exploring conceptions of social reality...

EXPLORING CONCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL REALITY THROUGH COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY COLLABORATIONS:

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

By

GAIL PATRIQUIN

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. C. Kenneth Banks

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

March, 2009

Exploring Conceptions of Social Reality 2

Consider the word “society” itself. What a chameleon-like word it is, what a host of adjectives

can be placed in front of it, while throughout it continues to convey the broad notion of people

living together rather than in isolation. We hear of the aberrant society, the abortive society, the

acquiescent society, the acquisitive society, the affluent society, and we can continue on through

the alphabet until we arrive at the zymotic society, which is one that is in a continuous state of

ferment, not unlike our own (Adler & Van Doren, 1972, p. 300).


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Rationale ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Research Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 7

Research Question .......................................................................................................................... 7

Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Literature Review: Perspectives on Language ............................................................................... 8

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 12

Research Approach ............................................................................................................. 12

Research Design .................................................................................................................. 13

Method of Analysis ............................................................................................................. 15

Word Level ................................................................................................................. 16

Sentence Level ........................................................................................................... 19

Text Level ................................................................................................................... 21

Assumptions and Ideologies ...................................................................................... 22

Theoretical Considerations ........................................................................................................... 26

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 28

Notes and References .................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A Community-University Collaborations ............................................................ 47

Appendix B News Genre at Text Level................................................................................ 48

Appendix C Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 51


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES

1. Example of QSR International’s NVivo 8 Classification and Coding ............................ 14

TABLES

1. Key Terms ..................................................................................................................... 15

2. Word Frequency Query ................................................................................................. 16

3. Text Query on Social Actors ......................................................................................... 17

4. Instances in News Genre at Text Level ......................................................................... 21


Exploring Conceptions of Social Reality through Community-University Collaborations:

A Critical Discourse Analysis

Introduction

While completing the Master of Arts Integrated Studies program, I chose my areas of

specialization (Adult Education and Community Studies) with much forethought. I wanted to

stimulate my inner ‘learner’ with the right mix of interdisciplinary study. I also wanted to

contribute to positive social change.

My interest in discourse analysis developed as I pondered how various discourses situate

academia and socially marginalized groups. To explore this idea, I would try to garner meaning

from discourse on community-university collaborations in distressed neighborhoods. Think, for

a moment, about academia. In an instant, we imagine a community of scholars and students

engaged in learning. Now, think about socially marginalized groups. In another instant, we

might imagine a community of individuals in hardship or exclusion. This is what Gladwell

(2005) calls “thin-slicing.” According to Gladwell, our instincts are based on rapid cognition

that let us form powerful thoughts based on “very narrow slices of experience” (p. 23).

Similarly, softer forms of social cognition derive from a schema we share on social opinions

(van Dijk, 1993, p. 258). Halliday (1989) suggests our schema relies on certain aspects of our

experience that represent the real world (p. 19), which Phillips & Jorgensen (2002) describe as

“products of our ways of categorising [sic] the world” (p. 5). Perhaps we find the term

‘community’ awkward to link at once to academia and marginalized groups. The reason may be

that an alternate ideology underlies our beliefs.


I decided to apply a critical discourse analysis to explore if the collective power of

socially marginalized groups in community emerges differently from that of academia. I believe

the lived experiences of marginalized groups do not openly define their community. A socially

marginalized community is a social construct anchored in an oppressed economic and social

process that prevents marginalized individuals from gaining control over their lives. This

assumption evolved through the identification of Lewiston, St. Louis, Memphis, and

Philadelphia as source areas for data collection and critical review using a qualitative software

analysis tool. Critical discourse analysis analyzes language ‘in thin slices’ to gain a better

understanding of societal issues, power, and ideologies (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000;

Fairclough, 2003; Huckin, 2002; MacGregor, 2003; van Dijk, 1995) by putting “emphasis both

on the fine-grained details of text and on the political aspects of discursive manipulation”

(Huckin, 2002, p. 4).

Rationale

The application of critical discourse analysis to community-university collaborations is

relevant. First, the last two decades have seen an increased interest in how language is used and

deconstructed, particularly regarding discourse analysis and social linguistics. (Alvesson &

Kärreman, 2000; Fairclough, 2003; Huckin, 2002; van Dijk, 1995). Second, critical discourse

analysis focuses on dominance issues in society as they are enacted and reproduced through

language (Fairclough, 2003; van Dijk, 1995). Third, structured discourse creates an entry point

for community-based learning, which should bring together academic and community

perspectives that foster adult learning (Huckin, 2002, p. 1). Fourth, the dialectical process in

community-university collaborations has a significant bearing on social constructionism. How

academia and socially marginalized groups emerge in community, depends, in part, on the nature

of the collaboration (Stoecker, 1999, pp. 842-845).


Research Purpose

The project is a preliminary qualitative study to explore if the collective power of socially

marginalized groups in community emerges differently from that of academia. I will apply a

critical discourse analysis to examine how representations of social structures, practices, and

actors emerge through language. A critical approach will also support theoretical perspectives

regarding the type of discourse emerging from collaborations. A key outcome is an

interpretation of social reality based solely on representations of academia and marginalized

groups captured from discourse on community-university collaborations in distressed

neighborhoods.

Research Question

The question weighs the significance of taking a scholarly approach toward community

issues: Does a scholarly approach to community collaboration correlate with the needs of a

distressed community? I want to look at some ways in which discourse influences social reality

as it unfolds for academia and marginalized groups.

Limitations

Although the research project is a contribution to research phenomenon of community-

university collaborations, some limitations exist. The project does not rely on community

fieldwork. It does not explore the relationship between academia and marginalized groups, nor

does it distinguish marginalized groups, for example, gender and race. The research project is a

qualitative study based primarily on secondary discourse written or authorized by community-

university collaborations. Other documentary sources include original newspaper articles and

resident plans that were produced at or near the time of the community collaboration.


Literature Review: Perspectives on Language

Conceptions of social reality are widely interpreted through language (Cook & DeFrain,

2005; Darcy, 1999; Marshak, Keenoy, Oswick & Grant, 2000; Martin 2003; van Dijk, 1998). A

literature review examines how three aspects of language largely influence the phenomenon of

community-university collaboration within community development: (1) language shapes

assumptions in relation to social structures; (2) language reifies power-knowledge relations in

social practices; and (3) language frames social actors in socially significant ways (Fairclough,

2003a).

Language shapes assumptions in relation to social structures. Education follows the

path set by society’s dominant paradigm, which focuses on formal ways for social structures to

maintain order or centralize control (Morin, 1998, pp. 59-70). Evidence shows that the

advancement of discourse on 'institutionalization' between universities and community shapes

assumptions. Institutionalization is a value-laden approach that goes beyond technical

requirements implemented by universities to reach community partners and residents on matters

of local concern (Vidal, Nye, Walker, Manjarrez, & Romanik, 2002, p. 4-1). In higher

education, institutionalizing community-based research mimics the dominant paradigm because

it creates the broad assumption that a scholarly approach benefits community change (Dorius,

2007, p. 4; Watson-Thompson, Fawcett & Schultz, 2008, pp. 26, 36). This assumption is

explored within the context of community development.

Much literature covers the practical nature of community development (Barr, 2005;

Charles, 2005; Dorius, 2007; Dunham, 1972; Kotval 2005; London, 1995; Rubin & Rubin, 2001)

and its detachment from theoretical influences (Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 2002;

Bhattacharyya, 2004; Cook, 1994). Community development is one of the most important


influences on society and social relationships in North America (Dunham, 1972, p. 11). As a

pluralistic representation of society, community development is built on social capital (Rubin &

Rubin, 2001, p. 105) and the collective quality of its citizens (Sirolli, 1999, p. 117).

Community development is also a form of social planning, according to Cox, Erlich,

Rothman and Tropman (as cited in Julian, Hernandez & Hodges, 2006, p. 141), which takes its

roots from policy analysis, a form of technical reason. By applying Friedmann’s (1987) focus to

the four traditions of planning theory (policy analysis, social reform, social learning, and social

mobilization), the assumption could be that policy analysis is the rational planning model most

closely matching a scholarly approach to community development (pp. 177-178). Along the

same lines, policy analysis functions effectively in education for strategic planning and data

gathering. While this approach may provide a formal way for social structures to centralize

control, discourse on collaborative planning offers a complementary approach.

‘Collaborative planning’ mitigates relations of power and systems of governance by not

downplaying the practice-knowledge-practice cycle of traditional planning theory (p. 348).

Healey introduced the term in the late 1990s, partly in response to Friedmann’s defence of a

general concept for planning. The distinction is in its contemporary framework for practical

action that is more closely associated with issues of social, economic, and environmental policy.

Collaborative planning focuses attention on relation-building processes, grounded in an

‘institutionalist’ approach framed by power relations (Healey, 1997, p. 57). This combination

strengthens the application of a scholarly perspective toward community collaboration.

