changing the community-university relationship.

Yet my analysis of the GPP-US program suggested a different kind of evolution.

From the beginning, the students are often working on a unique project that is often

connected to their technical knowledge. This is most often outside the expertise of other

volunteers that regularly work with the programs. In addition, there is often a distinct

structure that allows a large number of students and high levels of consistency in program

experiences. The associated partner relationships therefore did not evolve holistically, but

were instead inflected by many structural elements that where intentionally chosen by the

program throughout time to meet the specific needs of the program.

As a result, initial analysis of the GPP-US case resulted in a bifurcation of data in

the type dimension, as many of the partnerships had characteristics in both the static and

transformative stage, which are opposites sides of a progressive dimension. In the static

stage, the GPP-US program met three criteria: “the institution has no stake in any

particular community agency;” “the partner does not have a say in the learning outcomes

of the students;” and “the research goals of the university are not being met within the

program” (Phillips, 2007, p. 111). Yet the GPP-US program also met the following

characteristics for the transformative dimension: “there are no distinction between where

the boundaries of education end and service to the community begins,” “no distinction

exists between traditional educational experiences and community engagement

experiences,” “the community is as viable a learning environment as the campus,”

“knowledge created is shared among all members of the partnership,” “knowledge

created directly benefits community partners,” and “service experiences of the

partnership inform and transform learning” (Phillips, 2007, p. 112).

Since the Phillips-Ward framework did not adequately describe the partnerships

within the GPP-US case, I decided to reconsider the data analysis approach. This led to

the second phase of analysis, including the development of the TCC framework and

recoding of the data, as described below.

3.6.2.2 Phase 2a: The TCC Framework for GPP-US

Through the process of analyzing the partnerships according to the Phillips-Ward

framework, it became clear to me that the boundary between the program and the

community was an essential aspect of the nature of the partnerships. There were some

partnerships where there were personal connections made and the participants were

working as a single team, and there were others that saw the program as a distinct entity

from the community they were serving. I started to draw out diagrams, mapping the

partnerships to understand the boundaries between the different constituents. The

SOFAR model, as presented in the literature review, became a useful template as I

created dotted lines around the different constituents to determine which were part of the

“program” and which were part of the community.

In May 2014, the framework started to come together in tandem with my

participation in a seminar by Dr. Svarovsky titled “Exploring the Role of Science

Museums in Broadening Participation in Engineering.” In the talk, she mentioned that

the Science Museum of Minnesota was having a cooperative relationship with the

community. After the seminar, I discussed my research with her, and she pointed me to

Feinstein and Meshoulam’s (2014) paper examining equity in science museums. One of

their key findings was to understand the institutional logics of science museums’

approach to equity. In their study, they identified two logics, “client” logic and

“cooperative” logic:

When an organization was using client logic, staff tended to see

themselves and their colleagues as a coherent “us,” separated by

institutional barriers from the less distinct “them” of the surrounding

community. The challenge of equity was framed in terms of serving an

external clientele. In the words of one administrative leader “how do we

raise the awareness of the community at large that, you know, we are here

to serve you?” On the other hand, when an organization was using

cooperative logic, its language and activities emphasized shared

ownership of programs, and staff found many ways to blur the lines

between the institutional “us” and community “them.” (Feinstein &

Meshoulam, 2014, p. 386)

As this excerpt states, organizations with client-based logic focused activities and

language on communities as separate from the organization, while the cooperative logic

focused on a joint ownership of the program and process.

There are three examples in the Feinstein and Meshoulam paper that readily map

onto the engineering engagement partnerships. The first is the approach that science

museums had for adapting exhibits and programs for certain communities. In a client–

oriented approach, the museum programs would create a model of exhibits or programs,

and then contact a community members to give feedback and thoughts on how the

program would best meet the needs of the community. By contrast, a cooperative

approach was centered on having community co-authors of the programming, often with

advisory boards that had regular communication with the designers, and relationship

managers to make sure the voice of the community was included in the programming.

Even programs that did not focus on a specific community still sought out feedback from

various communities within the cooperative approach.

The second example is that of a museum internship program run by many of the

museums studied. The internship programs were designed to have a diverse group of

young people work in the museums. The client-oriented model had “prescribed roles,

conducting and participating in educational programs designed by permanent staff.

Although these youth interns presumably knew a great deal about their diverse

communities, they were not invited to contribute new programming, and there was no

obvious path for them to move up within the organization” (Feinstein & Meshoulam,

2014, p. 386). The cooperative approach would instead recognize the interns as a source

of knowledge and creativity, harnessed this knowledge in creating programming, and

provided them with pathways to become permanent staff members.

The third example presented by Feinstein and Meshoulam is “taking the science

to the people” (2014, p. 81). These are programs that went outside of the museums into

the local communities. In the client-logic model, the museum floor was replicated in

other venues such as schools or libraries, and the staff members were the facilitators of

the science knowledge. In the cooperative-logic, capacity building was a key attribute of

the program within the community. This was done through training and empowering

community members to run their own workshops, so community members could become

the local science experts. Another cooperative approach includes working with other

organizations that have science goals, so the museums offer support for the local

organizations own programs.

These examples are similar to trends in my data on engineering community

engagement partnerships, where there were specific incidences when the community was

recognized as a clientele the program was serving, and others when they were working as

a single unit. In subsequent months I met and discussed the notion of partnerships with

more researchers, including Dr. Linda Vanasupa, who pushed on the notion and

suggested that there was a third and more integrated kind of approach, and suggested that

I read one of her recent publications (Vanasupa et. al, 2014). After the discussion with

Dr. Vanasupa, I called the third nature of partnership collaborative. Yet in further

reflections and discussions with my advisor, I decided that the term communal was more

appropriate in implying deeper connections that can form in partnerships.

From this point I had a basic outline for the TCC framework. I then reviewed

literature and examined other research that had categorized service-learning partnerships.

This allowed me to validate the use of such a framework, and more clearly understand the

nature of different types of partnerships. I focused on using this emerging framework to

look at specific actions, behaviors, and language used by the participants. This approach

is similar to Doraldo and Giles’ (2004) work on partnerships, as they coded for behaviors

to determine the path of engagement, and Feinstein and Meshoulam’s (2014) study that

analyzed the interviews to examine institutional logics that Informal Science Education

(ISE) centers had with the public.

The GPP-US data was then recoded using the TCC framework, as described in the

following subsections. This framework supported my primary intention to understand the

nature of specific partnerships, rather than the whole organization. These interactions are

influenced by a combination of both organizational logic and categorizations of

partnership types. The codes are similar to the paths of engagement (Dorado & Giles,

2004) as they are dependent on structural elements of the program and can vary over time.

It is worth noting the language of the framework. I intentionally did not use the

word “transformative” in the coding framework, although it is often used to describe

service-learning partnerships. I found that some individuals and programs did not

experience transformation because acting as a cohesive community and challenging the

societal norms was an ordinary occurrence within the partnerships or for the individual.

For example, while I was analyzing the GPP-US in accordance to the Phillips-Ward

framework, one of the characteristics under the type dimension, in the alters stage, is the

following characteristic: “Claims of academic expertise as well as academic neutrality

become problematic.” Regarding academic expertise, I connected this characteristic to

the structure of the program, since the GPP-US was designed with the idea that the

affiliates of the sponsor agency are the expert within their domain. There were many

structural elements that reinforced the notion of the partner’s expertise. The wording of

the Phillips-Ward framework implies that there was a change of mindset within the

community, and many partnerships might have to go through a transformation to get to

that point. However, GPP-US did not, since the notion that academic expertise is

problematic seemed to be a core principle of the program and was there since the initial

development. For this reason, I did not use the word “transformational,” but I did make

notes when individuals identified transformation within themselves and others.

The following sections will a description of the Transaction, Cooperative, and

Communal partnerships, and provide the previous literature that describes each of the

partnerships.

3.6.2.2.1 Transactional Partnerships

The transactional category preserves or enhances a boundary between the

stakeholder, increasing a sense of “us” and “them”. This creates a sense of separation

between stakeholders. The primary basis for the code transactional was Feinstein and

Meshoulam’s (2014) notion of client logic. As mentioned above, Feinstein and

Meshoulam recognized that some organizations’ “staff tended to see themselves and their

colleagues as a coherent ‘us,’ separated by institutional barriers from the less distinct

‘them’ of the surrounding community,” (p. 386) and identified this behavior as client

logic. I expanded this to include interactions where stakeholders (i.e. community partners,

students, community members, faculty, administrators, etc.) are bounded within their

unique group having their own identities, norms and expectations. Transactional

interactions would be when the ‘students’ have distinct roles and responsibilities

compared to other stakeholders.

The interactions that have and enhance a notion of “us” and “them” can be linked

to service or exchange-related activities (Sockett 1998). Sockett categorizes relationships

according to trust and complexity, describing service relationships as offering support for

an institution-related function, while exchange relationships occur when there is a give-

take of resources for mutual benefit. This corresponds to Enos and Morton’s (2003)

notion of a transactional partnership where relationships “are instrumental, designed to

complete a task with no greater plan or promise. The parties engage together because

each has something the other finds useful” (p.24).

A subcategory of transactional is “unidirectional.” These are transactional

interactions and activities that are one sided, so that only one stakeholder benefits from

the interaction or activity. When the majority of the interactions and activities are done

unilaterally, the partnership can be described using Clayton et al.’s (2010) notion of

exploitative relationships, where the relationship is “so unilateral that, intentionally or

unintentionally, they take advantage of or harm one or both parties” (p.8). The degree of unilateral-transactional activities can vary considerably in extent, including as little as

one instance of miscommunication that is easily corrected by the students, to something

as severe as an intentional exploitation of the students by a project partner.

In summary, the following is a list of characteristics that are common among

transactional interactions and activities:

• Service done to, or for, the differing stakeholders (Sockett 1998).

• An exchange relationship, where the community is interested in getting a need

met, and the program is interested in providing participating students with an

educational experience (Socket 1998, Enos & Morton 2002).

• Community members viewed as “sources of important feedback” on designs

established by the program (Feinstein & Meshoulam 2014).

• Program members are the “experts” (Feinstein & Meshoulam 2014).

The following example is from GPP-US and highlights a community sponsor

guiding the student through a project. In this case, the sponsor has some information that

could help the student, yet the sponsor has decided not to give it to the student, as the

sponsor sees himself or herself as an educator or expert. The sponsor believes that the

student can learn from the experience by going through the process of working on the

project:

I like to not give them too much help … and see the way that they work,

and how they sort of attack it. I like to give them some constructive

criticism and make them think about it. I don't want to hand them the

answers. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This interaction heightens the boundary between the stakeholders, since there is

one party (the sponsor) who holds knowledge that another party (the student)

lacks.

3.6.2.2.2 Cooperative Partnerships

In cooperative interactions and activities, there is a shared ownership and

development of programs and an intentionality to blur the lines between the “us” and

“them.” This category is grounded in Feinstein and Meshoulam’s (2014) notion of

cooperative logic, and is connected to Sockett’s definition of cooperative relationships,

where there is recognition that each party has unique knowledge, and where parties “plan

together and share responsibilities” (Sockett 1998, p.77). Characteristics of cooperative

interactions and activities include:

• The community members are co-authors in the design process (Feinstein &

Meshoulam 2014).

• The knowledge, skills and abilities of all the stakeholders are recognized and

utilized in the process (Feinstein & Meshoulam 2014; Sockett 1998).

• The projects aim to train and make local experts, handing off knowledge to

the community (Feinstein & Meshoulam 2014).

• Organizations are supported to develop and reach their own sets of goals

(Feinstein & Meshoulam 2014).

An example of a cooperative interaction includes a GPP-US community sponsor

who describes learning as a process done with the students:

It seems almost an experiential process, as you're learning this stuff

together ... I never had a project where I already knew the answer. I'll have

a project where I think I know the answer, and I need them to sort of

buttress it, and give me some leverage, so I can kinda make the case, but

most of the time, we're learning the stuff together. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This interaction is cooperative because the sponsor intends to invite the students into

activities and mutual learning, with the expressed purpose of having them become a part

of the agency.

3.6.2.2.3 Communal Partnerships

In the communal category, interactions, activities, and the roles tend to transcend

the identities of the groups. The communal category is grounded in Vanasupa and

Schlemer’s (2014) collaborative co-creating partnerships where “participants [are]

committed to a larger set of shared commitments, such as the long-term well-being of a

community. The tasks that are completed are done so with a priority placed on the social

value” (p. 6). This category is also connected to Enos and Morton’s (2003) notion of

transformational relationships, where partnerships “proceed with less definition, with an

openness to unanticipated developments… here, there is an expectation that things may

change, that the order may be disturbed, and that new relationships, identities, and values

may emerge” (p. 24). It is also connected to Sockett’s (1998) notion of systematic and

transformational relationships, where “parties share responsibilities for planning, decision

making, funding, operations, and evaluation of activities and which each institution is

transformed through the relationship” (p. 76). Characteristics of communal interactions

and activities include:

• Individuals are committed to higher intended purposes, such as creating a

sense of community (Vanasupa & Schlemer 2014).

• There is often long-term planning for the partnership (Enos & Morton

2003).

• There is recognition of and value placed on the relationship that is formed

(Enos & Morton 2003).

• The partnership structure has an openness to allow for new possibilities

that may emerge (Enos & Morton 2003).

An example of the communal nature is when one partner describes how a CEO of

a major company volunteers his time at the playground builds:

We've got a CEO of a major company that shows up on just about every

playground build, and you'd never who he was, and he won't let you tell

anybody who he is. … You would never know who he was out there in a

pair of grungy shorts and dirty t-shirt out there moving mulch all day, or

whatever anybody asks him to do. And [the playground project] just draws

everybody from that to the parent whose kid goes to the school who is out

cutting grass at a company opposite of mine everyday coming over and

lending the same hand, working side-by-side. (CPP Partner)

This example highlights a communal activity, since there are individuals from

different classes who are working together to build a playground. The activity

itself allows the individuals to work together and heightens the sense of equality.

3.6.2.2.4 TCC framework for the GPP-US

After establishing these new categories to describe the nature of interactions and

activities, I went back through the data again and coded with the new framework using

the Dedoose software. I updated the memos and wrote a note on the rationale for each

excerpt, specifically discussing the structural elements that influenced the nature of the

interaction or activity coded. I created a list of structural themes, and reviewed this

information with my advisor.

Next, I searched on salient interpretations in accordance with the interpretive

approach (Hatch, 2002). In this step, I reviewed memos and notes from each of the

excerpts, within the table, and reviewed the documents I had been sending my advisor,

asking the question: how does the structure of the program relate to the nature of this

interaction? I updated the themes associated with the structural elements based on

conversations and a review of the notes, focusing on structural elements that relate to the

nature of the partnership. At this point, I reread the interviews that had been coded for

partnerships, searching for supporting evidence as well as challenges to the themes. Next,

I wrote a draft summary of findings, which was then reviewed by my advisor and one of

the participants from GPP-US who was familiar with the program, for verification

purposes as outlined by Hatch (2002). I revised the findings based on their feedback.

From phases 1 and 2a, I found five structural themes that influenced the nature of

the partnerships: purpose, context and history; overall structure; type of partnering

agency; individual delegation; and project. The next subsection will review how I coded

for these five themes in the CPP and EPICS cases.

3.6.2.3 Phase 2b: The TCC Framework for the CPP and EPICS Cases

I next analyzed the CPP and then the EPICS cases, coding interactions and

activities for the nature of the interaction in accordance with the TCC framework. I did

the coding in Dedoose, and for each of the interviews I created a memo sheet and

summarized each excerpt in Excel. For each one coded with a specific nature, I asked

myself: how does the structure of the program relate to the nature of this interaction? I

used a deductive and inductive approach, as I used the initial themes developed in the

GPP-US case as a starting point, and allowed new themes to arise as needed. I created a

note describing the rationale for each excerpt’s coding. There were a few new codes

added, and they eventually merged into pre-existing codes as I became more familiar

with the data. For example, I first created a new code named “network of support” within

the CPP case, but through reflection and discussions with my advisor I came to realize

that this was a central characteristic to the overall structure of the program, and then

merged the codes. Also, I updated one of the themes, as the “purpose, context and

history” simply became “purpose” because that was structural element that influenced the

partnership while the context and history provided a deeper understanding into the

purpose.

Once all the data was coded, I exported the excerpts coded for the differing

natures (transactional, cooperative and communal) into an Excel spreadsheet. I re-read

all the excerpts and created a list of themes of the differing natures in each of the

structural elements. These themes provided an overview of each structural element. In

accordance with Hatch’s (2002) guidelines for interpretive analysis, I wrote a draft

summary of each of the structural element in connection with the nature of the

interactions and sent it to individuals highly familiar with the CPP and EPICS programs.

This was intended to give an overview of how the specific structural elements impact the

nature of the partnership. Based on the feedback, the themes were again revised. At this

point, there were five structural themes, a sixth one was include in the third phase of

analysis described next.

3.6.2.4 Research Question 2 and 3 Phase 3: Comparison of the Three Sites

I created a summary of the findings for each of the sites to highlight how the five

structural elements relate to the nature of the partnerships. I then performed a

comparative analysis across the three cases. For each of the five structural elements, I

reread the three summary reports, keeping the question in mind: how does the structure

of the program relate to the nature of the partnership? I made an intentional effort to

search for commonalities and differences among the three programs (Patton, 2002).

Many of the findings overlapped well, and offered more depth to the context of the

structural theme. I then revised the themes to encompass all of the three programmatic

outcomes, highlighting the differences and communalities among the programs.

3.6.2.5 Reporting the Frequency of Findings

In the process of analysis, I read and coded each interview for the motivations

(RQ1), the nature with corresponding structures (RQ2), and the project (RQ3). Through

this data analysis process, I was able to determine the main themes for each of the

questions, as well as the number of times each participant discussed each theme.

Below I present the themes as well as the frequencies within the various findings.

I believe the frequency that themes occur in the interviews can, at times, provide a way to

weight the prevalence and importance of the partner motivations. The benefit of this

approach is that it validates and contextualizes a theme, especially in the motivations

section. Having a theme mentioned multiple times by multiple participants is more likely

to be an important motivation among the interviewees. However, the limitation of

presenting this information in this way is that it can potentially validate my own biases. I

was the one who conducted the interviews and coded the data. In this process, I did not

check for inter-rater reliability. However, I did check the findings with my advisor and

provided the quotes and interpretations to be checked by the participants. It is therefore

important to recognize that the exact frequency counts are not the key meaning, but rather

represent the larger trends in the data set. For example, if a participant mentioned

personal enjoyment from teaching three times during an interview, I present this

information not to highlight that the participant brought it up three times, but rather that

the participant saw this as an important enough motivation and I coded it at three separate

times throughout the interview.

In order to demonstrate this importance in frequency and not specific number, I

also added color to these tables. This color creates a visualization of the frequency of the

themes, emphasizing how there certain themes were more common among the

interviewees.

3.7 Trustworthiness

All respectable research needs to adhere to a level of rigor that highlights

trustworthiness of the findings. Guba (1981) describe four criteria for rigorous

qualitative research: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

Shenton (2004) offers research methods that researchers include in their research design

to insure trustworthiness of the data based on Guba’s four criteria. This section will go

through the four criteria, highlighting the various approaches that I did within study that

is important to rigorous qualitative research.

The first criterion is that of credibility. This is connected to how well the findings

align with the reality of the situation. For example in this study, the credibility of the

findings for research question one center on the extent to which the motivations I identify

and report are true to the actual motivations of the participants. From the point of my first

introduction to the participants, I was focusing on the credibility. I was introduced to the

participants through trusted individual within the program. All the participants very

much liked and appreciated the programs, which helped establish the trust during the

interviews. A deeper relationship with the participants could have provided more insight

into the partnerships, and this limitation is discussed in the final chapter of this

dissertation. Triangulation was also a central part of the research design. In the data

collection and analysis process, I triangulated my sources by talking to many participants

across three programs, and gathering documents when appropriate. The iterative

questioning in the interviews also offered a point of triangulation, as I often asked the

same questions in multiple ways in order to insure that the answer of the participants

remained the same or became more nuanced through multiple rounds. Through data

analysis and in data collection, I searched for examples that contradicted the main themes.

I had regular meetings to discuss the research design with my advisor and often had

meetings with other research colleagues. After the interviews, the participants provided

the transcripts, and were also given the quotations and interpretations for the excerpts

used in the study for review. Additionally, the findings were written in the context of

each program, and links to other research was described as appropriate.

The second criterion of rigor within qualitative research is that of transferability.

Transferability refers to the “extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to

other situations” (Merriam, 1998). Although qualitative research that is grounded in a

constructivist paradigm recognizes that the research results are limited to the participants

involved, there are research design elements that increase the transferability of a study.

Shenton (2004) outlines specific factors that influence transferability, including: the

number of organizations involved and where they are based, the number and

characteristics of the participants, data collection methods, the number and length of data

collection sessions, and the time period of the data collection. The exact data collection

methods are presented in the previous subsection. Yet to further highlight, there were 32

total participants with 30 interviews analyzed. The site locations were geographically

diverse within the United States, with one program located in the Midwest, one in the

Northeast, and one in the South. The participants were from a total of twenty different

organizations, including non-profits, governmental agencies, and the universities. This

kind of diversity is common in partnerships maintained by engineering community

engagement programs. The results presented below investigate and highlight many

results that are unique to specific programs, as well as results that were common across

all three programs. This study aimed to be transferable to other engineering community

engagement programs. However, there are limitations to transferability, such as in the

case of international partnerships. This limitation is discussed further in Chapter 7.

The third criterion for rigorous qualitative research is that of dependability.

Dependability is comparable to the quantitative notion of reliability, or the repeatability

of the study. Since qualitative research is based on many factors that cannot easily be

replicated – such as the person who is doing the research or the context of the interviews

– dependability need not to be grounded in the repeatability, but rather the rationale and

consistency of the research approaches. In this chapter, I clearly articulate the research

approaches and the rationale for using these approaches. This includes basing the

research design in the established case study approach established by Yin, and using

well-established and clear analysis methods, such as the typological and the interpretive

analysis of Hatch (2002) and the thematic analysis described by Braun and Clark (2006).

By clearly identifying the steps I conducted in the research, and grounding those steps in

previous studies, I strived to create a sense of dependability within this study.

The forth and final criteria is that of confirmability. The positivist equivalent of

confirmability is objectivity. However, in qualitative research, the subjectivity of the

researcher is inevitable, since the researcher will be deeply involved in the process

throughout the research process, from data collection to analysis and reporting. It is

therefore critical that steps be taken to insure that the findings reflect the experiences and

ideas of the participants and not the preferences of the researcher. To do this, Shenton

provides suggestions including: triangulation, critically reflecting on the beliefs and

assumptions of the researcher, recognizing the possible shortcomings of the study

methods, reporting in-depth on the research methods so they may be scrutinized, and

keeping a research “audit trail.” In this study I have performed triangulation, as

discussed in the credibility criteria. The process of reflecting on my personal beliefs and

assumptions was a regular discussion topic with my advisor, and the description of the

process is included in the limitation section in the last chapter. Lastly, the methods

section provides a detailed description of my methods and their possible limitations.

This section described the various steps that I took to ensure rigor and

systematically in this qualitative research project. These steps ensure a level of

trustworthiness of the research, which are credible, transferable, dependable and

confirmable.

3.8 Conclusion of the Methods

This chapter provided an overview of the methods used in this study, organized

around six main sections: case study research approach, methodology, site section, data

collection, data analysis, and trustworthiness. The next two chapters present the major

findings from the study. Chapter 4 includes findings for RQ1 related to the motivations of

affiliates and the partners of the engineering community engagement programs, split into

three main themes: motivations related to students, personal motivations, and

organizational motivations. Chapter 5 presents the findings for RQ2 and RQ3, with an

emphasis on highlighting how the structure of the programs influences the nature of the

partnerships. Chapter 5 more specifically discusses six structural themes: purpose,

overall structure, partnering agency, individuals, project, and students in the curricula.

Implications for new and established engineering community engagement programs are

mentioned in each of the findings chapters, and then revisited in the final Chapter 6. The

last chapter also includes further discussion about the methodological and other

limitations of this study, as well as some future possible research directions.

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH QUESTION 1

4.1 Introduction for Research Question 1 Findings

This chapter reviews the findings of why participants are involved in the

community engagement program. The motivation for involvement of all the

participants can be placed in three main themes: students, personal reasons, and

organizational benefits. Each of the three themes has four to five subthemes. The

themes were separated based on occurrences and notable variation of responses

according to participant groups. That is, there is some notable variation in responses

based on both the roles of the individuals and the sites; this is described within each

of the themes. The roles of the participants are also broken into two types to highlight

patterns within the data. The first includes the individuals affiliated directly with the

community engagement programs, such as advisors, students, partner-advisors, and

administrators. The second role includes community partners not affiliated with the

program. As discussed in the EPICS program description given above, there is a

unique situation in EPICS where some of the community partners were also in the

advisor role; in instances, this role is referred to as the “partner-advisor” role and also

labeled as affiliates. A complete break down of the motivations by participant is

available in Table 4-1. This table provides the number of excerpts I coded for each

theme per participant. As mentioned in the preceding discussion of methods, that the

exact do not provide meaning to the data, rather the number of excerpts highlight

trends that are presented in the data. Additionally, in the themes discussed below I do

not refer to the partners by their specific research subject number in an attempt to

maintain anonymity and confidentiality among the partners and affiliates of the

programs with whom I spoke. The following section gives an overview and

discussion of the various themes and how they differ between the sites and roles,

beginning with motivations related to participating university students. I conclude this

chapter with recommendations for how programs can incorporate more reciprocity in

their partner interactions.

82 82

Table 4-1: Motivation based on Participant

4.2 Theme 1: Motivations Connected with the University Students

Most of the participants identified the university students’ learning as a

motivation for being a part of the community engagement program. I coded motivations

more specifically connected with the university students using five subthemes: learning

objectives; community engagement; personal growth; professional skills; and combining

social responsibility with professional practice. Table 4-2 gives an average of all coded

data for the subtheme of students, organized by participant roles. The averages are color

coded to highlight noteworthy differences and similarities across participant groups.

Table 4-2: Motivations Connected to Students’ Learning based on Role

The first subtheme, “learning objectives,” refers to learning for the purpose of

expanding a student’s education. This does not need to be consistent with the objectives

defined by the program, but rather student learning in a broader educational sense. If the

learning was centered on the partnering agency or connected with professional

development, it was not coded as “learning objectives,” but as “community engagement”

or “professional development.” The separation of themes by role points to notable

differences between the affiliates of the program and the partners. In general, affiliates

were more likely to mention “student learning” in broader educational terms, the first

subtheme, while for EPICS and GPP, the partners were more likely to mention

engagement and professional growth. Most of the partners wanted the students to learn

about their agency function and mission and saw their main educational duty to prepare

the student for the professional environment. In the CPP program, the partners spoke less

often about the participating university students’ education as compared to the affiliates

in all subthemes.

These trends can be linked to the program structure. For all the programs, the

affiliates saw their responsibility to educate the students in general skills. In EPICS and

GPP, the partners had a role in educating the students, and for the most part they saw it

their responsibility to educate the student about the organization and prepare them for

professional life. For the CPP, the partners I interviewed did not have too much

interaction with the university students. However, I did not include another key

constituent in this program, namely the elementary school students. The elementary

children spent extensive time with the university students, and there was discussion by

affiliates on the role of these children to teach the university students about play in their

community. Not including the elementary school children as interview subjects is a

limitation of my study. There was some discussion of the professional skills gained by

the university students. The affiliate who talked most extensively on the students’

professional development gained from the CPP was the design student interviewed.

However, comments about professional development were mostly centered on the

students in the design team rather than the first-year community engagement course.

The personal growth subtheme was included because all the GPP-US affiliates

discussed the students’ personal growth as a rationale for the program. This can be

linked to the history and structure of the program. As described in the case description,

GPP-US originated to provide the students with a rich educational experience, and the

seven-week intensive program intends to foster a transformative experience for the

students. The affiliates identified the students’ personal growth as a significant

motivation of the program.

The combination of social responsibility and professionalism was a less common

topic, yet the participants who identified it stressed the importance of this subtheme. It

was mentioned by a few affiliates in the EPICS and GPP, and all the affiliates in the CPP.

The subsections that follow discuss the five subthemes and propose explanations for the

results.

4.2.1 Students: Learning Objectives

This subtheme includes discussions of students learning engineering skills,

presentation skills, communication, team building, time management, problem solving,

etc., and specifically for the purpose of expanding the student’s education. It did not

include learning about the partnering agency, nor when there was explicit mention of

learning for the purpose of professional development. For all three programs, this theme

was most common among the program affiliates, such as the advisors that oversaw the

students.

For EPICS, this theme was mentioned by two partners and four affiliates, and for

the GPP-US this theme was mentioned by three partners and all affiliates. For EPICS and

the GPP-US, there tended to be explicit focus on the education for the student as the main

motivation for the program. For example, one EPICS advisor-partner discussed

motivations in the advisor role as being centered on the students’ education:

To put the advisor hat on, you really want that to be a learning experience

for the students. You need to have them understand not to take short cuts,

let’s do the entire design process, let’s not go directly from identification

to here is my design let’s build it. To understand that they are part of a

team, so that team building is really an important part of the process as

well. So [from the perspective of the advisor] I was actually in more for an

education, not necessarily a project being completed. If we got a project

completed along the way, that was great, but really the learning outcomes

became more important. (EPICS Partner-Advisor)

This EPICS partner-advisor saw their main role as advisor to educate the students. This

was also common with the advisors in the GPP-US program. As one stated, “a successful

project is, from my perspective, which I'm honest with my sponsors about, is a high

quality academic experience for the students” (GPP-US Center Director).

The partners discussed learning objectives less often. In the cases when the

partners did discuss learning objectives, the partners often also mentioned other types of

desired learning, such as the importance of community engagement. For instance, one of

the EPICS partners explained that they wanted the students to learn about communication,

as well as the mission of their organization:

I hope that [the students] are able to hone their communication skills. I

hope that they have an appreciation of the world of wildlife, because this

is a pretty interesting project to be affiliated with. I hope that they get

satisfaction from their engagement with us. (EPICS Project Partner)

In this example, the description of the communication skills was coded in the learning

objectives, while “appreciation of the world of wildlife” was coded as community

engagement, the next subtheme. This excerpt included both codes, since the learning

objective was separate objective from the community engagement.

There were also a few partners in GPP-US that mentioned skills in a broader

context. When asked what they hoped the students learn, one GPP-US Sponsor focused

on both learning about the organization and about other skills, such as negotiation.

Specifically, this respondent indicated that s/he wanted students to develop an:

Appreciation for the role of government, appreciation for the subject

matter, whether it's environmental or whatever, better interpersonal skills,

how to work with people, how to get what you want from people. Every

interaction you have in government, or anywhere that matters, is a

transaction. You're exchanging information, or ideas, or assistance with

one thing or another. … If they go to the people in [a] department, and

say, “Gee, can you help us print out these maps?” they need to offer

something in return. What are you going to do, how are you going to help

our mission? “Oh, we're gathering some information that will help add

another layer to the GIS maps.” And so they work through that kind of

negotiation, that quid pro quo of, “I need your help with this, in order to

provide you with that.” And that's the... Learning that stuff is pretty key.

(GPP-US Sponsor)

This sponsor discussed the importance of negotiation in the context of a professional

experience, but because s/he does not explicitly relate this to the students’ professional

development, it is categorized as learning skills in general. This example also mentions

the importance of learning about government and the environment, and that was coded as

community engagement, the next subtheme.

One explanation for the emphasis on motivations related to student learning in the

GPP-US and EPICS programs is that educational outcomes are seen as a primary purpose

for these program, and education of the students is a key responsibility to both the

programs. Also, the EPICS and GPP-US programs are both large, serving hundreds of

students each year from across campus, and also have many advisors and wide variation

in types of partners/sponsors. A faculty member from across campus is able to go through

training, and be a part of the program, since there are certain responsibilities that each

advisor must take on. Most of the advisors are in an academic culture, as reflected in the

language they use to describe student learning in the programs, and the language focus of

the partners/sponsors reflects the professional culture that many of the partners are

embedded with.

For the CPP, all the affiliates mentioned the learning objectives, however, it was

with less frequency and less emphasis. The program was much more heavily concerned

with the engagement aspect for the students. For instance, when one partner was asked

what she hoped the LSU students gained from the experience, the partner suggested that I

ask the advisor, since it was the advisor’s role to focus on the LSU students. All the three

CPP affiliates discussed learning objectives that mentioned the importance of engineering,

design, and team building skills in the interviews. Yet overall, there was more discussion

among these interviewees around engagement and incorporating social responsibility in

the profession. The CPP is less like an organization, since there is only one person

overseeing the partnerships. Instead, the program is built on personal relationships rather

than set roles and responsibilities. The fundamental differences in the organizational

structures are presented in Chapter 5, theme 2, and further highlighted in the discussion.

The next subtheme will offer further insights regarding motivations connected to

students’ engagement with the community.

4.2.2 Student: Community Engagement

As alluded to in the previous theme, this subtheme focuses on learning about,

serving, and/or being an active participant in the organization, community, and/or larger

society. This can include the importance of learning about the “wider world,” to

potentially “donate back” to the organization when the students become successful,

and/or learning what it means to be a good citizen. This subtheme was mentioned by all

but three of the partners, and specifically all but one partner in each program.

