Research2
1
Working Toward the Common Good :
An Online University ’s Perspectives on Social Change 2
Many institutions of higher education in the United States and indeed around the world
are reaching out to their neighborhoods as a member of the community to contribute to the
common good through research, service, and educational opportunities. In this descriptive study,
the understandings and practice s around this kind of activity by one university with a mission of
creating positive social change is explored. While cu rrent literature indicates that researchers are
examining campus -commu nity engagement s, very little research has been done on community
engagement when the institution works primarily online and the communities involved are
geographically dispersed and dep endent on individual choices and preferences . The goal of the
study was to discover how members of one such online university currently understand and
practice the mission to provide a baseline of understandings for curriculum planning and
mentoring studen t research projects and service activities . Through a series of interviews
conducted with faculty members, students, and alumni , several themes were identified. These
results give rise to several implications for the university in developing its community outreach ,
along with some suggestions for further research. The discussion of findings for this university
might have applicability to other institutions of higher education , both online and traditional,
with a similar commitment to the community .
Backgro und to the Study
With the advances in online education and the significant numbers of institutions that
have campuses in multiple locations, the ease with which colleges and universities can
demonstrate mission fulfillment is more challenged. The reach of the university is broader in
such programs and mission efficacy relies on more than confirmed relationships with
constituency groups that are often local to the institution. For online education providers in
particular, the strength of mission fulfillment must rely upon intentional promotion within 3
curricular structures, student services, and philosophical expectations that allow university
members to carry out the institution’s mission in their own communities . Finding references that
speak to mission fulf illment in online and geographically dispersed programs is made
particularly difficult given the limited number of writings that deal with this topic. In fact, a
review of the literature for mission and online learning finds a greater focus on how the dec ision
to deliver online instruction can become part of the institution’s mission, not upon how the
existing mission can be assured through online delivery (Checkoway, 2001; Johnson, et al.,
2014; Levy, 2003). The complexity of understanding what is meant b y “positive social change”,
the mission for the university in this study, adds to the difficulty of using traditional images of
“community” within mission fulfillment.
Defining and Describing Social Change
The term “social change” has been defined and anal yzed across the academic disciplines,
reflecting the particular perspective of that discipline and its research agenda. In one study, a
proposal for social change in schools (Jean -Marie, Normore, & Brooks, 2009), the authors
reported that their literature review was aided by such identifiers and organizers as equity,
diversity, social justice, liberatory education, race, gender, ethics, urban school, global
education, critical pedagogy, oppression, social change, social development, and social order ,
among others. From the review of the literature around these key terms, Jean -Marie, Normore,
and Brooks see social change as bringing about a “new social order” in which marginalized
peoples would have the same educational and social opportunities as those more privileged .
As the list of identifiers above suggests, the concepts of social justice and equity have
been significant in discussions of social change in education, psychology, and social and cultural
studies (see also Curry -Stevens, 2007; Drury & Reicher, 2009; Moely, Furco, & Reed, 2008; and 4
Peterson, 2009). The writing and advocacy of Paulo Freire, Ivan Illich, civil rights leaders, and
feminists during the last half of the 20th century influenced these understandings and helped
shape the particular emph ases of social change in recent decades.
Hoff and Hickling -Hudson (2011) sought descriptors of social change that would be
appropriate for education and noted that Farley, writing in 1990, offered an understanding of
social change as “alterations in beha viour patterns, social relationships, institutions, and social
structure over time” (Hoff & Hickling -Hudson, 2011, 189). However, Hoff and Hickling -Hudson
found this inadequate from an educational point of view because of its value -neutral stance. They
pre ferred a definition that would give social change a “connotation of social progress or social
development beneficial to society” (189). For this reason, they chose the definition proposed by
Aloni in 2002, which places social change as challenging “trends of discrimination, exploitation,
oppression, and subjugation displayed by groups who regard themselves as favored and, thus,
take privileges for themselves and deprive other groups of the right to a dignified life” (Hoff &
Hickling -Hudson, 2011, 189). In o ther words, the change in social change is defined here in
positive and value -laden terms that relate more particularly to the agents of social change than to
others they might want to change. They were careful to add that this cannot be cast in universal
or absolute terms, but it is dependent on particular contexts and circumstances (see also Itay,
2008, writing in political science).