Language reifies power-knowledge relations in social practices. Formal community-

university partnerships increased substantially in the 1990s (Leiderman, Furco, Zapf & Goss,

2002, p. 3). Today, this means the national U.S. coalition, Campus Compact (1985), encourages


civic engagement throughout communities for its nearly 1100 colleges and universities.

Likewise, Learn & Serve America (1993) advances the work of colleges and universities in the

areas of civic engagement and service learning. The Council of Independent Colleges (1956)

promotes higher education through 600 private U.S. colleges and universities, and, more

recently, Project Pericles (2003) embraces citizenship, social responsibility, and community as

inseparable in a pluralistic society.1 Additionally, the Association for Community-Higher

Education Partnerships (2001) promotes the increase of institutional support (Vidal, et al., 2002,

p. 6-11). As a result, the Federal Reserve Bank reports a growing number of universities

engaged in institutionalized activities and relationships (p. i). Institutionalizing community-

based research reinforces the dominant paradigm by treating education as a commodity to uphold

power-knowledge relations in social practices.

Academic institutions emphasize the acquisition, publication, and exchange of

community knowledge (Cottrell & Parpart, 2006, p. 18). Still, few publications from outreach

work contribute to general knowledge or learning (Vidal et al., 2002, p. 5:30). In Canada, The

J. W. McConnell Family Foundation reports a collection of “powerful research knowledge”

unused by the community sector (Pearson, 2006, p. 48). Researchers suggest the knowledge may

be multi-part and difficult for practitioners to access (p. 48), opportunities for research

partnerships may be exacerbated by competing interests, funding, or community resistance

(Savan, 2004, p. 382), or the research may be primarily of case study nature (Martin, Smith, &

Phillips, 2005, p. 13). Perhaps the answer lies in the struggle philanthropic and corporate

underwriters have in reporting community development initiatives (Dorius, 2007, p. 10).

At the same time, it is widely agreed that an understanding of complex community issues

contributes to the large body of academic research in social science. The rich bed of experiential


knowledge created in and by the community has the potential to guide the sharing and

documenting of qualitative and quantitative research (p. 9-11) to establish new forms of theory

(Banks & Mangan, 1999, p. 127). Further, it has the potential to reify the significance of

community development and collaboration. As Tinkler (2004a) notes, problems arise when

academic research advances abundant knowledge within disciplines and insufficient knowledge

within society (p. 1-3). Consequently, with “relatively little” research recorded from a

community perspective (Leiderman et al., 2002, p. 3), it is necessary to find new ways to publish

the results and lessons of community outreach (Vidal, et al., 2002, pp. 5:30-31). The

connectedness between community-based learning and community development must be

recognized, not only through the dissemination of knowledge, as a first step, but through the

involvement of academia in turning knowledge into substantive change (Ebata, 1996, p. 77;

Friedmann, 1987, p. 401).

Language frames social actors in socially significant ways (Fairclough, 2003a). The role

of academia in community falls in line with Tillich’s (1952) theoretical correlation of self and

participation. Five decades ago, Tillich suggested individualization and participation correlated

to self and world because they could be a part of something while, simultaneously, being

separate from it (pp. 87-88). The involvement of academia in community embodies this

correlation. In many instances, institutionalizing community-based research is a condition for

awarding grants and increasing tenure projects (Leiderman et al., 2002, p. 3). In addition, few

institutions have modified their guidelines to reward faculty for community outreach (Vidal et

al., 2002, p. vii), and the lack of practical outreach experience challenges a community with

limited resources. These findings are consistent with Tinkler’s (2004b) study on the process of

conducting research from a researcher’s perspective. Part of Tinkler’s study considers why


educational institutions stray from their original missions, particularly land-grant institutions that

link academic research to community needs. The fragmentation, it appears, stems from research

agendas that tend to insulate academia from the real world (p. 2).

London (1995, 1996) puts forward the idea that engaging in the process of community

collaboration should have widespread appeal to academia because it supports more than one

concept of public participation (p. 2; p. 8). Community collaboration emphasizes the worldview

of ‘coming together’ through dialogue, shared purpose, shared resources, and joint decision-

making (London, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 2001; Sirolli, 1999), but a unified view of ‘coming

together’ may be harder to distinguish. The worldview of ‘coming together,’ espoused by

Thomas Kuhn, draws its value as a ‘whole that is greater than the sum of its parts’. Some

theoreticians consider the whole by first distinguishing each part (Adler & Van Doren, 1972,

p. 142). Others rest on a biological claim of the whole being different from the sum of its parts

(Westley et al., 2006, p. 7). Having academia emerge as Tillich’s ‘part of the whole’ (the world)

from which they are simultaneously detached (the community) may question the viability of their

commitment to community needs.

Overall, the core issues identified in the literature review contribute favorably to

academia realizing their identity in community, and in controlling the discourse that emerges

from community-university collaborations.

Methodology

Research Approach

We have seen that language can yield a different set of meanings within multiple

frameworks. Critical discourse analysis offers these insights. Central to its purpose is a

multidisciplinary approach that allows researchers a way to focus on societal issues from various


theoretical domains. Because the nature of its interpretative process draws on a wide range of

discourses, few clear-cut techniques exist (Bazerman & Prior, 2004; Fairclough, 2003; Huckin,

2002; Luke, 2008; MacGregor, 2003; Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002; Seale, 2004a; van Dijk, 1993).

Further, each researcher should identify his/her specific criticisms because critical discourse

analysis is not considered a “holistic paradigm” (Wodak, 2002, p. 7). For these reasons, we

cannot consider critical discourse analysis as a single theory (p. 7).

After careful consideration, I decided to base my research approach on Fairclough’s

(2003a) interpretation of critical discourse analysis and van Dijk’s (1995) propositions on

ideology. I want to look at ways in which discourse influences social reality as it unfolds for

academia and marginalized groups.

Research Design

The research design included two stages. In the first stage, I researched the composition

of a number of American community-university collaborations, looking for evidence of

community based-learning programs and long-term commitment to social capital initiatives in

distressed neighborhoods. The following collaborations matched the criteria: Downtown

Education Collaborative (Bates College, Lewiston, Maine), East St. Louis Action Research

Project (University at Urbana-Champaign, St. Louis, Illinois), Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale

Partnership (Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee) and West Philadelphia Initiative

(Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (see Appendix A). The corpus of

documents collected (newspaper articles, press releases, community reports, and topical

academic articles) is publicly accessible. In the second stage, I used a qualitative software

analysis tool, QSR International’s NVivo 8 software, to import, code, and classify the documents

(Figure 1).

FIGURE

Note: NVi

I

significan

condense

1 Example of Q

ivo qualitative d

relied on the

nt phrases or

ed list of key

QSR Internationa

data analysis soft

e method of

r terms with

y terms woul

al’s NVivo 8 soft

tware; QSR Inte

constant com

more clearl

ld then reflec

Exploring

ftware Classifica

rnational Pty Ltd

mparison to

y defined ca

ct consistenc

g Conceptio

ation and Coding

d. Version 8, 20

reclassify an

ategories (Se

cy in later an

ons of Social

g

08. Reproduced

n extensive n

eale, 2004b,

nalyses (Tab

Reality

with permission

number of

p. 235). A

ble 1).

14

n.


Key Terms

academic A person who is academic in background, outlook, or methods. (Merriam-Webster Online); Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. (The Free Dictionary)

actors Actor, doer, worker; a person who acts and gets things done (WordNet)

agency Linked to sociologies which focus on the individual as a subject and view social action as something purposively shaped by individuals within a context to which they have given meaning (Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences)

community A society where people’s relations with each other are direct and personal and where a complex web of ties link people in mutual bonds of emotion and obligation (Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences)

discourse analysis

The way people talk about the world does not reflect some objective truth about that world, but instead reflects the success of particular ways of thinking and seeing. These ways of thinking and seeing tend to become invisible, because they are simply assumed to be truthful and right, and in this way people's thought processes themselves can come to represent and reinforce particular regimes of power and coercion. (Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences)

distressed community

A community where indicators of economic standing show significant weakness: unemployment, underemployment, homeownership rates, business formation rates, capital investment, valuations, percentage of substandard housing, outmigration and population loss. (Economic Development America)

identity A cluster of ideas and language/discourse that defines the way most people behave and think about a particular subject and that increasingly form the bases of major cleavages among people (In Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development)

ideology Any body of discourse that has the effect of masking and sustaining relations of power and inequality (In Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and Development)

marginalized Relegated to a lower or outer edge, as of specific groups of people (WordNet)

social construction

Rejecting the notion that events or social phenomena have an independent and objective existence, they examine the methods that members of society use to create or construct reality (Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences)

TABLE 1 Key Terms

Method of Analysis

It is my intention to examine community-university discourse as a relational approach to

textual analysis, assessed at three basic levels (Fairclough, 2003b; Huckin, 2002, p. 26). At the

‘word’ level, I examine classification, connotation, and modality, which are useful for exploring

how identities emerge through language. At the ‘sentence’ level, I analyze intertextuality to

discern how texts recontextualize words and phrases from other texts. This is central to

understanding that scholarly reports reuse existing text to frame new text and events. At the


‘text’ level, I examine access to discourse and use of the authorial voice. Lastly, I explore the

significance of assumptions and their relation to ideology.