To begin, many of the partners identified the importance of students learning

about or experiencing the organization as a motivation for the community engagement

program. The participants in local and federal government often stated that they wanted

students to learn about government. For example, one EPICS partner explained that their

organization often works with local colleges and introduces them to their government

department:

We always take interns from Purdue, and [local colleges], and surrounding

colleges, people that want to come and learn and we give them a

community education. [We teach them] what goes on in the county

government, and how [our department] works. And this was kind of our

way of following up with that at Purdue, in a different way. (EPICS

Project Partner)

This excerpt highlights how the partner sees EPICS as a way to teach students about the

workings of their organization and sector. Similarly, in GPP-US there were some partners

who saw working with the GPP-US students as a way to inspire and prepare students for

environmental jobs:

And I like the idea that we are helping young people be better prepared to

work in a professional environment. And if we can, while we're at it, build

not only some excitement about the environmental field, but some

capacity for the future players in the environmental field. I feel good about

that. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This was coded for both community engagement and professional development, since the

sponsor hopes that the students would learn about the environmental sector, and also

allow that to potentially influence the students’ career paths. Another partner

organization, a clinic, wanted the students to learn about and reduce the stigma associated

with the chronic illness that they treated.

Even more generally, partners of the CPP wanted the university students to learn

and be exposed to both different kinds of communities and new situations:

They get exposed to a lot when they come out. They get exposed to

everything from inner city schools to some of the more affluent regions of

the parish… And a lot of them had never picked up a shovel before, and

they get to get out there and start digging holes and pounding spikes.

(CPP Partner)

This partner was motivated to expose the students to potentially new kinds of situations,

from experiencing inner city schools to manual labor. Many of the university students

had gone to private schools, and they had stereotypes of public schools where the

education was poor and there was a lack of dedication from the parents, teachers and

administrators. Being a part of the CPP challenged those stereotypes, as the students had

opportunities to observe and interact with very dedicated members of those communities.

One partner described various activities that they did for fundraisers and building the

playgrounds, and mentioned that the students got to experience the community through

the eyes of these schools, “So I think the LSU students saw all of this first hand. Of what

parents will do when it’s their children” (CPP Partner). As this partner emphasized, the

LSU students got to experience the sense of care and devotion that the parents in these

communities have for their children.

Some partners also focused on having the participants continue working with the

organization either as donors or volunteers after their engagement in the program. As one

EPICS partner put it simply, “I hope they get excited about our mission, and go do it

when they get a real job.” They saw the experience as an entry point for the students to be

volunteers for their organization in the future.

For EPICS and GPP-US, there was more discussion of community engagement

among partners as compared to the affiliates. However, the affiliates that did mention it

expressed their passion for promoting community engagement among the students. For

instance, one EPICS advisor wanted the students to gain a wider view of the world,

stating: “on a personal level I hope they gain a wider vision of the community, like in the

world, as far as the diversity of the individuals” (EPICS Advisor). And a GPP-US center

director saw civic responsibility as a main responsibility to impress upon the students,

and wanted the educational system to better address this issue:

I left the legal profession because I don’t believe in facilitating change

through forcing people to do the right thing. I think we’re facing a

dilemma of ethics in this country. One of my goals, in addition to

maintaining intellectual rigor of the IQP, is to increase students’

awareness of the realities that exist in their backyards. To infuse a sense of

responsibility to respond and collaborate with communities to address

challenging realities. (GPP-US Center Director)

This advisor saw it as important to focus on developing a sense of social responsibility

among students toward their communities. Overall, the affiliates that mentioned their

motivation for supporting students in community engagement expressed their passion in

doing so and connected this to supporting community and society more generally.

The CPP affiliates, as well as the partners, saw community engagement as the

main motivation for their involvement. For example, the advisor spoke of encouraging

the students to be good citizens: “thinking about how you can positively impact your

world as a citizen, whether it's a local community or a global community. That's another

thing I wanted [the student] to get from it” (CPP advisor). Also, the former administrator

spoke about the students benefitting from “developing a likelihood of lifetime

engagement with their communities,” “feeling that they can make a difference,” “a

greater understanding of the complexities of the society that they live in,” and “an

appreciation for the rich diversity and variety among their classmates and among their

community.” This highlights that the CPP affiliates and the partners both focus on

importance of community engagement.

Overall, the community engagement outcomes were more prevalent among the

partners than the advisors at EPICS and GPP-US, but there were nonetheless some

advisors that were highly motivated to teach students about community engagement. In

this sense, the community partners saw their role to educate the university students about

their organization and the broader community. At the CPP, community engagement was

mentioned as a motivation by all but one of the participants and thus community

engagement was identified as a main motivation for the whole program.

4.2.3 Student: Professional Development

This code is specifically used when the participants discuss how experiences in

one of the target programs more broadly influence the students’ professional life. This

includes making the right career choice, learning skills that would be beneficial when

they are professionals, and learning what the professional world is like. This theme was

most common among the partners. Two of the EPICS partners mentioned professional

development, and one of them mentioned it four times while the other mentioned it once.

It was also common in the GPP-US sponsors, where all but one sponsor mentioned it, and

most of them mentioned it two to four times. For the CPP, no partners mentioned it and

two affiliates mentioned it, specifically the advisor once and the student three times. For

the student, I only counted when the student talked about other students. When the

student mentioned his/her own professional development, this was coded under personal

motivations.

To begin, one of the EPICS partners described his motivation for promoting

educational outcomes as a way to learn about the real world:

I almost feel like I'm helping with their education because they are

students. They are not engineers yet, they're learning. And I try to [let the

EPICS students know that] the academic world is a lot different than the

outside world. … When you go out into the outside world, your boss is

going to tell you that the bottom line is the dollar. You don’t have the

freedom to spend as much time as you want on doing something or you

don’t have the freedom of developing some really complicated job where

you are going to have all these engineering skills involved and buy all

these expensive parts because you got to do what they are telling you to

do. (EPICS Partner)

And as another participant stated, “I want [the students] to, at the end of the semester, say

to themselves or to anyone that listens ‘I learned from EPICS and I think I can be a better

applicant to somebody because of this real world experience’” (EPICS Project Partner).

These partners saw themselves as adding value to the students experience through the

impact that this partnership will have on their professional development. This seemed to

be linked to individual preferences of the participant rather than the role of the partner,

since it was only two of the partners. This is likely because the individuals see the world

through a professional rather than academic lens. Such differences in individual

perspectives are further expanded on in the personal growth subtheme below.

In the GPP-US, this theme was more common, and can be connected to the role

and responsibility of the sponsor. This theme can also be linked to the structure of the

program, where the students spent seven weeks off-campus at the site of the partner

organization, working full-time on their project. One sponsor stated that students would

gain from the experience:

[A] sense of what it's like to work in an office, to work in government, to

work in municipal government in particular, something for their resumes,

how to work. If they're going into engineering where they're going to be

assigned projects that have a beginning, middle, and an end, and a

deadline to get, to produce work product, this is a sense of what that life is

like. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This sponsor emphasized the professional development as a main take-away for the

students. By providing a physical location, a project and a timetable, the sponsor is able

to simulate a professional experience, and thus the students are able to learn professional

skills. Also, the mindset of the partners, being in a professional environment themselves,

is likely to contribute to the prevalence of this subtheme among individuals in this role. A

few of the affiliates also mentioned professional development, but the importance was

not emphasized the same way as it was for the sponsors.

There were no partners that mentioned professional development in CPP. The

faculty member in CPP mention that she wanted the first-year students to reflect on

career choices, and that was stated in the syllabus. The students who worked on the CPP

design team also highlighted many skills that students take away from working with the

CPP design, including how another student was able to use the experience to help get a

job:

I think somebody asked him, “Oh, what were you doing with this

playground stuff?” he summarized, “I did projects from start to finish.”

The chemical engineering company was very impressed. He marketed

himself on having seen projects through and that was incredibly valuable

to him in a job. (CPP student)

As this example indicates, the CPP design students were able to market themselves based

on their experience gained in the program. The role of the design team is to follow

through of the projects, as mentioned in the case description, and these students are often

paid workers or volunteers who have gone through the first-year course. For the CPP, the

professional development of the design student seems more of a positive unintended

consequence, since it was not mentioned by the other affiliates or the partners.

Overall, the EPICS and GPP-US Sponsors mentioned the community engagement

experience adding to the students’ professional development. Two EPICS partners

emphasized this, and it seemed connected to personal views rather than the partner role.

In the GPP-US, all but one of the partners mentioned professional development, and it

was closely linked to the role of the partner. This is highlighted in the structure of GPP-

US, as the partnering agency provides a professional environment for the students.

Additionally, since the partners are also in a professional rather than academic

environment, the professional role further influences their motivation to provide the

students with a professional experience. In the CPP case, the two individuals who

mentioned professional development were the program affiliates, and the design student

went into the most detail. This is linked to the student’s own experience and seeing other

students’ experience with the CPP as assisting them in their professional development.

4.2.4 Student: Personal Growth

Students’ personal growth was a subtheme that was discussed mostly by GPP-US

affiliates, the center advisors and administrators. This subtheme highlights a difference

across cases, as it was common within the GPP-US, but was rarely mentioned in the other

programs. This subtheme includes discussion of personal empowerment, recognition of

students’ own abilities, cultivating a joy of learning, and personal transformation.

In the GPP-US, there was clear intention and appreciation related to the

transformative qualities of the experience. One administrator mentioned that faculty

across campus notice changes in the students: “I think a lot of it is that they see their

students go away and then come back two months later and sometimes with a visible

transformation, more self-confidence, pride in their work, that type of thing” (GPP-US

Administrator). Another advisor discussed the specific types of growth in the students,

and about how students, who might not have a strong academic record, are able to gain

confidence through the GPP-US experience:

Some students who may not have the best academic record, they realize

that they actually are extremely capable and can do really, really good

work. It can be a confidence booster. It can help them when they go out

looking for work. It can help their presentation and public speaking skills.

It can help their ability to work in a team, a team that could be very

different in terms of both personality and approach, because we'll have an

environmental study student working with a mechanical engineer working

with a Robotics major, all in one team, looking to facilitate passage of the

Zoning Reform. So, it really has to toss out your preconceived notions and

just be willing to throw it all out on the table. (GPP-US Center Director)

In the above excerpt, the advisor talked about how the experience pushes the student, and

ultimately creates a personal change within the individual. Hence, this excerpt was coded

as professional development, learning objectives, and community engagement, as well as

personal growth, as it touched on all of them. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the

growth of the student is not only about specific learning outcomes, but also about more

broadly changing the perception the students have about themselves.

Another notable difference in roles and perceptions in the GPP-US program is

evident when comparing perspectives on personal growth among the affiliates as

compared to the perceived importance of professional development among the partners.

Many of the skills developed by the students are viewed as personal growth from the

perspective of the affiliates, and professional development through the lens of the

partners. This corresponds to the structure of the program and the lens in which the

participants of the study view the world. The GPP-US involves an intense, seven-week

project that is done away from the site of the campus and provides an incubator for a

personal transformation. The IQP was put into place in the 1970s as part of the WPI plan

to cultivate life-long learning, develop human understanding, harness personal motivation,

and to create a sense of community (this is further described in the case description).

Through time, the GPP-US has established an experience that is outside the student norm

and stretches their capacities, and GPP-US affiliates see this and recognize the program

can provide students with personally impactful experiences. The advisors and affiliates

are responsible for insuring that the students meet the objectives of the programs, the

students are on task, and provide guidance if the students need support. Often the

advisors or affiliates will even stay in the same hotel as the students, so they get to know

the students well. The partners oversee the project, and have a more professional

experience with the students.

Only a few participants in other programs mentioned motivations related to

students’ personal growth. I connect this with the intensive seven-week experience in

GPP-US. This experience makes the changes in the students more visible, and more

likely to be noticed and discussed. Nonetheless, a few affiliates and partners of EPICS

mentioned changes in students who had been in the program multiple semesters and who

had assumed leadership roles. These students were more likely to listen to the partners,

have more confidence, and understand what could be completed within a course of the

semester. Yet I believe this was not mentioned as much because the change is more

gradual in EPICS, and more difficult to recognize. Further, in GPP-US, the experience is

shorter and more intense, and so the change is more apparent to the affiliates.

Overall, all the GPP-US affiliates and only a few others, namely one partner-

advisor in EPICS and the former administrator in CPP, mentioned students’ personal

growth as a motivation for the programs. Further, the GPP-US affiliates seem to have a

responsibility in creating an atmosphere that results in personal growth for the students,

while the partners have a responsibility to focus on professional development.

4.2.5 Student: Combining Social Responsibility and Professionalism

Another subtheme in the student category is connected to developing a sense of

social responsibility within the students’ future professional roles. Some participants

connected strongly with this subtheme. For example, one EPICS partner-advisor

perceived the experience as morally or ethically impacting the students in their roles as

engineers. Specifically, this partner-advisor hoped students gained “[an] appreciation for

the fact that they are becoming a contributing member of a community, either locally or

even better globally, … especially, in the roles of engineers… and the decisions they

make” (EPICS Partner-Advisor). The EPICS participants connected the moral and/or

ethical dimensions of engineering to design decisions. As another advisor explained,

students who were making design decisions involving a choice between speed and

accessibility might help them be more considerate of the users while making design

decisions: “so it can open it up to more people, even if it is slower, maybe [speed] is not

what your criteria should be. It should be, how many people at the facilities can do that

task, whereas before they couldn't do it at all” (EPICS Advisor)

One GPP-US center director saw the combination of social responsibility and

professionalism, as the most important lesson for the students: “This is one of the things

that's most important to me, that not only do they have the capability, but the

responsibility to use their engineering degree for the social good.”

The social responsibility subtheme was the most common among the CPP

affiliates, and all CPP affiliates mentioned it. The student mentioned it five times, and

the advisor and the former administrator each mentioned it twice. The design student

talked at length about the importance of incorporating social responsibility and gave

many examples on how this manifests in the profession realm. To illustrate this point,

the student explained:

Why are the students doing engineering, are they just there to make

money? Or is it for the clients' interest and the stakeholder's interest. When

you're looking out for their interests, you provide a better product. For

example, many of my classmates go into sales after graduation. [Mary]

sold microscopes and some of her clients were schools. From the

playground project she might have learned, don't just sell them the nicest

microscope, sell them ten of these more basic models so

This student discussed that through the playground project, the students learn that they

need to take the stakeholders into consideration when they are working. In the example,

there was recognition that students need access to resources, and so by selling 10 basic

models, rather than one high-end model of microscope, more students will have access to

learning with the microscopes. Learning to think about and consider the end user was

something she associated with her involvement with the playground project.

Another component of social responsibility as it relates to professionalism is

evident in one of the main objectives of the course, which is to design for the “soul of the

community”:

If we've got two sections of class, and we're working with two different

playgrounds, and if you design this properly, you should not be able to

pick up one design from School A and plunk it down in School B and

expect it to work because the communities are unique and special and you

need to find what it is that is unique and special about that community. …

We’re all learning and teaching together. And we're all working together

and we really have to listen very carefully. You know that whole listen

with your heart and your ears. (CPP Advisor)

The characteristic of “designing for the soul of the community” emphasizes that each

community will have unique needs, and that it is the responsibility of the engineer to

listen to all the stakeholders, and learn from them so that they will be able to create an

appropriate design. Designing for the soul of the community was an important topic in

the CPP program. The CPP even started to have the LSU students volunteer as reading

or math buddies with students at the partner schools as a way to build personal

relationships with the school.

Overall, combining social responsibility with professionalism was not commonly

discussed in EPICS or GPP-US, yet there were some affiliates who were highly

passionate about the subject. All the CPP affiliates mentioned the social responsibility

and professionalism.

4.3 Theme 2: Motivations Connected with Personal Benefits

Many of the interviewees discussed personal benefits that they gained from being a

part of the community engagement programs. These were coded into four subthemes:

educating, community engagement, personal connections, and professional enhancement.

The average number of excerpts based on role and affiliation can be found in Table 4-3,

with frequencies indicated by color-coded cells.

Table 4-3: Motivation Connected to Personal based on Role

100

4.3.1 Personal: Educating

Nearly all the participants associated with EPICS and GPP-US described a sense

of joy from being around the university students, contributing to their education, being a

mentor, and/or gaining a deep sense of appreciation for the dedication and intellect of the

students. As one project partner clearly stated, “I like the fresh ideas. I like the potential

that we have in influencing [the students] to think about something outside of their career

and making money and I guess - it’s just good to be around youth” (EPICS Project

Partner). A few relevant excerpts from GPP-US Sponsors included: “it's very enjoyable

to see them working on things,” “I love to teach and help them think about careers in the

environment,” and “I really like engaging with younger people because I kind of like the

mentor role.”

For the partners in these two programs, this subtheme highlights that being an

educator is seen as part of the responsibility of the partner, and the partners enjoy this

component of the program. One advisor each in the EPICS and GPP-US programs

reported considerable interest in and passion for the non-traditional context of the

education process. For instance, one of the GPP-US center directors became associated

with the program after s/he received tenure. Described the initial motivation for being a

part of the program, s/he stated:

The first half of my career was pretty traditional, doing bio-engineering

stuff, fermentation research, doing the usual things that one needs to do to

get tenure and promoted and all of that. And one of the reasons I came to

WPI was, I somehow was attracted to this program and I didn't really quite

understand it, but to me, it sounded like something that would be

interesting to teach in and certainly different than the traditional 100

people or 500 people in a lecture that I had at [a large research university].

(GPP-US Center Director)

This center director was drawn to the program because of the non-traditional teaching

that was different than his/her own experience as an engineering student. This points to

101

the structure of the program as offering an avenue for the faculty to explore pedagogical

interests.

Having a personal motivation to educate the university students was only

mentioned once within the CPP program. This highlights the point that the focus of the

program was much less on the university students, but focused more on the playgrounds,

the community, and personal relationships that were built.

4.3.2 Personal: Community Engagement

Another subtheme that was mentioned as a personal motivation was to be engaged

with and support their community. When the partners were associated with the

organization directly, this was considered an organizational benefit, the third theme,

except when they explicitly stated that their involvement was personal in nature. This was

common among the EPICS and GPP affiliates, and common among the CPP partners.

All but one of the affiliates of EPICS mentioned the engagement part of the

program as a personal motivation. For instance, one EPICS advisor was involved in the

program because he wanted to “give back to the community,” and this advisor saw this

motivation being fulfilled because the program had “developed projects that help people”

(EPICS Advisor). Another advisor pointed out that EPICS allowed him/her to follow a

passion “to take learning and use that learning to make a difference not only in the lives

of the students but also in the lives of people in the community.”

One of the partners of EPICS also mentioned engagement, this partner saw EPICS

as a way to give back to the students: “I am a Purdue Alum, so I feel some responsibility

to students who are coming out.” This partner saw their engagement as a way to give

back to the university students. This was not common among the partners, yet highlights

a form of engagement by this one. The engagement element was common by all but one

of the affiliates of EPICS.

For the GPP, two of the affiliates mentioned community engagement as a

motivation, each of them mentioning it three or four times. An advisor at GPP-US, when

asked what s/he was expecting to accomplish as an advisor, s/he said:

102

It was to change [the City]…. And I don't know if I ever did any of that,

but this was a personal thing for me…And giving back to the community,

teaching students about giving back to the community, but also changing

things in the community and making the community a better place for

people who don't have the access. That's what we... I mean, I've worked

with, I think, two for-profit organizations. One, I had my arm-twisted. The

other one, I did because it served a broader social benefit. But everything

we do is working, like I said, with social justice organizations,

environmental justice organizations, organizations that serve communities

that don't necessarily have a well-represented voice to give them

knowledge and information in a way that decision-makers can understand

it. And so, I hoped that by doing that, we could empower people who,

otherwise, wouldn't be or be less empowered, and sometimes it works and

sometimes it doesn't. (GPP-US Center Director)

This advisor clearly stated that the reason for being a part of the program was related to a

personal motivation to give back to the community, so that the community could be

empowered. This subtheme was specific to the project center that two advisors were

affiliated with. In this center, more of the partners were serving the community directly

as compared to the larger agencies affiliated with the other centers. Thus individuals who

were more passionate about working with local community were drawn to this center,

and it then became a part of the center director’s role and the culture of the specific center

to have a high level of intention for engagement.

In the CPP, there was more discussion of engagement by the partners than by the

affiliates. This is due to the nature of the partnerships in the CPP. One of the partner

organizations is not the beneficiary of the project, but was involved because the

organization and the individuals in it believed in the mission of the CPP. This is the Food

& Grounds Inc. (pseudonym) that donates labor and equipment for the builds. The two

individuals interviewed from this partnership were highly motivated by the engagement

component; one got great pleasure in the act of building the playground:

103

Being able to be out there and help ... I can go home as sore as could be,

but I'm going home with a smile on my face. So, it's worth it everyday if

anything. [chuckle] So I get more back from being involved in it and I do

by giving to, the energy I put in the building it. (CPP Partner)

This partner gained energy through the experience of building the playground, and in this

sense the act of engagement was the motivation for their involvement in the partnership.

Overall, engaging and giving back to the community was a personal motivation

for five of the advisors in EPICS, highly important for two advisors in GPP-US and

highly important for two of the partners in the CPP. It seems that the culture of

engagement is part of the role in the EPICS program as a whole, yet it is more individual

or associated with specific partnerships for the GPP-US and the CPP.

4.3.3 Personal: Connections

Some of the participants identified personal relationships as a motivation for

being a part of the program. This subtheme includes being around the people that were

associated with the program, friendships formed, and the experience of interacting with

others. For EPICS and GPP-US, only a few participants mentioned the importance of

personal relationships. However, through the informal observations and knowing that the

structure depended on providing mentorship to new advisors and center directors, I think

that this might be a more important motivation for individuals in the EPICS and GPP-US.

On the other hand, personal connections were identified as a central motivation for

participants in the CPP, as all but two of participants mentioned personal connections as a

motivation for being a part of the program.

In EPICS, three participants mentioned personal connections. For example, an

EPICS advisor pointed to personal connections as the most engaging part of the program:

I would say the ‘people’ is the big component. The people, working with

the students. The EPICS staff in general is amazing, the co-advisors are

104

great, I really enjoyed working with the partners, so I would say that the

people part of it is what I find most engaging, or most rewarding, and

then, you know, when a product turns out the way everybody had hoped it

would turn out, and the process turns out, that is just an ah-ha moment.

(EPICS Advisor)

This advisor pointed to the personal relationships, the enjoyment of being around the staff,

co-advisors and students were a motivation for being a part of EPICS. The relationships

were important to them, and the project added another layer of enjoyment. An

administrator of the GPP-US also mentioned personal relationships as a motivation for

being a part of the program, and as a way for the program to function well:

So, we have three or four areas that we really focus on, and then each of us

has our own particular ways of addressing it, and I think the [GPP] has

gotten really, really strong because of the diversity in it. And we share

information; we have a common place where we could pool our teaching

methods, we talk to each other, "How do you handle X?" So we feed off

each other. It's really nice, and it's a really compatible group of people….

There are no jerks in our department, [chuckle] and everybody likes

everybody else and really works well together... Ideal thing. I've been

there for so long, but it's been a wonderful, wonderful association. (GPP-

US Administrator)

This participant is motivated and enjoys being around the other advisors in the GPP.

These connections have been highly important in the structure of the program, yet two

affiliates only mentioned the personal connections once each.

Based on my experience on both the EPICS and GPP-US sites, I would assume

that personal relationships are actually a more central piece of the programs, as it seemed

that many of the advisors knew each other on a personal level, and the way faculty learn

how to become advisors or center directors were through a mentorship role. In GPP-US,

105

a center director mentioned that s/he was a good friend with the colleagues, and one of

the partners stated that their partnerships started through friendships. I think this was not

mentioned as much explicitly as a motivation because of my role as an outsider

interviewer, and because the questions did not probe these relationships. Additionally, the

relationships might not have been seen within the role of advisor within their program

and so the participants did not share about these relationships. Rather, the role of the

center director or the advisor was seen to focus on the interactions with the student and

the projects.

On the other hand, the participants of the CPP explicitly focused their motivations

on personal relationships and experiencing joy with the community. This came up even

though the interview questions did not ask about these relationships. One partner stated

this bluntly, as they said, “I've built some good friendships with the folks at LSU.”

Another partner highlighted the joy of building the playground:

What I got out of doing this, was just the pure joy of everybody. It was

just the joy of the children, the joy of the grandparents, the joy of the

teachers. Everybody felt good. It was a feel good moment. And it just kept

on, the feel good just kept going. (CPP Partner)

The CPP advisor says that the interactions with the community and the staff were her

main motivation for being involved in the program, “I think we do a lot of really good,

really good work, but for me, at the end of the day, what makes my heart strings sing, is

working with my students, is working in the community.” This provides a general

glimpse of the ways the participants discussed the personal connections made within the

program.

A more in depth example is a situation I encountered during my research at the

CPP site. When I arrived, a former student on the design team had recently died in a fatal

car accident. The CPP were in the process of raising funds for a playground that the

student was working on. A partner at the Foods & Grounds pointed to the personal

106

relationship with the advisor and a former colleague while describing the build coming

up:

It's special to [the advisor], and [the advisor] is special to me ever since

we've been involved in this. But it's special to her because of her student,

but it's also going to be the first build, there's a gentleman that we lost just

recently. He worked for me eight years. He was walking into work and

dropped dead of a heart attack. And he and I had the best times together

working on playgrounds. [The advisor] actually walked up behind us and

he and I were bickering back and forth like we always did, and it's how we

passed time. … this is the first build she's ever had me or him on, and we

were there the day after all the volunteers were gone… She walked out

with one of her students to take pictures of it, we didn't see her come up,

and she walked up behind us, and said, "Y'all sound like an old married

couple." I was like, "Oh." [chuckle]… But this will be the first playground

since he passed. So, it means... It's taken on a little bit more of a meaning

to me 'cause I know he was... We knew about this one before he passed,

and he was interested in doing it, and she infected him, too… He worked

hard everyday, but you could tell when we got out there for a playground,

he just started having fun with it. And so it's taken on more of a life with

this one. So, tribute to two different people. Although one won't get

mentioned on it. He'd kill me if I did that. (CPP Partner)

This partner had developed deep friendships, both with the advisor and with a former

colleague through the CPP build. These relationships are central for the CPP experience,

where the interactions across the stakeholders provide joy and friendships, and this

motivates the participants to be involved and work together.

Overall, participants in all three of the programs mentioned the personal

connections that were made through the program as being a motivation. This was only

mentioned by a few participants in EPICS and GPP-US, yet I believe that this might have

107

been more central to the functioning for EPICS and GPP-US than it was discussed,

because the participants might not have felt comfortable opening up to me and the

advisors saw their role as advisors to focus more on the student experience. The personal

connections were more explicitly mentioned as a subtheme in the CPP program, with all

but two of the participants mentioning this a motivation for their involvement.

4.3.4 Personal: Learning and Professional development

Some of the participants mentioned that the motivation of being a part of the

program was connected to their own learning and to enhancing their own professional

development. This subtheme was common among the affiliates of all three programs, and

some of the GPP-US Sponsors. The CPP student also spoke at length about his/her own

professional development. I did not interview students from all the programs, only one

each from EPICS and CPP. These students were highly involved in the partnerships

themselves, so they could speak in more depth about the partnerships. Students in the

GPP-US are limited to seven weeks, and thus are not integrated into the partnerships at

the same level as the other programs. Both students interviewed from the other programs

were involved over three years. This study was not intended to represent student

educational outcomes. However, since I did include students in the interviews, I coded

for these students’ learning and professional development outcomes.

In EPICS, three of the affiliates mentioned that their experience in EPICS added

to their professional development, especially by helping them build skill sets and by

giving them richer experiences. For example, one advisor credits EPICS with “help[ing]

[her/him] develop leadership skills, organizational skills, [and] interpersonal relationship

[skills].” EPICS also offered a space for participants to engage with their personal

interests. One of the participants, who was both an advisor and a project partner, had a

great deal of appreciation for the “intellectual stimulation” and the “think-tank”

atmosphere of EPICS. The advisor-partner found that brainstorming and “bringing those

thoughts to a reality” made the experience incredibly enjoyable. Overall, the partner-

advisor described the experience as “one of the most rewarding experiences of my time at

Purdue.” However, one affiliate identified a challenge regarding professional

108

development was a perception among faculty that the university did not adequately

recognize the importance of the program in tenure and promotion, which meant many

faculty members were reluctant to get involved.

In the GPP-US, three of the partners and four of affiliates discussed learning or

professional development. One of the partners learned more about technology through

the program, specifically not to be afraid of it:

As a person, I have learned that I need to stay current and get away from

my notepad and learn... Yeah, that a lot of things going forward are gonna

be accessible through computers and that's really the way I want to go

anyway, but I am learning now to not be so afraid. (GPP-US Sponsor)

The sponsor saw the program as an avenue for learning. Although many of the partners

are exposed to new projects each time they take on students, most did not mention it as a

reason for involvement. On the other had, most of the affiliates mentioned personal

learning or professional development. One administrator said the experience with

students resulted in knowing that teaching was the right profession for them, and also

enhanced many of their professional skills:

Every time I advise an IQP I'm learning something new, and I really enjoy

that, it's very interesting. You get to know students really well. It's a good

test if you're in the right business. If you don't like getting to know

students well, then maybe teaching isn't what you should be doing. I think

that the emphasis on how to do research and how to write clearly and

present clearly has definitely made me a better researcher, writer, thinker,

and presenter. (GPP-US Administrator)

This element of learning and growing was highly prevalent among the GPP-US affiliates,

and thus was an integral part of the program.

109

In the CPP, only one affiliate mentioned professional development. This was the

student who mentioned learning from the program ten times, specifically about how the

program resulted in learning and enhanced her/his own professional development. The

student identified “learning so much from everybody you work with” as the largest

benefit of the program. For example, the student also learned what to wear based on the

advisor’s actions:

[The advisor] does not wear suits when she goes and meets stakeholders.

Whenever I see her in a suit, I'm like, "Oh, what type of meeting do you

have today?" She's like, ‘Somebody at LSU did da, da, da, da,’ so you

understand how to dress for different things. (LSU Student)

The student learned not to wear nice clothes while going to see the stakeholders at the

schools, but to wear suits at professional meetings. The student also learned that children

know about play: “Never heard of slipping on leaves. Kindergartener knows, because he

slips on the leaves every day… When I run around I usually have soccer cleats on. So, I

didn't put it together.” The construction worker also taught the student what is was like

to actually implement a design:

I also got to talk to the installers and they talked about, "Oh, the engineers

messed up with this." and "Oh, sometimes you just have to force it." This

was cool to see with the engineering design process in mind. When we say

there's gonna be a hole here, we expect the bolt to fit perfectly in the hole.

And that's just a minor thing we had to think about, but when you're on the

site, you actually see that nope, you're pulling the drill out again and re-

drilling holes because things don't quite fit even when they're made swell.

(LSU Student)

110

This student was able to learn that the application of an engineering design might not turn

out as planned, and that every stakeholder had his or her own knowledge that you can

learn from.

This student was highly motivated, and personally invested in the program

success. As noted, the student mentioned personal learning and development ten times in

the interview, making it a main motivation for her. However, it is worth noting that

providing professional experience for the university students was not a central theme for

the affiliates within the CPP, as there were more emphasis on the community. This

highlights that professional skills for the students does not need to be intentional, or even

the focus, of an engagement program for students to have an impactful educational

experience.

Overall, the learning and professional development aspects are notable

motivations for many partners and affiliates. In EPICS, the three affiliates discussed how

the program added to their professional development, and offered a rich space to pursue

their intellectual passions. In the GPP-US all but one of the affiliates mentioned learning

or professional development, so there is an expectation that this is part of the culture

within the program, contently learning. In the CPP, the student was the only participant to

mention learning or professional development, however, they mentioned it ten times.

This suggests that even though the program centers more on relations and the community

outcomes rather than the educational comes, the students still can have a rich educational

experience.

4.4 Theme 3: Organizational Motivations

An organization benefits from a partnership when the community engagement

program helps them fulfill their mission. The interviews revealed four related subthemes:

support from students, and especially through products/solutions; the students’ expertise;

the broader impacts of the projects; and the partnership more generally. The subtheme

for the project was the most recognized motivation, but many of the participants also

discussed the broader impacts that the projects had on the community or the society at

111

large. Table 4-4 presents the average excerpts coded under organizational subthemes

based on the role of the participants.

Table 4-4: Motivations Connected to Organizational Benefits based on Role

4.4.1 Organizational: Products/Process

The projects the students completed, or the process in which they took to

complete the project, were the most mentioned motivation by the participants. All but

two participants mentioned the projects (one each in EPICS and one in GPP). There were

four participants that mentioned projects over seven times. This subtheme included

discussions of the benefits of the product or process for the partner organization.

Discussion of the how the projects impact communities is not included in this subtheme,

as this is covered by the “broader impacts” subtheme. The products or process, for the

most part, were identified as useful. Yet for the GPP-US and EPICS cases there were

some projects that were seen as less useful.

For EPICS, the students go through a full design process and work on a project to

meet the need of a partner organization. There is a wide variety of projects, such as

creating a data network, building an information kiosk for a zoo, or coming up with a

way to make a task more accessible for an individual with disabilities. The students take

112

the EPICS course for one or two credit hours and work on the projects throughout the

semester, and a specific project can roll over from one semester to another. These

projects are often useful for the organization, and most of the partners identified the

desire for a project as a reason for becoming involved in the EPICS program. The

projects have been identified to save money, meet the needs of the organization, and meet

their environmental goals. For example, one partner said the students did an energy audit,

and helped them with energy efficiency. Another partner was able to make a task

accessible by more individuals with disabilities. And another partner described a project

where they had seen similar organizations use a specific technology, and with EPICS’

help they are able to create it. Most of the partners described how projects or the process

itself supported the organization.

