Landscape Analysis of Efforts to Address Institutional Policy and Advocacy

• In Event: Silent or Silenced? Naming and Disrupting Institutional Barriers to Community-Engaged Scholarship in Academic Spaces

Abstract

Community members and organizations experience “downstream” impacts of barriers to community engaged scholarship such as exclusion from research discussions and lack of funding to participate in research dissemination. In this Workshop Area we look “upstream”: a) organizational structures and policies and b) organizational and professional norms and discourse that impact the experience and possibilities of community engaged scholarship. We first will draw on critical policy studies (Diem et al, 2014) and community engaged scholarship (Welton & Mansfield, 2020) to set common language and frameworks for our examination and how our analysis can lead to policy action.

In order to construct a landscape of organizational structures and policies that impact community engaged scholarship, we engage in a systematic review of policy documents and a national open-ended survey. In particular, we will focus on organizations including colleges/universities, professional research organizations (such as AERA), school districts, and community based organizations. Examples of organizational structures might include staff titles and duties, or offices and departments. Examples of relevant organizational policies might include rules around compensating non-employees or minors, tenure criteria, or budget allocations. In support of the scan we will review current policies of AERA, as well as relevant policies from a sample of organizations.

Next we will consider norms and discourses within organizations (higher education, K12, professional research organizations, community based organizations) and the field of educational research. We conceptualize “norms” as socially agreed upon behavioral expectations. An example might include norms around what is considered legitimate or worthy research, especially as it relates to how young people, educators, families, or community members are involved. We conceptualize “discourse” as motivated meaning and action through communication (Anderson & Holloway, 2020). Examples might include how distinctions and boundaries between “researcher” and “practitioner” are described and maintained in discourse, or whose voices are engaged as experts when the work of education research is discussed. In support of this discussion, we will review documents such as organizations’ social media posts, websites, and mission statements.

We will weave our analysis through discussion of stories and experiences shared by others, and will draw on in our facilitated discussions of possible “upstream” strategies for ensuring equitable access in community-engaged scholarship.

Authors

• Annalee G. Good, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Virginia Downing, University of Wisconsin - Madison