Word Level. Classification is one of the most challenging aspects of this research

because the range of terms used to describe key domains is extensive. One document lists 23

synonyms for ‘civic engagement’ (Charles, 2005, p. 13) and 27 keywords or principles for

‘giving back to the community’ (p. 6-7). Community-university collaborations are “education,

socialization, or research and development interventions” (Stephenson, 2003, p. 9) as well as

“grassroots, community organizing” partnerships (Charles, 2005, p. 14). The concept of

community-based learning is widely classified as integrated (Ramaley, 2007, pp. 2-3),

experiential, student, or work-based learning, service learning, youth apprenticeship, place-based

education, environmental education, and civic engagement (Owens & Wang, 1996, pp. 1-2;

Reardon, 2006, p. 96; Zepke, 2005, pp. 171-173). These classifications support the general

query I conducted that reveals the most frequent terms found in this data. The top five terms

(over five characters in length) are community, research, social, development, and education

(Table 2).

Register on Frequent Terms

(over 5 characters)

Length Source: All Data

% (n)

Community 9 46.7 (2542) Research 8 14.3 ( 776) Social 6 13.4 ( 730) Development 11 12.9 ( 700) Education 9 12.7 ( 691)

Total 100.0 (5439) TABLE 2 Word Frequency Query

Classification also plays a role in how social actors are realized in text in terms of identity.

In this study, a word frequency query presented social actors primarily as generic representations.


In other words, residents, people, women, children, or populations were most often realized as

residents ‘in general’ or people ‘in general’ (Table 3).

Text Query on Social Actors

(in order of frequency)

Source: Collaborations

% (n) Community 27.0 (529) Residents 11.6 (228)

Neighbourhood 10.8 (212) People 8.4 (164)

Students 6.5 (127) University 4.5 (89)

Public 3.6 (71) Communities 2.7 (53)

Women 2.4 (48) Faculty 2.3 (46) Children 2.1 (41) Groups 2.1 (41)

Members 2.1 (40) Council 1.9 (37) Student 1.9 (37)

Population 1.2 (23) Resident 1.1 (20) Families 1.0 (19)

Academic 0.9 (18) Academics 0.9 (17) Professor 0.9 (17)

Stakeholders 0.6 (11) Citizens 0.5 (9) Partner 0.4 (8) Tenants 0.4 (8)

Universities 0.4 (7) Citizens 0.3 (6)

Employers 0.3 (6) Men 0.2 (5)

Workers 0.2 (5) Parent 0.1 (3) Seniors 0.1 (3)

Supporters 0.1 (3) Authorities 0.1 (2)

Households 0.1 (2) Organizer 0.1 (2) Refugees 0.1 (2) Scholars 0.1 (2)

Total Social Actors 100.0 (1961) Table 3 Text Query on Social Actors

Connotations have “more conventionalized and changeable associative meanings” (Hall,

1999, p. 512). For example, in 1995, the Kellogg Commission exchanged the terms ‘research,

teaching and service’ for ‘discovery, learning and engagement’ (Ramaley, 2007, p. 4).

Community partnerships require a commitment to a “culture of evidence” (p. 13). Community


benefits range from “social capital” (Rubin & Rubin, 2001, p. 106), to “common good” to

“planning gains” (Baxamusa, 2008, p. 263).

These examples show how classification and connotation may signify a “richer

conception of public scholarship” (Ramaley, 2007, p. 6) for teacher and student experiences in

community, but the range of terms and nuances (Huckin, 2002, p. 7) makes it difficult for social

actors outside the domain to understand or contribute fully to something of which they are a part.

The question becomes one of identity, “how people identify themselves and are identified by

others” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 159).

Modality uses a number of techniques for deepening an understanding of identity through

text. In this study, I wanted to examine the tone of the texts to determine how universities

represented themselves in their commitments to distressed neighborhoods. Determining the tone

of texts is done by looking for use of specific words, such as should, would, may, will, or be, that

would indicate a degree of conviction on behalf of an individual or group (MacGregor, 2003, pp.

6-7).

Some of the language used evokes a strong sense of purpose. For example, during the

early stages of the East St. Louis Action Research Project, the residents outlined their working

relationship with the university. “Residents, not the university, would decide which issues to

tackle. Residents would be involved in every part of the planning and development process”

(Fischer, 2003a, p. 3). In turn, “[t]he University will assist the residents of Emerson Park in

establishing their own community development corporation” (Reardon, 2006, p. 104).

Another article (“Partnership Fosters Ties,” 2007) supports local initiatives in Maine:

“We want the downtown center …to be at once a home and a crossroads, a place where


educators and community partners can work together in new ways” [on launch of Education

Collaborative].

Undoubtedly, the depth of institutional commitment undertaken by Penn State University

is distinctive in its language because it addressed neighborhood revitalization as an

“administratively driven approach that was academically informed” (Kromer & Kerman, 2004,

p. 9). The initiative, they said, would not be part of an academic program, but would be “led and

managed” by the University President and senior administrators (p. 9). The degree of conviction

was discernible: “Only one entity had the capacity, the resources, and the political clout to

intervene to stabilize the neighborhood quickly and revitalize it within a relatively short time

period, and that was Penn [State University]” (p. 11).

The public statement from Penn State feeds into an important part of a relational

approach to textual analysis. Text governs action. Thus, it becomes a matter of observing how

those “who commit themselves to strong truth claims” exercise their convictions (Fairclough,

2003, p. 167). For Penn State, this meant a broad internal restructuring and the 1992 creation of

the Center for Community Partnerships. For University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

empowerment planning emerged through the East St. Louis Action Research Project. The

Rhodes College Hollywood-Springdale Partnership initiated community outreach. For the

Downtown Education Collaborative (Bates College), their innovative model of inter-college

cooperation and community partners signified a new direction in community collaboration.

Sentence Level. It is difficult to determine a specific focus for intertextuality because it

does not reference a “standard shared analytic vocabulary” (Bazerman & Prior, 2004, p. 86) for

borrowed words or phrases. Further, intertextuality is selective regarding what is included or

excluded in text, depending on the use of a specific genre. Existing academic discourse


circulates frequently in research settings but has difficulty penetrating the community. Tinkler

(2004a) points out that “research is not just about creating knowledge for the purpose of

expanding academic disciplines but also about allowing individuals to understand their own

realities” (p. 3).

At the sentence level, I apply Bazerman & Prior’s approach (p. 86-90) to distinguish how

text draws on other texts:

• The text may draw on prior texts as a source of meanings to be used at face value.

Examples located from this study include use of Boyer’s concepts of engaged institutions and

public scholarships (Fogel & Cook, 2006, pp. 595-596; Ramaley, 2007, pp. 3-5; Reardon, 2006,

pp. 95-107), Mezirow’s transformative learning model (Zepke, 2005, pp. 170-171), and Freire’s

popular education concepts (Reardon, 2006, p. 98).

• The text may rely on beliefs, issues, ideas, [and] statements generally circulated and

likely familiar to the readers.

Examples of motherhood ideas include: “a sense of community” (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990,

p. 56), “bootstrapping,” (Rubin & Rubin, 2001, pp. 94, 141), “pulling ourselves up by our own

bootstraps” and “break[ing] down the barriers” (Kepple, 2006, pp. 2-3).

• A text relies on the available resources of language of the period.

Some examples include digital divide (Turner & Pinkett, 2000, pp. 1-2), deliberative dialogue

(Cherry & Shefner, 2004, p. 230), co-operative planning (Mitchell, 200, para. 9), “trying to think

beyond the walls” (Walker Davies, 2007, p. 2), and information poverty (Bennett & Roberts,

2004, p. 49). Note: Information poverty means people in poverty would benefit more in the

collaboration process if they informed themselves on government policies and their own rights

(p. 49).


• The text may use language recognizably associated with the university, research, and

textbooks.

Common language includes community-based research, participatory research, action research

and community empowerment (Banks & Mangan, 1999; Bazerman & Prior, 2004; Flicker,

Savan, McGrath, Mildenberger & Kolenda, 2008; Owens & Wang, 1996; Radermacher & Sonn,

2007; Savan, 2004).

Text Level. At the text level, discourse is framed in relation to the authorial voice based

on who has access to a particular genre (Fairclough, 2003, p. 67). I recorded 26 newspaper

articles, newsletters, or other media. Of 36 voices ‘heard’, 62.1% were directly reported

scholarly or business perspectives. Only 13.7% represented directly reported resident

perspectives, and of those, most voices did not emerge from community-related publications

(Table 4).