and Miller (2006), working in continuing education and innovation studies, respectively,
identified influences on the meani ng of social change arising from new political and social
realities. For instance, during the economic recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s,
education was seen to be increasingly determined by the needs and forces of the market and less
by concerns for equity and social justice, a conclusion suggested also by Atkinson (2010) in 5
adult education and Feldman (2001) in economic history. However, we witness today a
movement again toward social justice and equity issues (Ryan & Ruddy , 2015) , brought about in
part by Occupy activism (e.g., Cortez, 2013) , current political debates , experience in campus
outreach programs (e.g., Patterson, Cronley, West, & Lantz, 2014), social media (e.g., Taha,
Hastings, & Minei, 2015), and exposure to other cultures in a glob alized world (e.g., Bossaller,
Frasher, Norris, Marks, & Tr ott, 2015) .
Armstrong and Miller also noted that increasing global and international contact has led
to revisions in the meaning of social purpose narrowly defined in Western terms and contexts
an d the “grand narrative” of modernism being replaced by less absolute and dogmatic post -
modern discourses, an idea echoed also in adult education by Holst (2007). As a consequence,
projects with a social change purpose are considered to be more effective wh en local community
partners participate in determin ing needs and shap ing the outcomes collaboratively (Bahng,
2015; Lees, 2007; Lewis, 2004; Nichols, Gaetz, & Phipps, 2015; Silverman & Xiaoming, 2015).
Brennan (2008) added that the social context in whic h higher education operates today
calls for universities to be responsive in a number of ways to their constituent societies. One of
these responses, playing “a role in constructing the ‘just and stable’ society”, returns the social
change mission to the g oals of equity, which he suggested includes equitable access to the
credentials needed to participate as equals in the new societal realities and guarantees of
autonomy and freedom. Furman and Gruenewald (2004), working in educational administration,
descr ibed yet another new influence on understandings of social change: ecological concerns.
Their argument was that “environmental crises are inseparable from social crises” (48), primarily
because they usually have to do with the misuse of racial and economic power. 6
Overall, it is apparent that soci al change and social purpose have been focused primarily
on equity issues, although their working definitions, both implicit and explicit, reflect a spectrum
of meanings ranging from simple activism around race, ge nder, and poverty, for instance, to
more nuanced understandings of the impact of technology developments, diversity,
globalization, as well as the ecological environment. More recently, this focus has received
renewed attention as the gap between rich and poor is seen to be widening and the middle class
to be diminishing (Gillis & McLellan, 2013; Goldberg, 2012 ; Guy, 2012 ).
It is important to keep in mind that “social change” can be either an action or a result,
product or process, noun or verb. W hile educ ators need a clear end -in-view for their work with
students, processural understandings of social change may serve them better in planning for the
kinds of learning experiences that will bring about the desired results. The central concept of
“conscientiza tion” in Freire’s writings on social change speaks as much to process as product
(Hickling -Hudson, 2014) and using the concept of “transformation” rather than “results” in
reporting on social change projects (e.g., Sewell, 2005; Silverman & Xiaoming , 2015) further
supports this .
One of the most frequently made distinctions in social change is that between charity and
helping on the one hand and change and justice on the other. In many cases, the distinction is
assumed (e.g., Moely, Furco, & Reed, 2008); i n other cases, it is elaborated. In simplest terms,
charity work sets out to help someone; change efforts aim to modify social arrangements toward
equity (Mitchell, 2008). In cultural and social studies, charity has been identified as
“transactional” servi ce; change and social justice as “transformational” (Peterson, 2009, 541,
545). From a social work perspective, charity seeks to discover the immediate elements of a
particular individual’s needs and deal with them; change investigates the wider picture of all 7
those with similar needs and how the whole group might be helped by systemic change (Allen -
Meares, 2008). In effect, charity addresses the symptoms of a social injustice; change seeks to
remove the root causes (Allen -Meares, Mitchell, 2008 , Peterson, 2009 ). The former participants
can usually see immediate results for their efforts; the latter work for the long term and may
actually never see final results, or at least they will discover that results are usually not
immediately apparent (Mitchell, 2008 ). At its worst, charity may be patronizing, perpetuating
rather than overcoming the differential in power — the “us versus them” dichotomy — which may
have brought about the need in the first place. At its best, change may not only amend the
situation of the needy but also strengthen authentic relationships among all those involved as it
redistributes and shares power more equally between those who are privileged and those who are
not. In the reciprocity between the needy and change agents, each benefits altho ugh in different
ways (Peterson, 2009).
