Transcript Accepted Student Website

Sharing Power
or Just Getting Along?
Byron P. White, Ed.D.
“Engage to Learn, Learn to Engage”
Institute for Teaching and Learning
University of Akron
October 30, 2009
Authentic community partnerships
 Essential components



Quality processes
• Relationship-focused
• Commitment to learning
Meaningful outcomes
• Specific
• Significant to all partners
Transformation
• Individual
• Institutional
• Societal
-- A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus Partnerships
Portland State University, 2008
Authentic community partnerships
Quality
Processes
Meaningful
Outcomes
Transformation
Quality processes








Asset-based orientation toward each other
Dialogue among partners
Relationship-building strategies
Understanding of each other’s culture
Two-way problem-framing & problem-solving
Recognition of needs and expectations
Self assessment and reflection
Constant negotiation and modification
-- A Guide to Reciprocal Community-Campus Partnerships
Portland State University, 2008
True collaboration
 Shared responsibility
 Shared accountability
 Shared authority (or power)
-- Collaboration: What Makes It Work, Mattessich, Monsey, & Murray-Close, 2001
UniversityCommunity
Engagement
Institutes
Students
Centers
Administrators
Divisions
Offices
Trustees
Faculty
Departments
Anatomy of a community
Individuals/
Families
Associations
Community-based
institutions
External institutions
Anatomy of a community
Individuals/
Families
Associations
Community-based
institutions
External institutions
Anatomy of a partnership
University
Community
Byron P. White, 2008
Anatomy of a partnership
Community
 
University
Brokering
Agent
Organization
Agent
Brokering
Organization
Byron P. White, 2009
Triangles & tambourines
 Institutions






Hierarchical authority
Seek alignment
Leadership is assigned
through credentials
Decisions are driven by
degree of strategy
Expertise is validated
externally
Power is granted
 Communities






Circular authority
Seek loyalty
Leadership is earned
through relationships
Decisions are driven by
level of passion
Expertise is validated
internally
Power is seized
Byron P. White, 2009
Institutional resistance
 Deliberation is too risky





Planning is more comfortable
Can’t compromise our point of view
Deliberation clouds the waters
Conflict will reflect poorly on us
More work, but no funding to make it worthwhile
 Concerns about community orientation





Is engagement within our responsibilities?
Do we have credibility?
Who will lead this work internally?
Where is the “community” to engage?
Where the proof that this will work?
-- The Organization-First Approach, Harwood & Creighton, 2009
Anatomy of a partnership
Community
 
University
Brokering
Agent
Organization
Agent
Brokering
Organization
Byron P. White, 2009
Community’s dual perspectives
 Micro-level engagement




Individuals come to be seen as peers
“Personalized power” is exerted to influence decisions
High potential for authentic collaboration
Essential for “quality processes”
 Macro-level engagement




Institution seen as dominant and a potential threat
“Formalized power” is exerted to influence decisions
High potential for conflict
Essential for “transformation”
Byron P. White, 2009
Sheltered partnership
Community

University
Brokering
Organization

Agent
Brokering
Organization
Byron P. White, 2009
Freelance partnership
Community
University
Brokering
Organization

Agent
Brokering
Organization
Byron P. White, 2009
Balanced partnership
Community
 
University
Brokering
Agent
Organization
Agent
Brokering
Organization
Byron P. White, 2009
Balanced partnership
 University agent is free to fully engage the
community at an interpersonal level.
 Agent is also fully empowered to act on the
institution’s behalf.
 Personalized power is generated.
 Formalized power can be effectively
leveraged.
Byron P. White, 2009
Four shifts to achieve balance
1. From university representatives
to university agents
2. From community trust
to community ownership
3. From honest dialogue
to institutional transparency
4. From developing leadership
to liberating leadership
Byron P. White, 2009
References



Harwood, R. C., & Creighton, J. A., (2009). The organization-first
approach: How programs crowd out community. Bethesda, MD: The
Harwood Institute for Public Innovation.
Portland State University. (2008). A guide to reciprocal communitycampus partnerships: Proceedings from Portland State University’s
Partnership Forum. Portland, OR: Author.
White, B. P. (2008). Bridging the High Street divide: Community power
and the pursuit of democratic partnerships between Ohio State University
and Weinland Park. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No.
3311543)