News Genre % (n)

Directly Reported (Scholarly) 62.1 (18.0)

Indirectly Reported (Scholarly) 7* 12.1 ( 3.5)

Directly Reported (Residents) 13.7 ( 4.0)

Indirectly Reported (Residents) 7* 12.1 ( 3.5)

Total 100.0 (29.0) )

*Indirectly reported are assessed at 0.5 value.

TABLE 4 Instances in News Genre at Text Level

Although the East St. Louis features (Kline, 2007) and the Rhodes “Discovering

Wisdom” story (Kepple, 2006) moved the reader through a number of well-written accounts,

these and other articles were recontextualized stories sanctioned by the academic community and

directed to those readers. The stories focused mainly on the roles of professors and students as

community partners (see Appendix B).


Identifying who has access to a genre also shows how a narrative is recontextualized for

its readership. Two contrasting examples illustrate the polarization surrounding text and its

consistency in a “particular social world” (Bazerman & Prior, 2004, p. 87). From the university,

“Penn University Communications staff and consultants worked on strategic story

placement with local and national print and broadcast media, in order to highlight the

progress of the Initiatives and to establish Penn’s identity as an urban institution that was

working successfully with its neighbors to complete an ambitious neighborhood

revitalization agenda” (Kromer & Kerman, 2004, p. 14, italics added).

From the community, “[t]he People's Plan was created by and for those most impacted by

development decisions in the downtown - its residents. We created a process inclusive of the

many people who have felt unheard and undervalued in previous decision-making" (Saddlemire,

2008a, italics added).

Analysis at the text level provides the first documented acknowledgement to recognize

marginalized groups as active partners in the collaborative efforts.

Assumptions and Ideologies. The last aspect of the critical discourse analysis project

considers whether academia and marginalized groups could create a shared vision based on

assumptions that emerge in text. Assumptions are significant in ideology because they support

the notion that our taken-for-granted truths rest on the capacity of the dominant social order to

shape ‘common ground’ (Fairclough, 2003, p. 55). As well, the use of preferred meanings (Hall,

1999, p. 513) and predetermined decisions (Briton, 1996, p. 44) embed everyday knowledge of

social structures (Hall, p. 513). To complete this analysis, I inserted reflections recorded on each

group into one of three tables representing the main types of assumptions associated with


ideology: ‘what exists’ (existential), ‘what can be’ (propositional) and ‘what is good and

desirable’ (value) (Fairclough, 2003, p. 55) (see Appendix C).

Reflecting on assumptions in ideology illustrates four points. First, it situates van Dijk’s

notion of ideology as the “interface between cognitive representations and processes underlying

discourse…and the societal position and interests of social groups” (van Dijk, 1995, p. 18).

Second, it helps us make practical sense of representations of academia and marginalized groups

as social actors, to which Hebdige (1994) would challenge that a specific representation or

ideology would prevail at any time, in any situation (p. 14). Third, it shows that the present

reality (‘what exists’ or ‘what can be’) restricts those who are ready to act (‘what is desirable’),

especially if they are consciously aware of their reality as a dynamic process, in constant

transformation (Briton, 1996, p. 44; Freire, 2005, pp. 75-83; Newman, 1999, p. 85). Fourth,

categorizing assumptions reveals a lessening ambiguity toward ‘difference’ and a move toward

finding common ground. It is worthwhile to examine how approaches to ‘handling difference’

have gradually altered the taken-for-granted truths internalized by some socially marginalized

groups in these collaborations.

One emerging theme finds marginalized groups emphasizing ‘difference’ as a way of

normalizing hardship, “[w]henever she told people where she lived, they immediately defined

her by her neighborhood’s deficiencies” (Fischer, 2003b, p. 4). Defined by others in this way

extends a disempowering self-image for marginalized residents, as in feeling imprisoned “by

outsider’s views of what [their] community was like” (p. 4) or in seeing faculty or students

emerge as the authorial voice for their neighborhoods.

A second theme emphasizes the complexity surrounding attempts to resolve difference

for and by marginalized groups. As one faculty member recounted, “The neighborhood and its


people have been demonized by the press for decades” (Reardon, 1999, p. 22). Additionally,

published images of distressed communities compound the problem: “deteriorating homes and

homelessness, desperation, drugs, and crime (Kepple, 2006, p. 1) to “poverty, heavy traffic, and

recurrent crime” (Tyler, 2005, p. 12).

A third theme reveals how responsiveness to difference helps academia and marginalized

groups find common solutions to drive community change. The following accounts show how

actively responding to difference helps some marginalized groups recognize their collective

power in community.

When Rhodes Urban Studies students toured the Hollywood-Springdale (Memphis)

neighborhood, they wanted to make improvements immediately. The university quickly

supported the student initiative and demonstrated its long-term commitment to the community

with a neighborhood clean-up campaign. This was the beginning of the Rhodes Hollywood-

Springdale Partnership. “I sat on a lot of front porches last summer, and I didn’t make any

promises. Cox [resident and community organizer] reassured people that if they became

involved, they would see results…even cleaning off a front porch or repairing a broken window

can start a domino effect among neighbors on a single street” (Walker Davies, 2007, p. 3). Now,

Cox manages Shasta Central, the local community resource center. With the university’s help

and the strong determination of residents, neighborhood capacity building and housing renewal

has improved.

In 2004, the Visible Community, a group of downtown Lewiston, Maine residents,

initially formed to oppose a revitalization plan “to replace blocks of [downtown] apartments and

tenement buildings with a boulevard” (Taylor, 2008, p. B2). They succeeded, and in doing so,

gained enough momentum to champion “downtown development causes” (p. B2). In 2008, they


continued to create social capital by unveiling The People’s Downtown Master Plan, an 18-page

document charting a course of action on matters of interest to downtown residents and the

greater community (Saddlemire, 2008b). In 2009, they released a 90-minute feature-length

documentary called “Neighbor by Neighbor: Mobilizing an Invisible Community in Lewiston,

Maine” (Hartill, 2009). Although the film was produced by a Bates College graduate-‘turned

downtown resident’, neither the People’s Plan document nor the feature film were discourse

produced on behalf of a community-university collaboration. It was during this time (2004-

2007), however, that discussions began with interested community partners to establish a

Downtown Education Collaborative in Lewiston. The Collaborative made inroads early in 2007

by offering computer lab classes for residents, and by having students conduct a service-learning

project on food assessment. A storefront operation opened in fall 2008.

Marginalized groups from these communities developed a critical consciousness of their

environment, because they “own[ed] the focus and the outcome of a community development

process” (Banks, 1999, p. 231). Publishing, distributing and presenting a resident plan

demonstrated how the determination and solidarity of one low-income community group gave

them a “sense of obligation to the group” (Charles, 2005, p. 12; Rubin & Rubin, 2001, pp. 90-91,

410). By seeing small victories emerge, marginalized groups are often, but not always, able to

bootstrap successfully. The objective of Lewiston’s Visible Community group is simple, “to

make things a little bit better for people. We can’t [sic] do big things, because we can’t [sic]

afford to do big things. But we can do little things, like the bicycles [on chance for downtown

residents to win one of 11 used bicycles]” (Taylor, 2008, p. B1).

This brings Tillich’s ‘part of the whole’ concept to the forefront for marginalized groups.

Their contribution to the community development process helps them to become ‘part’ of the


whole (as they interpret it) even though they remain consciously aware of their ongoing struggle

to belong to the greater whole (society).

Theoretical Considerations

Exploring theoretical considerations in this study is not an easy task because I need to

link text to the very social structures and practices in society from which text is drawn. In order

to do this, I will explore concepts from both poststructuralist and postmodernist perspectives. To

begin, the findings from this analysis emphasize how social practices influence ways of acting

and being that come to bear on community change. This is not surprising to poststructuralists,

given the dialectical and interconnected relationship between discourse and social practices. It is

also not surprising when we consider “how discourse internalizes and is internalized…without

the different elements [of social practices] being reducible to each other” (Fairclough, 2003a). In

that sense, social practices “circulate as [different] discourses” (p. 207) in government, politics,

medicine, and social science. Accordingly, they emerge in community as representations of

what is, what can be, and what is good and desirable. As reflected by Macedo, social practices

also underscore how ways of acting and being are marked by representations that people identify

with in terms of comfort or level of understanding (Freire, 2005, p. 23). This is true of academia

and marginalized groups.

In taking this further, Foucault questions the way in which knowledge circulates and

functions (Foucault, 1994, p. 331). He suggests that ways of acting and being form knowledge

“that’s [sic] extracted from the individuals themselves and derived from their own behavior”

(Foucault, 1994, p. 84). From this knowledge, Foucault suggests that a second knowledge about

individuals emerges that could influence a dialectical relationship, such as the one involving

academia and marginalized groups:


“The individuals over whom power is exercised are either those from whom the

knowledge they themselves form will be extracted, retranscribed, and accumulated

according to new norms, or else objects of a knowledge that will also make possible new

forms of control” (p. 84).