Writing within the context of human services, Netting , O’Connor, & Fauri (2007) picked
up on many of the distinctions between charity and change but put them in an entirely different
light. They replaced charity wit h focused or peripheral change; that is, advocacy for individuals
providing “relatively short -term interventions designed to gain access to, utilization of, or
improve the exis ting service delivery system” ( 60). These interventions are critical in
operatio nalizing an organization’s mission in that they focus on implementing and achieving the
intent of particular policies and processes. They are usually manifested as case advocacy —
working for “individual clients whose rights have been violated and/or whose a ccess to benefits
have been denied” (p. 63). Netting , O’Connor, and Fauri also substituted “change” with
“transformation” described as “long -term, structural interventions designed to change the status
quo at broad community, state, regional, or even natio nal level” (60). These kinds of 8
interventions may involve “social movement organizations, campaigns for social justice . . . and
coalitions with system reform goals” (60). They may threaten the status quo and are usually
manifested as cause advocacy — workin g in “an arena, locus of change, or target,” which may be
“an organization . . . legislation, law, and/or community or other large system” (63).
While the literature in general clearly weighs in on the side of change over charity , some
writers have raise d points in favor of taking a more holistic view of social change that includes
both charity and change. Netting , O’Connor, and Fauri (2007), for instance, proposed that
because both case advocacy and cause advocacy fall within the professional roles of hu man
services providers, both must be planned for and their success evaluated. One argument in favor
of a more holistic view is that charity may be needed as a necessary first step to improve
immediate and pressing conditions. Change can then subsequently a ddress the policies and social
institutions that need reform and/or revitalization (Hoff & Hickling -Hudson, 2011). This
argument takes on merit when one considers that change may take time whereas charity may
bring some immediate relief. In a similar vein, charity may also be considered an important first
step to build trust between social change activists and those for whom they work, which, once
established, can be a basis on which to take later steps collectively toward political change
(Peterson, 2009).
Over two decades ago, Boyer claimed, “At no time in our history has the need been
greater for connecting the work of the academy to the social and environmental challenges
beyond the campus (1990, xii).” Duderstadt, a decade later, noting some of the pitf alls to an
institution of higher learning that arise from the expectation that it will “address social needs and
concerns”, nevertheless declares that “it is clear that public service must continue to be an
important responsibility of the American universi ty” (2000, 2003, 146). For the purpose of this 9
study, when individuals associated with colleges and universities find ways to serve their local
communities and contribute to the common good, their efforts are identified as contributing to
positive social c hange.
Research Method
The goal of this study was to explore and analyze the current state of understanding and
practice around social change at one online university with geographically dispersed students and
faculty . We selected a qualitative research d esign for this study in an effort to get at the
understandings of faculty members, students, and alumni in their experience of social change
processes and how they make meaning out of those experiences (see Creswell, 2003). The site
selected for the proje ct is a comprehensive, regionally accredited , for -profit institution originally
founded in 1970 as a distance learning institution . It currently enrolls approximately 60,000
students. The institution is an appropriate site for th is research in that creatin g positive social
change was the university’s mission from its founding. The mission statement is prominently
displayed in university publications, shared widely with new faculty members and students, and
frequently discussed in online forums and other ven ues .
Although the researchers considered both focus and group interviews as data collection
methods, we ultimately decided that individual interviews would provide the richest information
and would also permit comparisons among interview groups. Informed by both the literature
review and the goal for the study, the researchers prepared an interview guide, utilizing cross
referencing between the goals for the research and the interview questions. (The interview
questions are provided in Appendix A.) A resea rch team, consisting of six faculty members,
completed inter -rater reliability training and piloted the interview guide. The study was approved
by the university’s Institutional Review Board and appropriate measures were taken to preserve 10
confidentiality o f responses with interviewers signing confidentiality agreements and the
substitution of pseudonyms for real names in any reporting of the study. A small gift card ($50
for Amazon.com) was sent to participants in appreciation for their time and willingness to be
interviewed.