There were also some challenges identified. One partner said that by the time

products are completed, the manufacturer may have left town:

I would say, about 75% of the [projects are] successful, but its not all their

fault when they are not successful. A lot of times they will be developing a

project, and by the time it is finished we may not be doing that job any

more due to the fact that manufacture had just of moved out of town…we

have seen a lot of jobs leaving town, or leave the country. (EPICS Partner)

Other projects are done with too much focus on technical issues, and without students

knowing their own limits. One respondent noted that, “I have to get them off the track

that the more engineered, or the harder, the more complicated, the device is the

better“ (EPICS Project Partner). Yet even though challenges sometimes surface in the

project development process, most partners stay involved, as they see the benefits of the

projects outweighing the challenges and they know that the projects can be adjusted as

needed, “It’s always in an agreement where, if the final product isn’t what we want, they

can adjust it” (EPICS Project Partner).

For the GPP-US, the projects are often a “wish list” item or a topic from the “back

burner” that the organization wants to focus on. The students research the project in

113

advance in a seven-week preparation course, and then work full time on the project

during a seven-week on-site period. However, all the projects have the students research

a topic that is situated at the intersection of technology and society. Sample projects

include performing an IT assessment of a local clinic, developing a website documenting

the history of a large federal institution, or doing a needs assessment of a new technology

in a large metropolitan area. The experience allows the organizations to focus their efforts

on a specific project, and the students gain the educational experience of working on a

real-world project. There is a view that the students are a type of free or inexpensive

consultant. The additional benefit, specifically for the federal agencies, is that there are

faculty members available to support the work and there is flexibility to the project

process. As one sponsor from a federal agency stated:

For us, it is that it's a lot more controllable. Usually with contracts and so

forth, and consultants, in government you have to put up procurement, you

have to go through this selection. And then if you want to make a change

midway, that becomes real difficult because a contract specifies, "We will

do X Y and Z." And if we have to take a mid-course correction here with a

WPI student, it's easy. (GPP-US Sponsor)

The sponsor finds the process of being able to change direction during the process to be

highly beneficial. An administrator confirmed this flexibility in the process:

Sometimes a sponsor has an idea and says, "I want X." And then when the

students try to do X for them, we find that X is absolutely the wrong thing.

That the sponsor hadn't done enough homework; didn't really know their

own situation well enough to formulate the project and Y is really the

nugget. And very often the sponsor will say, "You're right. Okay, let's do

Y." And so, either Y gets done because there is enough time, or Y is done

the next year. (GPP-US administrator)

114

The project process examines the rationale for the project, to insure that the most

appropriate project is being done for the partnering organization. And in those incidences

when the original problem stated was not the most appropriate, the process allows the

students to change directions.

In the GPP-US, there was also some discussion of project or experiences that

were not successful. This veers from the topic of motivation, but provides context for the

projects. A few of the affiliates of the program mentioned times when the organizations

were interested in the students collecting data, but wanted to pull out once the students

collected the data even though the students still needed to finish their reports. Also, an

administrator mentioned a project that was highly unethical, and the advisors had to step

in and to stop the project. One GPP-US sponsor stated that the experience was not as

successful as he had hoped, and during the course of the interview, the sponsor reflected

on his own disengagement of the program, and mentioned that the gains from the

organization’s involvement were less than the costs. When I asked what could improve

the process, the sponsor said that s/he would have liked more guidance from the program

on how to “make an engagement successful for the [the organization] and for the

students,” and “examples to start from, from similar kinds of organizations.” The

students were often sifting through data in isolation, and there was recognition that going

out and collecting data would be more appropriate for the students. This sponsor thought

that more guidance on project creation would resulted in a better project.

For the CPP, the projects are all specifically centered on playgrounds. The public

school systems do not provide funding for playgrounds, and many of the schools do not

have the resources to fix or build playgrounds. This results in many schools having little

or no play equipment, and a great need for playgrounds in the East Baton Rouge Parish.

All the partners wanted a playground. Two of the school partners said they were

determined to get a playground, and the CPP provided a means to that end. When asked

about the motivations for the playground, one partner stated:

I had been trying to get the playground built, and I knew that it wasn't

gonna be easy. So, yes, the primary goal was to just get with her, because I

115

knew that she was able to write grants or worked with people to write

grants. So I thought, you know, I had been getting a few little grants, but I

thought maybe she has some information for me. So, yes, it was to get the

playground built. (CPP Partner)

The main motivation was to get a playground. The partner did not necessarily know

about the students designing the playground, but rather the expertise on writing and

getting grants that could benefit schools in the parish. The act of building the playground,

however, was identified as a deeply moving experience. One partner compared it to her

wedding day, and started to cry when thinking about everyone coming to support the

school. The main challenge for the CPP is getting money for the playgrounds. This is not

included under motivation, but provides a full picture of the limitations that are present in

the project process.

Overall, the specific projects, or process, is the most mentioned motivation and is

a focal point of the programs. The types and lengths of projects are different for each

program. The structure of EPICS focuses on developing specific product, and the design

process can roll over from one semester to another. This length of time can be a

frustration for the partners. In GPP-USA, the programs are situated at the intersection of

society and technology, and are bounded by a fourteen-week timeframe, the first seven

focused on preparation, and the second seven spent on site. The CPP focuses on

designing playgrounds for schools and communities that are in urgent need of play

equipment. The first-year design students work on the playground design for a semester,

and their solutions are then compiled and used by the design team to create a final design.

One limiting factor for CPP is access to funding for the projects. The building process,

where everyone comes together and assembles the playground, is seen as a deeply

fulfilling by most of the participants.

116

4.4.2 Organizational: Expertise

Some of the partners and affiliates saw the program as a way to get access to

expertise. This subtheme includes the technical skills of students and/or faculty,

knowledge of a specific topical area, or knowledge from a certain age group.

To begin, four of the EPICS participants, one partner and three affiliates,

mentioned the value of gaining expertise through working with EPICS. One partner

mentioned the students’ technical skills and intelligence three times throughout the

interviews, and pointed to the students’ technical abilities as the reason for a successful

project: “that was all the expertise of the EPICS students and their ability to understand

the mumbo jumbo and the math, and all the stuff that I really had no clue on” (EPICS

Project Partner). Another participant, an EPICS affiliate, also mentioned the students’

expertise when asked why they see the partner being involved in EPICS, “they want to

collect engineering expertise, engineering assistance, as far as being able to have like a

dedicated team working on a project for them” (EPICS Advisor). The student’s technical

expertise is recognized as a motivation for being a part of the EPICS partnerships.

For GPP-US, four partners and one affiliate mentioned the expertise of the

students. The students’ technical knowledge and their knowledge connected to their age

demographic were the two most common, specific kinds of student expertise mentioned

in relation to the GPP-US program. One partner gave the example of students assisting

them with their college recruitment website, since they were the demographic the website

was targeting. There was also the notion that younger students may be more familiar with

working remotely and having online courses, since it is more common in the current

education system:

We had an engagement issue in working remote, which is more common

today in students taking classes, internet classes, working more remote is a

more common thing from a younger individuals, so we had them come in

and do a [a project on] engagement. (GPP-US Sponsor)

117

This sponsor was focused on the knowledge associated with the students’ generation as a

skill set or resource that the students were able to bring to the project. The partners were

more likely to point to this expertise, but it was not recognized as a main motivation since

the value of the expertise was not central for the partners.

In CPP the expertise was recognized as a highly important factor by three of the

partners, but was not recognized by any of the affiliates. Many of the school partners

stressed the importance of the expertise of the program on the knowledge of playgrounds

and guidance on how to get the elementary students involved in the playground designs.

As one partner stated,

All of [the advisor]'s crew, they came out… she said, "You wanna get

everyone on campus involved. The children, especially." So we did

surveys with all of the [elementary] kids. … [The elementary students]

voted on the colors, they voted on [the equipment]. Like the speaking

horns, speaking tubes, and the spiral things, the stepping stones. They

voted… This was all [the Advisor’s] lead. That's why I had contacted her,

because I wanted to know how to do this and to be successful, and have it

what [the elementary students] wanted. So the colors were what the kids

wanted. The items were what the kids wanted. Then once we started with

all of this, after I got all the surveys back in, all the colors and everything,

then I sent it to [the Advisor] and she had two or three, maybe four

different designs that [LSU design] students put together. (CPP Partner)

This partner emphasized that the program offered knowledge on how to get the whole

community involved in the playground design and build process, and saw this as a highly

important contribution of the program. Another part of the expertise was the Food &

Grounds organization, which was able to provide expertise in maintenance for the project.

They were able to say what schools were in most urgent need of a playground, and what

equipment was the easiest to maintain. They would also come on site during the builds

and provide assistance.

118

This value of the expertise is not as recognized in these programs compared to the

value of the project themselves, yet the element of expertise is present within these

programs to varying degrees. In EPICS, it is recognized by a few participants and is

largely focused on the technical knowledge the students are able to bring to the program.

For the GPP, the technical knowledge, and the knowledge associated with the age of the

students, were both mentioned. For the CPP, the expertise of the program was an

important motivation within the program, specifically of the advisor’s knowledge of

playgrounds. Also noted was the value of involving the whole community in design

process, as well as the Food and Ground’s expertise on construction and playground

maintenance.

4.4.3 Organizational: Partnerships

For some participants, the benefits for the organization came from the

partnerships themselves. This included creating a sense of community; fulfilling the

organizational mission of educating the university students; providing networking

opportunities; and gaining access to resources that the program had access to, but the

organizations did not.

In EPICS, three of the partners and five of the affiliates mentioned partnerships as

a motivation. Many small non-profits count on partnerships to get resources and get their

name out. A few partners recognized Purdue as a cornerstone in the community, so saw a

partnership with the university as a way to increase their own credibility. More

specifically, one partnering agency saw the education of students, including the EPICS

students, on their organizational mission as a primary task for their organization. Another

organization regularly worked with students from Purdue and local colleges, and saw this

as a way to build rapport with the university. Still another EPICS affiliate, represented by

a partner-advisor that works with an agency that provides children with educational

science materials, saw the partnership as a way to build bridges and possibly limit

competition. That is, the participant articulated that Purdue University might start doing

things similar to what the organization is doing, and the partnership with EPICS provides

a way to assist the university rather than be in competition with it.

119

In the GPP-US case, all but two affiliates mentioned the partnership as a

motivation for involvement with the program. One sponsor said that the initial reason for

joining the partnership was to get access to software that the university had. Another

agency said that the agency regularly partnered with organizations within the community:

Because we're non-profit, we rely on community relationships, and the

community relies on the relationship with us. So, we partner with a variety

of different agencies, organizations, hospitals, schools, ‘cause we each

have something to offer the other. (GPP-US Sponsor)

For this organization, partnerships were a key way that they could get services for their

clientele, and so the partnership with GPP-US is part of their regular business practice.

The partnership with WPI was one of many, as they recognized that by partnering

with the university, they would have access to services and resources, and can rely on

them to do projects if and when they needed them. This sponsor mentioned the

importance of partnerships eight times throughout the interview.

For the CPP, two partners and one affiliate mentioned the partnerships as

motivation for the program. As one of the partners explained, the projects create an

avenue for community members to be more involved in the functioning of the schools:

When you get people to take pride in school they'd become more involved

in other projects besides that. They are more willing to volunteer for other

activities or things of that nature too, ‘cause once you can get them

involved in volunteering then people tend to continue that process. (CPP

Partner)

This partner goes on to point to both families and retirees that get involved initially for

the benefit of the playgrounds, and then volunteer for the schools in other ways. The

relationships built through the CPP are then able to meet other needs of the schools, such

as supporting teachers by offering reading programs and donating money for expansion

120

of playgrounds. LSU also offered a sense of credibility to the people that got involved.

Since CPP was part of the flagship institution, individuals tended to trust the CPP, local

businesses were more likely to donate money and services.

In the CPP there is also a new partnerships forming, as leaders in the CPP and in

the community are working together to create a timeline for completing all the

playgrounds in the East Baton Rouge Parish:

Over the summer and in the fall, we're gonna try to put together a

committee of community powerhouses and that I've been working on the

same the same projects. It's like I know who the players are. Trying to get

them together and say "Okay, here's where we are. Here's where we've

been. Here's where we're going. Help us get here in five years, five to 10."

And just see if we can knock out every single playground. (CPP Advisor)

The relationships of the leadership in the community can be harnessed to move the

project forward. Through building the partnerships in the CPP, the CPP is better able to

complete the mission to offer playgrounds for their community. This element is core in

making the program run.

Overall, partnerships are recognized as an important motivation for being a part of

the programs in all three of the cases, and among both the affiliates and partner roles. For

EPICS and CPP, being a part of a large institution was recognized as an important

element of the projects as they offered credibility to the program. There is increased

access to resources that the agencies might not have access to otherwise. For some

partnering agencies, partnerships are core to their business function, and so working with

the partnership is also part of their normal organizational function.

4.4.4 Organizational: Broader Impacts

Many of the participants also discussed the impacts of the projects on the

agency/organization, community, and/or wider society. Representative examples include

providing extra income to the organizations, developing safer communities, and

121

educating staff. Extra income streams have been created through saving energy, opening

up access to grants, providing a service that would otherwise cost money, creating a

product that generates money, or simplifying a task to increase efficiency.

In EPICS, two partners and one affiliate mentioned broader impacts within their

interviews. One of the partners discussed this at length, as I had coded the broader

impacts within five excerpts. An example of an increase of income in EPICS is that a

partnering organization was able to get a large grant, over one hundred thousand dollars,

to construct an energy efficient building. This same EPICS team was then able to directly

benefit the organization by offering a workshop to volunteers throughout the state.

Another partner stated that they were able to increase revenue for their organization:

Believe me, there are big benefits. We become more productive, and if we

are more productive we can make more money. Say I quoted a job for 10

cents each, and my labor cost is five cents for this job, which is usually

kind of a balance we're looking for when we quote, and [EPICS] come in

and they develop a way we can do the job for one cent, that is a huge

increase in my revenue. (EPICS Project Partner)

If an EPICS team is able to provide additional income, this money can in turn support

other programs within the organizations that were underfunded.

In the GPP-US, five partners and two affiliates mentioned broader impacts.

Broader impacts of the projects included: data for grants, building connections among

organizations, training staff members on computers, providing publicity for the

organization, and providing data for the general public. Many of the partners are

governmental agencies, and these partners see the students helping the wider society

through their projects, such as researching climate change issues. The partners are more

likely to identify and see the broader impacts of the GPP-US projects compared to the

affiliates.

In the CPP, all but one partner mentioned the broader impacts of the playgrounds,

such as: allowing the neighborhood children and families who do not attend the school a

122

place to play, and a way for children to get their energy out, so they are not getting in as

much trouble in the classrooms. There was also recognition of the lower socio-economic

status of the recipients of the play equipment:

Our population, we're probably 95% free lunch, so our students here don't

always get the best of everything. So, this is good for them, plus to have a

good role model come in and work with them, so that's a very positive

thing and then, of course, getting the playground and that too gives the

kids self-worth because they think. Not they think, but they know that

somebody cared enough to get out there and to do this for them. (CPP

partner)

The CPP is seen to provide mentorship through the reading program, and a sense of

worth to know that someone cares about them to go out of their way to insure that they

have a playground.

In general, the projects and the partnerships are perceived to provide broader impacts

for the organizations, communities, and societies. For the EPICS and GPP-US program,

this larger impact is recognized and identified more often as a motivation by the partners

as compared to the affiliates. There were two affiliates in the GPP that did focus on

broader impacts of the projects, but the other three did not mention this subtheme. This

may be because the affiliates are not as embedded in the communities as the partners, but

rather their role as center director is more focused on educating the students and making

sure the projects are completed, with less focus on the impacts of the projects on the

communities. For the CPP, all but one partner discussed the broader impacts of the

playgrounds. This highlights how the project purpose is centered on the community and

is recognized as meeting the community’s needs by all the stakeholders. In the CPP, it is

part of the program’s responsibility to think of the larger community’s impacts of the

project.

123

4.5 Discussion for Research Question 1

The findings from this study were found to be largely consistent with motivations

for partnerships as reported in the wider service-learning literature. In fact, all of the

themes identified through the literature review were also evident in this study. However,

the motivation of “relationship building” was moved under “organizational benefits” and

put under “partnerships,” since the partnership allowed the organization to better meet

their mission. Table 4-5 below compares the categories and subthemes from the

literature review and research findings. There was evidence of social justice issues as a

motivation; however, it was not as explicit or highlighted at the same level as articulated

in the Sandy and Holland study. Thus, it did not warrant its own theme, and was always

coupled with another motivation, such as student engagement. Social justice was also not

mentioned in the Worrall and Tryon and Bell studies.

Table 4-5: Synthesis of Motivations from the Literature Review and Findings

Motivations from Literature Review Motivations from this Study

• Student learning • Personal benefits • Organizational benefits • Relationship building • Social justice

• Students o Learning, skills, & work ethic o Community engagement o Personal Growth o Professional Development o Social Responsibility in the

Profession • Personal benefits

o Education o Community Engagement o Connections o Learning & Professional

development • Organizational benefits

o Projects o Broader Impacts o Expertise o Partnerships

124

Many of the trends are similar within the EPICS and GPP-US program, but with

some differences as compared to the CPP program. This can be connected to the size and

structure of the programs. Although there are a lot of differences across EPICS and GPP-

US, they are both rather large in scale, serving over 500 students per year. The

organizational structure has more rigid responsibilities and role expectations for the

different stakeholders, and each of the agencies are working interdependent. From the

motivation data, we are able to understand what is expected in the roles of the

stakeholders. In the CPP, there are only around sixty students each semester, or two

sections having thirty students each. There is one faculty member that oversees the

partnerships, and the partnerships are highly dependent on the specific individuals or

organizations.

There were some overall trends that were common among the roles in EPICS and

GPP. For the EPICS and the GPP, the affiliates’ roles and responsibilities tend to focus

on the students’ educational outcomes. For GPP, there was also an emphasis on the

students going through a process of personal growth. The affiliates in EPICS and GPP-

US recognized themselves as educators, and many enjoyed the non-traditional teaching

style of the programs. Many of them also saw the programs as a way for them to give

back to their communities and gain professional skills, and a few highlighted the personal

connections that they made through involvement of the programs. All but one mentioned

the motivation of the organizations gaining from the project or process. A few discussed

how the associated projects impacted the larger community, and how the program offered

the organization access to expertise. Partnerships were seen as important by these

programs.

For the EPICS and GPP-US Sponsors, there was less discussion on learning

objectives, but more on the importance of students’ community engagement and

professional development. The partners saw themselves as educators, and the GPP-US

Sponsors mostly saw the experience adding to learning or their own professional

development. The partners also recognized the value of the projects. Most of the GPP-

US Sponsors and some of the EPICS partners mentioned the wider impacts that the

projects have on their communities. GPP-US Sponsors discussed the expertise of the

125

students. And both EPICS and GPP-US Sponsors saw the partnership as a key

motivation.

In the CPP, the affiliate discussed learning objectives, engagement, professional

development and the importance of combining social responsibility and professionalism.

There was less emphasis on education as a whole compared to the other two programs, as

the partners did not see themselves as educators of the students and the faculty member

did not emphasis her role as an educator. However, the design student interviewed

discussed at length her own professional development from being involved in the

program, which suggests that a lack of explicit emphasis on education does not mean that

learning is not present. As a whole, there was more emphasis in the whole program on

personal connections, and a recognition by both affiliates and partners on the broader

impacts on the projects. Like EPICS and GPP-US the project and partnership was

important. However, in the CPP, a unique situation was taking place as partnerships

present was being used to push the program forward.

4.6 Implications and Recommendations

Based on the results presented above and previously published work (Thompson

& Jesiek, 2014), it is worth concluding with a discussion of how the findings relate to the

concept of reciprocity and suggest best practices for new and existing programs. As

Jacoby (1996) argues, service-learning is more than a pedagogy, and should also be

viewed as a philosophy that values reciprocity and “implies a concerted effort to move

charity to justice” (p. 5). To evaluate and potentially enhance reciprocity, it is important

to investigate different motivations of the project partners and advisors, including in

relation to the program’s larger goals and objectives. One difference highlighted in this

study centers on student learning, where many of the project partners tended to

emphasize the importance of learning about the partnered organization, while this was

not as often mentioned explicitly by affiliates of the programs. Being more explicit about

the importance of students learning about partner organization would be one way for

126

engineering community engagement programs to improve their alignment with the

motivations of the partners.

Sandy and Holland also used their findings to develop a list of recommendations

for service learning programs based on common challenges found across service-learning

programs. However, the present study suggests that such best practices might require

adjustment, or even be considered irrelevant, in an engineering community engagement

program. For example, the recommendation to “Involve faculty more directly” and

“Address the hours divide” are inappropriate for such programs. That is, Sandy and

Holland recommend that faculty provide additional information to the community

partners, since the community partners were often ill-informed about the service-learning

course expectations. This was not a challenge within the present study, since the

community partners often had a clear expectation within the partnership, and the program

coordinators contacted the partners regularly. Also, there was no tracking of volunteer

hours, which is a common practice outside of engineering but is often seen as an

impediment for community partners. Although one participant said that they did count

hours for other service-learning students, s/he saw the nature of program to be

fundamentally different enough not track the hours of the students. These highlight

important differences across community engagement in engineering, and the project-

based learning approach compared to the engagement in the wider service learning field.

This study also presents a framework and themes for investigating the

perspectives and experiences of community partners in a well-established engineering

service-learning program. By bringing out the community’s voice in the understanding

and outcomes of the program, we are able to include more of the people who are directly

impacted by engineering community engagement programs. The framework can be used

in future studies to determine the extent to which the community outcomes are

transferable, and also possibly turned into a survey questionnaire so programs can have

regular feedback on how programs are impacting and aligned with community partners

and organizations.

127

4.7 Conclusion for Research Question 1

This chapter outlined the motivations that the participants identified for being a part of

the engineering community engagement programs. These fit into three themes: students,

personal reasons, and organizational benefits. Each of the three themes had four to five

subthemes. Each section above included a discussion of the overall response trends and

larger patterns based on the roles and programs of the participants. The findings from this

study were largely consistent with motivations for partnerships as reported in other

service-learning literature. The chapter also provides a discussion of a comparison across

the three sites, focusing on the similarities across the EPICS and GPP-US programs as

compared to the CPP program, and how this may be linked to the size and structure of

these two programs. Recommendations are also given based on the role and importance

of reciprocity in relation to individual motivations. The next chapter provides a more in-

depth look into how the program structure influences the nature of the partnerships. Six

structural themes are reviewed in detail, including a section on individual roles and

characteristics that again touches on motivation themes.

128

CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH QUESTION 2 & 3

5.1 Introduction for Research Question 1

As mentioned previously, the second research question is focused on examining

how program structure impacts the nature of partnerships, while the third research

question more specifically looks at the role of the projects within the programs and

partnerships. To address these questions, the nature of interactions, activities and

language were coded based on the Transactional, Cooperative, and Communal (TCC)

framework as described in the method section. An overview of the codes and the

dominant code for each of the interviewees is presented in Table 5-1. The unilateral and

non-unilateral transactional were combined together as transactional. Focusing on the

dominant code was based on Giles & Doraldo’s (2004) research examining paths of

engagement. To acknowledge the complex, multi-faceted nature of the partnerships and

provide a more holistic sense of the data, I expanded the dominant codes to include two

dominant codes, if the most frequent was less than 60% of the nature codes. For example

the first EPICS partner in Table 5-1 was coded for fifteen transactional excerpts and six

cooperative excerpts. The transactional excerpts were 71%; so one dominant code was

issued, transactional. Partner 3 had nine excerpts coded cooperative, six transactional

and one communal, which resulted in cooperative having 56% of the total codes.

Therefore, both cooperative and transactional were labeled as dominant codes for Partner

3. The 60% was chosen as a threshold value since a lower value like 50% would not

provide enough detail on the multifaceted nature in many of the partnerships. Yet the

60% level does not overly restrict the dominant codes present, since a higher percentage

may require that all codes be labeled as dominant. The interpretations for these trends are

described in the following themes. Additionally, in the themes discussed below I do not

129

refer to the partners by their specific research subject number in an attempt to maintain

anonymity and confidentiality among the partners and affiliates of the programs with

whom I spoke.

In the process of analyzing the partnerships individually, I identified six structural

themes as impacting the nature of the partnerships, namely: purpose, overall structure,

type of agency, individuals involved, the project, and the students in the curricula. The

themes are to some extent intertwined, as the purpose of the programs directly impacts

the overall structure, the types of partnering agencies, the individuals involved, and the

projects completed. So while the themes are described individually within this chapter,

the analysis should also be interpreted as an intertwining of themes, rather than distinct,

isolated structural elements. It is additionally worth noting that the fifth structural theme,

the project, addresses the third research question.

During the comparative analysis of the three programs, a main difference in the

role of the students in the curriculum came up as an important factor impacting the nature

of relationships with community partners. As a result, this was added as a sixth theme,

which highlights how the role of the students within the programs influences the nature of

the partnerships.

130

Table 5-1: Overview of the Codes for each Interviewee

131

5.2 Theme 1: Purpose

The intended purpose or goals stated in the program literature and expressed by the

participants were categorized in two main groups, transactional and cooperative. The

transactional purpose focused on the fact that there was an exchange dynamic where the

students were receiving an educational experience, and the partners were getting a useful

deliverable. The cooperative purpose focused on the act of working collaboratively

among the program participants as the goal for the partnership. This does not imply that

when the purpose were identified as transactional the collaborations was not valued, or

that there was no education for the student or lack of service to the partnering

organization when the purpose focused on the collaborative experience. Rather, there

tended to be two lenses the programs and participants could focus on as the purpose, and

this influenced the nature of the partnership. Programs with the transactional purpose

tended to include more transactional and cooperative interactions, and the cooperative

purpose tended to have more cooperative and communal interactions.

I found the central purpose for EPICS to have both transactional and cooperative

qualities. This purpose was identified within the published literature, embedded in the

Human Centered Design approach, and within the interviews. In the course of the overall

process (Theme 2), there are many interactions, such as checking a prototype or the

design reviews, where the students are working directly with individuals from the

partnering agencies. These interactions are highly valued by the programs as pivotal steps

in the design process. Some partnerships within the program focus on these interactions

as the main goal of the partnerships. In fact, a main goal in EPICS is centered on

providing a rich educational experience for the students: one that is hands-on, allows

students to take leadership positions, is interdisciplinary, and is attractive for women and

underrepresented minorities in the program. At the same time, they are providing not-for

profit organizations useful tools, expertise, and/or solutions so these partner organizations

can better meet their own goals and missions. These objectives are articulated in some of

the literature produced by EPICS research team (e.g., Zoltowski, et al., 2010) and are

further highlighted on the EPICS website, where the overview statement explains that

132

EPICS serves to provide community agencies access to technical expertise while

providing the students an educational experience: “Community service agencies … need

the help of people with strong technical backgrounds. Undergraduate students … need

educational experiences that can help them broaden their skills” (EPICS, 2014,

emphasis in the original). There is a service or a project being provided for the partner, in

exchange for an educational experience for students.

In order to achieve this goal, the EPICS program utilizes a Human Centered

Design (HCD) approach, where the user is at the center of the design process and there

are regular interactions with the user and other relevant stakeholders to determine issues,

gather feedback and figure out possible solutions (Zoltowski et al., 2010). This is a

critical step to incorporate the user in the process, and it teaches the students to design for

a user or customer, rather than a more technology-centered design approach where there

is a lack of understanding of the user experience.

This approach highlights how the EPICS program is aligned with transactional

and cooperative purposes. As explained in the methods section, Feinstein and

Meshoulam (2014) describe how the feedback approach, where a project is brought to a

community to get feedback and then the updates are done separately, is a client-oriented

approach. By contrast, the co-authorship approach, where the community is seen as co-

designers of programs and projects through mechanisms such as advisory committees and

being involved even when the project is not designed for them, is more cooperative. The

integration of the partner in this process can result in feedback, where the students

interpret the feedback and update the design separate from the community. This would

be transactional. The process could turn into a co-design situation where the partners are

integrated into the design process and oversee the team’s design work on a more regular

basis, which would be cooperative.

Both of these approaches were present in evidence collected from partners in

EPICS. Some of the time, the partners only had interactions with the students a few times

a semester, and the students worked on the projects separately and only sought feedback

at key points, while other partners described weekly meetings where the partners were

actively designing with the students. One project partner highlighted that this approach

133

varied based on the student group: “I have met weekly with some of these groups, not

recently, but those that are a little bit more labor intensive and the students are really

gung ho about getting [the project] done” (EPICS Project Partner). This partner

highlights that the approach can vary with the student group and depends on where the

students are at in the project cycle.

In the EPICS literature, a variety of language has been used to examine the

community; these include: ‘partner,’ ‘stakeholder,’ ‘community,’ ‘client,’ ‘customer,’ or

‘user’ (Coyle et. al, 2005; EPICS, 2014b; Zoltowski et al., 2010). Some of these

terminologies, such as ‘customer’ and ‘client,’ highlights the client-oriented approach of

the program, as there is a separation of identity present between the community/partner

and the students/advisors/staff of EPICS. Yet, there has also been a conscious effort,

especially in recent publications, to use the term ‘partner’ when referring to the

community, to highlight a more cooperative approach. The EPICS also frames itself as

“reciprocal in nature, valuing the partnership and recognizing the expertise brought by

the community partner.” (Zoltowski et al., 2010, p. 2).

In EPICS, some partners do describe the purpose of the partnerships as

transactional, focusing on the benefits for each group involved in the partnership. That is,

they realized that the program provides them with a useful product in exchange for a

valuable educational experience for the students. For example, one partner stated:

It’s a give and take thing. We provide [the students] with a real worldview

of what can be done and what can’t be done. I know years we shocked a

few people by explaining to them how things work in government and

how things work in the public sector. And they've given us a quality

product that we are still using today, 10 years, 11 years later. (EPICS

Project Partner)

This partner saw them giving the students an educational experience, in exchange for a

quality project that was highly beneficial for their organization. This purpose highlights

an exchange component of the program. It worked well for the partner, as both the

134

parties, the organization and the university, were able to get benefit from the exchange.

Three participants (one partner, one partner-advisor, and one advisor) explicitly

focused on the cooperative interactions as being a main purpose of the experience. One

participant, a project partner, stated that the main reason for involvement was the

partnerships, as it gave credibility to the organization:

My expectation [for being involved with EPICS] was that we would build

a successful partnership, and engage with the university, and hopefully, a

product would be developed as a result ... Because as an [organization],

with a conservation education message and mission, it’s very important to

engage with the institutions of higher learning, [which provides the

organization with] credibility. (EPICS Project Partner)

This highlights that the purpose was cooperative, since the act of being a partner was the

purpose for being involved in EPICS. Another participant, a partner-advisor, was able to

integrate the design process of EPICS into a new program within their agency:

It started with a project to some extent in terms of when I came to Purdue,

learning about EPICS through [a project partner] who was at that point

involved in a project, and then meeting with [EPICS administrators] and

just talking about ultimately my desire to, incorporate EPICS into a new

program. (Partner-Advisor)

Through this integration, students associated with the partnering agency started

collaborating with the EPICS teams, and the learning that the students did became an

important characteristic of their organization. This partner-advisor said that this was an

out-of-the-box approach, and was very beneficial to the students involved:

Incorporating EPICS as part of [the new program], it was very much an

out-of-the-box sort of piece for a program like ours, 'cause it’s not any

135

official requirement, except to the extent of communicating what you are

doing to other professionals. And what developed in the EPICS rotation,

in terms of what do you do as a [professional] and working with engineers

and a partner who is in need of support, it very much stretches [the

students associated with the organization] in terms of communication, and

learning the design process. (EPICS Partner-Advisor)

In this example, the boundary between the community/partner and the EPICS students

had been blurred, since the students, who are a part of the community, were integrated

into the EPICS program. This integration resulted in new type of collaboration, and this

collaboration had become the purpose of the partnership. These purposes are more

cooperative in nature, since they rely more on relationships, with an intent to decrease an

“us” and “them” boundary between the partnering agency and the program.

In the GPP-US the purpose focused on the students’ education, and the service to

the community was a secondary benefit. The focus is rooted in the history of the

Interactive Qualifying Projects (IQP), and confirmed by the interviews. This is

connected to the history of the program. A large step in the development of the

partnerships was the “WPI Plan” conceived of in the late 1960s (Dorsey, 1999). One of

the graduation requirements that came out of the “WPI plan” was the Interactive

Qualifying Project (IQP). The purpose of the IQP is to provide students with a learning

experience at the intersection of science, technology and society. The IQPs are the

projects the students are working on in the GPP-US experience. Through the interviews,

it was clear that the main purpose of the program was to provide an educational

experience for the students. This is further confirmed when looking back at the history of

the “WPI Plan,” which focused on the skills students needed to develop rather than

services provided to partner organizations or communities (Alstyne et al., 1969). Some

of the faculty and administration had explicitly stated personal motivations in providing

service for the community (see Chapter 4); however, this was not a stated goal of the

program. This was confirmed by one of the directors, one who stated:

136

A successful project is, from my perspective, which I'm honest with my

sponsors about, is a high quality academic experience for the students, and

then, secondary, that [the partners] find useful either in terms of an output,

but not necessarily an output, but the process by which they went to create

whatever output they did. (GPP-US Center Director).

Further, while I was interviewing one of the administrators about the IQP, I brought up

the notion of service learning, and the administrator made it clear to me that the IQP was

not service learning:

The IQP was never intended to be service learning. It's just that a lot of

them have elements where we're working with communities who can

benefit from the projects. So we don't have service, we don't set it up to be

service learning, we don't claim that it's service learning. And so, we don't

really think of it as service learning. (GPP-US Administrator)

In the GPP-US, there is a main purpose to provide the students with an educational

experience. They work with partnering organization, because they found that there is a

mutual benefit. There is a view of exchange in this way. A partner, while explaining

how s/he rationalizes the partnership in the budget line each year, further highlights this

exchange purpose of the partnership:

Some of the projects that we really, truly needed to do, and to get a vendor

in here to do the same level of quality, it's a great deal. So it's a good deal

for WPI, it's a great deal for the students to actually have something that

has meaning to it. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This partner organization sees that the projects completed by students are of high quality.