In particular, Foucault posits the interplay in power relationships as the core element in

the relational character of power (Foucault, 1997, p. 168). Based on discourse analyzed in this

study, I found that academia are likely to agree on an outcome of ‘addressing social needs’ but

may have difficulty reaching a consensus on how to achieve this (Roberts & Woods, 2005, p 46).

Likewise, marginalized groups are likely to be skeptical of the intentions of collaborative

arrangements. Theoretically, a postmodern approach would support converging standpoints

from both groups. A postmodern approach would indicate, while we may be a product of an

institutional society, we need to recognize old and new patterns and be prepared to take

“intellectual risks” (Newman, 1999, p. 201). The hard lesson here, what Stoecker (as cited in

Tinkler, 2004a) calls a “radical construct of collaboration,” would be an attempt to share the

power relationship between these groups.

Secondly, we need to explore truth claims as a theoretical consideration. If we pay

attention to taken-for-granted truths, we observe how structured discourse tends to universalize

particular meanings (Fairclough, 2003, p. 58). This would appeal to poststructuralists because of

the “constructive function” of text and its recognition to the “centrality of language and

discourse” (Luke, 2008, section 2, para. 2). Producing truth claims through universalized

meaning may try to control knowledge circulation. Poststructuralists would argue that this does

not necessarily contribute to real meaning, given the scope of discourses available. There are too

many patterns from which to make a reasonable stand (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p. 11).


Likewise, Foucault would try to determine what rules govern structured discourse. Ideally, there

should be no questions about the dialectical process other than the issue that language cannot

mirror social reality (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000, p. 138). Both postmodernists and discourse

analysts have reached common ground in this conclusion (p. 137). Yet, the notion of

universalizing meanings creates a paradox. On the one hand, community-university

collaborations seek to empower marginalized groups by offering community services,

educational opportunities, and job-training sessions. On the other hand, institutionalizing

community-based research governs the order of discourse and confines subordinate groups to an

ideological space in which dominant activity and behaviours are sustained (Hebdige, 1994, p.

16).

Conclusion

My research project applied a critical discourse analysis to explore if the collective power

of socially marginalized groups in community emerges differently from that of academia. To

explore this assumption, I analyzed discourse on community-university collaborations in

distressed neighborhoods. From the outset, the following thoughts prevailed; namely, (1)

discourse is shaped by participants, and discourse shapes participants, and (2) discourse is

shaped by purpose, and discourse shapes possible purposes (Johnson, as cited in Somekh &

Lewin, 2005, p. 148). I also relied on a fundamental question to guide my project because I

wanted to look at some ways in which discourse influences social reality as it unfolds for

academia and marginalized groups: Does a scholarly approach to community collaboration

correlate with the needs of a distressed community?

Overall, the research suggests the possibility that entry points for change emerge in

distressed neighbourhoods regardless of a scholarly approach to community change. At the same


time, however, community change is more inclined to succeed within a structured, controlled

environment. A structured environment creates a good entry point for community-based

education, which holds considerable promise for academia as a means of connecting with

socially marginalized groups. These are positive entry points for change.

Conversely, institutionalizing community outreach is not a panacea for socially

marginalized groups. Lack of access to knowledge and shared processes is one obstacle

confronting these individuals. Therefore, we must be acutely aware of issues of power that stem

from the increase in the institutionalization of activities and relationships in community, even

though we look at community as an institution with pre-determined practices and identities.

In this analysis, I attempted to point out that texts are structured for specific readers, and

that social actors are represented as particular identities in discourse. During my review, I

looked at how theorists and researchers were addressing my research questions in terms of social

constructionism. As I reflected on the dialectical process in community-university

collaborations, I was disappointed to find the type of discourse that emerges is not truly

representative of a community perspective. Further, it is ineffective in its representation of

socially marginalized groups. I also found little evidence that addressed systemic issues in

community. Instead, too many ‘good new stories’ disguised core issues in distressed

neighbourhoods. While there is room to construct a shared vision for academia and marginalized

groups in community, I believe this is an unresolved issue because the ideological differences

between these groups are wide. Yet, the collective power of socially marginalized groups does

not emerge under its own ideology. It emerges based on society’s pre-existing dominant

paradigm implemented through controlled social practices. I was disappointed in my


explorations at this point because I hoped to discover extensive discourse of social

transformation within community-university collaborations.

Yet, there is much to be learned through language alone. Language is a critical focus of

attention in written text. It can also be a complicated medium to transport meaning (Alvesson &

Kärreman, 2000, p. 141-142). We must be alert to metaphors, assumption, and hidden meanings

because we simply cannot ignore “how language is being used to make social inequality

invisible” (Freire, 2005, p. 20).

Overall, I suggest that it should come down to meeting the needs of socially marginalized

groups in the community. In Freire’s words, “the point of departure must always be with men

and women in the here and now, which constitutes the situation within which they are

submerged, from which they emerge, and in which they intervene” (Freire, 2005, p. 85).

Fortunately, there is hope that radical new thinking will make us more alert to the influence of

discourse in community-university collaborations, and the necessity to narrow the gap between

these groups. I would welcome further research in this regard.


Note

[1] More information on these organizations can be found at http://www.compact.org/

References

Academic. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/academic

Academic. (2008). In The Free Dictionary. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic

Actors. (n.d.). In WordNet. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=word-you-want

Adler, M. & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to read a book. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Agency. (n.d.). In Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from

http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=A

Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (Eds.). (2002). Planning futures: New directions for

planning theory. New York: Routledge.

Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research:

Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36(2),

136-158.

Banks, K. (1999). Community social work practice across Canada. In F. Turner (Ed.) Social

work practice: A Canadian perspective. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada. pp. 224-236.

Banks, K. & Mangan, J. (1999). The company of neighbours: Revitalizing community through

action-research. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

Barr, A. (2005). The contribution of research to community development. Community

Development Journal. 40(4), 453-458.


Baxamusa, M. (2008). Empowering communities through deliberation: The model of community

benefits agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research 27, 261-276.

Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004b). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to

analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bennett, F. & Roberts, M. (2004). From input to influence: Participatory approaches to research

and inquiry into poverty. (pp. i-70). Retrieved October 21, 2008, from

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859351786.pdf

Bhattacharyya, J. (2004). Theorizing community development. Journal of the Community

Development Society, 34(2) 5-34. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from Academic OneFile

full text database.

Briton, D. (1996). The modern practice of adult education: A post-modern critique. Albany:

State University of New York Press.

Charles, M. (2005). Giving back to the community: African American inner city teens and civic

engagement. Circle Working Paper, 38, pp. 1-34. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP38Charles.pdf

Chavis, D. & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst

for participation and community development. American Journal of Community

Psychology 18(1) 55-81.

Cherry, D. & Shefner, J. (2004). Addressing barriers to university-community collaboration:

Organizing by experts or organizing the experts? Journal of Community Practice 12(3/4),

219-233.

Community. (n.d.). In Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Retrieved November 3, 2008,

from http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=C


Connelly, M., MacDonald, M., Murray Li, T., Parpart, J. (Eds.). (1996). Identity. In theoretical

perspectives on feminism and development. Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and

Development. (p. 130). Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning.

Connelly, M., MacDonald, M., Murray Li, T., Parpart, J. (Eds.). (1996). Ideology. In theoretical

perspectives on feminism and development. In Theoretical Perspectives on Gender and

Development. (p. 130). Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning.

Cook, J. (1994). Community development theory. University of Missouri. MP568 Community

Development Theory, MU Extension. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from

http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/miscpubs/mp0568.htm#summary

Cook, R. & DeFrain, J. (2005). Using discourse analysis to explore family strengths: A

preliminary study. Marriage & Family Review, 38(1), 3-12.

Cottrell, B., & Parpart, J., (2006). Academic-community collaboration, gender research, and

development: pitfalls and possibilities in Development in Practice, 16(1), 15-26.

Darcy, M. (1999). The discourse of ‘community’ and the reinvention of social housing policy in

Australia. Urban Studies, 36(1), 13-26. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from Academic

Search Complete database.

Discourse Analysis. (n.d.). In Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Retrieved November 3,

2008, from http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=D

Distressed community. (2005). In Economic Development America. Retrieved November 3,

2008, from http://www.eda.gov/EDAmerica/Summer2005/Glossary_2.html

Dorius, N. (2007). Practitioner perspectives on achieving change in poor communities. Journal

of the Community Development Society, 38(4), 2-12. Retrieved November 13, 2008,

from Education Research Complete database


Dunham, A. (1972). Community development in North America. Community Development

Journal, 7(1), 10-40.

Ebata, A. (1996). Making university-community collaborations work: Challenges for institutions

and individuals. Journal of Research on Adolescence, (Lawrence Erlbaum) 6(1), 71-79.

Fairclough, N. (2003a). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York,

NY: Routledge, (pp. 202-228).

Fairclough, N. (2003b). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York,

NY: Routledge. (pp. 35-38).

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York:

Routledge.