Working in pairs, the researchers interviewed three groups of participants selected via
purposeful , referral sampling from the institution ’s faculty, students, and alumni. Interviewees
were identified by their colleagues, teachers, or m entors as active participants in social change
activities and possessing an ability and willingness to articulate their understandings in a
considered way. Eight current students, ten faculty members, and 12 graduates including five
very recent graduates m ade up the pool of interviewees.
Interviews were conducted via telephone and transcribed verbatim using digital
recordings. For each pair of researchers, there was a lead interviewer and an observer who
debriefed after each interview. The observer also ke pt interview notes and verified interview
transcripts; member checks were also used to confirm the accuracy of the transcripts. Two
analyses of the responses were undertaken, concurrently but independently, to provide different
perspectives for comparison . The analysis began with the interview transcripts, looking for
recurring ideas and common themes. The initial and open coding identified key participant
responses, followed by a second coding that labeled the nature of the emerging theme. Following
the se cond coding, the researcher developed working definitions for each theme. The interviews
were coded a third and final time, during which the working definitions provided a framework
for confirming the code, and illustrative quotes were noted.
Coded Analy sis 11
Significant Common Themes
When interviewees were asked to define social change and provide examples from their
own experiences, their answers and the responses to follow -up probes yielded richly nuanced and
diverse concepts, spanning a wide spectrum of ideas, reflecting the broad sweep of the
university’s official definition. Themes emerged about the focus on others, the charitable nature
of social change, the way small actions in social change could expand from one or a few to
many, and about the cen tral role of education in changing perspectives and bringing about social
change.
Focus on the “Other”
Most participants gave definitions of social change that were “other” -focused; that is,
social change was seen as an important goal in order to improve s ome aspect of life for other
people, but not necessarily for themselves. Others might need to benefit from social change, but
the participants in this study did not typically include themselves in the change population. For
instance, Brian, a faculty membe r, stated that social change “is anything and everything an
individual does to improve the life or lives of others.” In some cases, those “others” had unmet
personal needs: their quality of life was seen as insufficient or their wellbeing was somehow in
qu estion.
Few participants first thought of social systems or community -at-large initiatives as they
discussed social change, but they often added the larger community in an expansion of their
definition. In some cases, this seemed to be added almost as an after -thought. Ray, an
undergraduate faculty member, defined social change “as a group of people who are getting
involved, who are giving of themselves, whether it be in terms of time or money or effort or all
of the above, to make an impact on both indivi dual people’s lives and society as a whole”. Other 12
respondents took in the larger community immediately. Arsi, for instance, an alumna whose
work focused on the intergenerational transfer of learning, spoke of that expansion to the wider
community in these terms: “[S]ocial change has a lot to do with making a contribution to society
that will not only improve individuals’ lives but will collectively improve the environments in
which they live, and that can expand beyond just personal agendas.” Only a few re spondents
spoke specifically of social change within the boundaries of democracy and related political
principles, but the possible expansive nature of social change was a clear theme: “Social
change,” stated faculty member Christine, “is tinkering with th e world.”
Helping and Altering
Consistent with the focus on “the other” and with a framework that centers on individual
needs, most participants used language associated with helping to describe the actions that
support social change. Typical definitions i ncluded words such as “contribute ”, “serve ”, “give ”,
or “provide ”, reinforcing the idea that social change is something that participants initiated for
another individual or set of individuals with specific needs. Pam, an alumna who works in
mental health, spoke of “project(s) that will kind of better the populations that they’re serving,”
while Brian spoke of disadvantaged people and the need to “give them the dignity” of a job.
Marg, another alumna, took up the idea of service: “You have something that yo u see you can
start off with service projects or volunteering and charity work and all of that,” but she extended
this to include a larger context: “I recognize(d) the social injustices taking place everywhere, in
many communities . . .” And Diane, an MBA alumna, stated that “social change is about helping
every individual achieve their potential so that they can reach down and help the next one up.”
