Civic Engagement and Community Service at Research Universities

Engaging Undergraduates for Social Justice, Social Change and Responsible Citizenship

Krista M. Soria, Tania D. Mitchell, Krista M. Soria, Tania D. Mitchell

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781137553119
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137553126
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

This book outlines how undergraduate students engage with civic and community projects and how this can be encouraged by their universities. It also explores how universities can build on this involvement and develop undergraduates' civic and democratic capacities, including programmatic strategies and conceptual frameworks for understanding the students' activities. As higher education across the globe experiences increasing student numbers it is important to understand how students engage with civic and community service. 

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Krista M. Soria and Tania D. Mitchell (eds.)Civic Engagement and Community Service at Research UniversitiesPalgrave Studies in Global Citizenship Education and Democracy10.1057/978-1-137-55312-6_1

Begin Abstract

1. Developing Undergraduates’ Civic Capabilities: The Unique Contributions of American Public Research Universities

Krista M. Soria¹ , Tania D. Mitchell² and June Nobbe³

(1)

Office of Institutional Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

(2)

College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

(3)

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

End Abstract

The world has become more interconnected and will require future leaders who are equipped for responsible participation in a diverse democratic society (Bernstein and Cock 1997; Checkoway 2001; Colby et al. 2003; Ehrlich 2000; Jacoby 2009; Levine 2007; Thomas 2010). In their critical roles as “agents of democracy,” colleges and universities across the USA are charged with preparing their graduates to be active, effective citizens who can consciously contribute to the nation’s dynamic democracy (Boyte and Hollander 1999, p. 8). The roots of this charge can be traced to the birth of the colonial nation, when Thomas Jefferson combined the principles of American democracy and education with objectives to produce public leaders of talent and virtue at the University of Virginia. Since that time, citizenship education has been recognized as a primary function of public higher education in the USA, with a particular accentuation placed upon research universities to educate future citizens, given their intersecting missions of innovation, knowledge generation, public engagement, and education. Given their prioritization on research, scholarship, entrepreneurship, technology, and medicine, among other areas, research universities encounter pressure to contribute back to their immediate communities or support state and federal development; thus, these institutions are inherently driven to be public-oriented or civic-minded in their approaches.

Research universities are resource-rich in that they possess immense intellectual and human capital, structural support mechanisms, laboratories and academic support facilities, and the capacity to generate more resources with their prestige. As such, research institutions often exercise a “disproportionate influence over other colleges and universities” because of their emphasis on producing scholarship that influences all academic disciplines, spearheading initiatives sparking changes in other institutions, and educating the majority of faculty who work at other colleges and universities (Checkoway 2001, p. 126). American research universities embody their original missions—to serve a strong public purpose, build the nation, and develop future leaders; yet, as leaders with significant influence on other colleges and universities in the USA, scholars and policymakers have argued that research universities should work harder to renew their civic missions and serve as exemplars for citizenship education (Boyte and Hollander 1999). Public research universities, in particular, are closely connected with the states in terms of state regulations, funding structures, and governing boards, thus further enhancing the public nature of their work.

As research universities seek to respond to these calls to reinvigorate their civic missions—especially as they relate to educating undergraduates for participation in democracy—several practical concerns arise. First, there is a significant lack of research regarding the extent to which undergraduates at these institutions are engaging in community or civic efforts. Without such data, administrators and researchers are left with little understanding of whether they are achieving their citizenship education goals, how they might compare to peer institutions, and whether their undergraduates leave their institutions prepared to work with others from diverse backgrounds to effect social change. Research universities are also left with little awareness about whether their students receive equitable opportunities to engage in community-based efforts.

Second, while research associated with the benefits of undergraduates’ civic and community engagement abounds, research focused specifically on the outcomes achieved by undergraduates at research universities is limited to date. Given the unique opportunities available at research universities—including the community contexts within which these institutions are situated, opportunities to work in collaborative research with faculty, ongoing community partnerships in research or medical centers, and much more—students’ outcomes based upon their engagement work may differ from those of students at different types of institutions.

Finally, an absence of literature and scholarship specific to research universities may lead to assumptions that the “status quo” remains the best pathway to citizenship education when, in fact, radical alterations may be required given the significant changes to the constitution of our democracy in the last several decades. Without critical examinations of citizenship education, systems of power and privilege are reinforced, and students are not educated in a manner conducive to genuine social change.

The purpose of this volume is to respond to those three gaps in our current understanding of citizenship education in research universities. Below, we offer a deeper historical context of citizenship education in research universities, with a particular focus on public universities. Next, we describe the impetus for continued work to enhance undergraduates’ citizenship education at research universities. Finally, we offer a preview of the contents of this volume.

Examining the Historical Legacy of Citizenship Education

Dewey (1916) believed the American democratic society required civic engagement to realize the potential of its citizens and communities—and that education was the key to fostering civic engagement. Nodding (2000) affirmed the deep connection between civic engagement and education in the nation by writing that “A liberal democracy depends on the continuing and voluntary affirmation of a critical citizenry … thus the state has a compelling interest to enforce forms of education that will produce such a citizenry” (p. 291). Enlightened through education, the citizenry preserves the ideals of a democratic society, such as human rights and equality, and contributes to the overall social good.

