Table Of ContentMichigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2016, pp. 91–95
Winding Pathways to Engagement: Creating a front Door
Lori E. Kniffin Timothy J. Shaffer and Mary H. Tolar
University of North Carolina at Greensboro Kansas State University
Service- learning and community engagement And yet, they also reveal dissatisfaction with where
(SLCE) practitioner- scholars – meaning all who do we are today and call for continued evolution of the
the work of SLCE with a commitment to integrating movement.
practice and study – find avenues to this work in a The stories of these next generation practitioner-
variety of ways. Many of the thought leaders in this scholars, including their winding paths into SLCE,
movement started as traditional scholars in their suggest to us the importance of supporting the
disciplines and, only in their later careers, focused ongoing development of the SLCE movement
on creating and enhancing SLCE on their own cam- through more explicit, direct, formalized, and in-
puses and across the academy. others first learned stitutionalized points of entry into the work. Many
about SLCE as an epistemological framework and of them went through the academy as graduate
a pedagogy in graduate programs such as Curricu- students and now work either on campuses or in
lum and Instruction or Higher Education Leader- communities across wide ranging professions. In-
ship. others came across it during their academic deed, graduate-l evel education is an increasingly
careers somewhat randomly in conversations with common component of such journeys. It is not,
colleagues, at conferences, or in the literature. And however, an unambiguous point of entry to SLCE-
still others began their journey to SLCE by working related careers. Therefore, in this essay we call for
in the public sector (as did co-a uthor Mary Tolar) increased attention to the potential of graduate ed-
with community organizations, as community or- ucation to serve as a doorway into SLCE. And we
ganizers, or as social justice advocates. Members of suggest the importance of designing graduate- level
a younger generation of practitioner- scholars have study with an eye to shaping how incoming SLCE
now experienced SLCE in undergraduate or grad- practitioner- scholars understand and undertake the
uate education and seek ways to integrate it into work (e.g., with an asset- based rather than a deficit-
their academic or professional lives from the very based orientation; as an integrated part of their lives
beginning. rather than an add- on to other responsibilities).
The edited volume Publicly Engaged Schol- Co- author Lori Kniffin’s own journey provides
ars: Next Generation Engagement and the Future an example of the presently common winding path
of Higher Education (Post, Ward, Longo, & Salt- into SLCE taken by members of the next genera-
marsh, 2016) highlights the emergence of this “next tion of practitioner- scholars:
generation” of SLCE practitioner-s cholars. It offers I experienced SLCE first as an undergraduate
an intriguing contrast to the question raised twenty student in an introductory course in a leadership
years ago by Edward Zlotkowski (1995) of whether studies program. When I later joined the same de-
SLCE had a future and, if so, what it would need partment as a staff member and then as an instruc-
to flourish. Looking back to that moment twenty tor while completing my master’s degree, I learned
years ago in his 2015 framing essay for the Service- that the kind of SLCE I had experienced had a lot
Learning and Community Engagement Future Di- of room for improvement. I started participating
rections Project (SLCE-F DP), Zlotkowski notes in conversations to improve that course using best
that it was “a good time to dream of a new era” (p. practices in the SLCE literature. I also dove into a
82); and he ponders what the forces currently shap- community engagement experience through a lead-
ing the academy and democracy in the U.S. mean ership practicum I taught; its evolution over eight
for the SLCE movement. Publicly Engaged Schol- semesters – f rom simply meeting with community
ars strongly suggests there is currently consider- organizations that worked in the area of food se-
able momentum and excitement around a reimag- curity to listening to the experiences of individuals
ined future for SLCE. The narratives of 22 engaged experiencing food insecurity and ultimately helping
scholars from both the academy and the broader build a network to improve food security on campus
community (including co- author Timothy Shaffer) – mirrored my own ever- deepening understanding
make clear the progress of SLCE in recent decades. of SLCE.