There is recognition that they will get a valuable product, and the students will get a

meaningful project. Even though the purpose is exchange oriented, the structure of the

137

program – which has the students spend seven-weeks at the site of the partnering

organization, as detailed in theme 2 – allows for a variation in transactional and

cooperative interactions.

In 1998, the faculty member stated that the original reason the Community

Playground Project (CPP) came into existence was to provide a design experience that

resonated with LSU students, as most LSU students had experience with playgrounds,

and to meet the need of an elementary school by providing them with a new playground.

This purpose was originally transactional. However, since the origin of the program, the

purpose expanded to focus more on cooperative qualities, specifically community

building. The critical incident that confirmed this transformation to the faculty member

that oversees the program was Hurricane Katrina. During this event, the faculty

member’s place in and responsibility to the community solidified:

There's a trench where people are down in it and they are working hard to

effect positive change. And I don't think I even realized I was part of a

trench, of a community tribe, if you will, until [Hurricane Katrina]. And

how important it was, how important [the trench] was for people impacted

and for people [in Baton Rouge]. (CPP Advisor)

During the relief effort, the faculty member volunteered and was deeply changed in this

process, as she witnessed the turmoil and kindness of a community in need. After the

experience with Hurricane Katrina, the purpose of the CPP was no longer primarily about

providing a design experience for the students, but rather equally community building.

The purpose moved the activities towards a cooperative and communal nature. This is

further highlighted on the CPP website which articulates that the program sees the

community as co-designers, and clearly identifies their role as working with the

community: “LSU faculty, staff, and students have worked alongside their community

partners to address the community needs, demonstrating a commitment to work with the

community, rather than simply providing a product for the community” (CPP, 2014).

Similar points were also emphasized in the interviews with the faculty, students

138

associated with the program, and the former administrator. Working with the community,

and seeing them as a part of the program, is a central purpose of the program, one that

permeated the structure and the nature of the partnerships.

One specific example of how the CPP integrates the purpose of working with the

community into the structure of the program can be found in the notion of designing for

the “soul of the community” that is underlined by the faculty member, and listed in the

syllabus (Lima, 2013). The LSU students need to design for the “soul of the community,”

since each elementary school has their own unique character, and their playground needs

to reflect that. When the playground project was first established, LSU students only had

short interactions with the elementary students, and the faculty member realized that the

LSU students could not know the elementary schools in deeper ways through these brief

interactions. The design process during this phase was more transactional, since the

interactions tended to be logistical. The faculty member then revised the structure, and

started partnering with another non-profit that sends reading and math buddies to public

elementary schools. The LSU students are now required to meet at least eight times with

an elementary student at the school they are designing with, reading with them, learning

about play through them, and getting to know them on a more personal level. This

activity shifts the purpose of the LSU design experience to focus on the interactions

between the community and the students since they found ways to get the elementary

students inputs, so their voice could be heard in the process and a personal relationship

can evolve.

The notion of community ownership is another characteristic that embeds the

program structure, influences the nature of the partnership, and highlights the purpose of

building community. The elementary students and the larger community are a part of the

design and process of getting the playgrounds built. Some ways this is done is through

having the elementary student vote to pick the colors and types of play equipment, having

local businesses support fundraising efforts, inviting the larger community to help build

the playground, and even in the language of how the playground is presented to the

community. One project partner I interviewed seemed to have a personal gift in bringing

community together, and had raised over seventy thousand dollars for the playground at

139

her school. When I asked about what elements created a transformational partnership,

she pointed to the importance of including everyone in the language that is used to talk

about such projects:

‘My’ is a word you don't really wanna use too much. It's ‘our’. So I think

that's really, really important. I would really focus on our playground,

because people will say my playground, you mean our playground? So

when you're doing communication, the verbiage is really important in how

you write things and how you present things and making people thank you

for helping us educate… To let everybody in the community feel their

responsibility. We are all responsible for the needs of our children. So

even the teachers, I would just correct their verbiage. If they would say

‘my’, I would just say, did you mean our playground? What are we gonna

do with our playground? What are we gonna do with this money? This is

our money, how should we use it? ‘We’, forget ‘me’, and ‘I’, and ‘my’.

That doesn't make for success. It doesn't. (CPP Partner, their emphasis)

The language that acknowledges the shared ownership highlights how the playground

project is communal in nature, since there is less emphasis on the individuals. The

identities transcend to a larger “we”.

However, not all the CPP participants focused on a cooperative purpose. One CPP

partner recognized the main purpose to get a playground for the elementary school. When

I asked a school principal about what they got out of the experience, and the principal

answered:

It's just something for the kids. They need something to play on during

recess. And the more you talk about the health issues and things that go

on, the schools don't have that much for the kids to play on during recess.

(CPP Partner)

140

This principal saw the CPP as providing a playground to support the children, in

exchange for an educational experience for the LSU students. This partner described the

relationship as an exchange.

To summarize this theme, EPICS had both qualities of transactional and

cooperative purpose. The discussion of exchanging benefiting the community with a

project for an educational experience of the students is present in the literature, and

vocalized by many of the partners. There is also cooperative, as the human-centered

design approach integrates the end user throughout the project, and some of the

participants stated that the act of working together and/or the partnership itself was the

purpose of being involved in the program. The GPP-US stated an exchange purpose, as

the education of the students were central, and there was a mutual benefit for the partner

organization. In the CPP, building community through playgrounds was a main purpose

identified by most of the participants, yet there were some partnerships that focused on a

more transactional purpose.

In each case, there are specific interactions and activities where the interviewee

describes the counter to the overall purpose of the program. The reason for this can be

linked to the other themes, such as the overall program structure, the type of agency,

individuals involved, or the projects. These themes are discussed in more detail in the

sections that follow.

5.3 Theme 2: Overall Structure

A prevalent discussion in the extant literature centers on the difference between

analyzing service learning partnerships using a theoretical framework that is grounded in

interpersonal relationships (Bringle & Clayton, 2012), and one that is grounded in

organizational theory (Janke, 2012). As mentioned in the literature review a group of

researchers, including Bringle and Clayton, ground their research in the notion that

partnerships are a series of individual relationships, and that examining these

relationships should be used to ground research on partnerships. But as Janke argued,

141

and Giles and Eyler (2013) agreed, it is important to also recognize organizational

structures while examining partnerships.

Based on the qualities discussed by Janke (2013) it seems that the partnerships in

GPP-US and EPICS represent interorganizational relationships, since the programs and

the partnering agencies themselves have distinct roles. According to Simon (1991)

organizations have prescribed roles and responsibilities, and according to Scott (2003)

organizational relationships are more likely to be durable, reliable and accountable

compared to individual relationships. These roles and responsibilities within the program

greatly influence the nature of the partnerships. Individuals in organizations are also

replaceable because of these roles. Interorganizational relationships (IORs) refer to

partnerships where the organizations involved keep their individual identities. There is

either a common interest or a need being met by the partnership.

Looking at the EPICS and GPP-US programs, there is a clear organizational

structure present that influences the relationships within the partnerships. On the other

hand, the CPP is more grounded in individual relationships, and more of the participants

spoke in terms of personal relationships rather than roles. If the members of a key

partnering agency, such as Food & Grounds, Inc., decided to pull out of the partnership in

some way, the structure of the CPP would have to be completely rearranged. Yet if the

members of a partnership in EPICS or GPP-US pulled out, they would likely be able to

find another organization that could take their place, likely with relatively little issue or

difficulty.

The first phase of analysis attempted to use the Phillips-Ward framework that

categorized trends found in other service-learning partnerships. Due to the unique case

histories, context and organizational structure, the GPP-US Sponsorships did not fit the

framework. As noted earlier, the TCC coding framework was then developed based on

previous literature (see methods section) and used to code specific interactions, activities

and language in data. This section will go over the structures of all three programs, and

highlight specific aspects of each program that tend to be more transactional, cooperative

and/or communal.

142

5.3.1 Overall Structural Influence of EPICS

In EPICS, there is a general framework for how partnerships operate, and how

projects come into being, specific design processes used by teams, and specific

deliverables that the students are expected to submit during the course of each semester.

The students work in interdisciplinary and vertically integrated teams, i.e., the teams

consist of students from across majors and levels of undergraduate education, from first-

year to senior. They focus primarily on undergraduate students, however, there are a few

graduate programs that EPICS has partnered with, and so in these incidences the graduate

students also take the EPICS course. Many of the participants described these teams as a

cooperative experience, and in one partnership, the students associated with the

partnering organization also take the EPICS course. For this team, students associated

with the partnering organization work alongside the other EPICS students in a

cooperative way, where the other EPICS teams consist of engineering and other students

from across campus that signed up for EPICS and were put on a team, but were not

otherwise associated with the partnering organization.

Some of the structural elements directly impacted the nature of the partnership.

However, some partnerships were also inflected by the personal autonomy of the

stakeholders within the general framework and this resulted in the natures of the

partnerships varying, such as depending on the personalities and skill levels of the

involved individuals (i.e. students, advisors and project partners). Also, there were times

when the teams deviated from the EPICS process, and this tended to result in more

unilateral kinds of transactional interactions. For EPICS, I found specific relevant factors

based on the interviews; specifically, how the students learn about the partnering agency,

the decision process to determine which projects will be worked on for a semester, the

feedback mechanisms on the projects, design reviews, and building long-term

relationships.

To begin, each semester the students are introduced to the partnering agency,

often by a tour of the facilities, personal research, and description by either students who

have been on the team for an extended period of time, the partner, and/or the advisor. For

example, one partner described the introduction as giving facts about the organizations:

143

I cover the physical facilities, what we have available. I discuss, in

general, what is our mission, education, and conservation education. I tell

them facts about the organization so that they can have some ownership …

I give them organizational facts. How many staff we have, how many

hours we log on, annually, special events that we hold. (EPICS Project

Partner)

These interactions and activities were often described as logistical, and recognized the

boundary between the EPICS students and the partnering organization. The students are

given factual information that they would need in order to create a service or product.

Thus, these interactions and activities were found to be transactional in nature, as the

students are learning about the agency as outsiders. However, there were some examples

mentioned in the interviews were students where spending their weekends working

alongside volunteers affiliated with the organization. There is also a newer program, not

included in this study, where the EPICS students worked as camp counselors to get to

know the campers with disabilities on a personal level prior to designing for them

(Cummings, Zoltowski, Hsu, Cardella, & Oakes, 2014). These approaches are more

cooperative and communal in nature, since there are personal relationships being built

with the intention of blurring boundaries and building community among the EPICS

students and the campers.

The process to determine which projects the students should work on was often

described as a cooperative process involving the advisors, students in leadership positions,

project partners, and teaching assistants. The partners decided which projects were most

needed for the organization and worked with the advisors, students, and teaching

assistances to determine the how the projects could fit with the abilities of the students.

For instance, one project partner described how their local non-profit organization

selected projects and then discussed the projects with EPICS teams to match the skill sets

available:

144

[The EPICS team] normally will say, we are going to deploy a project this

semester, and prior to that deployment they will say, can you come up

with X number of ideas, selecting two that are most important to you. So

then I brainstorm with my staff, and we determine what our needs are and

determine what our final two choices are. Then I will present to the EPICS

group and have them select, or work with them, to determine what skill

sets they possess on that current team. (Project Partner)

This interaction is cooperative in nature since they are working together to determine

which project would be most appropriate for the students to work on given both the needs

of the organization and the skill level of the students.

However, one participant stated that there were times when the project definition

is not established cooperatively. This participant spoke of how his/her experience veered

from the program’s policies. When asked what how project are chosen, this participant

stated:

[It’s a] somewhat convoluted process, at least it has been for me, the

[EPICS policy] is the students will meet with the project partner fairly

early on, and ask the project partner their needs, and then come up with

design that, or projects that meet those needs and they will go through the

design process, interact with the project partner to come up with the

design specifications that meet the project partners needs umm, and then

build up to that, that is suppose to work. (EPICS Partner-Advisor)

As this statement suggests, there was recognition that the process was intended to be

cooperative. Yet in this same partner-advisor’s experience, this did not correspond with

the actual process:

What often happens is the students come to the project partner and say that

we have this great idea with this, the project partner is kind of, well you

145

know if they are doing it for me I will go along with that and then it

becomes such that over the course of the time it really doesn’t meet their

needs overall, but it’s kind of so large in scope that it becomes so complex

and they really can’t deal with it. (EPICS Partner-Advisor)

This partner-advisor followed this description with another example, where a partner

(from an organization that the partner-advisor was not affiliated with) approached

him/her and said that the project was not meeting the needs of their organization, and that

it was too large in scope and they wanted smaller projects. The advisor was then able to

refocus the group to better meet the needs of the organization. In this instance, the

original decision on what project the students should work on did not address the

organization’s needs, so the interaction was recognized as being of a unilateral-

transactional nature. However, once the partner-advisor was able to listen to the partner

and work out a way to meet the needs of the organization within the students’ capabilities,

the interaction became cooperative. This was the only participant in the interviews where

the partner’s voice was not included in project definition, but it seemed like this dynamic

stemmed from a miscommunication, where the project partner did not feel comfortable

stating their actual needs and the students were designing based on an incorrect

understanding of those needs. This example also diverged from official EPICS policies

that state that the projects are supposed to meet the needs of the organizations to begin

with, and that the project partner needs to be involved in project definition.

After the projects are identified, the students work on the projects throughout the

course of the semester, and the teams have varying degrees of contact with the project

partners. For example, some partners work as advisors for the EPICS teams, other

partners meet regularly with student teams at the organization site, some only meet a few

times a semester to give feedback on the projects, and others had limited availability to

meet with the teams and communicated primarily via e-mail and phone. Reflecting this

variation, the contact between the students and the project partners involved a range of

cooperative and transactional interactions. When there was a higher degree of

involvement in the context of such interactions, and the voice of the partner was an

146

integral part of the design experience, it was coded as “cooperative.” When the EPICS

teams got information from the partner in a systematic way, seeking to understand

specific logistics about the project, the interactions and activities were considered

transactional-non-unilateral. When the students veered from the EPICS policies and did

not listen to the needs or priorities of the project partner, or the project partner was either

not available or showed a lack of awareness regarding the capabilities of the students, the

interactions and activities were considered transactional-unilateral. The specific

individuals’ approach, and the importance of students listening to stakeholders are

discussed further below in themes 5 and 6.

Another structural feature that checks on the work of the student teams is the

design review. The design review is an activity involving partners, alumni, and

professional engineers who view and evaluate the presentations from students reporting

on their project progress twice a semester. The activity itself harnesses and builds

relationships, and integrates these stakeholders into the EPICS program, and in this sense

it is cooperative in nature. Further, one former student described it as a communal

activity:

Why I come back to do EPICS, and why I think EPICS is important, is

because, I feel privileged to have an engineering education, and to have an

engineering background. If you look at the need for engineers, and how

many people actually are engineers, it’s a huge gap. And so, volunteering

my skills, seeing how I can use my skill set to help people is a really big

thing, but you have to see that need and kind of have the patience and

compassion to apply it. (EPICS Former student)

This excerpt was coded as communal, since this student’s comment indicates deeper

intent to use his/her engineering skills in order to help a broader community.

The final structural element that will be mentioned in this section is the long-term

partnership model. Each semester, the students are expected to create timelines, keep a

journal, and turn in specific deliverables for the course. Yet the projects are not strictly

147

bound by a specific semester and can potentially go from one semester to the next. Most

of the partners saw this as a useful and a needed component of EPICS. One of the

benefits of the long-term model is that when a project partner knows there is an issue

with a project, the team can correct it and fix it, even after it has been deployed. EPICS

can also retrieve and store a project once it is not needed any more (such as an interactive

kiosk intended for use by visitors to a local organization that the organization no longer

wanted on site). Also, there is a degree of personal relationship that forms through long-

term partnerships. For example, one partner described some friendships that formed

among the EPICS staff:

I think I have a very good relationship with their whole staff. I really like

them, they are real supportive, and they donate to us. I've become really

good friends with [a staff member] … I can be honest with them, there is a

lot of transparency without hurt feelings. (EPICS Project Partner)

This interaction is coded as communal in nature, since this partner feels s/he can be open

with the EPICS staff about the program, and there is a personal relationship that is

forming that transcends the respective roles of the project partner and EPICS staff

members.

One challenge that arises from the long-term model is that some projects take

longer than expected to deliver. The majority of the participants were expecting faster

deployment times when they entered into the partnerships. Yet the participants also

understood that the projects were complex, it was a learning experience, and that students

had other responsibilities outside of EPICS. A few others that said that if there were a

faster turn-around time, there could be other opportunities in their organization to utilize

the EPICS students. When asked what they would like to change about EPICS, one

partner pointed to the length of response time:

The timeliness, getting responses quicker, and if they could respond

quicker to, you know, come up with solutions quicker, it would be more

148

useful. A lot of the problems I give them, I need the answers fairly quick.

And to wait 3 months, 2 and half months for an answer, I usually have it

figured out by then. (EPICS Project Partner)

This interaction is coded as transactional-unilateral, since the length of time resulted in a

project that not was useful to the organization. In addition, some of the advisors also

anticipated shorter deployment times when starting with EPICS, but saw the educational

benefits associated with longer deployment processes. One advisor discussed the issues

s/he faced when starting with EPICS:

As engineers we like to see the product delivered, the manuals done, the

users using the manuals, and showing that everything is fine, and it was

very frustrating for me my very first semester in EPICS when that didn’t

happen. And it’s like, “what, weren't we supposed to deliver this?” [An

EPICS staff member] called me aside and said, you know, we have been

working with [this organizations] for 12 years at that point in time, and

they know we are working with students of all different classes, as far as

the grade levels, all different disciplines and we are not a consulting

company that is going to be returning a solution for them at the end of the

semester so we asked for them to help us in the process of not just

delivering a product, but also through the process of helping students

learn. (EPICS Advisor)

This interaction is complex and is both transactional and cooperative, as it recognizes that

the emphasis is sometimes on the students, and that there will be times of unilateral

activities, where the students are learning and the partners are not receiving a direct

benefit. During such periods there may be a greater dependence on the long-term

relationships within the partnership, and in this way the dynamic is cooperative. It is the

job of EPICS staff to make sure that the project partners have realistic expectations. This

149

is done through having the partners sign a memorandum of understanding that goes

through the expectations of the EPICS partners in the program.

Overall, within each of the five steps reviewed (how the students learn about the

partnering agency, the decision process to determine which projects will be worked on

for a semester, the feedback mechanisms on the projects, design reviews, and building of

long-term relationships), there were varying degrees of nature from transactional-

unilateral to cooperative and some times communal. The EPICS program structure

allows it to be scalable and keep a certain degree of consistency across partnerships, but

also allows the partnerships enough flexibility to have unique approaches and dynamics

across the differing sites.

5.3.2 Overall Structural Influence of GPP-US

Like EPICS, in the GPP-US, there are established routines and methods on how

projects and interactions unfold. From the data, it was found that the routines can be

discussed in terms of four more specific categories of interaction: identification of a

project, preparation course, on-site experience, and assessment. These procedures impact

the nature of the interactions between the stakeholders of the partnerships.

The first category is the identification of an appropriate project. The project is

identified through conversations between the center director and sponsor, and is done

months prior to the students working on-site. One sponsor described the process as a

fleshing out of ideas with the center director:

Usually what I'll do is I'll either call or email, at least at this point [the

Center Director], and say, "Here's what I've got for some ideas." And

[s/he'll] say, "All right, this kinda makes sense"[or] "I don't think this

works." We went back and forth on [one project]. I think I maybe didn't

express myself the way I wanted and so [s/he] didn't think it was

something that [would work].... So we ran into each other, we talked about

a little bit, once we sort of fleshed it out, [s/he] said, "Oh that's great." So I

150

submit them to [them], and s/he kinda decides where they're gonna fit into

the long-term plan for students. (GPP-US Sponsor)

These interactions are most often cooperative in nature, as they consist of two individuals

working together to figure out which projects most appropriately meet the needs of both

the students and the agency. Expertise in each domain is respectively recognized by the

project sponsor and the center director, as the sponsor knows the agency, and the center

director often knows what project would align with the desired learning outcomes, would

be of interest to the students, and is likely appropriate for the students’ ability and

timeframe.

The second category that emerged as significant within the data is the preparation

course. During the preparation course, the sponsor has limited communication with the

students and the advisors. Students are directly learning a variety of skills, techniques

and knowledge that are expected to be helpful during their experience on-site. The

interactions with the sponsors are logistical at this stage, as the students are gathering

information to complete their project proposals that are due at the end of the term. The

proposal is an outline of the intended steps to be completed throughout the seven weeks

onsite. During this phase, interactions are transactional in nature, as the boundaries

between the different partners are well established. In fact, when asked about the their

role within a projects generally, one sponsor highlighted how there was minimal

interaction within the preparation course: “I am generally not too involved in the first

seven weeks other than maybe an interview or two, maybe an email response here and

there” (GPP-US Sponsor).

The next category of interactions is the seven-week on-site portion of the project,

where students spend around forty hours a week working on the project. Many of the

interactions and activities on-site are outside the control of the GPP-US. The program is

therefore blurring geographical, organizational, and sectorial boundaries by having the

students on-site with the sponsoring agency, and in this way the activity is cooperative.

However, the interactions are largely in the hands of the sponsoring agency involved

during this stage. This period can be very intense, as the students are attempting to get

151

the projects completed in time. As the same sponsor quotes in the previous paragraph

went on to explain:

Then the next seven weeks, it's them coming and really that's the

whirlwind of work... It's a sort of welcome distraction because they show

up and it's like, ‘All right, let's get this project done.’ And it's trying to

figure out how to finalize that work in those seven weeks. (GPP- US

Sponsor)

The advisors work with students and sponsors to ensure that the projects are ethically

appropriate and support students, yet the central interactions are between the students and

the agency. During this on-site portion, the types of agencies, the individuals guiding the

partnerships, and the project (themes three through five) have significant influence on the

nature of interactions.

The last category is evaluation and assessment. It is the role of the GPP-US and

the advisor to determine achievement of the program learning outcomes by assessing

each students’ accomplishments. Also, there is no input from the sponsors on the desired

learning outcomes of the experience, as these are consistent for all students per the IQP

requirements (WPI, 2004). However, some advisors will seek input from the sponsor or

students during the assessment process. Most sponsors also have anticipations for student

accomplishment that might align with the learning outcomes; however, they often focus

on the completion and usefulness of the project, while the program grades students on

writing ability, critical thinking, etc. (see Table 3-2). Many of the partners were

impressed with the students’ accomplishments, and that is why they continue the

partnerships. In all these ways, the determining of learning outcomes and assessment is

transactional in nature; there is a well-established boundary between GPP-US (i.e.,

advisors, students, administrators) and the sponsoring agency when it comes to learning

outcomes and assessment.

Overall, the GPP-US uses a variety of approaches that resulted in transactional

and cooperative interactions in the partnerships. The project definition was cooperative,

152

the preparation course was transactional, the on-site portion was more cooperative but

more in the hands of the partnering agency, and the assessment was transactional. The

transactional approaches allow for greater consistency and scalability, which ultimately

has allowed the program to grow to serve over 500 students per year. The cooperative

dynamics have helped enable more unique experiences across sites, and allowed

community voice to exist within the partnerships. The sections below also discuss other

factors that contribute to variability across partnerships, including: the type of agency, the

partnership delegation, and the type of projects. But before addressing these themes, it is

necessary to discuss some of the key structural features of the third case.

5.3.3 Overall Structural Influence of CPP

The overarching structure for the CPP is centered on a flow of different stakeholders

that come together to create a playground. This is more variable depending on the

context and circumstances of a given project, such as support from the partner school and

availability of funding. I refer to this structure as a network of support. Nonetheless, there

are some common steps that the CPP often takes when designing the playground, since

most of the projects are done for elementary schools in the East Baton Rouge Parish, and

there are certain partners present in every playground project (Theme 3). However, the

specific playground creation process can often vary based on the unique needs of a

certain school (Theme 4). The faculty member describes the structure as following:

There's a structure and there's almost like a set of people associated with

each phase of the playground project. And a lot of the players are the

same, like me, like [Food & Grounds Inc.], like children is a cohort, like

volunteers. But a lot of the specifics are different and dictated by the

situation and it's fun to watch the process unfold and then we just carry a

few people from each project to the next and it just builds... Has built

itself. (CPP Faculty member)

153

The nature of this structure is frequently cooperative, since there are groups and

individuals coming together, as a team, to get the project completed; however, when a

group does a task independently, the activity was coded as transactional because the task

in question emphasizes roles and responsibilities among distinct groups of people. There

were also frequent co-occurrences of cooperative and communal natures when the overall

structure overlapped with the purpose of community (Theme 1), since there are different

groups working for a common goal (cooperative) with the intention of building

relationships and community (communal). Below is an excerpt of one of the employees

of F&G, who described their tasks in the design process, and linked it to the relationships

that have been formed and the purpose of benefiting the kids:

We were tasked to do a yearly inspection of their playgrounds. Assess the

condition, the age, the usability, and the life expectancy of each individual

unit. And then I would put together a ranking of those sites that had units

or did not have units. And each year I would forward that ranking to [the

faculty member]. And she would do some fundraising, when she was able,

and we were able to get funding. Then we would put our resources

together and our volunteers together to install playgrounds. And we have

been doing it every year, ever since. And it has been a great relationship

between LSU and [Food & Grounds Inc.] and [the school district]. And I

know kids that have definitely benefited from all the stuff that we've been

able to do, doing that. (CPP Partner)

This excerpt was coded for all three natures: transactional, cooperative, and communal.

The partner is looking at and ranking the schools independently and then providing a list

to the faculty member, so this step is independent and is considered transactional. They

then come together and mobilize resources, which is cooperative. Then finally the partner

mentions the relationships formed and the benefits to the kids, highlighting the third

nature, communal.

154

The network of support more specifically provides three important characteristics:

the domain knowledge that each groups brings, the foundational trust of the long term

relationship while entering new partnerships, and the ability to rely on this network to

overcome obstacles. It is worth noting that the stakeholder domain knowledge and long-

term trust were also present in the other sites; yet these were not explicitly discussed nor

was the overall structure of the program centered on these characteristics. But in the case

of CPP, the evidence collected for this study indicates that these characteristics greatly

influenced the structure of the program.

One specific characteristic of the network of support is the domain knowledge

that each of the stakeholders bring. The LSU first-year course, LSU design team, F&G,

elementary students, teachers, principals, the school board, community volunteers, and

the faculty members are each an important part of the network and bring specific

knowledge to the CPP. The first-year biological engineering students contribute their

own life experiences, learn playground safety and building codes, and provide the initial

design for the project. The LSU design team takes the initial designs to make the final

project, creates the bid specifications, and assists with allocating and securing funding.

F&G provides the initial assessment by creating a list of schools who are the most in need,

does a lot of the build up and drainage for the playgrounds, and provides much needed

volunteer construction expertise for the actual build. The elementary students are experts

in play. The teachers and principals know the school structure and the community well,

and they can also be great supporters for getting the funding for the school. The

community volunteers provide funds and “sweat equity” on the day of the builds. The

faculty member coordinates the process, teaches the LSU students, and makes sure that

the funding is secure through the LSU side. Overall, each group has a specific domain

expertise, and individuals can have informal roles; this structure results in a combination

of transactional and cooperative interactions and activities.

When an activity is done in isolation, either by an individual or a group of

individuals within the same stakeholder group (e.g. students), the activity is transactional

because the interactions are limited and one stakeholder is essentially doing a task for the

other partners of the CPP. This allows for ease of operation and can often be highly

155

appropriate for a specific task, especially those that require a large amount of expertise.

Yet there were often times when there was collaboration involving different domain

knowledge and informal educational activities were taken advantage of. One example is

from the LSU student who discussed that the most beneficial part of the CPP was

learning from different stakeholders. The student described the experience of learning

how to build playgrounds:

When we're building the playground equipment, you don’t follow the

manual, but really you follow the guy who has done this a hundred times.

… I walked around with little flags and he tells me where to put the flag.

And I ask him, "Okay, why did you put the flag like that?" … He found

that I was interested in learning about it so he goes, "Okay now use a T

square here, now use a second T square here, and that's where to put this

circle. The circle's gonna be bigger than this circle, so we need to put two

flags here." … When we were laying out holes for a slide I asked why he

put the ladder opposite from the direction the kids were approaching the

playgrounds. He replied, ", you always face a slide north.” The slides heat

up when you face them south. Turns out, [the faculty member] had no

idea about that either, though it completely makes sense… In my

curriculum I'm starting to learn how to design things that design energy

flows. This guy's been doing it for a while. He just goes out there and

goes, "South, this way." [chuckle]... You can learn so much from

everybody you work with…. That has been, I guess, the biggest thing that

I've benefited from working on the playground projects. (CPP Student)

This excerpt shows how the expert from the playground build was able to teach the

student who was interested in builds. The two individuals have clearly distinct roles, and

are working together. These roles have not been transcended, which would be communal,

yet there is a team-like relationship and each individual’s expertise is recognized and

utilized for the project. Thus this excerpt is marked as cooperative.

156

The network of support can also be relied on to provide validity and trust to new

partnerships. This is most important at the beginning of each spring semester as the first-

year LSU course is partnered with one or two local elementary schools in need of a

playground. The schools at this time do not know the CPP, and might not initially trust

their ability to follow through with the playground. Yet if the school principals are

introduced to the CPP through members of the school board, and the LSU students are

reading and math buddies through another non-profit that has a long standing relationship

with the elementary school, the elementary schools can build trust faster as the

connections with the other organizations highlight the CPP’s credibility. A former

administrator at LSU described the different relationships present:

Some parts of [the faculty member’s] partnership she can keep from year

to year. Her partnership with the school system and the facilities services

group that she works with keep going from year to year. They are her on-

going partnership; she has been working with them for years, so that part

is probably easier because she doesn't have to reestablish that for each

build. The school system as a whole knows her, trusts her, and the

administrators know her and they talk among each other. So she has that

advantage of a long-term project, but still she has to start over each time at

a new school. Each school has its own culture, just like each classroom

has its own culture. (CPP Former Administrator)

The faculty member is able to create a sense of trust with the schools, which provides

credibility for the program. This is valuable as the program is constantly creating new

partnerships each year while other kinds of partnerships continue. The act of relying on

the existing relationships highlighting trust and credibility is communal in nature, since it

relies on the value of the relationship and it is less structured.

The final characteristic of the network is the ability to rely on the network of

support in addressing obstacles. All interviewees recognized funding as the biggest

challenge, and the financial issue is latent with many political issues (discussed in Theme

157

3). The funding source is highly unique to the specific school, as funding can come from

grants, local businesses, and/or fundraisers. One partner described that she received a

small grant for the playground, and the faculty member was able to assist by leveraging

her network and get surfacing so more money could be spent on equipment:

The money that we received for our playground, it wasn't very much, so

we knew we were just gonna get the basics. But [the faculty member]

knows the people in the office that works with school systems so she was

able to say, "Look, I know that they set aside money for the mulch, call

this person. Well, better yet, let me talk to them." So, she was able to get

the school system to put in and help us out with this playground, so that

we were able to spend more money on the actual structure. (CPP Partner)

The network of support is relied on to receive additional funding if needed. If

playgrounds are down a few thousand dollars, the listserv of volunteers will be asked to

donate and provide the additional funds. The F&G has also provided additional concrete

when needed.

The advisory committee highlights another example of the ability to rely on the

network of support. When I was there in February 2014, the faculty member was

establishing an advisory committee that would insure that all playgrounds in the school

system would be completed in the next five to ten years:

I've done enough work in my community with the playgrounds, that I'm

going to put together an advisory committee of community leaders, and

give them a presentation, "Here's what we've done, here's where we are

and here's where we're going." I used to think it would take my whole

career to do every public school in the city, it will not. I think I can get it

done in five to 10 years. (CPP Advisor)

158

Using this network to address challenges is cooperative and communal in nature, as

individuals are coming together and working to overcome a challenge (cooperative), and

they are relying on the relationships while building and transforming communities

(communal).

5.3.4 Evaluation of the Overall Structure’s Influence of the Programs

Overall, all three of the programs provide structural elements that are relatively

consistent across partnerships. For EPICS and GPP-US the process is more systematic,

and for the CPP it is more malleable depending on the specific individuals and

circumstances. In EPICS and GPP, there is a phase of project definition that is often

cooperative, while the process of working on the project can vary per site. In the CPP,

what a playground looks like and how it comes into being is different at each site, yet

there are some overall themes and constituents that are consistent across the projects.

There are always elementary students; there are always faculty, the F&G, teachers,

school principals, etc. All three of the programs also depend on a variation of

transactional and cooperative approaches. The transactional approaches are most often

used for appropriateness, ease or urgency. These approaches also allow the programs to

have consistency and scalability within the programs. Yet there were always times when

members from across stakeholder groups were working together, and these interactions

and activities tend to be cooperative in nature. The cooperative approaches have given

more unique experiences across sites, and allowed the partnering organization to

influence the partnerships to varying degrees. The variation of interactions is consistent

to Feinstein and Meshoulam’s (2014) findings with client and cooperative logic. The

client logic, similar to transactional interactions, allowed for the policies across

partnerships and gave a sense of uniqueness to the program, and cooperative logic allows

for more dynamic connections with communities.

The next theme will review how the nature of the partnering agency influences

the nature of the partnership.