Research universities—especially public research universities—were explicitly founded with the goals of educating citizens to contribute to the nation’s pluralistic democracy. The public intersection with administration and control was written into the charter of the University of Virginia, which made it a public enterprise (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The public university in America is an established social institution, one that was “created and shaped by public needs, public policy, and public investment to serve a growing nation” (Duderstadt and Womack 2003, p. 6). The public university, created by public policy and supported through public tax dollars, serves the function of a public good. In exchange for public support, the public university provides service to society through research, development of professional fields, preparing leaders for public service, educating citizens to serve democracy, and contributing to economic development (Duderstadt and Womack 2003; Kezar et al. 2005). Distinguished from elite private universities that have been historically important in “setting the standards determining the character of higher education in America,” public universities “provided the capacity and diversity to meet the nation’s vast needs for postsecondary education” (Duderstadt and Womack 2003, p. 204).

In 1862, the federal government entered the arena of higher education with the passage of the Morrill Land Grant Act, which provided land in exchange for serving the educational needs of society via mechanical, agricultural, and military sciences. The first Morrill Act and subsequent Acts were also implemented to expand access to higher education and to advance democracy (Benson et al. 2005; Brubacher and Rudy 1997; McDowell 2001). Kerr (2001) identified this development as significant in linking universities closely with the daily life of individuals in American society. McDowell wrote, “Both by virtue of their scholarly aims and who they would serve, the land-grant universities were established as people’s universities. This was their social contract” (2001, p. 3, emphasis added). The extent to which the social contract or charter in public higher education has been upheld, neglected, or in need of renegotiation is a source of significant discussion among authors and in national higher education organizations such as Campus Compact, the American Council on Education, the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).

Calls to Renew the Civic Mission of Public Higher Education

Harry Truman was the first USA President to engage with a national higher education policy when he appointed the President’s Commission on Higher Education. Among the recommendations in the 1947 Truman Commission report, one called for a curriculum that would promote a sense of common culture and citizenship (Smith and Bender 2008). Nearly four decades later, the Carnegie Foundation (Newman 1985) released a report that called upon colleges and universities to assume more responsibility in what was perceived as a need for economic, political, and social renewal in the USA. While the need to respond to a new world economy was identified as important, Newman (1985) argued that “the most critical demand is to restore higher education to its original purpose of preparing graduates for a life of involved and committed citizenship” (p. xiv). Newman called for a transformation of liberal education to go beyond the provision of a broad base of knowledge and intellectual skills to include a focus on the development of an entrepreneurial spirit and a sense of civic responsibility. One of the primary recommendations associated with civic responsibility was to provide more student aid for student involvement in community service.

In the Wingspread Declaration on the Civic Responsibilities of Research Universities, Boyte and Hollander (1999) called on research universities to renew the civic mission of American higher education. The authors critiqued research universities as drifting away from their civic missions and neglecting to prioritize citizenship education amid their other objectives. Ehrlich (2000) and Bok (2006) argued that higher education can play a role in reversing the declining trends in civic engagement and political participation and should revitalize citizenship education. Bok argued that the role of higher education in the civic engagement arena takes on special significance given the connection between the level of education and voting rates, and the likelihood that college graduates will assume leadership roles in the public sphere. Bok stated that “developing citizens is not only one of the oldest educational goals but a goal of great significance for educators themselves” (p. 193). He called upon faculty and college leaders to model the way and encourage students to participate in politics, public issues, student organizations, and service opportunities.

National organizations such as Campus Compact, the American Council on Education, the National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, and the AAC&U have become active in the arena of enhancing civic engagement by promoting research, experiential learning, and the review of institutional accreditation to highlight the moral and civic development of undergraduate students. For example, the AAC&U created a consortium of institutions committed to advancing ethical, civic, and moral development in order to respond to the nation’s unprecedented ethical and civic challenges. The Research Universities Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN) was established in 2005 by Campus Compact and Tufts University and includes over 30 universities interested in fostering the civic education of their students (Hollander 2011). The National Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good (formerly the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good) was established in 2000 at the University of Michigan. The forum evolved “out of concern for the shifting role that colleges and universities were playing in addressing important social issues and preparing their students for the civic, economic, and cultural demands of this and future generations” (Chambers 2005, p. 17).

Other efforts have led to reforms in the ways in which research universities have reprioritized their focus on citizenship education. For instance, in 2007, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching added an elective classification of “Community Engagement,” which requires that teaching, learning, and scholarship engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial collaborations that address community-identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, contribute to the well-being of the community, and enrich scholarship. As of January 2015, there are 361 institutions that have received the community engagement classification and, among the first-time recipients, 29 were classified as research universities (Carnegie Community Engagement 2015).

Citizenship Education: A Renewed Call to Action

A renewed call to action is warranted given the state of civic engagement in the nation. Evidence suggests undergraduates’ civic engagement, interest in social justice, and interest in social change are lower than desired—and dwindling over time. Although rates of community service and volunteerism among undergraduate students have risen over t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Developing Undergraduates’ Civic Capabilities: The Unique Contributions of American Public Research Universities
• 1. Institutional Conditions Framing Undergraduates’ Civic and Citizenship Engagement at Research Universities
• 2. Undergraduates’ Participation in Community Service and Service-Learning: Involvement and Outcomes
• 3. Engaging Undergraduates for Social Justice and Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Students’ Civic Engagement
• Backmatter