Fellbaum, C. (Ed). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database: Language, speech and

communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fischer, L. (2003a). East St. Louis: One city’s story. Bridges. The Federal Reserve Bank of

St. Louis. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/br/2002/d/pages/2-article.html

Fischer, L. (2003b). A fresh start in distressed cities. Bridges. The Federal Reserve Bank of



Flicker, S., Savan, B., McGrath, M, Mildenberger, M. and Kolenda, B. (2008). ‘If you could

change one thing…’ what community based researchers wish they could have done

differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253.

Fogel, S. & Cook, J. (2006). Considerations on the scholarship of engagement as an area of

specialization for faculty. Journal of Social Work Education 42(3). 595-606.


Foucault, M. (1994). Power. In J. Faubion (Ed.) Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984.

(Vol. 3). New York: The New Press.

Foucault, M. (1997). Society must be defended. In M. Bertani & A. Fontana (Eds.), (D. Macey,

Trans.). Lectures at the Collège de France 1975-1976. (Vol. 1). New York: Picador.

Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition. (M. Bergman Ramos,

Trans.) New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. [Original work

published 1970].

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Hachette Book

Group USA.

Hall, S. (1999). Encoding, decoding. In Simon During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader (2nd

ed.). (pp. 507-517). New York: Routledge.

Halliday, M. (1989). “Functions of language” from Language, context and text: Aspects of

language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press. (pp. 15-28).

Hartill, D. (2009, February 24). Visible community documentary to debut. Sun Journal. pp. B1-2.

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver:

UBC Press.

Hebdige, D. (1994). From culture to hegemony. In subculture: The meaning of style (pp. 5-19).

London: Routledge.

Huckin, T. (2002). Critical discourse analysis and the discourse of condescension. In E. Barton

and G. Stygall (Eds). Discourse Studies in Composition. Retrieved January 15, 2009,

from http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/wrconf08/Pdf_Articles/Huckin_Article.pdf


Julian, D., & Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2006). Exemplars of community practice. American

Journal of Community Psychology 38(3/4), 141-142.

Kepple, D. (2006). Discovering wisdom in a whole new world. Rhodes Magazine. 13(3).

Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://www.rhodes.edu/155_4131.asp

Kline, G. (2007). Positive Partnership – UI program changes lives in East St. Louis – but maybe

in Champaign-Urbana more. The News Gazette, 156(148). Retrieved October 20, 2008,

from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/CMSFiles/Newsgazette12-07.pdf

Kotval, Z. (2005). The link between community development practice and theory: intuitive or

irrelevant? A case study of New Britain, Connecticut. Community Development Journal.

41, 75-88.

Kromer, J. & Kerman, L. (2004). West Philadelphia Initiatives: A case study in urban

revitalization. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from

http://www.upenn.edu/campus/westphilly/casestudy.pdf

Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J. & Goss, M. (2002). Building partnerships with college

campuses: Community perspectives. A Monograph. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from

http://www.cic.edu/caphe/grants/engaging_monograph.pdf

London, S. (1995). Collaboration & community. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from

http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/ppcc.html

London, S. (1996). A survey of community collaboratives. (pp. 1-11). Retrieved October 14,

2008, from http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/ppcc-survey.html

Luke, A. (2008). Theory and practice in critical discourse analysis. In L. Saha (Ed.) International

Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Education, Resources in Education Series 8. Retrieved


December 6, 2008, from

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html

Macedo, D. (2005). Introduction. In P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary

edition. (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). (pp. 11-27). New York: The Continuum

International Publishing Group Inc. [Original work published 1970].

MacGregor, S. (2003). Critical discourse analysis—A primer. In D Mistifer (Ed.) Kappa

Omicron Nu Forum, 15(1). 1-10. Retrieved December 6, 2008, from

kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html

Marginalized. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved November 3, 2008,

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Marshak, R., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., & Grant, D. (2000). From outer words to inner words. The

Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36(2), 245-258.

Martin, D. (2003). “Place-framing” as place-making: Constituting a neighborhood for organizing

and activism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 730-750.

Martin, L., Smith, H., & Philips, W. (2005). Bridging ‘town & gown’ through innovative

university-community partnerships. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector

Innovation Journal, 10(2), article 20, pp. 1-16. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from

http://www.innovation.cc/volumes-issues/martin-u-partner4final.pdf.

Maton, K. (2000). Making a difference: The social ecology of social transformation. American

Journal of Community Psychology 28(1), 25-57.

Maton, K. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development,

community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community

Psychology 41(1/2). 4-21.


Mitchell, M. (2007, October 25). 20-year-old partnership with East St. Louis reaps many benefits

for residents, students. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign website: http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/07f_pm_eslarp.html

Morin, M. (1998). Paradigm shifts. In S. Scott, B. Spencer, & A. Thomas (Eds). Learning for

life. Canadian readings in adult education. (pp. 59-70). Toronto: Thompson Educational

Publishing, Inc.

Newman, M. (1999). Maeler’s regard: Images of adult learning. Sydney: Fast Books.

NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 8, 2008.

Reproduced with permission.

Origins. (2002). East St. Louis action research project. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from

http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/overview/doc2.htm

Owens, T. & Wang, C. (1996) Community-based learning: A foundation for meaningful

education reform. In School Improvement Research Series. (Topical Synthesis 8).

Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/t008.html

Participatory planning. (2002). East St. Louis action research project. Retrieved September 19,

2008, from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/overview/doc2.htm

Partnership fosters ties between colleges, L-A. (2007, December 19). Sun Journal. Retrieved

January 8, 2008, from http://www.sunjournal.com/story/243848-

3/LAForecasterNews/Partnership_fosters_ties_between_colleges_LA/

Pearson, K. (2006). Accelerating our impact: Philanthropy, innovation and social change. Social

Innovation Generation of The J. W. McConnell Family Foundation. (pp. 1-59). Retrieved

September 15, 2008, from


http://www.mcconnellfoundation.ca/utilisateur/documents/EN/Initiatives/Sustaining%20

Social%20Innovation/Accelerating_our_Impact.pdf

Phillips, L. & Jorgensen, M. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Radermacher, H. & Sonn, C. (2007). Towards getting it right: Participatory action research

(PAR) with an advocacy organization. The Australian Community Psychologist 19(1) 62-

73.

Ramaley, J. (2007, February). Community-engaged scholarship in higher education: Have we

reached a tipping point? Paper presented at the Community-Engaged Scholarship for

Health Collaborative Invitational Symposium, Winona State University, Minnesota.

Reardon, K. (1999, Summer99). A sustainable community/university partnership. Liberal

Education, 85(3), 20. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Academic Search Complete

database.

Reardon, K. (2006). Promoting reciprocity within community/university development

partnerships: Lessons from the field. Planning, Practice & Research, 21(1), 95-107.

Reardon, Kenneth M. (2005). Empowerment planning in East St. Louis, Illinois, City, 9(1), 85–

100. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://0-

www.informaworld.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/10.1080/13604810500128629

Rhodes receives $5000 grant. (2005, June 17). Memphis Business Journal. Retrieved October 22,

2008, from http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2005/06/13/daily35.html

Roberts, D. & Woods, C. (2005). Changing the world on a shoestring: The concept of social

entrepreneurship. University of Auckland Business Review 7(1), 45-51. Retrieved

September 15, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.


Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (2001). Community organizing and development (3rd ed.). Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Saddlemire, C. (2008a, September 14). People’s plan essential for informed planning. Sun

Journal. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from

http://www.sunjournal.com/search/story.php?ID=266947

Saddlemire, C. (2008b). The people’s downtown master plan: A project of the visible

community. Retrieved October 17, 2008 from http://www.mainepeoplesalliance.org/

2008%20Peoples%20Downtown%20Master%20Plan.pdf

Savan, B. (2004). Community–university partnerships: linking research and action for

sustainable community development, Community Development Journal. Vol. 39(4), 372–

384.

Seale, C. (Ed.) (2004a). Content and discourse analysis. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching society

and culture. 2nd ed. (pp. 373-381). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Seale, C. (Ed.) (2004b). Doing ethnography. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching society and culture.

2nd ed. (pp. 234-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Sirolli, E. (1999). Ripples from the Zambezi: Passion, entrepreneurship and the rebirth of local

economies. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Social construction. (n.d.). In Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Retrieved November 3,

2008, from http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=S

Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications Ltd.

Stephenson, M. (2003, November). Of land grants, leadership, nonprofits and social change: A

model for catalyzing sustained community-based learning and change. Paper presented


at National Conference of the Association for Research on Non-Profit Organizations and

Voluntary Action, Denver, Colorado.

Stoecker, R. (1999). Are academics irrelevant? Roles for scholars in participatory research.

American Behavioral Scientist, 42(5). 840-854.

Taylor (2008, June 24). Park opens with a clamor. Sun Journal. p. B1.

Taylor (2008, July 30). Lewiston city councilors [sic] tour downtown prides, problems. Sun

Journal. pp. B1-2.