In addition to using language that anchored social change within the concept of helping,
many interviewees d escribed their own social change actions in terms of the desired effect on 13
others . They used terms such as “(re)build”, “develop”, “empower”, “improve”, and “modify” to
describe the outcomes of their work for social change. Tom, a faculty member with philo sophical
groundings in the quality movement, strives to encourage people to build on the positive. “Social
change is making something better” and encouraging that movement forward.
The Ripple Effect
The vast majority of respondents noted that a single pers on can be responsible for social
change: only two of the 30 respondents indicated that a “critical mass” (Eileen’s term, further
arbitrarily defined as 30% of a population by Diane) was necessary to effect significant social
change. However, most participa nts acknowledged that social change can begin with a single
individual but his or her efforts require expansion. Many participants used the term “ripple” to
note the movement from the single person to a group of people, and then to a larger impact. Kim,
a student who came to the university precisely because of the social change mission, is a teacher.
She instructs her own students that “whatever they do should be important to them and make
some kind of ripple.” Alumnus Charlie called it a “gravitational wav e,” as in physics, that
ultimately impacts the farthest reaches of the universe.
For the most part, social change was seen in terms of making progress. Paige noted the
idea of “paying it forward” and other interviewees used the concept of moving forward in a
positive way as part of their social change definition. Over half the interviewees thought that
both accentuating the positive and removing the negative were involved in social change, but
nearly as many indicated that a focus on the positive was crucia l for social change. Only one
respondent indicated that the single goal of social change was to remove a negative. The notion
of social change by an individual, often for the benefit of another individual, was prevalent.
Changing Perspectives and the Role of Education 14
Participants in each interview group identified education as an important feature of how
they understand and approach social change. Alice, an alumna who had a successful military
career and now focuses her efforts on teaching, put it this way : “Social change to me is being
able to, I guess, implement or work hand -in-hand with students to help them further their
education so that we help our community become a better community. It's making sure that
education is the priority as well as being co ncerned about the community and the economic
status of the community and the children in the schools.”
Moreover, each group had representatives who spoke of “transformations” in perspective
as a key feature of social change. Brenda, an alumna who studied aging women, linked social
change to changing perspectives: “Social change is taking the norms, the mindset, the
expectations, the assumptions of a society and beginning to shift them, hopefully in a positive
way.” Wendy, an alumna who has started her own school, acknowledged that her hope and her
goal “is that kind of the change that the school is in our community --that it goes beyond just the
children and the families here, but actually that we start this new conversation of what education
can be.” Margar et, a faculty member in human services, spoke of beginning social change at a
“very grassroots level, where you can shape a person’s values, or maybe their attitude, maybe
their beliefs . . . which in turn, basically diffuses out to other aspects of societ y.”
Secondary Themes
Reliance on Context
The task of articulating a definition of social change was not simple for most participants.
In terms of elaborating on social change definitions and examples, some participants noted the
importance of context. Beck y, a doctoral student in Public Policy and Administration, focused on
context: “Let’s see. Well, that depends on the project. It can be an individual that’s changed 15
something in their life or it could be a process that’s changed or it could be a policy. Th at’s hard
without knowing an example.”
Social Change and Benefit to the Initiator
“Who is social change for?” As respondents considered the beneficiaries of social
change, some admitted that social change action promotes benefit for the change initiator.
Paige noted that the first thing that changes in social change is often the self: “Well, I hope first,
before anything, we’re changing our lives, who we are, what we believe, and what we think. You
have to do that first before you can actually make a differ ence in the community.” Charlie, an
alumnus who has founded a business to promote cross -cultural communications, spoke similarly
of the need to build the “self” in order to effect social change: “And by doing that I enrolled
[here] and hoped to develop tho se strengths in myself, which gets back to the Gandhi point that
you become the change you want to see by empowering myself, educating myself, engaging
myself . . .” Arsi proposed that social change serves a dual purpose. “I think it’s not only for the
per son that initiates the social change but I think it’s for a broader audience and it can include the
community.” Ray stated that this is a “central truth to the human experience. When you help
people, you personally benefit, and when you help enough people or you get together a large
enough group, you can help society benefit.” Christine admitted, “I think very selfishly. It’s
definitely for myself because of all the things that go with it, but I think the goal is that there will
be some value or benefit for us universally.”
