Technocratic+and+democratic+engagement+orientations+-+Refining+a+research+tool

**Technocratic and democratic engagement orientations: Refining a research tool** Lina D. Dostilio, Ed.D. candidate and Director, Academic Community Engagement, Duquesne University [dostiliol@duq.edu] Patti Clayton, Practitioner-Scholar, PHC Ventures; Senior Scholar, IUPUI; Visiting Scholar, UNCG [patti.clayton@curricularengagement.com] John Saltmarsh, Co-Director, New England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of Massachusetts, Boston [john.saltmarsh@umb.edu] Robert Bringle, Director, Center for Service and Learning, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis [rbringle@iupui.edu]



** Keywords: ** Community-university collaborations, democratic and technocratic engagement, research scales

** Track: ** Theoretical or conceptual frameworks to advance research

** Format: ** Interactive workshop on research methodologies

** Date & time: ** Thursday 3:20-4:30 ** Location: ** Salon 6

** Summary: ** This session will involve participants in helping to refine a research tool to operationalize the application of a conceptual schema related to domains of community-university collaborations. The existing rubric instrument was developed in response to the question: how are democratic and technocratic elements expressed in community-university collaborations? During the session, the rubric will be shared with participants for their consideration, application and critique.

The development of the rubric is a first step in building a robust scale that delineates democratic and technocratic elements of engagement. The rubric has potential to be used as a data-organizing tool for future research, but also has implications for reflective consideration of the ways in which our engagement work embodies democratic and technocratic characteristics. When given consideration, these characteristics may have significant impact on the outcomes of engagement – including some that may be undesirable or unintentional. Session participants will be actively engaged to help refine the rubric, apply it to a current case, and to consider the research questions that could be investigated through such an instrument that parses out democratic and technocratic characteristics of collaboration.

The first portion of the session will introduce democratic and technocratic characterizations of engagement, the current instrument and the use of case study analysis to build rubrics. In the second portion of the workshop, participants will review an exemplar case and apply the existing instrument in small groups. The small groups’ ratings of the case will be shared. Presenters will facilitate discussion of the groups’ ratings and the experience of applying the rubric to the case. Finally, the workshop will allow for discussion of the research questions that could be investigated in the context of democratic and technocratic engagement.

** References: ** Hamel-Lambert, J. (2010). Achieving potential in participatory partnerships. In L. M. Harter, J. Hamel-Lambert, & J. L. Millesen (Eds.), //Participatory partnerships for social action and// //research// (pp. 255-258). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Jameson, J. K., Clayton, P. H., & Jaeger, A. J. (2010). Community-engaged scholarship through mutually transformative partnerships. In L. M. Harter, J. Hamel-Lambert, & J. Millesen (Eds.), //Participatory partnerships for social action and research// (pp. 259-277). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Kellogg Commission. (1998). //Returning to our roots: The engaged institution//. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). //Democratic engagement white paper//. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. //The Review of Higher Education, 32//(1), 73-106. doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.0027

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">**Please click here to access a PDF copy of this page:** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">[|Dostilio_Technocratic and democratic engagement orientations-Refining a research tool .pdf]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Democratic Engagement White Paper (Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009)
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">Session materials: **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">**Please join the conversation about this session! To do so, please click on the "Edit" tab at the upper right, scroll back down to here, and lead the comment with your name.**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">**Patti:** I'm really looking forward to thinking together about the rubric under development for assessing democratic and technocratic elements of our work. I think this will be a useful tool for research and for improving practice. We will have a couple of examples to use in the session, but it would be great if participants would come with partnerships/projects from your own contexts in mind as well: In what ways does your own engagement work embody "doing for" and in what ways does it embody "doing with"? In each case, how do you know (what is your evidence)?