Tinkler, B. (2004a). Establishing a conceptual model of community-based research through

contrasting case studies. In R. Stoecker (Ed.) Comm-Org Papers, 2004,10. Retrieved

November 19, 2008, from http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2004/tinkler/1.htm

Tinkler, B. (2004b). Establishing a conceptual model of community-based research through

contrasting case studies. In R. Stoecker (Ed.) Comm-Org Papers, 2004,10. Retrieved

November 19, 2008, from http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2004/tinkler/2.htm

Tillich, P. (1952/2000). The courage to be (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

[Original work published 1952].

Turner, N. & Pickett, R. (2000). An asset-based approach to community building and community

technology. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/diac2000.pdf

Tyler, D. (2005). Traffic regulation or racial segregation? The closing of west drive and

Memphis v. Green 1981. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://dam.rhodes.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/10267/2400/1/

Hollywood_springdale__David_Tyler.pdf

van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.

Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%


20of%20critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf

van Dijk, T. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In: C. Schäffner & A. Wenden

(Eds.), Language & Peace, 4(2), 17-33. Retrieved October 28, 2008, from

http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20analysis%20as%20ideology%

20analysis.pdf

van Dijk, T. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from

http://www.mfsd.org/debate/vandijk.pdf

Vidal, A., Nye, N., Walker, C., Manjarrez, C., Romanik, C., Lessons from the community

outreach partnership center program. Prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC.

Retrieved November 2, 2008, from

http://www.cpn.org/topics/youth/highered/pdfs/COPC_Program.pdf

Walker Davies, S. (2007). Project town gown. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(25),

pp. 1-4. Retrieved October 22, 2008 from

http://www.rhodes.edu/images/content/News/Diverse-Issues.pdf

Watson-Thompson, J., Fawcett, S., & Schultz, J. (2008), Differential effects of strategic planning

on community change in two urban neighborhood coalitions. American Journal of

Community Psychology 42(1-2), 25–38.

Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., Patton, M. (2006). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed.

Vintage Canada Edition, 2007. Toronto: Vintage Canada.

Wodak, R. (2002). Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from

http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~diekmann/zfal/zfalarchiv/zfal36_1.pdf

Zepke, N. (2005). Diversity, adult education and the future: A tentative exploration.

International Journal of Lifelong Education. 24(2), 165-178.


References

Appendix A Community-University Collaborations

Office of university partnerships. (2008). Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale partnership. Retrieved

October 22, 2008, from

http://www.oup.org/grantee/AbstractDetail.asp?Abstract=2182&Program=COPC

Reardon, K. (1999, Summer99). A sustainable community/university partnership. Liberal

Education, 85(3), 20. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Academic Search Complete

database.

Reardon, Kenneth M. (2005). Empowerment planning in East St. Louis, Illinois, City, 9(1), 85–

100. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://0-

www.informaworld.com.aupac.lib.athabascau.ca/10.1080/13604810500128629

Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale partnership. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from

http://www.rhodes.edu/academics/1118.asp

Strategic plan executive summary (2004). Empower Lewiston. Retrieved January 24, 2008,

from http://www.ci.lewiston.me.us/development/empowerstrategicplan.htm

The Harward center. (2008). Who we are: History. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from

http://www.bates.edu/x166253.xml

The Harward center. (2008). What we do: Projects & collaboratories. Retrieved September 19,

2008, from http://www.bates.edu/x165552.xml

The way we work. The East St. Louis action research project. Retrieved September 19, 2008,

from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/view/what-is-eslarp_1.aspx

Walker Davies, S. (2007). Project town gown. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(25), (pp.

1-4). Retrieved October 22, 2008 from

http://www.rhodes.edu/images/content/News/Diverse-Issues.pdf


References

Appendix B News Genre at Text Level

Ambrogi, K. (2000, February 2). Philadelphia initiative looks to improve city. The Daily

Pennsylvanian. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2000/02/01/Re

sources/W.Philadelphia.Initiative.Looks.To.Improve.City-2157813.shtml

Anyaso, H. (2007). Resilience and revitalization. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 23(25). 6-

6, 1p. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database.

Birch, J. (2008). Mid-south community taking back neighborhood with name change. Retrieved

October 27, 2008, from http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?s=6656089

Center for community partnerships: Ira Harkavy. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/v54/n06/harkavy.html

Community partnership featured in local newspaper. (2007, April 11). Rhodes Magazine.

Retrieved October 22, 2008 from http://www.rhodes.edu/6003.asp

Empower Lewiston gives new computer (2008, June 11). Sun Journal, p. B1.

Fischer, L. (2003a). East St. Louis: One city’s story. Bridges. The Federal Reserve Bank of



Fischer, L. (2003b). A fresh start in distressed cities. Bridges. The Federal Reserve Bank of



Group unveils downtown plan. (2008, March 23), Sun Journal, p. C1.

Kepple, D. (2006). Discovering wisdom in a whole new world. Rhodes Magazine. 13(3).

Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://www.rhodes.edu/155_4131.asp


Kline, G. (2007a). Positive partnership – UI program changes lives in East St. Louis – but maybe

in Champaign-Urbana more. The News Gazette, 156(148). Retrieved October 20, 2008,

from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/CMSFiles/Newsgazette12-07.pdf

Kline, G. (2007b). Project has become a family affair. The News Gazette, 156(148). Retrieved

October 20, 2008, from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/CMSFiles/Newsgazette12-07.pdf

Locals comment on community outreach program. (2006). WMCTV. Retrieved October 22,

2008, from http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=5087867

Mitchell, M. (2007). 20-year-old partnership with East St. Louis reaps many benefits for

residents, students. News bureau. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved

October 20, 2008, from http://news.illinois.edu/news/07/07f_pm_eslarp.html

Partnership fosters ties between colleges, L-A. (2007, December 19). Sun Journal. Retrieved

January 8, 2008, from http://www.sunjournal.com/story/243848-

3/LAForecasterNews/Partnership_fosters_ties_between_colleges_LA/

Peirce, N. (1996). East St. Louis – awesome partnership. (University of Illinois activism in urban

renewal). Nation’s Cities Weekly 19(n46). pp. 2 (1). Academic OneFile database.

Reardon, Kenneth M. (1999, Summer99). A sustainable community/university partnership.

Liberal Education 85(3), 20-25. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Academic Search

Complete database.

The Barbara and Edward Netter center for community partnerships. In M. Miller (Ed.).

University of Pennsylvania Almanac. Journal of record, opinion and news. October 2,

2007, 54(6). Retrieved March 24, 2009, from

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/v54/n06/netter.html


UPenn COPC center announces release of neighbourhood revitalization toolkit. Office of

University Partnerships Pressroom. Retrieved March 24, 2009, from

http://www.oup.org/news/pressroom.asp

Walker Davies, S. (2007). Project town gown. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(25), 1-4).

Retrieved October 22, 2008 from http://www.rhodes.edu/images/content/News/Diverse-

Issues.pdf

Wurth, J. (2003a). A win-win opportunity for all of us – UI students design house to help

revitalize East St. Louis. The News Gazette. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from

http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/news/OsmanNG-2003.html

Wurth, J. (2003b).UI alum builds homes where others won’t. The News Gazette. Retrieved

October 20, 2008, from http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/news/OsmanNG-2003.html

YADA L-A celebrates positive interactions. (2008, July 24). Sun Journal, p. B3.


Appendix A Community-University Collaborations

The sample represents a progressive view of capacity building and community renewal.

Downtown Education Collaborative: The Harward Center for Community Partnership (2002) was

endowed by Bates College in Lewiston, Maine. The Center links civic responsibility and community

engagement through academic endeavours. The Downtown Education Collaborative (2007) is a project

of the Center, funded by seven partners and a grant from the Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust.

Model: Community-based education and shared governance

Focus: Community capacity; educational partnership; downtown community

Neighbourhood: “census tracts that suffer from pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general

distress" (Empower Lewiston. Strategic Plan Executive Summary, 2004)

East St. Louis Action Research Project: Community involvement as a university initiative began in

1987 in East St. Louis, Illinois. With the aid of numerous State and Federal grants, the East St. Louis

Project, sponsored by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, grew from urban research

initiatives and neighbourhood planning workshops to an expansive participatory action research project.

Model: Action research; empowerment planning

Focus: Capacity building; economic development; environmental restoration; public health

Neighbourhood: “America’s Poorest Small City” (p. 86) (HUD as cited in Reardon, 2005)

Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale Partnership: Since 1995, Rhodes College has connected with the

Hollywood-Springdale community in Memphis, Tennessee, through civic engagement and service

learning. The Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale Partnership was formed in 2005 with a Community

Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD).

Model: Community-based education and outreach

Focus: Capacity building; housing renewal; community health; opportunities for youth

Neighbourhood: “the zip code [38108] with the nation’s highest infant mortality rate” (Walker

Davies, 2007, p. 1)

West Philadelphia Initiative: The Center for Community Partnership was founded in 1992. Its strategy

of linking distressed neighbourhoods to public schools, community organizations and the faith

community is a nationally recognized model of university civic engagement.

