Prepare a critique - one page

© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 18, Number 3 p. 113, (2014)

Copyright © 2014 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104

The Exploration of Community Boundary Spanners in University–Community

Partnerships Katherine Rose Adams

Abstract In university–community partnerships, boundary spanners can flexibly traverse historically divided lines to increase access to resources and build upon reciprocal partnerships. Previous research has examined the roles of boundary spanners but only from the perspectives of the institutional partners. The purpose of this dissertation study was to examine the characteristics, roles, and motivations of community boundary spanners in university–community partnerships. A qualitative instrumental multiple case study was conducted with community partners of a university–community partnership. Findings led to a commu- nity boundary spanning adaptation of the Weerts and Sandmann (2010) institutional model. The Framework for Community Boundary Spanners in Engaged Partnerships identifies four dis- tinct roles community boundary spanners may play. This study provides institutional partners with the tools and techniques to better locate and engage community boundary spanners through partner identification and development.

Introduction

B oundary spanners are leaders who are able to bring people together across traditional boundaries to work toward a common goal. In university–community partnerships, boundary spanners can flexibly traverse historically divided lines to increase access to resources to solve problems and to build upon reciprocal partnerships (Miller, 2008; Sandmann & Fear, 2001– 2002; Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Previous research has examined the roles of boundary spanners; however, it has done so primarily from the perspectives of the institutional or university partners (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). But what about the roles of com- munity members engaged in university–community partnerships, especially those actively engaged in boundary spanning behaviors? Given community-engaged scholarship’s disproportionate focus on the institutional or university partner, this study was performed to examine the characteristics, roles, and motivations of community boundary spanners in university–community partnerships.

114 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

The Research Design Friedman and Podolny (1992), early researchers of the topic,

noted two main functions of boundary spanning. The first was the ability to convey influence between constituents and partners through negotiating power and balance between the institution and community partners working toward mutual objectives. The second function was to best represent the perceptions, expectations, and ideas of each side to the other through educational functions to promote mutual understanding among partners. From Friedman and Podolny’s concepts of differentiation of roles, Weerts and Sandmann (2010) developed a conceptual framework of boundary spanning, examining characteristics of task orientation and social closeness. Although the Weerts and Sandmann framework identi- fied characteristics of boundary spanners affiliated with the institu- tional partner, their framework guided this research to help iden- tify salient qualities of the community boundary spanners in an attempt to create a similar framework focused on the boundary spanning roles in the community. Toward that end, the study was guided by the following research questions: (1) What are the char- acteristics of community members actively engaged in university– community partnerships? (2) What roles do community members play as boundary spanners in university–community partnerships? (3) What are the motivations of community boundary spanners? (4) What is the relationship between the phases of partnership and the characteristics, roles, and motivations of community partners in university–community partnerships?

This qualitative research study utilized a multiple case study approach (Stake, 2006). Ten community boundary spanners were identified by institutional partners from three county sites of a statewide university–community partnership called the Archway Partnership (http://www.archwaypartnership.uga.edu). The three counties chosen represented diverse phases as an alumnus, evolving, or new Archway Partnership site. The identi- fied individuals were reviewed as individual cases, and the charac- teristics, roles, and motivations of the participant engaged in the partnership were investigated for each case. Data were collected through individual interviews with these community boundary spanners, as well as through two institutional stakeholder partner focus groups made up of Archway administrators and program- mers. A review of relevant documents, such as Archway publi- cations and meeting minutes, was employed to provide context and shared public knowledge. The descriptions of the Archway

The Exploration of Community Boundary Spanners in University-Community Partnerships 115

Partnership and the three counties selected for this study provided context to the sites of each case.

Interview and focus group data were analyzed using a frame- work-specific coding scheme based on the Weerts and Sandmann (2010) framework as well as using constant comparison analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1987). Initially, interview transcripts were reviewed for indicators of task orientation and social closeness. In a second round of analysis, the coding utilized research question responses in which data collection reflected characteristics, roles, and motiva- tions of the cases. Phase of partnership and its impact on boundary spanners’ capabilities was also examined.