159

5.4 Theme 3: Partnering Agency

In all three of the programs, there were partners who described structures, natures,

missions, and/or philosophies of their organizations, and these characteristics often

influenced the nature of the interactions and activities within the partnerships. Some

partnering agencies were more transactional and others were more cooperative or

communal. In addition, there were some organizations that were more likely to create an

emotional connection among the varying stakeholders. This was especially the case

when the partnering agency represented marginalized or vulnerable communities, such as

children with low socio-economic status, individuals suffering from a chronic illness, or

individuals with disabilities.

In this theme, I discuss examples of partnerships from each of the three programs

that represented transactional, cooperative and communal relationships with

organizations and how these programs influenced the partnerships. Then I highlight some

emotional connections the stakeholders had with the partnering agency, and how these

connections pushed the interactions toward relationships with more cooperative and

communal natures. I conclude this theme in discussing the importance of aligning the

type of agencies with the type of nature and structure the program wants to have.

Some partnering organizations were more transactional in nature. In the EPICS

case two of the partners described their agency as client-oriented. One of the partners was

a governmental agency and served a particular clientele, while the other served a

disenfranchised community by employing them to produce products for local companies.

The latter described how saving time was a core principal of their organization, as well as

how the students need to understand this principal to produce appropriate products:

I tried to communicate with [the students] that the main thing we are

looking for is “time is money”, and the more time you spend on a job, the

more it’s going to cost you, because of labor cost. And sometimes the

students over-engineer things and make it complicated to the point where

it is not economically feasible to do it that way. (Project Partner)

160

The mission of saving money is linked to positive outputs for the community, such as

increased standard of living and more programing the organization can provide. This

organization is trying to increase its economic efficiency, and the students are providing a

service to potentially achieve this goal. This outcome-oriented focus results in

transactional activities since projects have clear desired outcomes and potential benefits,

and then the relationship is recognized for the benefits the constituents mutually offer one

another.

In GPP-US, one of the partners is a large Federal Agency. This federal agency is

bureaucratic, and has a strong union. This agency has many transactional interactions,

where the boundaries between “us” and “them” were heightened. The sponsor working

with the student was a manager. Most of the employees are well educated, and the agency

is housed within many large buildings on the outskirts of the city. This agency takes in a

group of students each year to do a project. Many of these projects are needed within the

agency, are at the appropriate skill level for the students, and have lasting impacts. In

addition to the actual project, the sponsor recognizes that the students offer an additional

benefit by serving as outside evaluators:

So again, success on [that project] was that it validated [the data], because

we have a fairly strong union here. And having to get a third party

independent of management that came in and said, ‘Hey, this is what your

marketing unit members said during the surveys and so forth.’... It gives us

ability to move forward. (GPP-US Sponsor)

Having the students be a “third party” increases the boundary between the stakeholders

and further separates the students, the sponsor, the employees and the society they serve.

Nonetheless, this boundary provides validity to the project outcomes, and so in this case,

a more cooperative or communal partnership could actually be detrimental for the project.

If the students were identifying as a part of management or the employees in the union,

there is a risk that the other party would not trust the results.

161

One of the key partners in the CPP is LSU. LSU is a research-intensive, land

grant university with a bureaucratic structure and culture that houses the CPP. LSU has

strict policies for how contractors bid for playgrounds and how to purchase equipment

from grants. These policies at LSU are transactional in nature, since there are systematic

structures that create clear boundaries within the partnership. It can result in a lot of

obstacles in the creation of the playground, as the system is not designed to finance

projects with many funding sources. Yet one benefit of this process is that it ensures a

fair treatment for contractors. The faculty member stated that one contractor threatened a

lawsuit after they did not receive the bid, but because of the LSU procedure the company

did not have a claim.

Another critical partner for the CPP is the school system. The school system has

both transactional and cooperative interactions due to its unique context. The school

system is underfunded and has a history of race and class tensions. Choosing to work

with this school system is a clear choice from a needs perspective. The East Baton Rouge

Parish busses students throughout the city due to a 1994 desegregation lawsuit that found

that elementary schools were still divided by race lines, since the schools were divided by

neighborhood which were often segregated (Lima 2013). Once bussing students became

widespread, many wealthy white families took their children out of public schools, and

certain neighborhoods have broken away from the school district. The Baton Rouge

schools are now around seventy-nine percent black students (Baton Rouge Area Chamber,

2006) in a community that is about forty-six percent black (US Census Bureau, 2014).

From the interviews it was clear that the school board policies indicate that for each

elementary school built, there is a playground; however, funding for repair and new

equipment is the responsibility of the school. Since many of these schools have a high

percentage of students on free lunch programs and are often underfunded, there are little

opportunities to raise the money for the playgrounds through fundraisers. When the

equipment gets older and is deemed unsafe, the playgrounds are removed and the schools

are left with little or no play equipment. These factors result in a great need for

playgrounds in many of the Baton Rouge public schools.

162

There are set policies and expectations that can result in transactional and

cooperative interactions and activities with the partner schools. This is notable in the

school hierarchy and the standardized testing. At the elementary schools, the principal

makes final decisions. Most principals have the well-being of the students in mind, and

they will sometime see that playgrounds, or certain pieces of equipment, are not

appropriate or safe for the students. Some may not approve of monkey bars, merry-go-

rounds, enclosed slides, or even having a playground at all. The design team will often

advocate for the elementary students on what they said they wanted, and explain how the

equipment can be used safely. However, the principal makes the final decision, and so the

CPP needs to respect this in order to be a good partner. This decision process can be

transactional in nature if the principal makes the decision without the input of the other

stakeholders.

Preparing elementary students for the standardized tests is a central responsibility

of the public schools. For this reason, it can be difficult to convince teachers to take time

away from this task to discuss playground design. In order to recognize and assist in the

elementary schools, the LSU students volunteer to tutor the elementary students in math

and reading to prepare the elementary students for the tests. This is a way to

accommodate the needs of the schools and is both transactional and cooperative. There is

one stakeholder, the LSU students, providing a service for another, namely the

elementary students. This interaction of the reading or math buddy allows the CPP to fill

a need of the school district, and thus is transactional since the roles and responsibilities

in the reading portion are well defined. The reading and math buddy program also allows

the elementary students and LSU students a chance to discuss play and know each other

more personally; this allows the interaction to be more cooperative. The CPP is able to

draw on the elementary students’ expertise of play while respecting the priorities of the

school to focus on standardized tests.

Each of the programs also had partners that had more cooperative natures. For

instance, EPICS Partners 4 and 5 described partnerships as a core component of their

organization. One of these participants was part of a large non-profit that had a local

chapter that partnered with EPICS. This partner described how the organization gets

163

their needs met by working with a variety of partners, and if they had not been involved

with EPICS, their needs would eventually be met by some other means:

[The organization] is kind of like hitch-hiking: you have a need and you

put your thumb out, - whoever picks you up so to speak, you ride with

them as long as you can. So it’s no different than any problem that we

have. Whether it’s receiving help for designing a [project], whoever can

help us, we find them. I guess what I am saying is that EPICS is not

indispensible; we, we would find help some way. (EPICS Project Partner)

The approach of this organization is more cooperative in nature, since there is a clear

openness in structure, and there are not set expectations for the partner organization. This

openness resulted in projects that were more malleable and so the students were required

to put more energy into understanding the complex circumstances of the project, and this

resulted in more cooperative interactions. As a result, some students would spend

weekends volunteering and becoming more involved with the organization.

In GPP, the partnering organization with the most cooperative interactions and

activities relied on partnerships with local hospitals, as well as other non-profits such as

food banks, to improve the lives of the community they were serving. The sponsors

described these partnerships as cooperative in nature, and they recognized themselves as

being a part of the community rather than being separate from it. One way they created

this integration was to hire the staff from the community they were serving. The staff

often had little formal educational experience. In fact, many did not have their GEDs, and

were often intimidated by the computers. The partners brought the students into the staff

meetings and included them in their work functions. In the interview, the partners

stressed the importance of including the students in the organization: “we have our

program services meeting with all the staff on Wednesdays, and we invited them right

into those meetings, so they became part of the staff essentially.”

During the course of the experience, the students bonded with the community

partners, provided computer education for the staff, and were described by the staff as

164

patient and kind. The partners also said that since the GPP-US students were there, the

staff have given PowerPoint presentations in meetings, a task that the staff were unable to

complete prior to the GPP-US students teaching them, and was very useful for the

organization. This activity points to the action of fostering capacity within a community

organization, which is cooperative in nature since it allows the community to take

ownership of the knowledge rather than having the GPP-US be the exclusive holders of

the relevant expertise.

In the CPP, a critical partner is F&G, the private company that maintains the

grounds of the public elementary schools. As noted above, one F&G employee is a state

playground inspector, and each year he goes through the playgrounds at the school

district and makes a list of the top ten schools that are in most in need of new

playgrounds. The list is then used to determine which elementary school the LSU

students will work with each year. This employee is a primary partner with the faculty

member and is core to the CPP. F&G also determines where the playground will be

placed based on drainage, will do any needed build up for the site, and will provide

equipment and labor. Since F&G are experts in maintenance, playground designs are

often checked with F&G to make sure that the design choices would not require a higher

degree of maintenance, like ropes that could easily fray.

Yet the partnership of F&G with the CPP is not part of the contract F&G has with

the school district. The interviewees say that the motivation for F&G’s involvement with

the CPP is connected to the company’s mission to give back to their community and

individuals within F&G who are personally dedicated to the partnership (Theme 4). The

interactions of F&G are often cooperative, as they are working with the other parties

directly to determine the project. One employee from F&G described an interaction with

all the key stakeholders in a step to get the project completed:

It would be myself and [the faculty member], and whoever else she has

involved from the LSU side. And the principal, and if there's a [Parent,

Teacher Organization] PTO at the school, the head of the PTO of the

school. And in some cases, there may also be other companies that wanna

165

also contribute some money to the process. But then we would all meet

together and say, "Okay, this is what we have. Okay, let's look at what's at

the school." So we would go to the school as a group. We would look at

what they have and say, "Okay." Then we would look at the location

where we wanted to put the new playground to make sure that we have it

sited right. (CPP Partner)

This interaction is cooperative, since all the stakeholders are working together, as a team,

for a similar goals and objectives. They are meeting together, each one holding their

unique knowledge, and are figuring out the current site and layout of the playground.

Overall, in these examples the nature of the partnership in part reflected the nature

of each partner organization and also allowed for the partnerships to serve unique needs.

There are partners that are more transactional in nature. For example, the EPICS partner

who wants the students to design projects to increase efficiency, which financially

benefits the organization; the large federal agency working with GPP-US values the

“third” party nature that the students bring to provide validity to the project; and for the

CPP, LSU provides policy structures that can result in obstacles to allocate funds, yet this

also provides a bureaucratic safety net to prevent lawsuits from contractors.

On the other hand, each of the three programs also worked with organizations

whose primary business model relies on partnerships to meet the mission of their agency,

which tended to result in more cooperative interactions. There is evidence that these

organizations see the larger community as co-owners of the programs and actively break

down the boundary between the organizations and the communities they serve. In these

organizations, the interactions and activities tend to be more cooperative and communal

in nature.

This theme is also evident, yet not as pronounced, within other partnering

agencies. For example, a GPP-US Center Director discussed many of the partnerships he

had been involved with over the years, and the different approaches the sponsors had

based on the type of agencies:

166

Those agencies that have had students for a long time, will tend to set

them free a little bit earlier in the term, in the on-site term, and let them

struggle a bit and, when they could make it easy by saying, ‘All right, I'll

call Mr. So-and-So and set up a meeting.’ They'll say, ‘you should set up a

meeting with Mr. So-and-So. Let me know what happens after you do

that.’ And that's because these people are better at advising within their

agency than we are. (GPP-US Center Director)

The GPP-US center director recognizes that the sponsors know the culture of the agency,

and can guide the students to act appropriately. In the above example, this behavior is

transactional, since having the students take on the task of going out to contact a person

independently heightens the notion that there is one individual that knows the culture

within the agency and another party that lacks this information and needs to learn it. This

interaction encourages a certain degree of independence from the students, which can

enhance self-motivation. This is a benefit of transactional interactions. The Center

Director also reflected on the approach of Federal Agency 2, as its culture required a

more cooperative approach for the students to be successful:

The [Federal Agency 2], even though they've had students for many, many

years, they're very hands-on... And maybe the reason is, this just hit me,

the hierarchy in [Federal Agency 2], is going to be much more strict than

it is in a bureaucracy… And so, they see that the students are just gonna

be, they're gonna have a hard time moving through that maze, if you let

'em do it on their own. But if a [superior] takes them to somebody and

says, "We need to get some data here." That'll happen much more quickly.

So, I think that's probably culturally appropriate for the [Federal Agency

2]. (GPP-US Center Director)

In this example, there is still one party that knows the culture, and another one that does

not. The interactions within Federal Agency 2 do not heighten this barrier but

167

intentionally blur these lines by having the superior give his/her own credibility to the

students to assist in the data gathering process, making this interaction cooperative. I

should note that my interview data for Federal Agency 2 has evidence of transactional

interactions connected to the hierarchy of the agency, yet this is one example of a

cooperative interaction.

In addition to the nature of the organization influencing the nature of the

partnerships, the partnering agencies can also influence the nature of the partnerships

through the emotional connections the individuals have with the partnering agencies. In

EPICS, many individuals (i.e. students, advisors, partners, etc.) have emotional or

personal connections with the partnering agencies or the topic that the students work on.

For example, one advisor had a brother that was served by the agency that the EPICS

team worked on, and s/he pointed to helping this organization and the community they

serve as the main reason for being a part of EPICS. Also the former student viewed the

topic of the EPICS team as a personal passion since childhood.

In the GPP, there were some center directors that had personal motivations to

support the organizations. One of the partners said that the center director had a personal

connection with the former director of the organization when the partnership begun:

The [former director] wanted to do a [project]. So we reached out... I

reached out to a professor I knew and said, "Can you come over?" So s/he

came over, and s/he and [the former director] were like old souls who have

known each other for a long time, and they just hit it off. And so, we

started with the [project]. (GPP-US Sponsor)

The partners said that the former director and the professor were able to bond at the

beginning of the project. When I interviewed the center director, they spoke very highly

of the project:

The projects that I'm most proud of was the project we did [for the

organization]... It brought together all my interests, actually, social and

168

environmental justice, and [providing a service to the community the

organization served]. (GPP-US Center Director)

The center director was personally and emotionally connected to this organization and the

project that the students undertook. It was connected to their own motivation of social

justice and helping the community. This was a communal interaction, since the project

was grounded in social justice and was meeting the long-term needs of the community.

Within this same organization, but a different project, the partner stated that the students

were supporting the emotional wellbeing of the staff. Many of the staff members were in

mourning, as there had been twelve deaths within their community within the last two

years, so the project that the students worked on made their life a little easier. This

specific organization, due to its mission and the type of work they do in the community,

was able to personally touch the center director and the students working with them.

These personal connections resulted in more cooperative or communal interactions.

For the CPP, a critical partner is the school system. Many of the participants

identified a desire to support the children and the schools as a reason for being involved

in the CPP. This came in forms such as giving the students quality play equipment

because they deserved it, the joy on the children’s faces, the appreciation of the principals

and staff, and just letting the children know that people cared about them. One partner at

a school described how the elementary students got exposed to role models, as well as

awareness that someone cares for them, through the CPP experience:

Our population, we're probably 95% free lunch, so our clients here don't

always get the best of everything. So, this is good for them, plus to have a

good role model come in and work with them, so that's a very positive

thing and then, of course, getting the playground and that too gives the

kids self-worth because they think... Not they think, but they know that

somebody cared enough to get out there and to do this for them. (CPP

Partner)

169

The partner was also personally moved that the CPP was highly dedicated to providing

playground equipment, even though the CPP was not connected to the school directly:

They don't even have a connection to the school, like "This is my job,

these are my kids." I'm here everyday, but the people that come in to work

and to help out, especially [the CPP], … I get to witness this, and so

personally, I've witnessed this huge miracle here. I get to see my dreams

coming true because of the LSU project, Playground Project. And, you

know, who can say that? It's really amazing. (CPP Partner)

This type of connection lays the groundwork for more communal interactions.

Individuals connect the building of a playground to meeting larger community needs,

improving safety, and increasing the self-worth of the elementary students, and in the

process there is transformation in both the community and within the individuals

involved. All of these things help connect the participants to the larger community needs

rather than solely just the physical playground.

The three programs had varying types of agencies they partnered with. The

nature of these specific partnerships can be dependent of the nature of the partnering

agency, especially if the programs have well established cultures. In any program,

deciding which agencies to partner with is important, especially when considering the

alignment of the program with the types of relationships they are seeking to foster, since

the types and missions of the partner organization will influence the nature of interactions

and activities. Hence, organizations that have a more transactional mission will tend to

behave in a more transactional manner in the partnerships, while those with more

cooperative missions will behave in a more cooperative way.

The personal and emotional connections are an additional factor related to how

the partnering agency influences the partnerships. When the individuals are more

personally connected there is a higher desire to have the students be a part of the agency,

so the activities will be more cooperative as the boundaries between the parties would

blur. Also, the connection to how the projects impact social justice and the desire to

170

make a long-term impact to the community are heightened, so the projects are more

likely to be communal in nature. Yet, the personal connections will also have impacts on

a more individual level. The next theme more deeply explores how individuals have

influenced the nature of the partnerships.

5.5 Theme 4: Individuals

Individual stakeholders also influence the partnerships. There was a notable

difference across the programs; however, those involved with EPICS and GPP-US

influenced the partnerships as compared to the CPP. In EPICS and GPP, partners and

advisors see their role as educators for the university students, and based on their

personalities and experiences will approach this role in either cooperative or transactional

ways. In the CPP, the theme was more centered on the importance of passionate

individuals to allow the partnership to thrive. This is connected to the purpose and the

overall structure of the program (Themes 1 and 2), since the participants of EPICS and

GPP-US focus more on education of the students as a central responsibility, and the CPP

focuses more on the relationships. This theme will highlight how individuals influenced

interactions and activities within all three of the programs by looking at EPICS and GPP-

US together, and then at the CPP.

5.5.1 Individuals in EPICS and GPP

In all the programs, the partners talk regularly with the advisor to make sure that

the students are on task and are working appropriately. The advisor will often smooth

over any issues that might occur. For the GPP-US and EPICS, the partners learn their

programs well, and know what is expected of the site and the types of projects to

recommend. The partners can step up and give more guidance to the teams and might not

need as much involvement of the advisor.

Some partners and advisors took an approach to education that was able to blur

the boundary of the different stakeholders. These individuals saw the learning experience

171

to be more of a team process, where everyone is learning together. One partner-advisor

described the experience of working with EPICS as a think-tank atmosphere:

The advisors [are benefiting from EPICS] because it is a stimulating

environment for them to be in. It takes them out of their routine, and it

puts them into a think tank, anything is possible, lets take a look at all the

options, situation. So I think they're as much benefiting from EPICS as

the students and the project partners. (EPICS Partner-Advisor)

This partner-advisor saw EPICS as an intellectually stimulating learning community

where the learning is done together as a cooperative activity. This partner-advisor also

recognized that if they were not involved with EPICS, they would likely be involved in

another collaborative experience that provided a similar atmosphere, since that was part

of his/her personality.

Another example of a partner creating cooperative interactions is in the GPP-US’s

partnership with a large Federal Agency. The type of agency tended to be more

transactional in nature and the projects were often well defined (see Theme 5). However,

the sponsor intentionally worked to make the students be more a part of the agency and

put them at ease, creating a partnership with a more cooperative nature. The sponsor had

a background in education, highly enjoyed the interactions with the students, and was

impressed with the students’ abilities:

It's very enjoyable to see them working on things and some of the students

get more, are more outgoing than others and be part of our little luncheons

we do, or our morale parties or whatever. But they all participate in

everything and it's that every group has their own personality and every

student has their own personality. But I've just been impressed with every

group that's come here. What they can do based on being put into a new

situation to them. (GPP-US Sponsor)

172

Having personal interest, investment, and passion for the students working with the

agency are common attributes in sponsors and critical for successful partnerships. This

person was able to intentionally blur the lines between the agency and the students,

actively pushing them to be a part of the agency by continuously referring to the students

as part of the “team.” This helped push the partnership toward a more cooperative space,

even though the type of agency was inclined to be more transactional in nature.

There were also partners and advisors that viewed the education process through a

transactional lens. For instance, one partner-advisor in EPICS saw an internal tension

within the advisor role, one where the boundary shifted over time:

My first semester I said I am not going to intercede in your decisions

unless you are going to hurt somebody or yourself, or it looks like you are

going to make a really horrific design decision. I kind of couched that

since, you know, I will advise along the way, but I reserve the right to

overrule you if it looks like it is going to be the wrong decision … I really

want to stay in that advisor role and not become the design leader, because

that really oversteps the boundaries. Then they start becoming less reliant

on their own skill sets and decision-making and more on, “we will let the

advisor make all the decisions for us.” (EPICS Partner-Advisor)

This partner-advisor was concerned that s/he needed to stay within the role of the advisor,

or else the students would become too reliant on him/her. This was considered a

transactional interaction, since there was a defined boundary of the roles. However, there

was also deep reflection and intention with the action. S/he saw this as the most

appropriate way to educate the students, so they could still develop their own skill sets,

such as leadership, and decision-making. Thus, this transactional approach was

appropriate for this advisor.

However, one GPP-US Sponsor described a situation that resulted in more

unilateral-transactional activities, as an advisor took a more hands-off approach within

the partnership when the students needed guidance:

173

I would say over our three years, our middle year - the team probably

needed the most guidance and support. And that, combined with project

center leaders who were… not particularly directed and hands-on. So, as a

result, I think we had a team that was a little bit lost and waffled in that

year. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This sponsor lacked thorough support throughout the project cycle in the advising of the

students and in determining an appropriate project, which ultimately made this sponsor

leave the partnership: “You've heard the phrase, ‘You vote with your feet.’ So as a

practical matter, I pulled back over the course of three years.” This was the only case in

the GPP-US interviews where a sponsor had pulled back from the partnership. This

sponsor had passion for supporting the students, yet did not find the partnership

beneficial. This example highlights how a specific advisor may influence the partnership,

as their limited role meant less guidance for the students, and, at least for this case, a

weaker partnership where the sponsor ultimately decided not continue in the program.

5.5.2 Individuals in CPP

In the CPP, the faculty member sees the dedication and passion of key individuals

as critically impacting the partnership’s ability to work in a cooperative or communal

way:

Having a few people who are just utterly committed is really important. I

am, my student team is, and for the schools, if there’s at least one

champion… to really push things through. … You just build a critical

mass of people who are committed and bought in. (CPP Advisor)

This theme highlights these individuals, describes how these individuals influence the

cooperative and communal interactions and activities, and discusses an example with a

174

partner who appreciated the playground but did not seem to have the same level of

dedication and passion as the other participants in the study.

At the center of the core group of individuals who make the CPP thrive is the

faculty member. Each person I spoke to referred highly of her. She is passionate and

dedicated, a compassionate listener, knowledgeable, humble, and someone you just want

to be around. Her dedication to safe play is clear, as is her care and concern about her

community. Many of the participants often talked about her as a mentor and sought out

opportunities to be in her presence.

Most the partners I interviewed were just as dedicated to providing play

equipment to the elementary students as the faculty member. These individuals take the

project and move it from a project-based-learning experience to a project-based and

community-based learning experience. For instance, one of the partners used her

entrepreneurial skills to organize fundraisers, leading to collection of 350% of the money

initially desired. Another had recently left town for a weekend to assist in a playground

build outside Baton Rouge. Additionally a partner had regularly gone to parks to look at

playgrounds before even engaging in the CPP:

I [went] to playgrounds just to look at them and compare them… to see

what's fun, and I was always dreaming of a little playground and what it

would be. … If I showed you a picture, there was nothing. It was just a big

yard, and we had some dump trucks and some balls and it would be just

like a cloud of dust. … I had always envisioned that somehow we would

get something, and … I was able to get some [other groups] to do [some]

projects and they bought into it big time. We have this master design. The

climbing structure is actually part of it, but it's not all of it. We have the

playhouse and we have the outdoor classroom … the bike track is coming

… I had a little dream, but with the community's help, it became a big

dream. And so, it's like a dream come true because it's happening. (CPP

Partner)

175

The partner was able to harness the CPP, their expertise, and the CPP network to fulfill a

dream that had been planted. By getting all these groups together, the individual is able to

make the activities communal in nature.

The dedicated individuals in the CPP harness their own skill sets and often go out

of their comfort zone to assist in the projects. Three individuals spoke of relying on their

own skills that they developed through growing up while working with the CPP. Two of

these focused on their relationship to their childhood church, and another focused on the

lessons that they learned from their parents. Two other partners said that the CPP was a

new experience for them, and that they were stretching their personal comfort zones by

asking for grants for playgrounds. One had gotten told no repeatedly, but continued

moving forward until the partner finally received a grant. The other was in the process of

applying for funding for the first time; something the partner was not comfortable with.

The partner connected going outside their comfort zone and asking for funds to support

the personal relationship that developed through the CPP. All the dedicated individuals

mentioned that the friendships developed through the CPP assisted them in their own

work with the CPP.

Noticing the high dedication of the individuals I interviewed, I requested an

interview with another partner. I was given a list of names, then chose one person from

that list and met with her. She was knowledgeable, very appreciative of the playground,

and cared about her students. However, she described a much more hands-off approach

to the playground build than the other participants. The conversation only lasted around

15 minutes, and the answers provided were short and precise. There was additional

tension during the interview itself, since it was during the morning of a school day and

the participant had tasks that needed to be done. The elementary students had contributed

to decisions about the colors and types of equipment. The principal focused on the

physical playground being the main motivation of the partnership. During the

playground builds, the principal provided the volunteer crew some food and refreshments,

and the installation of the playground was done by the CPP. When I asked if the project

was more transactional or transformative, she responded:

176

[The faculty member] does most of the work and she gets her students to

do a lot of it, … it's good for our children and our kids need that… And

she teaches the [LSU students] how to write the grants and how to go

solicit to get the money and all that kind of stuff. (CPP Partner)

The elementary students were able to be involved in the process, and got a playground;

however, the interactions were more transactional rather than cooperative or communal.

This counter example highlights that there might not be individuals at a school that are as

invested, but there is a communal quality that is present when there is a high level of

commitment from the school. The other partnerships that are longer-lasting and more

cooperative and communal can then be leaned on when a partner at a specific school has

a more transactional approach, since the other partners are still able to assist in the project

build.

5.5.3 Evaluation of Individual’s Influence in the Nature of the Partnerships

Overall, the individual’s approach, experience, dedication and unique

personalities influence the nature of the partnerships. Some might enjoy and create

cooperative educational experiences; others will promote relationships with a more

transactional nature. There are also likely to be some individuals who are not as invested

in the programs.

When programs have a well developed organizational structures, having clear

roles and responsibilities for the various individuals is important, as is providing training

for those roles. When a person comes into the role of the advisor, partner, administrator,

or student, the individual should know what is expected of them, so they can know if they

are interested and willing to participate in the process. In fact, EPICS has a Memorandum

Of Understanding (MOU) for the partners (EPICS, 2014), and has new advisors partner

and work with more experienced advisors who are familiar with the EPICS process. WPI

has retreats every year for faculty and mentors to guide them through the new process

(Mello, 2005). For the WPI partnerships, it is up to the center directors to find sponsors

for the projects and inform them as to what is expected. This depends on the specific

177

center director; some offer a document stating what is expected as a sponsor while others

talk through expectations with potential sponsors.

For the CPP, there was less emphasis on having people know their roles and

expectations, but rather leveraging the skill sets and personal passions to achieve the

program’s goals. This included utilizing their gifts of fundraising and creating a cohesive

community, as well as having individuals step out side of their comfort zone, such as

through applying to grants.

In all cases, there were varying degrees of focus on roles and relationships, yet

there was a trend in EPICS and GPP-US focusing on the roles, where the CPP

participants focused on the relationships. The next theme will investigate the role of the

project in the program.

5.6 Theme 5: Projects

The theme of projects is related to the second research question, because it is a

structural element that influences the nature of the partnership, but it is also related to the

third research question: what is the role of the project in community engagement

partnerships?

The EPICS and GPP-US programs focus on a variety of organizations and many

different kinds of projects. EPICS is a service-learning program, and only works with

not-for-profit organizations and government agencies, while the GPP-US saw their

program as providing a way to educate students at the intersection of science, technology

and society, and worked for a variety of sponsors, including for-profit organizations. This

study only included GPP-US Sponsors that were either non-profit or governmental

organizations all located on the East Coast, yet the center directors and administrators had

also worked with for-profit organizations. Additionally, the CPP is only involved with

designing and building playgrounds for public elementary schools in the Baton Rouge

area.

It is typical for all projects to have transactional and cooperative interactions and

activities throughout the project cycle. There were times when stakeholders worked

independently, either for ease or urgency, which made the interaction or activity

178

transactional. All three of the programs also identified the community as experts in their

given domains and had times when the programs worked cooperatively together for the

completion of the project. In EPICS and GPP there were rare times when participants

highlighted a communal intention for the program, while in the CPP this was explicit and

central to the program’s purpose.

I also found that there were some specific characteristic of projects that tended to

result in transactional, cooperative and communal interactions and activities. Table 5-2

outlines the characteristics of these projects. The most relevant qualities of the projects

were the level of student integration, the project constraints, and the process that the

students used. Projects that tended to result in transactional activities, interactions and

language described by the participants identified the students as having minimal

interaction or integration with the partnering organization. When these projects were

successful, they were well defined and addressed a clear need of the community. Due to

their clearly-defined nature, the projects only needed input from the partners in the

project definition and other specific steps through out the design cycle. These projects

were deemed unsuccessful when they were not useful for the partnering organization, and

this was often due to the misunderstandings in the design constraints or the project was

outside the scope of the students’ abilities.

Projects that resulted in more cooperative interactions tended to integrate the

student into the organization, or recognize the students as part of a team. These projects

were either open-ended to begin with, or they were initially well defined, but through

critical analysis the definitions were challenged and became more open. The process the

students use during the project allows for or encourages blurring of geographic,

organization, and/or sectorial boundaries. For projects that result in communal activities,

all the constituents are seen as a part or connected to a community. The project allows all

the constituents to significantly contribute to the project, while addressing a socially just

cause. The process itself builds a sense of community, and meets deeper human needs of

the members.

179

The sections that follow cover some examples of projects in each of the

subthemes, focusing on projects from EPICS and GPP-US in the transactional and

cooperative categories, and CPP building on the communal category.

Table 5-2: Characteristics of Projects

Student Integration Initial

Constraints Process Unsuccessful Transactional Projects

Students are seen as distinct from the partnering organization

Constraints are well-defined, and the project meet specific needs

Process requires feedback or input from the partner.

The projects are not useful because of misunderstanding of the definition/ constraints, or the project was outside the ability of the students

Cooperative Projects

Integration within the organization, or recognized as part of a team

The constraints are open ended and require investigation throughout the project cycle

Students can question constraints and blur boundaries between various constituents.

The projects are unable to be completed as desired because of ethical issues

Communal Projects

All constituents a are seen as a part of or connected to the community

Project seeks inputs from all constituents while identifying the constraints.

The process and the end results address deeper personal needs

The process results in the desired project, yet the social roots causes are not addressed.

5.6.1.1 Transactional Projects

Projects that resulted in transactional interactions tended to have three

characteristics: they did not integrate the students into the partner organization, the

projects tended to be well defined, and the project process only had the partners giving

information at the beginning and distinct steps through a feedback approach. These

characteristics influenced the ability for these projects to be successful. This theme will

outline the three characteristics and also highlight some unsuccessful transactional

projects that were described by participants of this study.

180

The integration of the students tended to have two main considerations, namely

the time the students spent with the organization, and the extent to which the organization

saw the students as a distinct unit. When the students spent little time embedded or

interacting with the partnering organization – either through limitations of the students,

the organization, or the community engagement program structure – the interactions

tended to be more transactional. One partner stated that their own limitation on staffing

availability impacted the project, making it more likely that students go down a wrong

path:

To maximize [the partnership] you really need staff that are committed to

it more than what we are. I always felt bad about that. That we can’t meet

with them more often but umm - so that is probably one of the weaknesses

that we have, is not enough staff time to meet with them. ‘Cause you

know, meeting with them 2 or 3 times a semester they can be going down

the wrong path and then they meet with me and I say "ah, you know, it’s

not - ", you know, so they put all this work in and they have to redo it.

(EPICS Project Partner)

This partner had limited time to commit to the partnership, and so the students sometimes

went down a path that did not meet the partner’s needs. Then when the students did meet

with the partner, there was feedback that pointed the students’ design in a more

appropriate direction. Often, the partner was able to make corrections through this

feedback process. The end results were often projects that meet the needs of the

organization. However, if the feedback was not given in a timely manner, it became more

difficult to meet the needs, especially when the partner had specific time constraints.

In the GPP-US program, the students spend seven weeks, full-time and on-site

with the sponsoring agency as part of the program structure. The sponsors tended to

either identify the students as part of the organization or see them as distinct agents. One

of the GPP-US sponsors saw students as distinct agents, and recognized the partnership

181

as primarily transactional, as a give-and-take relationship. This sponsor describes this

relationship while he explains the rationalization of a budget line for the projects:

I basically have to put that budget line in there, and it's a pretty easy sell

because of services provided in some of the projects. Not all, but some of

the projects that we really, truly needed to do, and to get a vendor in here

to do the same level of quality, it's a great deal. So it's a good deal for

WPI, it's a great deal for the students to actually have something that has

meaning to it. And the data for us, in many cases, is having a third party

that's looking at some of our data, gives a little validity to the data that we

have. (GPP-US Sponsor)

This sponsor sees the students as providing a service, and also views the students as a

“third” party, highlighting that there is a clear separation of identity between the sponsor

and the students. But this approach also adds credibility to the project, as also discussed

in the partnering agency theme.