Discussion and Implications
The participants in this study were focused on others . an admirable quality, enacting the
“servant -leadership model” (Greenleaf, 1977, among others) for improving organizational
effectiveness and creating chan ge. A few of the participants acknowledged benefit to themselves 16
in engaging in social change activity, usually in the form of personal satisfaction that can come
about by doing something good for others. One interviewee expressed the even more cynical
view that all we do is tainted by a level of self -serving. Social justice and equity were seen by
some to be objectives for social change action but in the form of bringing about for others what
they themselves already possesses. A few spoke of supporting d emocracy by their actions, where
all work together for the common good.
The enthusiasm and momentum around helping others was very notable in this group of
interviews. By itself, however, a focus on improving conditions for another may not be
sufficient for thorough -going social change. Under some conditions, especially when root causes
are not addressed, it can be experienced as disempowering and patronizing by the recipients,
creating two levels in a community — the helpers operating from a privileged p osition and the
helped operating from a position of need and deficit — and neither level is transformed by the
activity. Importantly, it may not always reveal that one might be implicated as a member of a
group that could very well be the source of the prob lem being addressed.
As indicated, one of the persistent themes in the scholarly discussion of social change is
the clear distinction between charity and helping on the one hand and change and justice on the
other. In the coded analysis made of the defin itions and descriptions of social change, the theme
“charity and alteration” was one of the most prominent. It was described as serving or helping
others so that their lives and possibly the lives of an ever widening circle will be changed. The
analysis f ound that the participants in this study tended to speak more often in terms of “charity”
than “change”.
Real -life examples of social change activity, however, are seldom as clear cut as
descriptions of charity and change in the literature suggest. While charity predominates in the 17
descriptions and actions of the participants, and social change activity was conducted by
individuals or small groups engaged in the same effort and focused on a specific needy group,
and even though most of the change was seen as making a difference in the lives of individuals
being served rather than in the systemic structures that make up society and its institutions, many
nevertheless saw their activities contributing to change in a larger context. Much of this change
was e nvisaged in terms of hopeful thinking about the long -term potential and “ripple effect” of
their efforts, rather than in terms of the impact of deliberately planned or collaborative action.
The larger changes were considered post hoc effects rather than ou tcomes planned from the
beginning . Not apparent were strategies based on an analysis of systemic flaws and developed to
address root causes, bringing all players into the planning, and being deliberate about making
long -term and sustainable changes.
The analysis which looked for common themes in the responses produced encouraging
news for those who work in higher education. Both faculty members and students spoke of the
transformative power of education to change perspectives and attitudes. They spoke of the
power of class discussion forums, learning from different others in classes, curricular topics that
specifically addressed needs and opportunities for social change activity, practical projects
undertaken as class assignments, and the example of fac ulty members and other students who
were engaged in social change activity. Faculty members also spoke of the importance of one -
on -one mentoring of students who were in the process of developing a change project.
Suggestions for Further Research
This stud y opens up several questions that suggest areas for additional research, some
that arise from expanding and strengthening the original study, and others to follow -up on leads
from this study. Among the first set of questions is how wide -spread these views and 18
understandings of social change are within the context of this university . So, this interview study
with its referral sampling approach might usefully be expanded to the whole university
community for a more thorough -going data set, perhaps employing a survey to provide
quantitative measures of the strengths of the many responses represented by the sample in the
original study. Then too, given that this study was conducted in one institution whose mission is
to create positive social change, what would other institutions , traditional and online, find if they
were to conduct similar investigations? This question is important if the institution wants to more
fully realize its social responsibility in community outreach by providing an initial sense of some
of the common themes , with their strengths and weaknesses, that might exist already in the
institution.
In follow -up on leads from this study, studies of teaching and learning strategies might
help determine the most effective for expanding ideas of char ity to include a change dimension,
and to prepare students in the skills needed for social change as efforts toward justice and equity
and/or empowerment and agency.
Limitations of the Study
This was an exploratory study whose purpose was to discover the understanding and
practice of positive social change as a component of the mission of a large U.S. online
university. The sample size was small and purposefully selected for the participants’
involvement in social change activities. As a result, it was com prised of a majority of
participants who live and study in the United States. There was a general intent to include
participants with diverse racial and ethnic background and gender. The end result is a range of
values along with diversity in culture, gend er, and ethnicity in this group of participants and an
equally wide ranging number and kinds of contexts and opportunities for social action being 19
addressed by them. While this is a limitation of the study, it also is representative of the
complexity of un derstanding social change and those who are active within it.