91
Kniffin, Shaffer, and Tolar
This rich mix of first-h and experiences with the their departments and SLCE-r elated work in other
challenges and possibilities of SLCE increased my arenas of their lives. Worse, students without a high
desire to pursue a Ph.D. in a program that would al- level of persistence, the resources to devote signifi-
low me to immerse myself in SLCE and prepare me cant time and attention to the search for a program,
to be a community- engaged practitioner- scholar. and/or strong connections in the field may never
Disappointed with the lack of opportunities for find these pathways – with the consequence that
community engagement in my master’s program, I the SLCE movement may lose their participation
began looking for a doctoral program that focused and leadership. Further, the movement may dispro-
on SLCE both as a mode of teaching and learning portionately lose the voices of students who lack
and as the focus of scholarship. I had numerous the privilege of access to the human, cultural, and
conversations with SLCE colleagues, searched on- economic capital needed to pursue such winding
line, contacted many colleges and universities . . . pathways toward SLCE.
and yet all of this yielded no clear answer as to my We therefore believe that unclear, winding paths
best options for a doctoral program. serve as a significant deterrent to growing the SLCE
So I did what I have since learned many gradu- movement. The movement is more likely to flourish
ate students do: I pulled together bits and pieces of in the future if we create a “front door” to SLCE in
an engaged graduate education into a whole that the form of graduate education explicitly designed
met most of my goals. I entered a fairly traditional to integrate SLCE practice, study, work, and schol-
academic unit that is oriented toward social justice arship. Enhancing opportunities for doctoral educa-
and has flexible requirements, and I also became tion in particular as a point of entry could open up
part of an innovative community engagement insti- many new possibilities for more people – and for a
tute on campus through a graduate assistantship. greater diversity of people – a nd thereby grow the
And probably most importantly, I surrounded my- SLCE movement. Advanced graduate education is
self with other practitioner-s cholars with whom I where many who choose an academic career or a
collaborate on a variety of SLCE-r elated projects. research- oriented profession in the nonprofit sector
This combination of opportunities will, I hope, develop their professional identities and internal-
serve me well as I complete a Ph.D. and continue ize the habits, dispositions, and skills of scholarly
my career. But I still wonder why this patchwork work. Developing the perspectives and capacities
approach seems to be the best avenue I could come associated with democratic engagement as part of
up with and why I could not readily find a graduate this process would deeply influence the identities
program that could more explicitly and coherently and practices of community- engaged practitioner-
support my interest in pursuing SLCE as an inte- scholars.
gral part of my scholarly development. We recognize there may always be a tension in
This story, although unique in its specif- doctoral education regarding employment oppor-
ics, has similarities to other narratives of SLCE tunities for graduates with non- traditional degrees.
practitioner- scholars, including a good number However, we see signs that bode well for the ca-
of those assembled in Publicly Engaged Scholars reer prospects opened up by doctoral programs
and previously in Collaborative Futures: Critical that integrate SLCE: (a) the growing recognition of
Reflections of Publicly Active Graduate Educa- the complexities of challenges facing us, local to
tion (Gilvin, Roberts, & Martin, 2012). Through global, in the 21st century (see, for example, the
custom- made pathways such as this, graduate stu- United Nations Sustainable Development Goals);
dents are forced to articulate and define their place (b) the increasing demand in the public sector for
in the academy, which can enhance voice, confi- advanced, interdisciplinary, community-e ngaged
dence, relationships, and identity exploration. Too research to generate knowledge and inform policy;
often, however, students have to settle for a fairly and (c) the increasing number of next generation
traditional department as their primary academic practitioner- scholars who are undertaking such
home and seek out more innovative opportunities graduate work and successfully creating meaning-
for learning and research elsewhere. When students ful career paths for themselves on campuses and in
enter a discipline-c entered program, their studies communities (see Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh,
must focus on deep understanding of and scholar- 2016).
ly contributions within that discipline, often to the We share here an example of a “front door” we
exclusion of study at the intersection of disciplines. have been building to illustrate an approach to
Graduate students who want to self-d efine as SLCE doctoral education that could support the holistic
practitioner- scholars thus experience identity frac- development of SLCE practitioner- scholars. At
turing, finding themselves needing to wear distinct Kansas State University, we have recently created
“hats” as they move between disciplinary work in and are preparing to launch a new program that
92
Winding Pathways to Engagement
integrates community- engaged scholarship. This include artifacts accessible and useful to the gen-
Ph.D. in Leadership Communication is a collabora- eral public and that demonstrate measurable prog-
tion among three departments in three different col- ress being made with community partners on pub-
leges: Communication Studies (College of Arts and lic issues. This model recognizes the disciplinary
Sciences), the Staley School of Leadership Studies expertise students bring with them but focuses on
(College of Education), and Communications and how that is connected with other knowledge and
Agricultural Education (College of Agriculture). leveraged for change through community- engaged
The fourth unit involved is the Institute for Civic scholarship. With an active, experiential learn-
Discourse and Democracy, whose mission is to ing orientation, throughout their engaged doctoral
build community capacity for informed, engaged, study and practice students will have the opportu-
civil deliberation. nity to develop and exercise the capacity to lead
The program is labeled in accordance with cam- change in and with communities. They will, re-
pus models as “interdisciplinary,” but the facul- latedly, work with one another, community mem-
ty are still sorting through the appropriateness of bers, faculty, and staff to develop innovative ways
“multi- ,” “inter-, ” and “trans- ” disciplinary fram- to assess progress achieved through collaborative
ings. The program will bring together students and change strategies – this being a major challenge
faculty from multiple disciplines (some of which both in the curriculum and in the work itself.
