On Becoming a People’s College: An Appreciative Inquiry

On Becoming a People’s College: An Appreciative Inquiry

Sean Crossland

ACPA’s Commission for Student Involvement is excited to preview one of our 2018 research grant winners’ project: Sean Crossland’s project entitled On Becoming a People’s College: An Appreciative Inquiry. You can look forward to seeing the results of this research in a future ACPA presentation and through other outlets but, in the meantime, we encourage you to read a summary of the project below.    

Community colleges have often claimed the title of ‘the people’s college’ or ‘Democracy’s college’ (Witt, 1994; Boggs, 2010). At the same time, community colleges have long been positioned at the low end of an intensely stratified higher education system (Cohen, Brower & Kisker, 2013). The dual mission of community colleges can be described as simultaneously “equalizing opportunity and doing the work of democracy” (Ronan, 2012, p. 31). Recently, “[t]he democratizing role of community colleges has received much attention in both the scholarly and popular literature…” (Ronan & Kisker, 2016).  This interest primary refers to the open-access mission of community college and less often makes explicit references to community college civic outcomes.
If community colleges intend to democratize a stratified system of higher education (Cohen, Brower, & Kisker, 2013), we need a better understanding of community college students’ experiences civic learning and democratic engagement. The open-access role of community colleges creates a unique opportunity to develop a diverse, educated, and engaged citizenry. As Levin and Montero- Hernandez (2009) contend, community colleges “should or could serve as a path not only for student social mobility but also as a vehicle for the democratization of society” (Levin & Montero-Hernandez, 2009, p. 181). In other words, community colleges should actively foster their students’ civic learning and democratic engagement (CLDE). This raises many questions of the essence of democratic engagement at the community college. Are these democratizing efforts capable of withstanding the pressures of neoliberalism or will they become another effort co-opted into subservience of market forces? Most importantly, when we speak of social mobility at the community college level, does this concept extend the opportunity for students of diverse background to exercise civic agency and shape society to represent their values and beliefs better?
This study operates under the assumption that providing civic learning and enhancing community college students’ capacity for democratic engagement is not only a ‘good’ thing to do, and it is central to the mission of every community college. Unfortunately, “we know very little about the extent and ways in which community colleges develop the civic capacities of their students” (Kisker, Weintraub & Newell, 2016, p. 317). Further, it is not safe to assume that all CLDE efforts will have positive benefits for students or that all students can and should participate in them. Community college civic learning and democratic engagement will benefit from an increase in the number and scope of inquiries with the goal of supporting ongoing scholarship.
In positioning community colleges at the bottom of a highly stratified system of higher education (Cohen, Brawer & Kisker, 2014), we also situate community college students below students of other institutions. If the public purpose of higher education is about education for citizenship, it may logically follow that community college students are tracked to be lesser citizens. Instead, community colleges should embrace their unique role in higher education as an opportunity to foster the full participation (Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh & Bush, 2011) of the communities in which they are located.
My approach is “not looking for answers, but instead interested in participating in a critical, self-reflexive, dialogic, passionate, thoughtful grappling with what civic engagement could, or should, be” (Cahill & Fine, 2016, p.viii). Appreciative Inquiry (AI) offers a collaborative approach to organizational change. AI “as a methodology that takes the idea of social construction of reality to its positive extreme” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p.7). AI uses “practical action research” (Kemmis et al., 2014, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 56) as an approach to change management. AI focuses on the positive core of organizational life and the belief that “Human systems grow in the direction of what they persistently ask questions about, and this propensity is strongest and most sustainable when the means and ends of inquiry are positively correlated” (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). The emphasis of human systems and interactions within AI make focus groups the ideal choice for this study
The case study is suited to develop context-dependent knowledge. Noting that “complete coverage of a particular phenomenon may be an elusive, rarely achievable goal” (Jones, Torres, Arminio, 2014, p. 110), the purpose of this study will be to illuminate specific experiences rather than to purport universality. This case study will promote a critical perspective in that it “takes into account the cultural, symbolic, economic, and political power that influences the lives of individuals oppressed by those in the majority, often times seen as those in power” (p. 55). A critical constructivist framework will challenge me to acknowledge my own social identities and the potential for power differentials within this inquiry. The exact methods of this inquiry will take an emergent design.
Davis and Sumara (2006) recognize the irreplicablity of truly emergent research. However, “what can be replicated, at least in a sense, is the research attitude of mindful participation with a community around matters of shared concern, being careful to allow for sufficient interpretive space for all members…” (p. 101). This participatory project will require intentionally making space that honors multiple ways of knowing. My approach is best described by Michelle Fine (2007, as cited Cahill & Fine, 2016) as “quiet, down-low, community-based participatory action research [which] needs to be designed in ways that lift up conversations that need to be had locally, intimately, and delicately” (p. 37). This notion also highlights a strength of AI and acknowledges the most meaningful changes at the institution will be co-created with a variety of voices.
I embark on this project enthusiastic to catalyze change at my research site and in my work as a community college community engagement professional. In attempting to represent a microcosm of the multidimensional nature of civic engagement work, I will include my thinking and learning throughout the process. This may lend to an autoethnographic component to my findings. I hope to find the balance making a meaningful contribution to my host site while fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the Educational Leadership & Policy Ph.D. at the University of Utah. I welcome any and all correspondence to [email protected].
References

Boggs, G. R. (2010). Democracy’s colleges: The evolution of the community college in America. Prepared for the White House Summit on Community Colleges, Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Cahill, C. & Fine, M. (2016). Moving Forward: Rethinking the “Civic” in a Community College. In Civic Engagement Pedagogy in the Community College: Theory and Practice (pp. 235–246). Springer.

Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2013). The American Community College (6 edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change (1 edition). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and Education: Inquiries Into Learning, Teaching, and Research (1 edition). Mahwah, N.J: Routledge.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2013). Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Fundamental Elements and Issues (2 edition). New York: Routledge.

Kisker, C. B., Weintraub, D. S., & Newell, M. A. (2016). The Community Colleges’ Role in Developing Students’ Civic Outcomes: Results of a National Pilot. Community College Review, 44(4), 315–336

Levin, J., & Montero-Hernandez, V. (2009). Community colleges and their students: Co-construction and organizational identity. Springer.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Ronan, B. (2012). Community Colleges and the Work of democracy. Connections: Educating for Democracy, 31–33.

Ronan, B., & Kisker, C. B. (Eds.). (2016). Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement: New Directions for Community Colleges.

Sturm, S., Eatman, T., Saltmarsh, J., & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for diversity and public engagement in higher education. White Paper, Columbia University Law School, Center for Institutional and Social Change, Available Online at Http://Imaginingamerica.Org/Wp-Content/Uploads/2011/10/Catalyst-Paper.Pdf.

Witt, A. A. (1994). America’s Community Colleges: The First Century. ERIC.