The second common characteristic of transactional projects is that the problem is

well defined in both need and scope. When a project is well defined there does not need

to be as much integration with the partnering agency. When I asked one EPICS advisor

about successful projects, the advisor gave an example of a time when the students

identified the needed constraints and created a solution in the span of a single semester:

Here is an example of a good design. There was one project, … which is a

rectangular piece of wood with holes drilled in it, … and the task for the

workers was to staple labels on it. That was it. But it was tricky because

the labels are paper and they had to be wrapped around and stapled with a

staple gun, which requires working at odd angles, working with heavy

staple guns, with flimsy paper, [and] stapling it in heavy wood. It was a

tricky challenge for people who very likely had, different kinds of physical

strengths and disabilities. The project team sat down at the table with the

182

workers, watched them, took video of it … and realized some of the

problems. They had a long list. Some of the problems included that it was

difficult to raise the elbow up to get the force for the stapler, that it was

difficult to hold the paper in place, it required 2 hands to stable, and it was

difficult to make the label uniform. They identified this long list of things,

taken directly from this detailed study of the actual user experience, they

came home, and they designed a project to address each and every one of

those concerns.

When they finished, somebody review it, looked at the requirements,

looked at the issues that they had found based on the actual user

experience, looked at how they addressed it, played with it, thought about

it, and said, and I quote, “I can not think of a way to build this better”

(EPICS advisor)

This advisor states that the students were able to clearly identify the needs through

watching and recording users doing a task. This is an example of a human-centered

design approach, as it involved systematically looking at and meeting the needs of the

end user and the organization. This approach was also transactional, since it had

separation of identity between the students and the organization. This approach worked

well because the constraints were correctly identified, the problem was of appropriate

scope, and the project was within the capacity of the students. The clear identification of

the issues by the students also allowed for the project to be completed in a timely manner.

An additional example of defining a problem in terms of need and scope is found

in the GPP-US projects definition. One center director identified that many of the projects

fit well with the desired outcomes of the IQP:

If a federal agency wants to understand, why so many [vehicles] are

experiencing overloading and deaths, due to that overloading or is it due to

the overloading or is it due to something else? I mean, there's a time scale

183

that they're operating on that, they need to have that mission fulfilled and

it fortunately coincides frequently with our term. (GPP-US Center

Director)

This project had a clearly defined need that the students were able to work on in a set

amount of time that matched their on-site engagement with the partner. While the actual

project may have resulted in cooperative interactions, depending on the other factors

involved, a well-defined project and clear scope are needed for transactional interactions

to be successful.

The clarity in scope of the playground projects also provided transactional

components to the design process. Each semester, the engineering students designed a

playground, which had specific design constraints. These constraints were provided by

multiple constituents, including elementary school students, principals, people

maintaining the playgrounds, and the building codes that insure the playground safety.

These transactional elements allowed the playground project to fit within the introductory

design course for the first-year students, and allowed the first-year engineering students

to create a final report of recommendations that were sent to the design team. The

cooperative approach to the design came with the reading buddy system, and the

intention to build to the soul of the community, which is described in theme 2 above,

related to the overall structure.

The third characteristic of transactional projects is the process that the students

take while working on the project. This process is often independent or a “feed-back”

approach in transactional projects. The feedback approach has students work with a clear

problem definition and constraints, to some extent work independently of the partnering

organization, and then seek regular feedback to determine if they are designing

appropriately. The design can then be altered to better meet the needs of the partnering

agency. In this process, much of the design and testing is done independently from the

partnering organization.

Yet problems often arise when the project constraints and definitions are

misunderstood or if the scope of the project does not align with the students’ abilities or

184

interests. There were also multiple definitions of “success” and “unsuccessful” among the

participants. Some participants defined success as meeting the design constraints, having

an educational experience for the students, or creating a project that was useful to the

partnering organization. I am using the concept of success as creating a project that is

useful to the partnering organization, and unsuccessful projects as those that are not

useful.

There were some projects that were seen as unsuccessful in the EPICS and GPP-

US programs, as the projects were not useful. More specifically, one EPICS partner and

one GPP-US partner ceased the partnership. In the case of EPICS, at the time of the

interview the projects were continuing. However, in a follow up e-mail I discovered the

partnership ended not by the will of the interviewee who was an employee of the

organization, but because the organization decided to hire a professional to take over the

project. The original projects completed by the students were within the students’

abilities and useful to the organization. But as the needs of the organization became more

complex, the projects moved out of scope of the students’ abilities, and the students were

having difficulty in completing the projects in the timeframe needed by the partner

organization.

In the GPP-US, I interviewed the sponsor at the time when the organization chose

not have students work on a project that year. The fundamental reason the partnership

identified for not continuing was that the time spent assisting the students was higher than

the value of the product received. More specifically, the partner spoke about a lack of

input on deciding an appropriate project:

We have questions about whether we really picked a project that fully

engaged and utilized the students to their fullest capacity or, you know, to

a greater degree than we were able to. So, did we really pick a project that

was really a good fit for this kind of team and for their ability to deliver a

product at the end that they felt really engaged in and had fun with and felt

good about, and that, we as a sponsor, felt good about? (GPP-US Sponsor)

185

Ultimately, a project was chosen that had different characteristics than the more

successful projects. For the GPP-US program, successful projects often had a component

where the students actively engaged with the community, either by collecting surveys

from or conducting interviews with community members, and there was an emphasized

sense of direct usefulness for the partnering agency. Yet the project the students were

working on for the quoted sponsor had neither of these components. Instead, the project

was something that the sponsor had an interest in researching, but the implications or

benefits for the organization were not clear. In addition, this sponsor enjoyed having the

students around, and saw that it was important to have students involved in civic work;

however, he personally had stepped away from the sponsor role. This sponsor suggested

that more guidance was needed in determining the project and also what elements of a

project work well.

In the EPICS program, all of the participants who were interviewed in this study

were more generally able to give examples to projects that were successful and

unsuccessful. In EPICS, students often create a design and then show it to a partner who

provides feedback and clarifies any questions or confusions they have on the project.

Over time the project may involve development of prototypes, and through iterations the

project will ideally meet the partner’s need. Yet, there were times identified by the

partners where projects were unable to meet the partner’s needs. One partner gave an

example where the students did not listen to the parameters of the project, and so the

students attempted to design a project themselves instead of going to a professional:

I said, “don’t try to design [it] yourself, that is not your skill set, and rely

on experts to do that.” Well, it’s really hard for an engineering type person

to, you know, they are inventive, they are creative, they like to put their

stamp on everything they do and so, instead of going to a [professional]

that would help them through the process, they did it on their own and

came up with these ridiculous plans. Not only that but they did a

cardboard replication … and put a lot of hours into it, and I just threw it

186

away. I didn’t throw it away in front of them, but they didn’t listen to me.

(EPICS Project Partner)

This example highlights how students’ creativity and desire to help, coupled with

incorrect assumptions regarding the constraints and minimal contact through the design

process, resulted in a project that was not useful for the partnering agency.

Overall, transactional projects have a clear separation in identity between the

students and the partnering agency, either through minimal interaction or distinct

identities. These projects can be successful when the project needs, scope, and constraints

are clearly defined and understood, so that the project can be done independently, or with

minimal feedback provided at distinct steps. The projects tend to be unsuccessful if they

are too complex, lack regular interactions with the partner, are outside the scope of the

students’ abilities, and/or there is a lack of understanding of the constraints.

5.6.1.2 Cooperative Projects

Projects that result in more cooperative interactions and activities tend to integrate

the students into the organization, involve open-ended projects, and require the students

to critically engage with the partners and also question the constraints and assumptions

related to their projects. There were a few projects identified in the interviews with an

administrator of GPP-US that were unsuccessful cooperative projects, where the advisor

said that students were asked to take unethical actions by the partnering agency and so

the center directors had to end the project. This theme will review how the students are

integrated, the open-ended constraints of projects, process that blur boundaries, and the

ethical issues that can be present in cooperative projects.

By integrating the students into the partnering agency, the students are able to

learn about the complex nature of the organization, are able to break down boundaries

that separate themselves as distinct entities, and recognize the need to include all

constituents into the project. For instance, one GPP-US center director highlighted how

students were able to break down social boundaries that existed within the organization:

187

They can walk into somebody's office, and ask questions that the person

down the hall, who's been there for five years, would never do - because

you just don't do that. [chuckle] There was one project in, at a [Federal

Agency], [and] at the final presentation, one of the [sponsor’s said], ‘You

know, they did a great job … but the best thing they did was they got the

people from office A, or floor A and floor B, to sit in the same room at the

same time for three hours, and talk about this issue in a productive way,

without beating each other up.’ He said, ‘We've never been able to do

that!’ [laughter] You know, kind of hard for [the employees] to say ‘no,’

to the kids. Took the students, what's the word? A little bit of ignorance

and naiveté. (GPP- US Center Director)

In the process of working on the project, the students recognized that two offices needed

to talk to each other in order to create a solution to the problem. They asked for a meeting,

and the two offices had a meeting to discuss this issue. This process was cooperative

because it broke down social barriers and included all of the constituents in the project.

For this cooperative project to have happened, the students needed to be integrated within

the organization throughout the design process so that they can understand the context.

The projects themselves can also lend themselves to requiring more cooperative

interactions and activities. These projects tend to focus on building capacity, with the

goal of organizational self-reliance. One of the most notable examples of a project that

embodied cooperative interaction in GPP-US is that of the IT assessment mentioned

above under Theme 3. Many of the staff members had limited formal education, and

often had a fear of computers. The project originally started as an IT assessment, yet

during the students’ time at the agency, they worked with the organization to offer

training to increase the computer skill levels of the staff:

[The students] were good teachers... [The students] didn't just do it for [the

staff] and then walk away, they made sure that [the staff] understood what

[the students] taught them... In the interim there have been PowerPoint

188

presentations and posters and flyers have been made. [The] staff would

have never known how to do that without these kids. So now [the staff]

feel comfortable exploring the computer and learning more about its

capabilities. (GPP-US Sponsor)

The students taught useful skills, and as a result the staff had an increase of confidence

and computer literacy by the end of the engagement. The organization has greater

capacity than it had at the beginning of the program, as evident in the PowerPoint

presentations and posters that have been developed since the students had left. In order

for the students to have done this project, they needed to be integrated into the

organization, understand where the needs were, and work with the staff directly to meet

these needs. This also highlights the kind of process that is critical to cooperative projects.

Cooperative projects also frequently require critical thinking coupled with direct

interactions with the project partner and the community when appropriate. This process

engages the community throughout the design process to create clarity on design

decisions while also drawing community partners in. An EPICS advisor gave a clear

example of how students did this while listening to the community regarding a design

decision:

The EPICS students, in [TEAM], they built [a project] some of the ideas

that they initially brought up were not initially received very well by [the

organization]. “Oh, we have done it this way, or it’s going to be too

expensive,” but then the students took the initiative to broaden the

perspective. So there was listening on both parts. The students listened to

why such a solution would not work, and then the partners listened to how

the students could make it work. (EPICS Advisor)

In this case, the students were able to work with the project partner on a design decision.

The students did not just take the constraints as given, but questioned them while

189

engaging and approaching the partner. Together, they were able to make a decision that

worked.

Integration into the organization and capacity building are not required

components for making cooperative interactions, yet these components tend to result in

more cooperative interactions because in order for the project to be completed certain

boundaries are likely to be recognized and challenged. However, the process of critical

thinking coupled with interaction is essential.

Additionally, when the students are working cooperatively with the organization,

complex issues and power dynamics can surface. A conversation with one of the GPP

affiliates provided the most insight regarding these situations. The administrator provided

an example where was a sponsor asking the students to collect data that was not in

accordance to IRB:

In one of our locations, where the sponsor was perfectly happy for us to do

all kinds of things that were not according to IRB standards. And I was

advising at the time, and I simply told the students, “You either have to

find the data from another study that's been published, peer-reviewed and

published, that will confirm what this sponsor wants, or we can't do this

project this way. And if we can't do it this way, we'll help you convey that

to the sponsor.” So the students went to work, and they found the body of

literature that made the project as it had been designed not necessary; we

didn't have to go into that particular area and get data. (GPP

Administrator)

This example was about collecting data from children that was against the IRB protocol.

The students were instead able to get the data from previous research, and finish a project

that was useful to the organization.

However, not all ethical issues that arise are able to be solved to meet the needs of

the sponsoring organization. There were times when the projects had to be altered or

190

stopped completely. The same administrator of the GPP-US discussed such a project that

needed to be stopped:

There was another very large company and I can't even describe that

project ‘cause it'll give it away, where it was just absolutely unethical, and

we felt it was industrial espionage. And so, we simply stopped it. We just

stopped it. We said, “The students can stay here and do something else for

you, but this project is not ethical.” And so, we the faculty, designed

another project that the students could do for us using other data. And then

the students did a satisfactory project from the standpoint of what they

learned, but the sponsor didn't get anything that they wanted. (GPP

Administrator)

This project was unsuccessful in one important sense, as the end result was not useful for

the partnering agency. Yet in order to provide the desired result, the students would have

had to engage in unethical practices. The project itself was cooperative as the students

worked with the organization and critically analyzed the project in conjunction with the

partner, yet it did not create a useful deliverable. Reflecting on such cases, this same

participant states that it is very important to have faculty members’ guidance when

students are facing potential ethical issues:

[The students] are very often tempted to just want to satisfy the sponsor,

but they're scared also because there's something not right. So, faculty just

come in and help explain it to the students, “This is maybe why you're

feeling uncomfortable. Let's talk about the issues.” And then help them

brainstorm how they can convey that distress to the sponsor and get

something changed so that they can continue; and the sponsor can be

satisfied. (GPP Administrator)

191

This highlights that in order to navigate potentially complex ethical situations, the

students need to have guidance from faculty members throughout the project.

Overall, the projects that lead to cooperative interactions are more likely to integrate the

students into the partnering organization, and focus on projects that result in capacity

building. The process the students go through cooperative projects includes a critical

analysis of the project itself along with engaging the community organization within the

analysis.

5.6.1.3 Communal Projects

Projects that result in communal interactions and activities view and treat all

constituents as a part of, and/or connected to, a community. Emphasizing shared

ownership in the project or making connections to common life events are ways the

constituents feel connected. This is different than just integration within an organization,

since it is connected to a part of an individual’s personal identity or life story. The

project often also addresses a social justice issue and has personal significance to a core

group of people. Additionally, the process of the project creates a sense of unity, where

different skill sets are recognized and appreciated.

The clearest example of a communal project is the building of the playgrounds.

The activity where all the hard work from all the constituents becomes the reality of a

playground, and in just a few days the elementary students go from having little or no

playground to having one. The builds are intended to get everyone involved and the

process itself can be seen as a way to build community. The build itself is an important

step in the playground. In fact, one of the partners had the option to have the contractors

provide the surfacing, which would eliminate many of the activities that could be

accessible to many of the community members and volunteers, and the faculty member

suggested against this since it would take away from the community building experience:

[The contractors] had a backhoe, they could have taken the machinery,

and [the faculty member] was like, "No. We're gonna haul it in our

wheelbarrows and on tarps, and we're gonna dump it." But she said,

192

"Because it's just all part of it." … Those two days were so amazing. ...

Other community people came out... It was like one of those days that I

put up there with my wedding day and the birth of my kids. It was so

fantastic to have everybody. I understand why she wanted the community

build because it was one of those days. It was just so awesome. Awesome.

I'm tearing up thinking about it. (CPP Partner)

The experience very much touched her emotionally, and did others as well. In the

interview with the faculty member, there was mention of a reporter who came to do a

story of this build, and once the reporter got all the information, he picked up a shovel

and started helping. It was the first time she had seen a reporter do this.

Another quality of the build is that it provides a sense of equality. Everyone is

physically working as a team, contractors who are not educators in their daily lives

become the experts during the build, and normal class structures are challenged for this

short time. One of the F&G partners highlights this sense of equality when describing a

CEO who often volunteers:

We've got a CEO of a major company that shows up on just about every

playground build… You would never know who he was out there in a pair

of grungy shorts and dirty t-shirt out there moving mulch all day, or

whatever anybody asks him to do. And [the playground project] just draws

everybody from that to the parent whose kid goes to the school who is out

cutting grass at a company opposite of mine everyday coming over and

lending the same hand, working side-by-side. There's... That's one thing

about manual labor is it doesn't judge. Anybody can get out there and do it

if they're willing to sweat and work. (CPP Partner)

The nature of this activity described is communal, as the interactions transcend the roles

and boundaries of the individuals working, and they are coming together for a common

good to build a playground and support a school.

193

The projects not only meet the direct needs of providing a playground, but also

produce other benefits from the projects that support community. The playgrounds are

seen to provide elementary students the ability to see that the community cares for them.

The playground also can meet the needs of the local community, since the students are

often bussed in each day, the children at the school are not the same as those in the

neighborhood, and so the playgrounds can provide a place for families in the

neighborhood of the school. Lastly, this project is also seen as a pathway for individuals

to engage with the schools and their wider community. Local community members might

hear of or be a part of the build or raise money for the playground and find other ways to

volunteer their time and/or give resources to the schools. In general, the projects provide

a variety of interactions with differing natures that unite at the final step of each project,

the build. The build is often recognized as a highly communal experience, as individuals

can transcend their daily boundaries and roles and come together to help build the wider

community.

There was also evidence of a communal project in the GPP-US program, namely

one that involved creating a garden for a disenfranchised part of the community. This

project was not discussed in too much detail by the participants because it had been done

a few years back, yet the interviewees described how the students worked to design the

garden, determine the appropriate type of food to be grown, and looked into possible

locations. The garden was built by a grant from a hardware store, and now grows food

for the community it was intended to serve. The students were able to come back to the

site and be a part of the build, even though they had already received a grade for their

project. There was not the same explicit discussion of ownership of the community, or

class boundaries broken, yet the project itself was able to bring the whole community

together while addressing a need rooted in a social justice issue.

There were no unsuccessful projects identified in this study in terms of the

usefulness of the project for the partnering organization. The most difficult challenges

identified by the participants of the CPP were raising funds for the projects. However,

there was some discussion in the interviews of the faculty member and one of the F&G

employees of the longevity of the project in terms of sustaining and maintaining the

194

playgrounds, and the socio-political issues related to the fact that these children did not

have playgrounds to begin with. Even though the playground projects build communities

and provides playgrounds to schools, it does not address the political issues that result in

no funds for the playgrounds. The faculty member felt that if she worked diligently, she

could provide playgrounds to the schools in the East Baton Rouge Parish, and was set on

doing that, yet did not know how successful a political approach would be.

5.6.1.4 Conclusion of Project Theme

As the preceding sections describe, the projects can have a considerable influence

on the nature of the partner interactions and activities. The three main project

characteristics that influence the nature are the: student integration into the partnering

agency, project constraints, and the process the students go through will solving the

problem. The transactional examples tended to keep each group of constituents distinct,

involved well-defined problems, and could be done independently or require feedback at

distinct times with the partners. Unsuccessful transactional projects were ones that were

viewed as not useful by the organization, because students made incorrect assumptions or

worked on projects that were inappropriately scoped. The projects that resulted in

cooperative interactions were more likely to have students integrated into the

organization, the types of projects were often focused on capacity building, and the

process required a level of critical thinking while engaging with the partners. The

unsuccessful projects, which were not useful to the organization, were most often stopped

because of ethical issues.

The communal projects saw all the constituents (i.e., students, community

members, volunteers, faculty members, etc.) as part of or connected to the larger

community. The projects addressed a socially just cause while engaging personal

passions, and the process itself builds a sense of unity among the constituents. The

unsuccessful element of the project is not the usefulness, but rather the inability of the

projects to address the root cause of the issue. Although the project has these

characteristics, there is inequality in the fact that the public schools do not have the funds

for playgrounds to begin with. There is discussion on addressing the issue on a political

195

level. Nonetheless, there is also concern that a long-lasting political solution may not be

feasible, and confidence that the immediate need of providing playgrounds is possible

and should be addressed before a political solution as potentially realized

5.7 Theme 6: The role of Students

This theme examines how the role of students and the corresponding curricula

structure of the three programs influence the relationship between the students and the

project partner. In EPICS, students sign up for a team, and the course is taken as an

elective for one or two credits per semester. It is also opened up to students at all levels,

from first-year to senior. Students are therefore taking the course on top of their other

courses, and they may have widely varying degrees of relevant experience and expertise.

There is a lecture portion, which focuses on the human centered design approach of

EPICS. Some students are also expected to leadership roles within the partnerships, as

there are student liaisons charged with communicating with project partners, and students

who serve as leaders for each of the projects undertaken by a given team.

Some of the students are excellent at supporting partnerships and managing their

time. They incorporate the partners into the design process, seek out regular feedback,

and may even integrate the partners in the design process. This is the way EPICS is

supposed to run, and in these cases, the interactions are cooperative. However, some

students do not do this. The projects are sometimes rushed at the last minute, and the

partners are not incorporated into this process. In these cases, the process is more

transactional, and sometimes, unilaterally transactional. Since the partners all have a long

history with EPICS, each could remember times when the students did not follow the

correct protocol, and the projects are unable to meet the organization’s needs. Due to the

long-term partnership model, the issue can be addressed in the following semester.

This ability for student to make mistakes and learn from them is a unique learning

experience of EPICS. The low time commitment of the sponsor, coupled with the long-

term partnership model, allows the project to be completed, so there remains potential

benefit for the organization with relatively little time wasted from the side of the project-

196

partner. Projects that are not successful are often seen as temporarily not successful, since

the partners know the that many of the students are new to design and/or EPICS, the

projects will be revisited in subsequent semesters, and the students are doing the design

work alongside what is often a heavy load of other courses. Because of the structure of

EPICS, there is room for specific interactions and activities that are unilaterally

transactional; however, on the whole the projects incorporate the partners’ voices and are

able to meet the needs of the organization.

In the GPP-US, there were few mentions of issues with teams, and some instances

when students fell ill and were not able to complete the project. However, all the partners

praised the students’ abilities in completing the projects. This can be linked to the

extensive process the students go through prior to meeting the partners. The GPP-US is

considered the flagship program of this small technical school. There are only one

thousand new students enrolling each year, and many of the faculty said that in the last

ten years, the demographic of students changed since the program started to recruit

students for the university based on the IQPs, specifically those involving locations

abroad. Also, the students are exposed to project-based approaches throughout their

curriculum. In the process of applying for a specific project center the students are

interviewed by the center directors. They do not simply just sign up for the course. Then,

if they are accepted, they have to take an intensive preparation course, research the

project as well as the agency, and write a project proposal. The students are also taught

explicitly about appropriate behavior. If students act inappropriately, for drinking

alcohol or other illegal or inappropriate activities, a part of their punishment is to go to

the following year’s preparation courses and warn the students to not follow their paths.

In the CPP, none of the partners had negative interactions with the students, and

many could not speak in depth about the university students within the course. This can

be correlated with the structure of the program. The first-year course has little

interactions with the partners interviewed (they did have interactions with the elementary

students, but that was outside the scope of this study), and the design team consisted of

volunteers and paid students working with the faculty member. She chooses students

based on their abilities to work with the community. A student in the first-year course

197

can easily follow through to work on the build of a playground, but the students in the

first-year course have little opportunity to impact the partnership, for the better or the

worse, and the students in the design team are a carefully selected group.

Overall, the way the program structures the students’ exposure with the project

partner influences the nature of interactions. EPICS has the students sign up for the

course, and they can take on leadership positions within the partnership. When

everything is done correctly, the partnerships are cooperative; however, there are times

when this does not happen. In GPP-US, there is an extensive process to get into a team,

and an extensive preparation before the students ever meet with their project partner.

Students are monitored closely to follow the correct protocol and act appropriately during

their seven-week placement on site. As a result, the partners praise the students’ skills

and abilities. In the CPP, the first-year students have limited interactions with the project

partners, and the faculty member selects the students that have more interactions to

continue onto the design team.

This theme also highlights the topic of self-selection in engineering community

engagement programs. The students in EPICS and GPP-US are self-selected, as the

program is not a requirement. For EPICS it is a technical elective, where in the GPP-US

it is one avenue to meet a graduation requirement. All of the first-year biological

engineering students in the CPP are required to take the course and be a part of the

partnerships. However, the way the programs integrate the students varies. This theme

highlights nuances related to how the role of students within the curricula impact the

partnerships.

5.8 Overview of the Research Question 2 and 3

In summary, this chapter reviewed six structural themes that influence the

partnerships: the purpose, overall structure, partnering agencies, individuals, projects, and

the role of students. The purpose of the organizations fell into two main categories:

transactional and cooperative. In a transactional purpose, there is an explicit recognition

and focus on the exchange of a project or product for an educational experience for the

198

students. In a cooperative purpose, there is greater emphasis and importance placed on

the collaborative qualities of the partnerships. These purposes were present in the

statements on the websites, in the interviews, and in other program publications. The

purposes also influenced the other structural qualities of the program, including the

overall structure.

The overall structure of each program was predominantly grounded in either

organizational structure or personal relationships. In the organizational structure, there

were more well established roles and procedures. These specific steps were likely to

correlate with a specific nature. For example, both the EPICS and GPP-US use a

cooperative approach to defining a project for the students to work on. The project

partners will identify a need and work with the advisors to ensure that it meets the

educational requirement of the students. In EPICS, it is likely that the students will be

involved in this process, and possibly suggest problems if they know the organizations

well. The CPP was more reliant on personal relationships, which I call the “network of

support.” This network structure was centered on the domain expertise of each individual

or group of individuals, a foundation of trust, and the ability to count on one another.

There were times when individuals would work independently, and is transactional, and

other times when the different individuals come together and make a decision as a team,

which is more cooperative. All the projects are focused on building playgrounds, and

intentionally aim to also raise the quality of life for the children at the school and in the

neighborhood while bringing a whole community together, which is communal in nature.

The third theme centers on the partnering agency. This theme highlights that the

nature of the partnering agencies will influence the nature of the partnership itself. If the

partner works within a transactional mindset in their own work, they will most likely

view the partnership as a transaction, and will focus on the transactional elements of the

partnership. On the other hand, if the partnership is more cooperative, then the partners

will likely look at ways to blur the lines between the students and the organization, either

by working as a team or inviting them into their organization’s functions.

Like agencies, there are often specific individuals whose mindsets will impact

how they view the partnership, influencing their interactions and activities. This is

199

particularly highlighted by different individual approaches to education. Some

participants approached the education process in a more cooperative way, highlighting

that they were learning with the students, while others viewed themselves as teaching

students specific knowledge and skills. Each individual’s approach, experience,

dedication, and unique personality could potentially influence the nature of the

partnerships.

Within all programs and projects, there were also times when stakeholders

worked independently, either for ease or urgency, which is transactional, and other times

when the stakeholders worked cooperatively together for the completion of the project.

Yet there are also specific projects that tended to lead to more transactional, cooperative,

or communal interactions. Transactional projects tended to be well-defined and meet

specific needs of the partnering agency while keeping the boundary between the

stakeholders clearly established. Cooperative projects focus on blurring social barriers

and fostering capacity-building. The communal projects transcend the project process

while touching on deeper needs of the community. The communal property of a project

that was highlighted in this study was the process of bringing a whole community

together within the project. In addition to these three natures, some projects were

unsuccessful, and this might have been related to lack of communication among

stakeholders or deviation from a program’s official protocols.

The final theme focuses on how the role of students within the curriculum impacts

the partnerships. The students’ roles and their preparation vary greatly between the

programs. For example, in GPP-US the students apply for a team and are interviewed by

the advisors. There is also a seven-week preparation course on the project before the

students even meet the partners. The students appear to the project partner as having a

large skill set and being very capable. In the CPP all the first-year biological engineering

students need to take the course, thus have to be a part of the partnership. However, these

students have limited interactions with the project partner and spend more time with the

elementary students at the school. The project partners were less familiar with university

students for this reason, representing a weaker relationship. This theme highlights the

various ways the student placement impacts the nature of the partnership.

200

These themes highlight a number of key ways that the structure of each program

influences the nature of the partnerships. The next chapter goes into more detail

regarding the TCC framework, including in relation to the existing literature and previous

findings. Recommendations for engineering community engagement programs are also

given based on the program structures highlighted above, followed by a discussion of

limitations and future research, as well as my personal desires and next steps.

201

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, & CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction for the Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion

This chapter is organized in three sections: the discussion, recommendations, and

conclusion. The discussion primarily focuses on the second and third research question.

While a more extensive discussion of the first question appears in Chapter 4, some

findings related to motivation are also included here as they relate to the broader

implications of this work. The recommendations provide suggestions for engineering

community engagement programs, organized by the six structural themes identified in the

research. The conclusion highlights limitations and future research, and provides a

subsection on my personal desires and next steps. It is my hope that this research will

result in more critical reflection and discourse related to the types of relationships that

engineering community engagement programs have with their partnering communities.

6.2 Discussion

The discussion is split into three subsections. In the first, I spend some time

reviewing the influence of the technocratic culture of engineering on the structure of the

programs. This was not explicitly mentioned by many of the participants, and so it did

not warrant a finding, yet it was something that I observed in the three programs that is

worth discussing. In the second section, I review the TCC framework, the benefits and

difficulties of each type of relationship, and how this relates to other assessment

approaches in service learning partnerships. The third subsection reviews how this

research contributes to the service learning literature, the learning through service

community, and the broader engineering education community.

202

6.2.1 Technocratic Culture Influence on each of the Programs

One tension that arose in my perception of the programs was the technocratic

culture of engineering questioning the legitimacy of community engagement programs.

There is a belief within engineering colleges that there needs to be a high level of

technical rigor for something to legitimately be called engineering (Cech, 2014; Lucena,

Schneider, and Leydens, 2010), and so there are tensions around whether these

community engagement programs can be considered engineering. Each of these

programs has a different approach within this tension space, often unbeknown to the

project partner and often not explicitly discussed by the affiliates of the program. I offer

this section to provide some of my thoughts, yet believe a more thorough research study

should be done to focus on the relationship of the engineering community engagement

programs with their associated colleges of engineering.

At Purdue a faculty member who is now the Dean of the College of Engineering

started the EPICS program, originally in the electrical engineering department. This

foundation itself helps provide legitimacy within the college. Each discipline oversees

their own graduation requirements, and the acceptance of EPICS to meet these

requirements is determined by the faculty members in the departments. For example,

some departments allow EPICS students to do their capstone project through EPICS

while others do not. The departments then have additional requirements on the type of

projects students do as well as who can oversee the students. The EPICS program has to

lobby for their legitimacy to provide students with requirements within each of the

engineering disciplines. The most common concern by faculty members around campus

is the technical legitimacy of EPICS, and the level of technical rigor. This contradicts

many of the partners, who say the students often try to “over engineer a solution.” EPICS

accommodates this tension by placing the program in the College of Engineering, only

having one to two credit given for the course (even though the time required for the

course is high), and having engineering faculty members oversee the students taking the

course for capstone design. Additionally, they are balancing the needs of the partners by

focusing on a human-centered design approach that regularly checks in with the project

partners to insure the projects are meeting the partner’s needs.

203

One way that WPI’s GPP program deals with this tension is by not considering

their program engineering. Although the program itself would not likely say that they are

avoiding this tension, this is a benefit of being declared in a separate domain. The

participants seemed to agree that engineering was connected to the technical expertise

and this was not something the program was attempting to promote. Rather, the program

focused on developing the social skills the students needed to be successful professionals.

As mentioned prior the program was for all students, but about fifty percent were

engineers. Having the GPP in a separate domain allows the program to function without

engaging in the discussion of the appropriateness or technical rigor. They were able to do

this through the term system that is unique to WPI. A disadvantage of this approach is

that as a separate domain you may not be given as many resources or respect within the

university. One of the participants also spoke at length with his desire to integrate the

program into the curriculum, so that students are linking the projects to the other courses.

It is my assumption, based on the technocratic culture, that the process of doing so might

call into question the legitimacy of the program. In addition, the GPP program was seen

by some of the participants and the individuals I talk to as underfunded by the university.

For example, the program does not often hire faculty members to advise students on the

GPP programs, but rather full-time staff employees.

LSU’s CPP program works only with a single freshman design course, and is an

isolated phenomenon from the rest of the college. In the first years of the program, there

was some tension about the importance of engineering service learning as a research

domain, as the faculty member was going up for tenure. She had enough publications in

traditional engineering journals; however, the trajectory of her career was towards service

learning. The committee in her department denied her case, yet the college and other

higher level committees approved it. She became a model of the University’s dedication

to service learning. Since then, she has gone up for full professorship, and is now an

endowed faculty member. The university has continued to support service learning, yet

this is done without too much involvement with others in the engineering domain. The

CPP is able to manage the tension of the technocratic culture of engineering by limiting

204

the course component to one freshman level course, and having the technical rigor both

consistent for each class and at an appropriate level for the first-year students.

Overall, the prevalence of the technocratic culture within engineering impacted

the structure of the programs. The programs needed to accommodate the culture, either

by proving their technical rigor, or by separating from the engineering domain. Yet there

are risks with the separation in such a culture, namely that the legitimacy of the program

will be lowered, and there may be a reduction of resources provided to the programs.

6.2.2 Review of the TCC framework

I established the TCC framework after my initial engagement and reflection on

the data. The framework was grounded in a combination of previous literature

categorizing partnerships in service learning, along with the research done on institutional

logic in science museums’ approach to equity, and was intended to categorize specific

interactions, activities and language used by the participants as a way to build an

understanding of the partnerships that were formed. This method of understanding

partnerships is similar to Dorado and Giles’ (2004) work on understanding the paths of

service learning partnerships, and Feinstein and Meshoulam’s (2014) work on the

institutional logics that influence how museums approach serving the public, specifically

in terms of equity. Certain patterns within the data were also reflected in various

literatures, specifically how the learning institution (i.e., service learning program,

science museums, etc.) identified with the partnering communities.