are themselves interdisciplinary), will nurture syn- Although community engagement is at the cen-
thesis and integration among these disciplines, and ter of this program, it is not a Ph.D. in engagement,
will advance public problem- solving by transcend- and we do not advocate for SLCE as a siloed dis-
ing the boundaries of disciplinary or academic cipline but rather a cross-d isciplinary approach
perspectives and incorporating community-b ased to teaching, learning, and research (see Clayton,
knowledge. Given the program’s role as a front Edwards, & Brackmann, 2013 for discussion of
door into SLCE for graduate students coming next generation engagement perspectives on calls
from various backgrounds and its defining focus to frame SLCE as a discipline). our aim is for
on cultivating civic leadership and collaborative graduates to be prepared for deeply collaborative
change agency, we need to think carefully with stu- work with communities as civic leaders and change
dents about the significance of “interdisciplinary” agents, whether in higher education, government,
and “transdisciplinary” framings for community- nonprofits, or socially responsible businesses. They
engaged practitioner- scholarship and ensure that will need to understand SLCE from the very be-
the program launches and grows accordingly. ginning as constrained neither by disciplinary lens-
Faculty and staff from the four units convened es nor by academic orientations to knowledge and
over the course of a year to co-c reate learning out- practice. Students will study and integrate multiple
comes, courses and curriculum, and assessment disciplines and combine this learning with knowl-
strategies. The core curriculum developed by these edge and methods of community-e ngaged scholar-
units will be co- taught, with teaching responsibil- ship.
ities rotating amongst departments. Students will This doctoral program is just one example of
have the opportunity to choose major professors what we think a front door could look like for
and dissertation committee members from the three graduate students. The important thing is that we
academic units as well as from affiliate faculty find ways to cultivate interest in and access to
across the university. Key to the program’s func- community- engaged work instead of letting pas-
tion as a doorway into SLCE, then, is that students sionate people get lost or discouraged along the
will have the freedom and flexibility to tap into the way. Beyond the need for such points of entry, per
expertise of a range of faculty who support diverse se, we have a lot of work to do to transform insti-
approaches to SLCE and establish direct connec- tutions of higher education so that they better sup-
tions with community-e ngaged faculty. port the work of SLCE (on the other side of the
Students will not only learn how to do front door, as it were) and better organize to address
community- engaged scholarship but will learn by complex issues in our world (for many, the reason
doing community- engaged scholarship. Two of the for looking for a doorway to begin with). We be-
core courses include theoretical foundations and lieve these goals as well can be advanced through
application of community- engaged methods. The the design of graduate- level front doors.
program requires students to develop community As we create spaces for graduate students from
relationships, work with community organizations many disciplines to collaborate with engagement as
on public problems, and co-c reate scholarship with the central thread, we also create learning commu-
community members. We imagine dissertations nities that connect faculty from many disciplines
that push the boundaries of traditional products to who share commitments to SLCE and who can,
93
Kniffin, Shaffer, and Tolar
by coming together to deepen their engaged work, SLCE-F DP itself serves as a front door: a space
have greater influence over institutional change that will push the SLCE movement forward by con-
processes and priorities (see o’Donnchadha, 2015). vening and cultivating new voices, including both
For co- author Timothy Shaffer, as one example, the next generation of practitioner-s cholars and the
such a network of faculty, students, and community many actual and potential participants who have
members interested in community-e ngaged schol- valuable, if not yet heard, perspectives. We believe
arship provides a place for collaboration and affir- these front doors will broaden and strengthen the
mation. Further, for many of his colleagues, a space next generation of engaged scholars and empower
such as the new doctoral program at Kansas State them to advance the SLCE movement over the next
serves as their own front door into SLCE, provid- twenty years and beyond.
ing a supportive environment for them, regardless
of their home disciplines, to learn about and begin References
incorporating community-e ngaged teaching and re-
search into their work. For both veteran and new Clayton, P. H., Edwards, K, E., & Brackmann, S. M.