Model: Academically-based community service, community development

Focus: Environment, Health, Arts, Education

Neighbourhood: deteriorated neighbourhood, population decline, crime, vandalism


Appendix B News Genre at Text Level

East St. Louis Project (ESL)

Source Date Headline Voices Heard Point of View

News-Gazette 12-23-07

Positive Partnership - UI Program changes lives in East St. Louis - but maybe in Champaign-Urbana more (Kline, 2007a)

Directly Reported: professors, students and mayor Indirectly Reported: resident's comments; neighbourhood concerns

• Scholarly Discourse • Celebrates commitment of

students in community partnership

News-Gazette 12-23-07 Project has become a family

affair (Kline, 2007b) Directly Reported: professor and daughter, (student)

• Scholarly Discourse • Stresses strength of

community partners and reciprocity of relationships

News UIUC 10-25-07 20-year-old partnership with East St. Louis reaps many benefits for residents, students (Mitchell, 2007)

Directly Reported: professors Indirectly Reported: resident comments

• Scholarly Discourse • Praises student

achievement

News-Gazette 05-11-03

"A Win-Win Opportunity for all of us" - UI students design house to help revitalize East St. Louis (Wurth, 2003a)

Directly Reported: professor

• Scholarly Discourse • Discusses joys and

challenges of architectural program in East St. Louis

News-Gazette 05-11-03 UI alum builds homes where

others won't (Wurth, 2003b) Directly Reported: project developer (former UIUC student)

• Business article; discusses give back

• Built 80 homes in East St Louis

‘Bridges’ of Federal Reserve Bank

2002-03 East St. Louis: One City's Story (Fischer, 2003a)

Directly Reported: professor Indirectly Reported: efforts of resident association

• Scholarly Discourse • Describes revitalization • Credits local resident

association

‘Bridges’ of Federal Reserve Bank

2002-03 A Fresh Start in Distressed Cities (Fischer, 2003b)

Directly Reported: CD specialist; professor, Board governor

• Financial Industry perspective

• Short coverage on progress of East St. Louis project

Liberal Education (85) 3

1999 A Sustainable Community/University Partnership (Reardon, 1999)

Directly Reported: student Directly Reported: resident Indirectly Reported: original organizer (professor); student

• Scholarly Discourse • Timeline and Milestones • Discusses transformation

for students

Nation’s Cities Weekly

1996 East St. Louis -- awesome partnership. (University of Illinois activism in urban renewal) (Peirce, 1996)

Directly Reported: mayor

• Scholarly Discourse • Describes effort of faculty,

students and activities in transforming community


Rhodes Hollywood-Springdale Partnership (RHS)


Media Coverage:WMCTV

2008 Mid-South community taking back neighborhood with name change (Birch, 2008)

Directly Reported: residents and program manager of community center

• Community Discourse • Describes name change

as part of neighborhood facelift

Community Partnership Featured in Local Newspaper

4-11-07 Rhodes Hollywood Springdale Partnership (2007)

Directly Reported: interview with councilwoman/resident

• Community Discourse • Describes partnership

Diverse Issues in HE

1-25-07 Resilience and revitalization (Anyaso, 2007) Directly Reported: professor

• Scholarly Discourse • Brief, inspirational

program mention

Diverse Issues in HE

1-25-07 Project Town Gown (Walker Davies, 2007)

Directly Reported: professors Directly Reported: residents

• Scholarly Discourse • Discusses joys and

challenges of partnership

Rhodes Magazine 2006 Discovering Wisdom in a Whole

New World (Kepple, 2006) Directly Reported: professors Directly Reported: residents

• Scholarly Discourse • Celebrates achievements

of partnership, for professors, students and residents

Media WMCTV 06-27-06 Locals comment on community

outreach program (2006)

Directly Reported: interview with residents and program manager of community center

• Community discourse

Media WHBQ

2006 A model for revitalization (as cited in Kepple, 2006)

Indirectly Reported: professors Indirectly Reported: residents

• Community discourse • Summarizes positive

change for neighbourhood

Media: WREG

2006 People who live in the area say the program makes the neighbourhood a better place to live (as cited in Kepple, 2006)



change for neighbourhood

Media: WMC

2006 A credit to the community (as cited in Kepple, 2006)



change for neighborhood


Downtown Education Collaborative


Sun Journal 07-24-08 YADA L-A celebrates positive interactions (2008) Directly Reported: City Manager

• Community Discourse • Downtown Youth Civic

Engagement Group

Sun Journal 06-11-08 Empower Lewiston gives new computer (2008)

Directly Reported: councillors & guests Indirectly Reported: resident

• Community Discourse • Describes computer lab

initiative of DEC and Empower Lewiston

Sun Journal 03-23-08 Group unveils downtown plan (2008) Directly Reported: downtown residents

• Community Discourse • Describes overview of

People’s Downtown Master Plan

Sun Journal 12-19-07 Partnership fosters ties between colleges, L-A (2008)

Directly Reported: professors, community partner

• Scholarly Discourse • Describes local

partnership

The Center for Community Partnerships, West Philadelphia


UPenn website 2008

UPenn COPC Center Announces Release of Neighborhood Revitalization Toolkit

Directly Reported: ----- • Scholarly Discourse • Guide for neighbourhood

renewal

UPenn website 10-02-07 Center for Community

Partnerships: Ira Harkavay Directly Reported: dean • Scholarly Discourse • Provides overview of

Center and Harkavay’s role

Netter Center website

10-02-07 The Barbara and Edward Netter Center for Community Partnerships

Directly Reported: president, founding director

• Scholarly Discourse • Honours benefactors

The Daily Pennsyl-vanian

02-01-00 West Philadelphia Initiative looks to improve city (Ambrogi, 2000)

Directly Reported: vice-president • Community Discourse • Describes neighbourhood

improvements


Appendix C Assumptions

Table 1. EXISTENTIAL (What Exists)

ACADEMIC MARGINALIZED

• “I had no frame of reference for how dilapidated it was…It took several visits and several trips down…before I realized that people could possibly live there” (Reardon, 1999, p. 3)

• “Claiming that the participants and I were all ‘equals’ in the

research relationship when I clearly had more decision-making authority and an academic report to write provides just one example of how an attempt to be empowering may have been compromised” (Radermacher & Sonn, 2007, p. 71).

• “You can tutor until you are blue in the face, but until you are

out there in the community, actually meeting families and performing tangible services for community adults, you are merely scratching the surface of this complex problem we call educational inequality (“Rhodes receives $5000 grant”, 2005).

• “Under your partnership model, we’re not even the tail on the dog, not even the flea on the tail, but the little flealet hoping to land on the flea, hoping to land on the tail of the dog. (Reardon, 2005, p. 94).

• “The myths come in the form of disparaging remarks about

how none of us work and none of us pay taxes, suggesting that we aren’t really worth much as human beings” (Saddlemire, 2008b, p. 5).

• “We internalize these negative ideas about ourselves since

we see and hear them all the time” (Saddlemire, 2008b, p. 5). • “When you get used to slaps in the face, you don’t really see

it as a big deal” (Tyler, 2005, p. 45). • Here were these Rhodes professors talking about their grant

and how they wanted to help…I told them, ‘Don’t come over here giving us hope, then leave. That’s happened here plenty of times before’” (Kepple, 2006, p. 2).

Table 2. PROPOSITIONAL (What Can Be)


• “What they often lack are the organizational and financial resources necessary to bring about change” (Participatory Planning, 2002)

• “We’ve always kind of nibbled at these things…but we never

had the institutional support for it to be – quote, unquote – part of our regular job. Suddenly, it was.” (Walker Davies, 2007, p. 2)

• “When I used to come back here, I would get off the interstate and drive through the neighborhood, and think ‘somebody ought to do something,” she says. “Little did I know I would be that someone” (Walker Davies, 2007, p. 3)

• “Most [of the residents here] have been taught, ‘They will

change it for us,’” Cox says. “I tell them ‘No, we’re going to do it together.’” (Walker Davies, 2007, p. 3)

Table 3. VALUE (What is Good or Desirable)


• We learn from the residents, it’s not one-way (Mitchell, 2007).

• “We had a thousand dots but we weren’t connecting them. Now, we can envision all kinds of important projects: research into community health, computer projects that teach grassroots groups how to use digital technologies” (“Partnership fosters ties, 2008)

• “In every encounter with our community partners I am learning

something new! Where else would I get this kind of opportunity” (Origins, 2002)

• I think the project will have succeeded when it is administered entirely by neighborhood residents (Kepple, 2006, p. 4).

• What I see is more sense of community. People looking out

for each other, talking more. They want to get involved. (‘Locals comment”, 2006).

• “If you eliminate derelict houses and empty lots, keep

streets clean and cut down on crime, you have a neighborhood” (Wurth, 2003b, p. A3).

exploring conceptions of social reality...

Documents