Missing from the research design is the involvement of a designated external community
in the project. Our identified “community” includes the faculty, students, and alumni of the
institution. As faculty members, the researchers are part of this community and we relied upon
other faculty, our students, and our alumni to help identify participants, perfect the interview
guide, provide a debrief ing after each interview, and support member checks. The University’s
external communities, less well defined, are all the communities in which our students, faculty,
and alumni practice positive social change. The difficulty of creating touch points with all
external community constituency groups, challengin g even for land -based institutions, would
have been prohibitive for a study of this size.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that faculty, alumni, and students at this particular
institution show strong passion to make changes for “the greater good .” It also shows that for
those who are actively involved, s ome of the distinctions made in the literature do not hold in
the ir understandings and practice of social change. Activities that at first glance might seem to
fall into the category of chari ty were also undertaken with the expectation of a “ripple effect”
that would manifest itself as change in the broader society. “Helping” and “altering” concepts
were used together to describe the purpose of an activity. In other words, service activities w ere
often understood to be aiming for social justice or self -efficacy which takes them out of the realm
of simply helping (a potentially disempowering relationship) and into the domain of real change ;
from a focus on a single individual or group of individ uals toward creating an impact through
these individuals on the wider community. This move from charity to change was not always 20
fully understood by participants and could be strengthened even further by preparing students in
the skills and knowledge to tu rn their scholarly understandings and personal commitment into
even more effective community engagement and long -lasting impact that more deliberately looks
to creating systemic change .
References
Allen -Meares, P. (2008). Schools of social work contributi on to community partnerships: The
renewal of the social compact in higher education. Journal of Human Behavior in the
Social Environment , 18 (2), 79 –100.
Armstrong, P., & Miller, N. (2006). Whatever happened to social purpose? Adult educators’
stories of po litical commitment and change. International Journal of Lifelong Education ,
25 (3), 291 -305.
Bahng, G. (2015). Using c ommunity partnerships to create critical service learning: The c ase of
Mar Vista Gardens. Journal o f Public Affairs Education , 21 (1), 55 -70 .
Bossaller, J. S., Frasher, J., Norris, S., Marks, C. P., and Tr ott, B. (2015). Learning about social
justice through experiential learning a broad. Reference and User Services
Quarterly , 54 (3), 6 -11.
Brennan , J. (2008). Higher education and social change. Higher Education , 56 (3), 381 -393.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate . Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. Th e
Journal of Higher Educatio n, 72 (2), 125 -14 7. Special Issue: The S ocial Role of Higher
Education. 21
Cortez, G. A. (2013). Occupy public education: A community's struggle for e ducation al
resources in the era of p rivatization. Equity and Excellence i n Educat ion , 46 (1), 7 -19.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research d esign: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Curry -Stevens, A. (2007). New forms of transformative education: Pedagogy for the privileged.
Journal of Tran sformative Education , 5(1), 33 -58
Duderstadt, J. J. (2000, 2003). A u niversity for the 21 st century . Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social
change: Researching cr owds and power. Journal of Social Issues , 65 (4), 707 -725.
Feldman, J. M. (2001). Towards the post -university: Centers of higher learning and creative
spaces as economic development and social change agents. Economic and Industrial
Democracy , 22 (1), 99.
Fu rman, G. C., and Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A
critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly , 40 (1), 47 -76.
Gillis, A., and Mac Lellan, M. A. (2013). Critical s ervice learning in community healt h nursing:
Enhancing a ccess to cardiac health s creening. International Journal of Nursing
Education Scholarship , 10 (1), 63 -71 .
Goldberg, G. (2012). Economic inequality and e conomic crisis: A c hallenge for social w orkers.
Social Work , 57 (3), 211 -224.