The TCC framework categorizes the type of interactions, activities, and language

within engineering community engagement partnerships. The dominant codes of the

interaction of each participant imply a dominant relationship experienced by the

participant interviewed. This section also reviews some benefits and potential issues

associated with the transactional, cooperative and communal partnerships, while also

linking these partnerships to two additional concepts. The first concept is how

reciprocity is viewed in each of these types of partnerships. The second concept is the

notion of “thick” and “thin” approaches to service. This concept is connected to Morton’s

(1995) work that I reviewed in Chapter 2, which reviews how charity, projects, and social

205

action can each be done well or poorly. This is also congruent with Feinstein and

Meshoulam’s (2014) discussion of the benefits and negatives of institutional logic.

In the transactional relationship, the identity of the community is separate from

that of the program. There is a sense of “otherness,” or an “us” and “them” relationship.

In the context of the project, there is a mental model of the program providing a solution

or product for the community, and the interactions, activities and language reflect this

dyadic relationship. Reciprocity in the transactional context focuses on the partnerships

meeting the desired needs of all constituents. For example, there is a need identified by

the community, and the students meet this need while also getting their own needs of

education meet.

The thick version of the transactional approach recognizes and respects

stakeholders groups involved in the partnership, while also having clear roles and

responsibilities within the groups. The benefit of a transactional relationship is that it

allows for greater consistency, scalability, durability, efficiency, and potentially a lower

time commitment for many constituents. The programs can also create a unique structure

that can be used with a variety of partnerships. There are specific roles that individuals

can take on, so stakeholders can be trained in a role, and enter into the partnership

knowing the amount of time and personal energy needed to meet the expectations within

the partnerships. This relationship can be more accessible to faculty and community

partners without a personal passion for community engagement, as they may have less

time and energy to invest into a partnership. Faculty advisors or partner liaisons can

learn the program, fit into the role, and complete the task. When done well, this type of

relationship can serve a specific need for a community, while offering a learning

experience for the students.

Feinstein and Meshoulam (2014) highlight the benefits of more transactional

strategies to “offer more efficient ways to address particular well-known and deeply

entrenched problems” and “protect and enhance the things that make a particular

[Informal Science Education (ISE)] organization interesting and unusual” (p. 389). ISE

organizations, like many service learning programs, tend to be underfunded, and so

having financially efficient ways to address an issue, when there is already a clear need,

206

is much more important than working closely with the community to define a need and

determine, together, how to approach the problem. Also, ISE organizations have another

community they are working within, namely their professional communities. ISEs learn

from other organizations and will have varying amounts of alignment within their own

community. This is similar to taking common practices from other engineering

community engagement programs and utilizing these practices within a program you are

involved with. In the process the community is not engaged in the decision, yet the

program can learn interesting and valuable processes. The EPICS program is a clear

example of this, by having a set program and policies with a brand and workshops, they

are able to provide suggestions, support, and a structure to other programs that want to

offer service learning at their institution. They have expanded to include EPICS High, for

high school students, and IEEE is expanding EPICS to other countries. EPICS provides

an avenue for establishing new service learning programs, where creating the structure

and identifying projects directly with the community without such a model may be

intimidating, overwhelming, and confusing. To start a partnership with a lack of clarity

and structure may result in negative experiences.

When the transactional relationship is thin, the relationship becomes too one-

sided, and one partner will either not take in consideration or make assumptions about the

needs and goals of the other, or may even exploit the other partner for their own benefit.

For example, the students may assume that the partner may need a highly technical

solution to fix a problem, yet there are more simple solutions that would better fit the

need of the partner. In an even more problematic example of such dynamics, one of the

participants even stated that one partner attempted to involve the students in what they

felt was “industrial espionage.”

The cooperative relationship has the program (i.e. students, advisors, and

administrators) working with the partner (i.e., community partner, sponsor and intended

end users) as a single team. There can be separate roles, yet there is an intentionality to

blur the lines and work as a cohesive whole. There is more a sense of a “we” mentality,

seeing both the community and the program working together. In the context of a project,

the activities, interactions, and language show recognition for the expertise of the

207

differing individuals. Regular and consistent interactions are needed to insure the voices

of all the constituents are included throughout the project. Further, reciprocity in such

relationships should focus on the process as well as the product. The partnership needs to

be adaptable to the community, and their input needs to be included in the program

structure as well as the projects themselves.

The “thick” version of a cooperative relationship allows for each person to fully

engage in the partnership. There is clear intentionality and integration of the partner

throughout the process, increasing the likelihood that the projects are being created with

the voice of partner and the intended users. Feinstein and Meshoulam (2014) state that

cooperative partnerships may “maintain more fluid and dynamic connections with their

changing communities, recognize and meet the needs of smaller and less visible minority

groups, and open up a broader array of partnerships with local agencies and organizations”

(p. 389). Using the cooperative relationship during design also teaches the engineering

community engagement students the importance of listening and integrating the

stakeholders into the design process. This also challenges the overarching paradigm that

engineers are the ones that solve problems, since there is greater awareness and

recognition that they are only one part of the solution. The cooperative model within the

overall structure allows the program to be clearly molded for each unique partnership that

develops, since the partners will work together to determine what needs can and should

be met for the benefit of all the constituents of the partnership. Yet since the cooperative

partnership involves shared decision-making, things take longer and there is a higher

chance of conflict to arise.

A cooperative partnership, by its nature, requires shared decision-making, which

results in a higher potential for conflict. When a cooperative process is done in a “thin”

way, the partners are specifically chosen to agree with the programs. The voices of the

marginalized are excluded from the process, and the projects can reinforce injustices

present within communities.

In communal relationships, the “we” mentality is expanded from the partnership

to include the wider community or society while addressing human needs. In these

partnerships, the level of reciprocity is also expanded to the community or the society.

208

For example, the whole community is relied upon in the design and the construction of

the project, through events such as town hall meetings. The project themselves can be

meeting the human needs for play, human connection, or food security, etc. And the

process allows for reciprocity, so that the individuals put in the energy into the project,

they are also getting something out of it as well, either a deliverable or a human need.

In the “thick” version of a communal partnership, individuals explicitly recognize

and reflect on the value they are bringing to the community, have a sense of openness to

new opportunities that may arise, and a core group of the involved individuals have a

deep commitment, as it represents their passion and dedication to improving the

community through the program. The funding, planning, and operations are done as a

cohesive group, and the project is grounded in a socially just cause. The benefits of

communal relationships are that there is recognition of serving the wider community, and

possibly the society as a whole. The students may also be more oriented toward civic

responsibility and there is a recognition of not just the intended end user, but a deeper

reflection of the complexity of the project. For example, there may be a reflection on

how a wider community is impacted by a project, how design needs to address issues of

accessibility, or that engineers have a responsibility for the wider society. At the same

time, the community partners are just as committed to the core mission of the program.

They see and value the program addressing root issues, not just in terms of the project or

student education, but deeper human needs.

The “thin” approach to the communal partnership is characterized by a number of

possible issues. For instance, Johnson (1983) suggests that privileged individuals may

feel a sense of guilt, and due to this guilt, they decide to go “help” a poor community.

The intention might seem communal, as they may come through spiritual or other reasons,

and see the context of a larger “we,” yet are truly doing the project for themselves and not

the community they are intending to serve (e.g. Carlson 1995). Without deep reflection

and growth of oneself and the program, there may be only a superficial aid, without

recognizing or addressing the root causes of an issue.

209

There has been some discussion on preferable approaches to partnerships. For

instance, Lucena argues the engineer-user relationship needs to recognize the end user as

a citizen to reach a level of sustainability:

The engineer-user relationship allows for the inclusion of diverse and

complex perspectives and opens the possibility of users becoming co-

creators of technologies and sustainable solutions. This leveling of the

expert-non-expert relationship might mean a loss of power and status by

engineers but a gain in transforming [sustainable development] into real

sustainability. (p. 813)

While I agree that leveling of power and seeing the end user as an equal contributor may

result in more sustainable solutions, I also recognize the benefits of more transactional

approaches. Transactional approaches are often more pragmatic, and therefore might be

the most appropriate in certain situations, while offering potential scalability to provide

more individuals with an engagement experience. I tend to agree with Feinstein and

Meshoulam (2014), in their view of client and cooperative logic. That is, the authors

suggest integrating both logics while recognizing the tension between them:

Rather than asking whether ISE organizations should adopt client or

cooperative logic, then, it may ultimately be most productive to ask when

and how they can use both institutional logics in responding to the

challenges of equity posed by their field and embodied by their local

contexts. We are not naive about the tension between these logics. Indeed,

perhaps the clearest evidence we saw for the existence of different logics

was the conflict within several ISE organizations where different

stakeholders had adopted client and cooperative logics. At one

organization, an administrative leader expressed frustration about board

members who didn't understand "that your organization is not just for

them." Several ISE organizations in our sample housed their outreach and

210

floor staff in different buildings, leading to a growing separation in

routines and priorities. One programmatic leader even described her

outreach operations as "very much, I would say, disconnected from what

goes on, on a daily basis, here at the center." Yet if it is possible to balance

both perspectives—either in alternation or simultaneously—the ISE

organization and its local community may benefit. (p. 390)

Having a variety of approaches creates a certain amount of tension, yet it is through

working through this tension and providing a variety of approaches that I believe will

most benefit the community. I see that there are certainly situations and contexts where

each of the approaches has certain advantages and benefits.

Transactional relationships are able to reduce the barriers for entering into

community engagement partnership, as the commitment and personal investment is lower.

The programs can create a more unique perspective, are lower cost, and can potentially

reach more people. On the other hand, history is filled with examples of failed projects

because the community was not integrated into a design process. The cooperative

approach can integrating the community voice can make sure that the community’s

viewpoints are not ignored, and projects can adapt to each situation. Communal

partnerships can more clearly target issues of social justice, and should be addressed and

reflected upon within and through engineering. I personally would strive for a communal

approach; yet that would create the most work, and I do not think that is the best

approach for all programs. Also, if you are not actively open to and learning about the

social issues that you would be involved in, there is a high chance that the program would

do more harm than good.

Yet, any approach taken should be done with some openness to growth and

reflection. Each of the programs had some type of reflection process, either through

research group meetings, or regular discussions with the partners. Additionally, all the

programs had gone through a development process. None of them had the same structure

as they had when formed, and frequently the program purposes and structures evolved

over time. It is essential that the programs reflect on their role within their communities.

211

The amount of resources and commitment of the individuals would impact the type of

partnerships you would want to have. It is possible that a program can serve as an

incubator for partnerships, offering resources, guidance and structure, when appropriate,

for individuals and organizations to help them decide which type of partnership is best for

them. If a faculty member and a community partner have a passion for developing a

communal partnerships the program may need to step out of the way and give more open

space for the partnership to flourish.

The next section reviews how the TCC and other findings of this study adds to the

existing literature, specifically in the service learning field, the LTS community, and the

engineering education research field.

6.2.3 Contributions to the Literature

For the TCC framework discussed in this study there are three specific themes

that can contribute to the current literature. The first is the contribution to the service

learning literature, the second is the impact to the engineering Learning Through Service

(LTS) community, and the third is related to the engineering education literature.

6.2.3.1 Contributions to the Service Learning Literature

For the service-learning community, this study can offer insight to help

understand why some research is best done using a framework grounded on

organizational partnerships, and others have looked at partnerships in terms of individual

relationships. In the literature review, I wrote about differing approaches of researching

service-learning partnerships. The first is through conceptual models that view

partnerships as a series of individual relationships. Bringle and Clayton (2012) argue for

this conceptual model for two reasons, one is the fact that the type of relationship will

look different across the differing stakeholders. For example, the relationship of the

students with the program administrators will look different than the relationships

between the students and the community. Second, the degree of relationship will differ.

Bringle and Clayton argue that the term “relationship” should be used in a broad sense,

while “partnership” should be grounded in closeness, equity, and integrity, and that each

212

relationship among individuals, or groups of individuals (i.e. students and faculty), has

the ability to form a partnership. The second conceptual model is grounded in

organizational structure. Janke (2012) argued for the use of organizational theory to

understand and research partnerships in service learning. Additionally, Janke argues that

examining partnerships at an organizational level, rather than only studying dyadic

interpersonal level, is “useful in conducting research into what makes partnerships

successful over the long term or, specifically, why service learning faculty and

community partners remain together over many years” (Janke, 2012, p.286).

Many of the participants in the CPP program focused more of their experience on

individual relationships. The roles and responsibilities changed based on the level of

commitment and personal talent the individuals brought to the partnership. For example,

the community partner in the CPP who had a skill for fundraising and passion for

bringing a playground to the school used her skill sets to raise large amounts of funding

for the playground. Yet, another partnership did little to raise the money, so the design

students and the faculty member wrote grants for the playground. Many of the other

participants spoke of the personal connections and friendships as a main motivation for

being in the partnership, and point to the qualities of the individuals as reason for the

program success.

On the other hand, EPICS and GPP-US Sponsorships have a higher degree of

organizational structure. There are expected roles and responsibilities of the different

constituents, and there is some level of training for these roles. Individuals are

replaceable, and when participants were asked what made the program successful, there

was more discussion on policies and procedures rather than individual characteristics. In

Janke (2013) paper, there is discussion of two types of partnerships: inter organizational

relationships (IORs) and joint ventures. In the IORs, the identities of the partner

organizations have remained separate, and in joint ventures there has been a type of

merge. Janke offers an example of an IOR that turns into a joint partnership: the director

for a local branch of the United Way noticed that many low-income individuals in the

community were not filing their taxes, and as a result, were not receiving their refunds.

Through partnerships with local organizations, a new organization formed where

213

volunteers and college students worked with the low-income community to offer tax

assistance. Within three years, the organization became self-sustaining, and the original

founder stepped down, and a new chair was appointed. The partnership became an

organization of its own, with specific roles and responsibilities for each group. There

were relationships among individuals, yet the success of the program was most notable

from an organizational level. An IOR formed, and it turned into a joint partnership.

The partnerships in the EPICS and GPP represent more of an IOR dynamic, since

the programs have their distinct identity, and the partnership is designed to meet mutual

benefits. The successes of these approaches are organizational in nature, and have set

policies that are aligned with the learning objectives and the mission of the program. To

reiterate, for the CPP there is not a formal structure, but rather an approach that is more

malleable for each new partnership that is started with a new school.

Through this analysis, it is worth noting that in some relationships, there is more

weight on and power in the specific individuals. Such persons have the influence to alter

the structure of the program, and in these cases there needs to be more emphasis on the

personal relationships that are formed. On the other hand, there are some programs that

are grounded more on the organizational nature of the program. Their success is more

connected to policies, roles and responsibilities. The individuals still do have influence

in these partnerships, yet the impact is less.

Each of these approaches has benefits and challenges. Partnerships that are

focused on the individual level are more personal, can touch on the passion and

dedication of the individual, and can be more malleable based on the needs of specific

partnerships. The negatives of these programs is that there is more pressure on

individuals, that there is a higher likelihood of burnout, or potential collapse of the

program if a person is unable to continue, and the programs are also not scalable, since it

depends on the specific individuals involved. The organization structure is more durable,

reliable, and accountable compared to individual relationships (Scott 2003). The

negatives include a lack of malleability, a potential of stifling out of personal passion

individuals may have for engagement, and a bias in favor of transactional and cooperative

interactions that can be more easily replicated across partnerships.

214

6.2.3.2 Contribution to the Learning Through Service (LTS) Community

The second contribution that this research provides is the impact on the Learning

Through Service (LTS) community. In October 2014, I went to a global humanitarian

conference where I discussed my research, and a few individuals asked for publications

since they were in the process of developing an engineering community engagement

program and were seeking insight. This dissertation, and papers and workshops to follow,

will be able to provide a framework in discussing the types of relationships a program

wishes to have with its partners and larger community. The five structural themes provide

guideposts for how to align the structure with the intended nature of the program, while

recognizing the complexity of various partnerships within a program. In addition, the

overview of the motivation can provide greater understanding for why individuals and

partner organizations enter into engineering community engagement partnerships.

The TCC framework also has some resonance with Lucena’s (2013) book chapter

that categorizes the various ways engineers can see community: as a client, stakeholder,

user, or citizen. With each one having a specific historical context, Lucena integrates

listening at each step and connects it so sustainability implication. The value of the TCC

framework for the LTS community is that the context is specific to the community

engagement programs and recognizes that different approaches are appropriate depending

on the circumstances. There is recognition that the different types of relationships have

their benefits and drawbacks, and that there is a “thick” and “thin” version of the different

partnerships. The specific type of relationship should depend on the specific partnering

organization that the program is working with. As mentioned in the large federal agency

example I presented in Chapter 5, theme 3, the partnering agency was able to benefit

from the credibility of the students as a third-party. This would be a more transactional

relationship, since there is a clear separation among the community and the program, yet

it was the more appropriate method for this partner. In this case, the reason there was a

need for a transactional relationship was in part connected to the union within the

organization. Thus the transactional element allowed for a more socially just approach,

since it respected each of the parties, and the power dynamic of the workers within the

organization. Additionally, the transactional partnerships were often able to successfully

215

meet the missions of each partnering organization, as in the case for EPICS to meet the

educational goals of the program, while meeting the technical needs of community

partners.

I would consider the CPP communal approach as being done well, and that is

largely connected to the dedication, passion and reflection of the individuals involved.

The communal approach, however, needs to be rooted in individuals with this level of

dedication and support, as well as critical reflection of the communities they serve.

Engineers have historically gone into communities in the name of development,

undertaking projects with little or no consideration of local cultural values. The intention

of these project was to benefit the local communities, yet they often had did more harm

since they did not respect or listen to the communities they were attempting to serve (e.g.,

Carlson, 1995, Lucena et. al 2010, Mazzurco & Jesiek 2014).

However, I would argue that there is still a hierarchy involved in the types of

relationships because I believe that a communal relationship done very well will meet a

much deeper need in a community. The potential of the communal relationship is great,

yet it needs a high level of personal energy and commitment, and reflection. One needs

to understand and be willing to be open to one’s cultural biases in the world, as the

relationship will likely push personal limits. This type of work, I believe, has the ability

to take engineering to a new paradigm, to reclassify what it means to be an engineer.

Engineers could work as community organizers or activists. However, without the ability

to reflect and take responsibility for personal biases, the engineer will likely repeat the

historical colonial patterns in poorer communities. Essentially, I believe the transactional

relationship done well is far better than an attempt at the cooperative or communal

approach without the financial and emotional support needed for the partnership. The

learning curve for the transactional partnership is also much lower, providing an easy

stepping stone for individuals just interested in exploring the potentials of community

engagement, and this can potentially grow into a more cooperative or communal

partnerships.

216

6.2.3.3 Contribution to Engineering Education Community

The third contribution this study brings is to the engineering education

community, specifically connected to teaching new professional ways of being in

engineering through project-based learning (PBL) approaches. I argue that by integrating

PBL community engagement programs into engineering education, you are essentially

transforming the ontology of engineering, and this transformation should be recognized

and stated explicitly in order to understand the implications, importance, and value of

these programs.

Dall’Alba (2009) argues that professional education has historically focused on

epistemology (i.e., ways of knowing) while the educational system fails to address

ontology (i.e., ways of being). Students are tested on concepts and knowledge, and in this

process, students also come to inadvertently associate this narrow knowledge with what it

means to be a professional. Students learn what it means to be an engineer through the

culture and situation within their education, often unacknowledged in the institutions of

higher education. An example of this is the Engineering Problem Solving (EPS)

approach (Downey & Lucena, 2006). Throughout their tenure in higher education,

engineering students will solve thousands of EPS problems, where students are given

specific information, and need to go through specific steps in order to set up a problem

and find a solution. The typical steps of a problem are: identify the givens, determine

what is needed to be found, identify assumptions, create a diagram, identify the equations,

and then solve and check the problem (Downey & Lucena, 2006). This process embeds in

the students’ mindsets and teaches them that there is a “right” answer for every problem,

and this influences how students essentially view the world;

Students who complete hundreds of problem sets on graded home works

and exams are simultaneously receiving intensive training in dividing the

world of problem solvers into two parts, those who draw boundaries

around problems appropriately and those who do not. The first group

becomes capable of being “right,” while the second is, by implication,

“wrong.” Quality students emerge from engineering curricula knowing

217

that engineering problems have either right or wrong answers, that the

chief metric of ability is the frequency that one is right, and that difference

is usually a sign of error. In the process, they have acquired solid grounds,

seemingly mathematical, not to trust the perspectives of co-workers who

define problems differently. (Downey & Lucena, 2006).

Lucena et al. (2010) argue that this process – finding the “right” answer – can be

especially detrimental for engineers working in working with the community, since the

problems are often much more complex and nuanced.

This concept is also connected to Shuman et al.’s (2005) assertions about the need

to build professional skills within engineering. The authors highlight how some programs

have started to use service learning and community engagement to integrate the

professional skills into the engineering curriculum, and advocated for wider adoption of

such programs. In this same paper, Shuman et al. also recognized the value of project-

based service learning in the process of learning the professional skills. The project-based

pedagogy was founded in the principle that you taught the knowledge in the context in

which that knowledge would be used (Donner & Bickley, 1993). So when you provide a

project-based learning experience, you are teaching not only the topic, but also teaching

the way to solve project as an engineer. The goal is therefore not really about making a

“better” engineer, but also changing what it means to be an engineer. If you have an

engineering education program that incorporates professional skills, you are also teaching

students that part of being an engineer necessarily includes these skills.

This study contributes to conversations about the ontology of engineering by

recognizing that the relationship that engineers have with their community can vary

greatly, and the relationship defines how engineering is preformed. This builds on

Lucena’s (2013) work that highlights how engineers can recognize the end-user as a

client, stakeholder, collaborator, and/or citizen. These terms are grounded in different

histories, and conceptual frameworks, and as a result require a different process of doing

engineering; so the way of being an engineer must expand past historically dominant

images and current educational practices. This conversation also connects with Cech’s

218

(2014) work suggesting that students’ social engagement declines throughout their

college career, and that their educational experiences are likely leading them to be less

socially engaged. By building new types of partnerships with communities, there is the

potential and the ability to reshape engineering in new ways. If we want engineers to be

active and engaged citizens who think of social considerations and sustainable impact, we

need programs that teach students, and ourselves, the way of being this type of engineer.

In order to make these types of engineers, there need to be more LTS and other kinds of

programs that push engineering students to identify and reflect on the types of

relationships that they wish to have with the communities they serve. The following

section will provide some further specific recommendations for LTS programs.

6.3 Recommendations for Programs

The recommendations below are organized around the six structural themes

presented in the second and third research questions. These suggestions are connected to

the nature of the partnerships between engineering community engagement programs and

the organizations and/or communities with which they work.

6.3.1 Purpose

I have two suggestions for addressing the purpose of the program. The first is

determining what kinds of partner relationships are desired, and the second is making

sure this nature is reflected in the program’s mission statement and policy documents.

If a program is just starting, or wants to reflect on the partnerships with the

community, it is important to explicitly discuss what types of partnerships are desired

between the program and the community partners. The programs might want to have a

communal partnership, yet their potential partners do not have the resources needed to

commit to co-creating the partnership, and would rather have a more transactional or

client-oriented model. If the desired natures do not align, the partnership may not be a

good match and could even lead to negative outcomes.

219

Having a well-articulated mission statement that is explicit about the program’s

philosophy toward partner and community relationships is also important, including as

reflected on public web pages and other literature that is easily accessible by the

community to provide clarity about its expectations. This language can also act as an

important guidepost for the advisors, staff and students within the program. Language

that uses terms to refer to the community as a “customer” or “client” potentially creates

an identity boundary between the program and the community. That is, “client” or

“customer” terminology is deeply embedded with transactional connotations, and is

rooted in a context of providing a service for a community (Lucena, 2013). If a

partnership seeks to be cooperative, the program should use terms that frame the

community as co-designers. This intention needs to be clearly stated in the language of

the program, and the partners should recognize themselves as co-contributors to the

projects. For instance, an advisor in GPP-US who was frustrated with a recent magazine

describing the program highlights an example of the importance of the messaging:

You should grab a copy of the WPI Alumni magazine that just came. I got

it in the mail last week. And you read the first few pages, there's the

profile of couple of new projects that was in here…. Our students, how

they go out and save the world … I mean I think we're all aggravated by

that mentality. Sincere work that we're trying to do with people in other

countries and here it's boiled down to blurbs, that the marketing

department takes them and sells in ways that aren't really true to what the

experience is all about. It's talking about going to live in [a foreign country]

for seven weeks. It's about going to understand what life is like in a

[foreign country] outside of [a main city] and why people live 10 miles

outside of town. (GPP-US Center Director)

The marketing within the university program boiled down the experience into a blurb

which made it sound as if they program was set up to “save” an international community

partner, even though the program’s intention was to work “with” the community:

220

We shouldn't be selling it as that. That shouldn't be part of our messaging.

Our messaging should be "Come learn with them. Let's learn together."

You're not teaching. I don't care if you're the most talented, up-and-

coming chemical engineer. That doesn't matter. (GPP-US Center Director)

The program was attempting to be cooperative, yet the messaging came off as more

transactional. This example also highlights the importance of working with the

marketing department, to insure that any advertisements and newsletters accurately

describe the program.

If a program is seeking to be communal in nature, having a purpose of community

empowerment and addressing social justice issues in a community is critical and should

be stated as part of a program’s purpose. An example of this a document that is stating

the nature of the partnership is the “about us” section of the community playground

project’s web site:

The LSU Community Playground Project has been in existence since 1998

to provide children in Baton Rouge and surrounding communities with

safe, fun, accessible playgrounds that the children themselves help to

design. LSU Biological Engineering students are required to take a

Service Learning design class in which students are assigned to work with

a local public school to design a playground that encompasses the soul of

the community. The design, funding, and construction processes engage

elementary students, parents, teachers, and school staff. LSU faculty, staff,

and students have worked alongside their community partners to address

the community needs, demonstrating a commitment to work with the

community, rather than simply providing a product for the

community. (CPP, 2014)

221

In the above example, the elementary students are identified as co-designers, and it is

clearly stated that all the members of the community are engaged throughout the project

cycle.

In addition, the messaging needs to be discussed within engineering colleges and

departments and the other engineering constituents, such as the ABET, Inc. accreditation

body. Often, within the engineering community, terms like “client” and “customer” are

much more prevalent than alternatives like “co-designer.” If a given program decides to

promote cooperative and communal partnerships, they might retain more conventional

language and terminology when interacting with other constituent groups. Yet it would

be preferable if such a program adopted terminology in line with their partnership

philosophy, and embraced opportunities to educate other groups on the importance of co-

designing. For example, programs could discuss the nature of different types of

relationships, and explain why they are prioritizing partnerships with certain kinds of

natures. They can point to associated benefits in team preparation and the importance of

students working with others from various backgrounds. The teams of the cooperative

and communal programs do not only consist of students, but also that of the community.

This should be intentionally stated to these various constituents.

In summary, the mission statement should guide and inform a wider range of

program policies and procedures. The structural elements included in the following

subsections should also reflect the intended nature of the partnerships.

6.3.2 Overall Structure

The overall structure of a program may differ considerably depending on

whether a given program is seeking to build and leverage an organizational structure or

rather one that is grounded in individual relationships. The organizational structure will

likely be more scalable and will depend less on the individuals involved, while the one

grounded in individual relationship may be able to place greater emphasis on the assets

the individuals are bringing to the partnership.

Specific structural elements are also important in bringing the projects to fruition.

Further, there will likely be periods of time when the university students are involved in

222

activities that are transactional, were they are separated from the community members,

are working independently, and then seek feedback at a later date. Having the

engineering students reflect on how the user will be impacted is a way to integrate the

community in a transactional way. Yet in cooperative interactions and activities, there

need to be more extensive and intensive direct interactions between the university

students and project partner or the community, and the partners need to be continuously

engaged in the design process. There are likely to be times when the partner might take

the lead on a project, and the students are learning from and with them. In communal

structure, the program also reflects on the deeper social needs that the project is

addressing, and there are activities that create a sense of togetherness.

6.3.3 Type of Agency

An engineering community engagement program should consider the type,

mission, and culture of partner agencies and organizations while establishing

partnerships. If a partner organization has a transactional model within their

organization or in their interactions with the wider community, such as where they see

the community as a client they are serving, they will likely seek out and desire a

transactional relationship with the program. If, on the other hand, they see themselves

integrated into the community they are serving, and have a strong cooperative

relationship with the community, the partnership may be inclined toward a more

cooperative nature. Not every community agency will likely fit with a program, and so

having the program and agency understand how they can help one another is important.

Also, for a more cooperative partnership, there is an expectation of adaptation for

both parties. Allowing the program to be able to better meet the needs of the partnering

agency, and the partnering agency being able to work with the changing needs of the

program. In fact, all three of the programs were able to maintain a variety of different

relationships, some that are more cooperative and some that are more transactional,

based on the type of agencies they partnered with. This was done by to some extent

having a set model, yet also having room for variation and adaption to allow for more

cooperative interactions, if appropriate. For example, any of the partners that join

223

EPICS were expected to meet with the students two or three times a semester, yet some

of the partners had a higher degree of commitment and met with the students more

regularly. These partners were more likely to be invested in the design process, and the

partnerships were more cooperative in nature.

6.3.4 Individuals

Having partners that are dedicated, passionate, and interested in the program

helps the projects run smoothly, and tends to be very important for the success of most

every partnership. There is often a personal motivation among these individuals to

contribute to the wider community, including through the mission of the partnering

agencies and/or the students’ education. In all the cases, this was found true for the

partnerships.

In programs that have a well-established organizational structure, the individual

will influence the partnership largely within their own role. For instance, a partner can

influence how students are integrated within the agency, and the advisor may take their

personal interests and skills into the partnerships. This can be in either transactional or

cooperative ways.

If the programs that are centered more on personal relationships, the individuals

have more influence on shaping the program structure. The motivations to be involved

are more explicitly connected to personal relationships. With communal programs, it is

important to have a network of supporters who are dedicated and are able to see the

project to completion, even if some of the involved individuals are not as invested in the

program.

6.3.5 Projects

A program needs to reflect on the nature of the partnership when deciding a

project, including in which stages of the process it is desirable or appropriate for the

community to be involved.

224

More specifically, transactional projects will likely seek community feedback

through surveys or demonstration sessions. The project is done in partial isolation of the

recipients, and the community members are seen as giving feedback.

In a cooperative project there should be reflection and regular discussion on the

level of involvement with the community. Asking questions such as: How can we get

involved with the community, and is it appropriate to bring them in at this stage? If the

subject is highly technical, will that be a barrier for the community? Can there be

education, and is educating the appropriate? What is the expertise of the community?

How can each stakeholder learn from each other through the project? I recommend

having such questions as regular reflections that are done throughout each project.

The communal projects are meeting a deeper need of a community, and

transcend the boundaries of the stakeholders. If your goal is to identify and develop

projects that are more communal in nature, you need to look at injustices in a

community and how they can be addressed. And throughout the process, there needs to

be regular reflection on the impact that the program is having on the community.

Specific examples of project can be found within the projects theme in Chapter 5.

6.3.6 The Intersection of Students and the Curriculum

The dominant mindset of engineers approach is that of “problem solver” and one

seeking the “right answer” (Downey & Lucena, 2006). As mentioned in the discussion

section above, this can be linked to the approach engineers use to solve technical

problems. This mentality of engineering students needs to be addressed within the

structure of the program.

According the Lucena et al. (2010), engineering students embarking on

development work should be pushed to understand “how what is considered ‘technical’ is

shaped by engineers’ engagement with community and how community could be

impacted by technology” (p. 104). The authors also point to reflection as a way to

process what they have learned. Indeed, much has been written about the value of

reflection in service learning (see Eyler, Giles, & Schmeide, 1996) and even engineering

225

service learning explicitly (see Lima & Oakes, 2013). Reflection is often viewed as a

central part of service learning, and is utilized in both EPICS and CPP programs.

The contribution and suggestion, as it relates to this paper, is the importance of

reflecting on the actual type of relationship, and how one sees the community. In the

workshops that are planned to follow this dissertation, I am working with Juan Lucena,

Marybeth Lima, and Andrea Mazzurco to propose and run a workshop at ASEE 2015 to

help attendees learn about different partnerships they wish to have, and reflect how their

current programs are meeting or not meeting the types of partnerships they wish to have.

The act of reflection can be expanded within EPICS, GPP-US, or the CPP, so that

students, administrators, and advisors are intentionally reflecting on the types of

relationships they are having with their community, and how this relationship is leading

students to see themselves as engineers.

6.4 Conclusion

I conclude this paper with two areas: the first looking at the limitations of this

study and some possible directions for future work; the second discussing my desired

outcomes and next steps leading from this research.

6.4.1 Limitations and Future Research

Findings from qualitative studies, by their nature, are highly dependent of the

context and cases examined (Patton, 2002). In this study, the cases of engineering

community engagement programs were selected looking at programs that have had long-

term partnerships, serve a majority of engineering students, and whose partnerships are

within the United States. Patton emphasized that, “the validity, meaningfulness, and

insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information richness

of the cases selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the research than the

sample size” (p.245). Hence, my discussion of the limitations of this study are broken

into information richness, which includes the site selections, observations, and

226

participants, and the researcher’s (my) personal capabilities. Within each of the areas,

there is also discussion of further research that can address some of these limitations.