SLCE practitioner-s cholars, a graduate program (2013). Disciplining service- learning and the next gen-
such as this offers a community of colleagues who eration engaged campus. Michigan Journal of Com-
view such work as not only legitimate but also im- munity Service-L earning, 19(2), 80– 88. http://hdl.han
dle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0019.207
portant. And that community, in turn, can have a
strong voice in campus conversations about policy Gilvin, A., Roberts, G. M., & Martin, C. (Eds.). (2012).
Collaborative futures: Critical reflections on publicly
changes and other aspects of systems change that
active graduate education. Syracuse, NY: The Gradu-
are key to any higher education institution’s ongo-
ate School Press.
ing integration of community- campus engagement
o’ Donnchadha, B. (2015). Critically- reflective civically-
as central to its identity.
engaged academics shaping the future of an academy
Community- engaged academic programs such as
striving for social justice. Michigan Journal of Com-
this one can at the same time help to organize and munity Service Learning, 22(1), 109– 112.
focus efforts that bring campuses and communities
Post, M. A., Ward, E., Longo, N. V., & Saltmarsh, J.
together to address public issues that transcend sin- (Eds.). (2016). Publicly engaged scholars: Next gener-
gle disciplines or sectors. The United Nations’ Sus- ation engagement and the future of higher education.
tainable Development Goals outline several such Sterling, VA: Stylus.
complex challenges the SLCE community can help United Nations Development Programme. (2015). 2030
address. Food security is one of these challeng- agenda for sustainable development. New York. http://
es, and advancing food security globally requires www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-
development- goals.html.
practitioner- scholars in the humanities, social sci-
ences, and natural sciences to employ collaborative Zlotkowski, E. (1995). Does service- learning have a fu-
ture? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learn-
leadership and work in partnership with commu-
ing, 2(1), 123– 133. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
nities. The National Science Foundation’s recog-
net/2027/spo.3239521.0002.112
nition that robust research can and must engage
Zlotkowski, E. (2015). Twenty years and counting: A
the public similarly provides an impetus to design
framing essay. Michigan Journal of Community Ser-
graduate programs that work across disciplines and vice Learning, 22(1), 82– 85.
cultivate engaged learning communities oriented
toward making progress on the complex global is- Authors
sues we face in this century.
There are many possibilities ahead for SLCE, es- LoRI E. KNIFFIN ([email protected]) is a doc-
pecially as new generations of practitioner-s cholars toral student in Cultural Foundations of Education
come into the movement. Individuals already work- and a graduate assistant at the Institute for Com-
ing in SLCE have a responsibility to make the in- munity and Economic Engagement at the Universi-
vitation into this work compelling and clear – t o ty of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her scholarly
institutionalize, formalize, and broaden pathways interests include food justice, community dialogue,
toward engagement. Creating a front door for grad- and democratic classrooms. She is the 2016–2 017
uate students is one way to accomplish this, and SLCE Future Directions Project Fellow and Chair
we invite colleagues to make more visible their of the International Association for Research on
own examples of graduate programs that are be- Service- Learning and Community Engagement
ing designed as alternatives to winding pathways. (IARSLCE) Graduate Student Network.
We also commit ourselves – and call on others – to TIMoTHY J. SHAFFER (tjshaffer@k-state.
create additional clear paths for SLCE practitioner- edu) is an assistant professor in the Department of
scholars to enter our community. As we see it, the Communication Studies and assistant director of
94
Winding Pathways to Engagement
the Institute for Civic Discourse and Democracy at and staff to provide learning experiences for more
Kansas State University. His research interests fo- than 1000 students in an interdisciplinary leader-
cus on the advancement of democratic engagement ship studies minor as well as for the wider campus
through deliberative democracy and citizen engage- community through the School’s array of applied
ment in higher education and community settings. learning programs. Her research interests focus
He is co- editor of Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching on the art and practice of civic leadership devel-
and Learning for Democratic Engagement (2017) opment, women’s pathways to public service lead-
to be published by Michigan State University Press. ership, and undergraduate leadership development
MARY H. ToLAR ([email protected]) is di- through applied learning.
rector of the Staley School of Leadership Studies
at Kansas State University. She works with faculty
95