Guy, M. E., and Mc Candless, S. A. (2012). Social equity: Its legacy, its p romise. Public
Administration Review , 72 ,S5 -S13 22
Greenleaf, R. K.. (1977, 1991, 2002). L. C. Spears, ed. Servant -leadership: A Journey into the
nature of legitimate power and leadership. M ahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hickling -Hudson, A. (2014 ). "Striving for a better world: Lessons from Freire in Grenada,
Jamaica and Australia." International Review o f Education / Internationale Zeitschrift
Für Erziehungswissenschaft . 60 (4), 523 -543. Hoff, L. , and Hickling -Hudson, A. (2011).
The role of international non -governmental organisations in promoting adult education
for social change: A research agenda. International Journal of Educational Development ,
31 (2), 187 –195 .
Itay, A. (2008). Conceptions of progress: How is progress perceived? Mainstream versus
alternative conceptions of progress. Social Indicators Research , 92 (3), 529 -550.
Jean -Marie, G., Normore, A. H., and Brooks, J. S. (2009). Leadership for social justice:
Preparing 21st century school l eaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education , 4(1).
Johnso n, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V. and Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon Report: 2014 Higher
Education . Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
Lees, P. J. (2007). Beyond p ositivism: Embracing complexity for social and educational
change. English Teaching: Practice and Critique (University of Waikato) . 6(3), 48 -60.
Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance l earning programs in
higher e ducation. Online Jour nal of Distance Learning Administration, VI (I) ,
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm
Lewis, T. L. (2004). S ervice learning for social change? Lessons from a liberal arts college.
Teaching Sociology , 32 (1), 94 -108. 23
Miller, M. (2000). Organizing for social change: What we did right, what went wrong, how we
can overcome. Social Policy , 31 (2), 4 –12.
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service -learning: Engaging the literature to
differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning , 14 (2), 50 -
65.
Moely, B. E., Furco, A., and Reed, J. (2008). Charity and social change: The impact of
individual preferences on service -learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning , 15 (1), 37 –48.
Netting, F . E., O’Connor, M. K., & Fauri, D. (2007). Planning transformative programs:
Challenges for advocates in translating change processes into effectiveness measures.
Administration in Social Work, 31 (4), 59 -81.
Nichols, N., Gaetz, S., and Phipps, D. (2015). G enerating social change through c ommunity -
campus c ollaboration. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement , 19 (3), 7 -
32.
Patterson, D. A., Cronley, C., West, S., and Lantz, J. (2014). Social justice manifest: A
university -community partnership to promote the individual right to h ousing. Journal o f
Social Work Education , 50 (2), 234 -246.
Peterson, T. H. (2009). Engaged scholarship: Reflections and research on the pedagogy of social
change. Teaching in High er Education , 14 (5), 541 –552.
Ryan, T. G., a nd Ruddy , S . (2015). Restorative justice: A changing community
response. International Electronic Journal o f Elementary Education , 7(2), 253 -262.
Sewell, W. C. (2005). Affecting social chan ge: The struggle for educators t o transform
society. Educational Fo undations , 19 (3/4), 5 -14. 24
Silverman, J., and Xiaoming, Y. (2015). A cross -cultural collaboration exploring art literacy,
creativity and social transformation in China. International Journal of Education
Through Art , 11 (2), 193 -212. Taha, D. E., Hastings, S . O., and Minei, E. M. (2015).
Shaping student activists: Discursive sensemaking of activism and participation
research. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 15 (6), 1 -15. 25
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions
Was working for social change import ant to you before you came to [this institution?]
If yes, how were you involved?
Was the social change mission important to you in making your choice to come to [institution] ?
From your perspective, what is “social change”?
From your own observati ons, can you give some examples of what you mean?
What is changed by social change ?
Who is social change for, primarily? [Me? Others? The whole planet?]
How many individuals need to be engaged in order to call it social change? Is one enough or
does it ne ed to be more? How many more?
How important is it for social change to focus on policy and policy -makers?
What do you think of when you think about political activism? How important is political
activism in social change? What kind of political activism wo uld you engage in? (or encourage
your students to engage in)
Is social change more about removing something negative or nurturing something positive?
How do you feel about having social change as a goal of your teaching , learning , or p rofessional
work?
How important is the goal of fostering social change in understanding your role as a faculty
member , or planning and undertaking your studies as a learner , or developing your career as a
graduate?