This study examined three sites, although the validity, meaningfulness and

insights of the study are connected more to the richness of sites rather than quantity. The

programs chosen had both differences and similarities in terms of length of partnerships,

location, structures, types of partnering organizations, etc. I feel that I did a good job

getting a breadth of programs and individuals within partnerships in this study. However,

there is a saying within the service learning literature, “when you've seen one partnership,

you've seen one partnership.” Each program and partnership is to some extent unique,

and thus there may be structural factors or motivations that were not included within this

study, yet are highly influential in other programs and partnerships.. Additionally, the

programs included in this study were well-established and leading programs in the

country. Each had already gone through a longer developmental process to get to where

they currently are. Other programs, new and old, will have a different developmental

pathway that will influence the nature of the associated partnerships. The depth of

understanding and insights gained from this study shed light on partnerships, yet more

research is needed to expand and extend this work.

Another issue of site selection was that all the partnerships were within the United

States. This was recognized as a limitation at the beginning of the study. There are a

growing number of engineering community engagement programs that are reaching

outside the United States. The additional language, cultural, geographical, etc. boundaries

encountered in such programs and projects create more complexities in the structure and

the nature of partnerships. More research is needed to see how the findings from this

research can be related to partnerships in global context.

The second area of limitation of this study is the lack of in-depth observations.

Interviews were the main data source, and participants of this study could speak to a

variety of experiences, as well as a given program’s policies and procedures. I also

experienced some informal interactions within the programs, but this information was not

directly used as data. Essentially, I assumed that the way the participants described their

experience correlated with their actual experiences within the partnerships. I recommend

227

that future research should include observations and interviews with different participants,

specifically other individuals associated with each program (e.g., students, staff and

administrators) and other individuals associated with the partner organizations and wider

community (e.g., community partners, residents, end users, etc.). This could further

confirm the findings, especially related to the TCC framework.

The third area of limitations within this study are the participants. The research

focused on the partnership, so individuals were chosen who had extensive knowledge

through participating in the programs for a variety of terms, or by being identified by

individuals within the program as having a high level of dedication. This limited the

number of unsuccessful partnerships under investigation, as well as the impacts of

partnerships on students. Unsuccessful cases can provide greater insight into how and

why partnerships are successful by providing counterexamples to help validate and

triangulate findings, and can further expand and validate the TCC framework and used in

this study. Additionally, only two students were included in this study, yet many of the

findings and discussion includes impacts on students learning. The findings of this

research are thus mainly focused on perceived or desired learning outcomes in

partnerships, and more research is needed to determine what students learn in these

partnerships.

Finally, there are the researcher’s (my) capabilities to carry out the study. One of

the main issues was the length of time from the initial interviews to the end. The EPICS

interviews were done in Spring 2011 at Purdue University, the university I attend for my

Ph.D. The interviews for GPP-US were conducted in Spring 2013, and the interviews for

the CPP were conducted in Spring 2014. Throughout this time, my knowledge of

partnerships and interviewing skills improved, and so the interviews at the end, I believe,

offered more depth than the ones at the beginning. Also, I had a deeper personal interest

in cooperative and communal partnerships, and an increased interest for the CPP program.

This bias, I believe, influenced the interviews as well as the analysis, since I was more

genuinely interested in partnerships that had more cooperative and communal qualities.

Both my advisor and a committee member brought this to my attention during the

analysis process. Although I focused on empirical evidence in the findings and

228

recognized this bias and consciously focused on the benefits of the transactional

partnerships, I recognize that my own subjectivity influences the findings.

While future research should take these limitations into account, this study

provides a stepping-stone for a variety of possible research projects. For example, future

work might focus on categorizing global engineering partnership, or developing new

survey instruments that could be used to evaluate the nature of partnerships.

6.4.2 Personal Desires and Next Steps

It is my hope that this research will result in more critical discourse and research on

service learning partnerships, and will spur inclusion of the community directly in

program design and research. In addition, I hope that this research also provides a step in

on the path of broadening the way of being and becoming an engineer. I hope engineers

can one day be trained to be community developers, and recognize that it takes a village

to build infrastructure.

In my own next steps, I would like to develop a non-profit that teaches

engineering skills through community-led design process. Following the defense, I will

be going to South Africa, where I will be volunteering with an organization that focuses

on science education. The students join science clubs throughout the country, and the

agency distributes newsletters with science concepts and activities. I would like to work

with the agency to establish a way to have the students have more control over the topics

the newsletters focus on, while also integrating engineering concepts into the newsletters.

I hope to learn about non-profit work and then move back to America to work with

another agency that has a similar mission.

Eventually, I would like to have developed the skill sets to start a program myself,

where I can work with communities to expand their resources and learn engineering

design.

229

REFERENCES

229

REFERENCES

ABET. (2012). Criteria For Accrediting Engineering Programs. Retrieved from

http://www.abet.org/eac-current-criteria/

Alstyne, J., Boyd, J., Grogan, W., Heventhal, C., Moruzzi, R., Shipman, W., & Seaberg,

R. (1969). A planning program for Worcester Polytechnic Institute: the future of

two towers -part three: A model. Worcester, MA.

Barrington, L., & Duffy, J. (2007). Attracting underrepresented groups to engineering

with service-learning. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering

Education, Honolulu, Hi.

Barrington, L., & Duffy, J. (2010). Maximizing benefits of service learning in

engineering. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education

2010 Annual Conference Proceedings, Louisville, KY.

Baton Rouge Area Chamber. (2006). Public education in the Baton Rouge Area:

Perceptions, reality, & reform. Retrived from

http://www.brac.org/docs/pdf/EducationSeries_Packaged.pdf

Braun, V. & Clarke, V., Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology 3 (2), 77- 101.

Bell, S., & Carlson, R. (2009). Motivations of community organizations for service

learning. In R. Stoecker & E. Tryon (Eds.), The Unheard Voices: Community

Organizations and Service Learning (pp. 19-37). Piladelphia: Temple University

Press.

Berkeley Engineers And Mentors. (2013). BEAM website. Retrieved from

http://beam.berkeley.edu/

230

Bielefeldt, A., Paterson, K., & Swan, C. (2009, June). Measuring the impacts of project-

based service learning. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering

Education, Austin, TX

Bielefeldt, A., Paterson, K., & Swan, C. (2010). Measuring the value added from service

learning in project-based engineering education. International Journal of

Engineering Education, 26(3), 535-546.

Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P., & Price, M. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic

engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement,

1(1), 1-20.

Bringle, R. G., & Clayton, P. H. (2012). Conceptual frameworks for partnerships in

service learning. In R. G. Bringle, P. H. Clayton & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.), Research

on Service Learning: Conceptual frameworks and Assessment Vol. 2 (539-573).

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy, E. A. (1999). Colleges and universities as citizens.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. (2002). Campus-community partnerships: The terms of

engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516.

Carlson, J. (1995). The stranger’s eyes. Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural

Community Work, (20) 34-38. Retrieved at http://www-01.sil.org/anthro/articles

/thestrangerseyes.htm

Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education. Science,

Technology & Human Values, 39(1), 42-72.

Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., Senor, B., Huq, J., & Morrison, M. (2010). Differentiating

and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative,

transactional, or transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service

Learning, 16(2), 5-22.

Community Engagement Division. (2014). About us. Retrieved November, 2014

Connolly, W. E. (1983). The terms of political discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

231

Coyle, E., Jamieson, L., & Oakes, W. (2005). EPICS: Engineering Projects in

Community Service. Internalional Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 139-

150.

CPP, Community Playground Project. (2014). About us. Retrieved November, 2014,

from https://sites.google.com/site/lsuplayground/about-our-organization

Cruz, N., & Giles, D. (2000). Where's the community in service-learning research?

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Special Issue, 28-34.

Cummings, A., Zoltowski, C. B ., & Oakes, W. C. (2014). Immersive community

engagement experience. Paper presented at American Society of Engineering

Education, Indianapolis, IN.

Dall' Alba, G. (2009). Learning professional ways of being: Ambiguities of becoming.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(1), 34-45.

de Graff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2007). History of problem-based learning and project-lased

Learning In E. de Graff & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Management of change:

Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning in engineering

Rotterdamn, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Deans, T. (1999). Service-learning in two keys: Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy in

relation to John Dewey's pragmatism. Michigan Journal of Community Service

Learning, 6(1), 15-29.

Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. J. A. Boydston & P. Baysinger (Eds.). The

middle works of John Dewey. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Donner, R., & Bickley, H. (1993). Problem-based learning in American medical

education: an overview. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 81(3), 294-

298.

Dorado, S., & Giles, D. E. (2004). Service-learning partnerships: Paths of engagement.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 25-37.

Dorado, S., Giles Jr, D. E., & Welch, T. C. (2009). Delegation of coordination and

outcomes in cross-sector partnerships the case of service learning partnerships.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 368-391.

232

Dorsey, M. (1999). The Story of the WPI Plan. Retrieved from

http://www.wpi.edu/academics/library/history/plan/

Downey, G., and Lucena J. (2006). The engineer as problem definer: How globalization,

underrepresentation, and leadership are variations of the same problem. Invited

Distinguished Lecture, American Society of Engineering Education. Chicago, IL.

Duffy, J. (2008). Village empowerment: Service-learning with continuity. International

Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 3(2), 1-17.

Duffy, J., Barrington, L., West, C., Heredia, M., & Barry, C. (2011). Service-Learning

Integrated throughout a College of Engineering (SLICE). Advances in

Engineering Education, 2(4), 9.

Duffy, J., Barry, C., Barrington, L., & Heredia, M. (2009). Service-Learning in

engineering science courses: Does it work? . Paper presented at the American

Society for Engineering Education, Austin, TX.

Engineering Projects In Community Service. (2012). EPICS Website. Retrieved

December, 2012, from https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICS

Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community

partnerships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

EPICS. (2012). EPICS high. Retrieved December, 2012, from

https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICSHS

EPICS. (2013). Syllabus . Retrieved from

https://sharepoint.ecn.purdue.edu/epics/teams/Public

Documents/EPICS_Syllabus.pdf

EPICS. (2014a). Website sites Retrieved November, 2014, from

https://engineering.purdue.edu/

Eyler, J., Giles, D. E., & Schmeide, A. (1996). A practitioner's guide to reflection in

service-learning: Student voices & reflections: Vanderbilt University.

Feinstein, N. W., & Meshoulam, D. (2014). Science for what public? Addressing equity

in American science museums and science centers. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 51(3), 368-394.

233

Furco, A., & Holland, B. (2004). Institutionalizing service-learning in higher education:

Issues and strategies for chief academic officers. In M. Lengesth & W. Plater

(EDs.), Public Work and the Academy: An Academic Administrator‚ a Guide to

Civic Engagement and Service Learning (23–40). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The

interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-32). New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey:

Toward a theory of service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service

learning, 1(1).

Giles, D., & Eyler, J. (1998). A service learning research agenda for the next five years.

In R. Rhoads & J. Howard (Eds.), Academic service learning: A pedagogy of

action and reflection (pp. 65-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Giles, D., Honnet, E., & Migliore, S. (1991). Research agenda for combining service and

learning in the 1990s. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and

Experiential Education.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research: Chicago: Aldine.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic

inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, NY:

SUNY Press.

Hatcher, J. (1997). The moral dimensions of John Dewey's philosophy: Implications for

undergraduate education. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1).

IEEE. (2014). Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) in IEEE. Retrieved

November, 2014

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-learning in higher education: Concepts and practices: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Jacoby, B. (2003). Fundamentals of service-learning partnerships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.),

Building Partnerships for Service-Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jamieson, L. (2012). [Co-founder of EPICS talk at EPICS university workshop].

234

Janke, E. M. (2012). Organizational partnerships in service learning: Advancing theory-

based research. In R. G. Bringle, P. H. Clayton & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.), Research

on Service Learning: Conceptual frameworks and Assessment Vol. 2B (384-426).

Sterling, Virgina: Stylus Publishing.

Johnson, P. (1983). A gistory of the modern world: From 1917 to the 1980s. London:

Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Kazmer, D., Duffy, J., West, C., & Lee, K. (2010). Collaborative research: Engineering

Faculty Engagement in Learning Through Service (EFELTS). University of

Massachusetts Lowell: National Science Foundation.

Kenny, M., & Gallagher, L. (2002). Service-learning: A history of systems. In M. E.

Kenny, L. A. Simon, K. Kiley-Brabeck & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Learning to serve:

Promoting civil society through service learning (pp. 15-29). Boston: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P., Volkwein, F., & Peterson, G. (2006). The changing face of

engineering education. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society, 36(2), 5-13.

Lima, M. (2013). Building playgrounds, engaging communities: Creating safe and happy

places for children. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Press.

Lima, M. (2013b). Syllabus for BE 1252: Biology in Engineering. Retrieved from

https://www.lsuagcenter.com/MCMS/RelatedFiles/%7B6CC99342-5C7A-4C8C-

ABCB-B94B1DC9A4AA%7D/BE1252.pdf

Lima, M., & Oakes, W. C. (2014). Service-learning: Engineering in your community (2

ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lucena, J., Schneider, J. J., & Leydens, J. A. (2010). Engineering and sustainable

community development (Vol. 11). San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool

Publishers.

Lucena, J. C. (2013). Engineers and community: How sustainable engineering depends

on engineers'‚ views of people. In J. Kauffman & K. M. Lee (Eds.), Handbook of

sustainable engineering (pp. 793-815). Dordrecht: Springer.

235

Matusovich, H. M., Oakes, W., & Zoltowski, C. B. (2013). Why women choose service-

learning: Seeking and finding engineering-related experiences. International

Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2), 388-402.

May, H. F. (1959). The end of American innocence: A study of the first years of our own

time, 1912-1917. Chichester, NY: Columbia University Press.

Mazzurco, A., Huff, J. L., & Jesiek, B. K. The Energy Conversion Playground (ECP)

design task: Assessing how students think about technical and non-technical

considerations in sustainable community development. International Journal for

Service Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social

Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 64-84.

Mazzurco, A., & Jesiek, B. K. (2014). Learning from failure: Developing a typology to

enhance global service-learning engineering projects. Paper presented at the

American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis, IN.

McCahan, S., Ault, H. K., Tsang, E., Henderson, M. R., Magleby, S. P., & Soisson, A.

(2012, June). A multi-dimensional model for the representation of learning

through service activities in engineering. Paper presented at the American Society

for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX.

McCormick, M., Lawyer, K., Wiggins, J., Swan, C., Patterson, K., & Bielefeldt, A.

(2014). Sustainable engineering assessment using rubric-based analysis of

challenge question responses. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering

Education & Practice.

McDowell, G. R. (2003). Engaged universities: Lessons from the land-grant universities

and extension. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, 585(1), 31-50.

Mello, N. A. (2005, October). Preparing faculty for a global experience. Paper presented

at the Frontiers in Education, Indianapolis, IN.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers

236

Morril Act. An act donating public lands to the several states and territories which may

provide colleges for the benedit of agriculture and the mechanical arts, 7, U.S.

Code § 301 (1862 July 2).

Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-

learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19-32.

Morton, K., & Saltmarsh, J. (1997). Addams, Day, and Dewey: The emergence of

community service in American culture. Michigan Journal of Community Service

Learning, 4, 137-149.

Morton, K., & Troppe, M. (1996). From the margin to the mainstream: Campus

Compact's project on integrating service with academic study. Journal of Business

Ethics, 15(1), 21-32.

National Service-Learning Clearing House. (2012). Historical timeline. Retrieved

October, 2012, from http://www.servicelearning.org/what_is_service-

learning/history

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3 ed ed.). Thousand

Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Percy, S. L., Zimpher, N. L., & Brukardt, M. J. (2006). Creating a new kind of university:

Institutionalizing community-university engagement. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Phillips, J. T. (2007). Transformative campus-community service-learning partnerships.

Disseration, Johnson & Wales University, Providence.

Phillips, J. T., & Ward, C. V. (2009). Two-dimensional approach for assessing

transformative campus/community service-learning partnerships. In S. H. Billig &

B. A. Holland (Eds.), Creating our identities in service-learning and community

engagement (pp. 103-127). Charlotte, NC: Information AgePublishing.

Pierrakos, O., Zilberberg, A., Swan, C. W., Bielefeldt, A. R., Paterson, K., Duffy, J. J., et

al. (2012). Faculty survey on learning through service: Development and initial

findings. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, San

Antonio, TX.

237

Pollack, S. (1999). Early connections between service and education. In T. Stanton, D.

Giles Jr. & N. Cruz (Eds.), Service learning: A movement's pioneers reflect on its

orgins, practice, and future (12-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Redd, K. E. (1998). Historically black colleges and universities: Making a comeback.

New directions for higher education, 1998(102), 33-43.

Ropers-Huilman, B., Carwile, L., & Lima, M. (2007). Service-learning in engineering: a

valuable pedagogy for meeting learning objectives. European Journal of

Engineering Education, 20(2), 155-165.

Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: John Dewey's contribution to the

pedagogy of community service learning. Michign Journal of Community Service

Learning, 3(1).

Saltmarsh, J. (2007). Dewey's dream: Universities and democracies in an age of

education reform: Civic society, public Schools, and democratic citizenship.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1).

Sandy, M., & Holland, B. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community

partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of

Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30-43.

Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.

Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET "professional

skills" - Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering

Education, 94(1), 41-55.

Sigmon, R. L. (1994). Serrving to learn, learning to serve. Linking service with learning.

Council for Independent Colleges Report.

Sigmon, R. L. (1996). Journey to service-learning: Experiences from independent liberal

arts colleges and universities. Washington DC: ERIC.

Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational

Science, 2(1), 125–134.

238

Sockett, H. (1998). Levels of partnership. Metropolitan Universities: An international

forum, 8(4), 75-82.

Stanton, T. K., Giles Jr, D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Service-learning: A movement's

pioneers reflect on its origins, practice, and future. San Francisco, CA: ERIC.

Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. A. (2009). The unheard voices. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Thompson, J. D., & Jesiek, B. K. (2014). Motivation of community partners and advisors

to participate in community engagement engineering programs. Paper presented

at the American Society of Engineering Education, Indianapolis, IN.

Torres, J. (2002). Benchmarks for campus/community partnerships. Providence, RI:

Campus Compact.

Tucker, B. G., Kazmer, D. O., Bielefeldt, A. R., Paterson, K., Pierrakos, O., Soisson, A.,

et al. (2013). Principles of sustaining partnerships between higher education and

their larger communities: Perspectives from engineering faculty engaged in

learning through service. International Journal for Service Learning in

Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, 48-63.

US Census Bureau. (2014). State & county quickfacts: East Baton Rouge parish,

Louisiana. Retrieved November, 2014, from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/22033.html

Vanasupa, L., & Schlemer, L. (2014). Relational versus transactional community

engagement: An experience of the benefits and costs. Paper presented at the

American Society of Engineering Education, Indianapolis, IN.

Vanasupa, L., Schlemer, L., Burton, R., Brogno, C., Hendrix, G., & MacDougall, N.

(2014). Laying the foundation for transdisciplinary faculty collaborations: Actions

for a sustainable future. Sustainability, 6(5), 2893-2928.

Vaz, R. (2011). Crossing borders: My journal at WPI. In G. L. Downey & K. Beddoes

(Eds.), What is global engineering education for? The making of international

educators. Online Book: Morgan & Claypool.

239

Worrall, L. (2007). Asking the community: A case study of community partner

perspectives. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 5-17.

WPI. (2013). 2013 Fact book: Undergrature & graduate student enrollment information.

Zidek, L. (2010, October). Engineering service learning, engineering entrepreneurship

and assessment: Building a program that works. Paper presented at the IEEE

Frontiers In Education Conference (FIE), Washington DC.

Zimpher, N., Percy, S., & Brukardt, M. (2002). A time for boldness: A story of

institutional change. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Zoltowski, C., Oakes, W., & Chenoweth, S. (2010, June). Teaching human-centered

design with service-learning. Paper presented at the American Society for

Engineering Education. Louisville, KY.

240

APPENDICES

240

Appendix A Interview Questions

Note: The [engineering service-learning program] will be replaced with the name of the specific program the interviewee is associated with

1. History a. Personal and professional background

i. What is your title/role within your organization? ii. Can you tell me a little about your educational and professional

background, including how you got involved with this organization? b. How did you and/or organization get involved with [engineering service-

learning program]? c. Why did you and/or your organization partner with [engineering service-

learning program]? d. What is your role within the partnership?

2. Projects a. What projects have work on with [engineering service-learning

program]? i. Examples

b. What are typical i. Successes

1. Why? ii. Failures

1. Why? c. How do [engineering service-learning program] students get

background information about your organization and the project(s) they work on?

d. What things do you feel are most important to tell students each semester as they are introduced to the partnership?

e. What could be done to better orient students to your organization and the project(s) they work on?

f. What is your interaction like? i. With students?

ii. With faculty members? iii. With teacher assistances?

3. Project relational dynamics a. What have you been satisfied with the students’ ability to understand the

needs of your organization and the goals of the project(s)? Why or why not? Any specific examples?

241

b. How are decisions made within the project(s)? Such as which project students should work on, what material are used, etc.

c. Do you feel like your voice is heard on the projects? Why or why not? Any specific examples?

d. What were your expectations of EPICS projects when you first started working with EPICS, including student capabilities, useful project deliverables, benefits to your organization, etc.

e. How have your expectations changed over time?

4. Motivation a. What do you like about working with [engineering service-learning

program]? i. Examples

b. What do you find difficult about working with [engineering service- learning program]?

i. Examples c. What resources do you allocate to [engineering service-learning

program]? i. Personally

ii. The organization d. If you were not involved in the [engineering service-learning program]

partnership, how would your resources be spent? i. Personally

ii. The organization e. What are the benefits from working with [engineering service-learning

program]? i. Personally

ii. The organization f. Are the benefits greater than the costs?

i. Personally ii. The organization

g. Do you find value in the partnership? h. How do you view the long-term partnership model?

5. Students a. What do you think the students gain from the project(s)? b. What do you see as students most difficult hurdle, during any phase of the

project(s)? c. How do you view the [engineering service-learning program] student’s

feelings toward the project(s)? d. How do you view the [engineering service-learning program] students’

feelings toward your organization? e. What do you see as the students’ strengths and weaknesses?

242

f. What are common attributes of the students working with [engineering service-learning program]?

g. What do you hope the students achieve?

6. Overall a. Who benefits from the [engineering service-learning program]

partnership? Why? b. Have you worked with other volunteers/service-learning groups?

i. How does [engineering service-learning program] compare? c. What would you like to change about the [engineering service-learning

program] program?

243

Appendix B Participation Email

Note: The [engineering service-learning program] will be replaced with the name of the specific program the interviewee is associated with (EPICS or WPI)

Dear [Participant’s Name], We are conducting a research study on the motivations and perception of

[engineering service-learning program] among [engineering service-learning program] partners. We have received your contact information through [engineering service-learning program]’s staff as a potential participant and would like to ask for your involvement.

Participation includes an interview about the your experiences with and

perceptions of the program and students, lasting about 90 minutes. For the interview, we could meet at [engineering service-learning program site], at another mutually agreeable location, or over a telephone or Skype call.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to speaking with

you.

Julia Thompson Graduate Student, School of Engineering Education Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN [email protected] Brent Jesiek Assistant Professor, School of Engineering Education Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN [email protected]

If you have large tables or figures to include and need to use margin space, use

the right margin and bottom margin.

244

Appendix C Participation Consent Form

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

Transactional or Transformative: Investigating Partnerships in Engineering Project Based Service- Learning (PBSL)

Professor Brent Jesiek

Purdue University College of Engineering

School of Engineering Education

Purpose of Research This research project is designed to examine the motivations of community organizations, partnerships and the role of project within engineering service-learning programs.

Specific Procedures If you participate in this study you will be interviewed in a semi-structured format and observed with student on ______ date. The interviewer will ask you questions about topics such as your professional background, career and history with the service-learning program. The interview will be audio recorded and later transcribed. After the transcripts has been prepared and proofread, you will have the option of reviewing it for inaccuracies or confidentiality concerns. A copy of the transcript will be edited to address any concerns you may have.

Duration of Participation We anticipate the interview will last 45-90 minutes. Reviewing the interview transcripts may require an additional 45 to 60 minutes of your time, if you choose to do so.

Risks You understand that the risks associated with participating in this study are no more than what you would encounter in everyday life. You should refrain from answering questions that make you uncomfortable or might identify you in ways you do not want to risk. Upon request, you may ask the interviewer to strike specific remarks or responses from the interview record. Some staff may be able to infer your identity if they encounter publications by the research team that include quotes or stories from the interviews, this is described below in the confidentiality section.

Benefits You understand that there is no direct benefit to you for participating in this study. However, the interview may provide you with a valuable reflective learning opportunity. Findings from this study may also be used to improve the quality of service learning programs.

Compensation You are not compensated by being in this study.

Initial ________ Date ________

245

Confidentiality

You understand that if you participate in this study the information you provide will be anonymized (all identifying information removed) prior to any data analysis or reporting. However, some [engineering service-learning program] staff may be able to infer the identity of some participants if they encounter publications by the research team that include quotes or stories from the interviews. You understand that comments from the interview will not be directly sent to [engineering service- learning program] organization, unless specified by you. All recording will be destroyed within two years of the interview. The anonymized transcripts will be kept indefinitely in a password-protected file on a secure network at Purdue University. The project's research records may also be reviewed by departments at Purdue University responsible for regulatory and research oversight.

Voluntary Nature of Participation You understand that you do not have to participate in this research project. If you agree to participate, you can skip any question you are uncomfortable with, and you can withdraw your participation without penalty. You understand that withdrawal from this study will have no effect on your status with [engineering service-learning program

Contact Information: If you have any questions or concerns about this research project, you may contact Prof. Brent Jesiek at 765-496-1531 or Julia Thompson at 408-499-7703. If you have concerns about the treatment of research participants, you can contact the Institutional Review Board at Purdue University, Ernest C. Young Hall, Room 1032, 155 S. Grant St., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2114., Ph. (765) 494-5942, E- mail: [email protected]

Documentation of Informed Consent I have had the opportunity to read this consent form and have the research study explained. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the research project and my questions have been answered. I am prepared to participate in the research project described above. I will receive a copy of this consent form after I sign it. __________________________________________ _________________________ Participant’s Signature Date __________________________________________ Participant’s Name __________________________________________ ___________________________ Researcher’s Signature Date

246

VITA

246

VITA

Research Interests

• Engineering community engagement, with emphasis on community partnerships • Engineering Project Based Learning (PBL) • Global engineering education and professional practice

Education

Ph.D., Engineering Education (May 2015) Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

• Dissertation: “Engineering Community Engagement Partnerships: Investigating Motivation, Nature, and Structure.”

• Committee Members: Profs. Brent K. Jesiek, Alice Pawley, William Oakes, and Dwight Giles Jr.

Bachelor of Science, Chemical Engineering (December 2006) University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

Honors and Awards

• Engineering Education Change Agent Award (2013) • Purdue Research Foundation (PRF) Grant: Purdue University (2010) • Ross Fellow: Purdue University (2009) • Honorable Mention: Bears Breaking Boundaries Curricular Competition,

University of California, Berkeley (2006)

247

Research Experience

Graduate Research Assistant, School of Engineering Education, Purdue University (July 2009 – present)

• Co-facilitator (with Dr. Jesiek) for Global Engineering Education Collaboratory (GEEC) research group

• Dissertation-related research on the relationships between engineering service-learning programs and their local community partners funded by a Purdue Research Foundation (PRF) Grant.

• Supporting research on global competency, including developing scenario- based assessment instruments, and creating and using a survey to establish desirable attributes for global engineers. This work funded by a Purdue Engineer of 2020 seed grant and NSF award no. 1160455.

Undergraduate Research Assistant, Center for the Studies of Higher Education, University of California System (Sept. 2006 – Dec. 2006) • Instigated an independent research project focusing on the need for

engineering students to gain a broader education. Relevant activities included organizing a curriculum review committee and writing up final findings in a project report.

Undergraduate Research Assistant, Bio-Fuels Research Group, University of California, Berkeley (Sept. 2005 – Aug. 2006) • Contributed to an ethanol efficiency analysis. • Analyzed the total energy balance of ethanol production, the total carbon

intake, and the corresponding policies related to ethanol in the U.S. and Brazil. Peer-Reviewed Publications

Thompson, Julia and Brent Jesiek. (2014). Motivation of Community Partners

and Advisors to Participate in Community Engagement Engineering Programs. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.

Thompson, Julia, Mel Chua, and Cole (2014). Engineering Education as a

Spiritual Vocation. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. Received Best Paper in LEES division.

Jesiek, Brent, Yating Haller, and Julia Thompson. (2014). “Developing Globally

Competent Engineering Researchers: Outcomes-Based Instructional and Assessment Strategies from the IREE 2010 China Research Abroad Program.” Advances in Engineering Education.

248

Jesiek, Brent, Qin Zhu, Sang Woo, Julia Thompson, and Andrea Mazzurco (2014) Global Engineering Competency in Context: Situations and Behaviors. Online Journal for Global Engineering Education.

Jesiek, Brent, Anne Dare, Julia Thompson, and Tiago Forin. (2013). Global

Engineering Design Symposium: Engaging the Sociocultural Dimensions of Engineering Problem Solving. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.

Thompson, Julia, and Brent Jesiek. (2011). Work in Progress - Project-Based

Service Learning in Engineering: Investigating Partner Relationships. Paper presented at FIE Conference, Rapid City, SD.

Chang, Yating, Joe Lin, Julia Thompson, Yi Shen, Brent K. Jesiek, Eckhart

Groll, and E. Daniel Hirleman. (2010). Intersecting Cultural Images: Transformative Global Research Experiences for Underrepresented Engineering Students. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, June 20-23, 2010.

Thompson, Julia, and Brent K. Jesiek. (2010). Assessing Intercultural

Competence Among Sophomore Mechanical Engineering Students: Baseline Data and Analysis. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, June 20-23, 2010.

Jesiek, Brent K., Deepika Sangam, Julia Thompson, Yating Chang, and Demetra

Evangelou. (2010). Global Engineering Attributes and Attainment Pathways: A Study of Student Perceptions. Paper presented at 2010 ASEE Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, June 20-23, 2010.

Invited Presentations

Thompson, Julia. (2012). “Engineering Education Research: What it is and its

common mistakes.” Invited presentation at the Building Engineers And Mentors (BEAM) student group at UC Berkeley, CA, Oct. 8, 2012.

Thompson, Julia. (2011). “Feminine Morality in Engineering.” ENE Department

Seminar, West Lafayette, IN, Sept. 1, 2011.

Presentations and Panels

Jesiek, Brent K., Jane Lehr, Juan Lucena, Andrea Mazzurco, and Julia Thompson. (2014). “Frontiers of Humanitarian Engineering: Learning from Social Justice, Feminism, and Failure.” Presented at IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, San Jose, CA October, 2014

249

Jesiek, Brent K., Julia Thompson, Anne Dare, James L. Huff, William C. Oakes,

Juan Lucena, Kurt Paterson, and Richard F. Vaz. (2012). “Panel – Engineering and Development: Facilitating Successful Project Work in Diverse Global Contexts.” Presented at Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, WA, October 3-6, 2012.

Thompson, Julia, and Brent Jesiek. (2010). “Contextualizing Energy Balance

Problems.” 2010 ASEE Illinois/Indiana Regional Conference, West Lafayette, IN. April, 10, 2010.

Teaching Experience

Faculty Apprentice, School of Engineering Education, Purdue University (Fall 2012) • Collaborated closely with graduate faculty instructors to develop lesson plans

and teach graduate-level course on the History and Philosophy of Engineering Education (ENE50200).

Volunteer Mentor, Mentornet.com (July 2011 – Dec 2011)

• Sent e-mails to undergraduate engineering students at a community college in Virginia to answer questions about engineering careers.

Volunteer Teacher, YMCA, Lafayette, Indiana (Oct. 2010 – April 2011)

• Worked closely with other graduate students and Boston’s PBS station, WGBH, to introduce a curriculum created by the Design Squad of Boston to an afterschool program. We met once a week to introduce engineering, design, and invention concepts to 10- to 12-year-olds.

Instructional Assistant, School of Engineering Education, Purdue University (March 2010)

• Organized and led discussions and activities on sustainability for first-year honors engineering course.

Professional Development

• Non-voting representative, School of Engineering Education Graduate Committee,

Purdue University (Fall 2012 – Spring 2013) • Chair of Professional Development Committee, ENEGSA, Purdue University

(Fall 2012 – Spring 2013) • Co-Chair, Communication Committee, Engineering Education Graduate Student

Association (ENEGSA), Purdue University (Aug. 2010 – May 2011) • Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC), Purdue University (Aug. 2009 –

May 2010)

250

Reviewer

• American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference (2011,

2013) • Frontiers in Education (FIE) Annual Conference (2011, 2012) • Synthesis Lectures on Global Engineering, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, Gary

Downey, Editor, and Kacey Beddoes, Assistant Editor (2012) Professional Development Workshops and Conferences

• IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference, San Jose, CA (2014) • Friends National Committee on Legislation (FCNL) public policy institute

focused on lobby training on the reduction of Pentagon spending (Nov. 2012) • Young Adult Leadership Development (YALD), Philadelphia, PA (June 2012) • American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference, (2010,

2012, 2014) • Graduate Engineering Education Consortium for Student (GEECS) (March 2012) • Foundations in Education Conference (FIE) (October 2011) • Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW) National Conference 2010, West

Lafayette, IN (Oct. 7-10, 2010) • Engineering and Social Justice Conference (Oct., 2009) • Energy Efficiency Workshops, San Francisco (2007, 2008)

Affiliations

• American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) • Graduate Engineering Education Consortium for Student (GEECS) • Engineers without Borders (EWB) • American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Professional Experience

Research Engineer, KEMA Services (April 2007 – June 2009) • Implementation and evaluation of various energy efficiency programs

throughout the United States. • Specialized in performing and quality checking energy calculations for

variable frequency drives on pumps and fans and custom energy savings related to industrial processes.