Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement A DVANCING THE F IELD THROUGH A S OCIAL C HANGE F R A M E W O R K A N D C O L L A B O R AT I V E T O O L A A C & U G E N E D C O N F E R E N C E , S A N F R A N C I S C O , F E B R U A R Y 1 5 , 2 0 1 9
Overview • Review of tool and framework • Preliminary data highlights • Small group discussion: Using the tool • Application with national initiatives • Closing and next steps
Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement • Evolution and rationale • Piloting and modifying a Pathways tool • Broad applicability across higher education • Relevance for students, faculty, and staff
Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement Community Engaged Learning and Research: Connecting coursework and academic research to community-identified concerns to enrich knowledge and inform action on social issues. Community Organizing and Activism: Involving, educating, and mobilizing individual or collective action to influence or persuade others. Direct Service: Working to address the immediate needs of individuals or a community, often involving contact with the people or places being served. Philanthropy: Donating or using private funds or charitable contributions from individuals or institutions to contribute to the public good. Policy and Governance: Participating in political processes, policymaking, and public governance. Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility: Using ethical business or private sector approaches to create or expand market-oriented responses to social or environmental problems.
Pathways Diagnostic Tool https://tinyurl.com/PathwaysTool2018-19
Pathways Diagnostic Tool
Pathways 3.0 Vision • Some op'ons: • Examples tailored for different interests • Accompanied by ac'vity • Compare student responses • Pilot scheduled for spring/summer 2019
8 Past and Present Institutions Public Institutions Private Institutions Bellevue College Brown University Dutchess Community College Cedar Crest College Gateway Technical College Duke University Oregon State University Duquesne University Palo Alto College Edgewood College Salt Lake Community College George Washington University State University of New York at Binghamton Gonzaga University University of California - Merced Juniata College University of California - San Diego Lawrence University University of Delaware Loyola University Chicago University of Maryland - Baltimore County Pacific University University of Minnesota - Twin Cities Pepperdine University University of Pittsburgh St. Mary's College of California University of Texas at Austin St. Norbert College University of Utah Stanford University University of Wisconsin Colleges Tulane University University of Wisconsin - Madison University of Chicago University of Wisconsin - Parkside University of San Francisco University of Wisconsin – Stout University of Southern California Weber State University Whitworth University East China Normal University Campus Compacts University of Western Australia Iowa Campus Compact Utah Campus Compact Wisconsin Campus Compact
Preliminary Data Highlights – Participating Institutions (2017-2018) • Nine public institutions (n=320, 22%) • Fifteen private institutions (n=1078, 74%) • One state Campus Compact (n=57, 4%)
Profile of Respondents Distribu'on by Year, n=1455 Distribu'on by Gender, n=1455 Graduate Student Nonbinary/ 3% Nonconfor (blank) ming 9% 1% Senior Freshman 13% Decline to 39% answer 13% Female Junior 58% 13% Sophomore Distribu'on by Faith Tradi'on, 23% Male n=1455 28% Decline to answer 18% Yes 46% No 36%
Limitations • Students’ perceptions – self-reported • Uniform exposure • Imperfect typology • Multiple uses • Non-random sample • Not currently designed for pre and post (identifying students), focused on changes between cohort • Snapshot of trends in time
Data Trends • Gender: F (685), M (295) o Females more experienced in 3 Pathways o Females more interested except 1 o Females perceived impact and expressed self-impact
Data Trends • Faith: Y(665), N(531) • Y more interested and have more experience in Philanthropy than N • First Generation: Y(395), N/A(1060) • Y recognize personal strengths in COA • Pell Grant: Y(234), N/A(1221) • Y are more interested and consider COA more impactful
Data Trends
Interest in Pathways Over Time
Data Trends
Perceived Impact in Pathways Over Time
Pathways Interest and Impact, 2017-2018
Stanford’s Branner Residence Hall Interest in Pathways, 2018 Branner (n=35) Mean 1-4 Direct Service 3% 49% 49% 3.46 Community Engaged Learning & 3% 9% 40% 49% 3.34 Research Community Organizing & Activism 6% 23% 46% 26% 2.91 Policy & Governance 31% 49% 20% 2.89 Social Entrepreneurship & CSR 3% 34% 37% 26% 2.86 Philanthropy 17% 26% 40% 17% 2.57 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% None Very Little Some A Lot Perceived Impact of Pathways, 2018 Branner (n=35) Mean 1-4 3.80 Policy & Governance 20% 80% 3.49 Direct Service 3% 46% 51% Community Organizing & Activism 9% 34% 57% 3.49 Community Engaged Learning 3.43 6% 46% 49% and Research 3.29 Philanthropy 9% 54% 37% 3.26 Social Entrepreneurship & CSR 14% 46% 40% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% None Very Little Some A Lot
Example of Use at Branner Residence Hall Issues / Concerns Facing Your Campus (n=33) Top 1 Mental Health 7 Inclusion / Access to Opportunities 6 Sexual Assault / Violence 5 Issues / Concerns Facing Your Local Region (n=34) Top 1 Housing / Gentrification 9 Economic Inequality 7 Racial Inequality / Racism 4 Issues / Concerns Facing the World (n=33) Top 1 Economic Inequality 10 Environment / Climate Change 9 Politics / Apathy 4
Discussion How do you think this framework might give students more agency? How might you envision using this tool at your campus to prepare students for self-directed civic life?
Current and Potential Uses • Student advising • Program development • Research › Cohort – pre/post › Demographic differences › Institutional types › Longitudinal › Others? • Community partner perspectives
Pathways and National Initiatives • AAC&U LEAP Initiative • AAC&U Civic Prompts: Civic Learning in the Majors • Campus Compact Civic Action Plans • Carnegie Community Engagement Classification
Join the International Working Group! Contact Annabel Wong annabel.wong@stanford.edu
Questions? • Gail Robinson: gail@gailrobinsonconsulting.com • Tom Schnaubelt: thomas.schnaubelt@stanford.edu • Annabel Wong: annabel.wong@stanford.edu • Jo Wong: jowong@stanford.edu
Recommend
More recommend