Findings

Characteristics, Roles, and Motivations The multiple case study analysis found that community

boundary spanners, most prominently, were communicative, sought and understood multiple perspectives, and possessed a visionary quality. Their ability to communicate reflected well- developed listening and language skills that helped community boundary spanners gain trust and credibility. Seeking out, under- standing, and representing multiple viewpoints gave spanners empathy and informed their decisions for allocating strengths into projects. Being able to consider a broad perspective and being forward-thinking were noted visionary characteristics of commu- nity boundary spanners. Common characteristics of community boundary spanners demonstrated the ability to advocate for cohe- sion and to plan for the future.

Membership, formal positions, and roles in professional and civic organizations gave community boundary spanners visibility. According to Archway staff, they had located their early collabo- rators within the community partnerships through such roles. Community boundary spanners typically held senior or executive- level roles in organizations or boards and consequently were in positions of influence over change and resources. Professional titles and responsibilities created roles for spanners that were transport- able to multiple arenas. Other roles were imparted by the commu- nity or personally. Participants aware of their positionality ascribed to themselves overarching roles such as resource broker, relation- ship builder, or community leader.

Although characteristics or roles might be externally identifi- able by institutional partners, motivations were more difficult to

116 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

assess. Community boundary spanners’ motivations ranged from personal motives to community-focused intentions. Personal and professional motivations to engage in community boundary spanning behaviors included enhancing business relationships, increasing connections to resources, and engaging the competi- tion. Examples of more community-oriented motivations included sense of service or generationality.

Finally, it was found that phase of partnership had no bearing on the boundary spanners’ characteristics, roles, and motivation. It can be conjectured that these boundary spanners’ roles and charac- teristics existed before the county Archway boards were composed. In essence, these elements were stable through the duration of the partnerships.

Framework for Community Boundary Spanners in Engaged Partnerships

These findings were mapped into a Framework for Community Boundary Spanners in Engaged Partnerships (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The framework for community boundary spanners in engaged partnerships.

This framework expands the Weerts and Sandmann model (2010) by recognizing boundary spanners in the community. It identifies four distinct roles community boundary spanners may play: engaged employee, reciprocity recipient, connection companion, and community champion. The engaged employee is closely aligned in their community as a function of their pro- fessional responsibilities, which also relates to a more technical task orientation. Close proximity to external partners offers the

The Exploration of Community Boundary Spanners in University-Community Partnerships 117

reciprocity recipient increased access to resources and a greater likelihood of being recognized and credited for their practical task abilities. The connection companion is aligned with the institu- tional vertices of the framework because of the increased connec- tions that they are able to make by also being open to relationship building in systems outside the community. Community cham- pions are community-focused and are engaged in the most diverse involvements as a result of being proud of their surroundings.

Conclusion The overarching analysis of this research yielded three conclu-

sions. First, boundary spanning capacities of community partners were derived from motivations regarding roles as previously high- lighted in the Weerts and Sandmann (2010) boundary spanning model. Second, from the community perspective, the institution was represented by the institutional boundary spanner. Finally, those identified as boundary spanners came to the partnership with developed boundary spanning capacities; participation was not a boundary spanning development effort.

This study holds implications for those in adult education; community outreach and, in particular, higher education partners. Through the use of the boundary spanning frameworks for assess- ment and through development of skills distinct to the Framework for Community Boundary Spanners in Engaged Partnerships’ quadrants, this study provides institutional partners with tools and techniques to better locate and engage community boundary span- ners through partner identification and development. A striking arena needing further investigation is the lack of diversity in com- munity boundary spanners and the implications for their identifi- cation and broader base of participation.

References Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning

roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 28–47.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1987). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

Miller, P. M. (2008). Examining the work of boundary spanning leaders in community contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 353–377.

Sandmann, L. R., & Fear, F. A. (2001–2002). The “new” scholarship: Implications for engagement and extension. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(1–2), 29–38.

Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

118 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73–106.

Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 702–727.

About the Author Katherine R. Adams is an advisor at The University of Georgia. Her research interests are boundary spanning, community engagement, community perspective, and community leader- ship. Adams earned her Ph.D. in Adult Education from The University of Georgia.

Copyright of Journal of Higher Education Outreach & Engagement is the property of University of Georgia, Office of the Vice President for Public Service & Outreach and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.