Higher Education

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 81–97 | Cite as

The construction of university-community partnerships: entangled perspectives

  • Roni StrierEmail author


The development of meaningful partnerships with communities is a shared concern of many higher education institutions. However, the building of significant partnerships between universities and communities is still a complex task, which generates multiple tensions. Based on a qualitative study that examined the lived experiences of participants in an innovative university-community partnership in Israel, the article analyzes the concept of partnership from a social constructivist theoretical perspective. The study focused on four research areas: the experience of partnership; the perception of partnership; the barriers to partnership-building, and the impact of participation on participants. Findings challenge essentialist views of partnership and highlight the constructed and discursive nature of the concept. The article found several crucial factors to be acknowledged in the process of partnership management: role perspectives, group affiliation, institutional context, power relations, the organizational culture of the partnership, and the societal perceptions of social problems addressed by the partnership. It concludes with some recommendations for the management of more meaningful university-community partnerships.


University-community partnership Poverty Constructivism 


  1. Altman, D. (2005). Communities, governments and AIDS: Making partnerships work. In P. Aggleton, P. Davies, & G. Hart (Eds.), Aids: Safety, sexuality and risk (pp. 109–117). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  2. Ascher, C., & Schwartz, W. (1989). School-college alliances: Benefits for low-income minorities. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.Google Scholar
  3. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bolin, R., & Stanford, L. (1998). The Northridge earthquake: Community-based approaches to unmet recovery needs. Disasters, 22, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  7. Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Farquhar, S. A., & Dobson, N. (2005). Community and university participation in disaster-relief policy and practices: An example from eastern North Carolina. Journal of Community Practice, 12, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, R., Fabricant, M., & Simmons, L. (2005). Understanding contemporary university-community connections. Journal of Community Practice, 12, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gergen, K. (2002). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Gray, B. (1997). Framing and reframing of intractable environmental disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & R. Bies (Eds.), Research in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 163–188). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gray, B. (2000). A critique of assessing collaborative efforts: Assessing inter-organizational collaboration. In D. Faulkner & M. De Rond (Eds.), Cooperative strategy (pp. 243–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 11–34). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 14, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gronksi, R., & Pigg, K. (2000). University and community collaboration. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 781–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). What makes partnerships work? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), Public private partnerships (pp. 293–310). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson Butterfield, A. K., & Soska, T. (Eds.). (2005). University-community partnerships: Universities in civic engagement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, J. H., & Oliver, M. L. (1991). Urban poverty and social welfare policy in the United States: An undergraduate research/training programme. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 15, 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lo, B., & Bayer, R. (2003). Establishing ethical trials for treatment and prevention of AIDS in developing countries. British Medical Journal, 327, 337–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maginn, P. J. (2007). Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, 7, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurrasse, D. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Maurrasse, D. J. (2002). Higher education-community partnerships: Assessing progress in the field. Nonprofit & Volunteer Quarterly, 31, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mays, G. P., Halverson, P. K., & Kaluzny, A. D. (1998). Collaboration to improve community health: Trends and alternative models. Journal of Quality Improvement, 24, 518–540.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, P. M., & Hafner, M. M. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A critical examination of a university–school–community partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 66–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minkler, M., Vásquez, V. B., Warner, J. R., Steussey, H., & Facente, S. (2006). Sowing the seeds for sustainable change: A community-based participatory research partnership for health promotion in Indiana, USA and its aftermath. Health Promotion International, 21, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulroy, E. (2004). University civic engagement with community-based organizations: Dispersed or coordinated models? Journal of Community Practice, 12, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perkins, D. D., Crim, B., Silberman, P., & Brown, B. B. (2004). Community adversity and community development: Ecological and strengths-based theory, research and policies. In K. Maton, B. Ledbeater, C. Schellenberg, & A. Solarz (Eds.), Investing in children, youth, families and communities: Strengths-based research and policy (pp. 321–340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Richardson, W. C., & Allegrante, J. P. (2000). Shaping the future of health through global partnerships. In C. E. Koop, C. E. Pearson, & M. R. Schwarz (Eds.), Critical issues in global health (pp. 375–383). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Schwand, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructivism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–214). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Silka, L. (1999). Paradoxes of partnerships: Reflections on university-community collaborations. Research in Politics & Society, 7, 335–359.Google Scholar
  35. Suarez-Balcazar, Y., & Kinney, L. (2006). Realities and myths of safety issues for community researchers working in a marginalized African American community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence of underlying expectations. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processes (pp. 137–181). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, R. R., Braveman, B., & Hammel, J. (2004). Developing and evaluating community services through participatory action research: Two case examples. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in inter-organizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaughn, E., & Seifert, M. (1992). Variability in the framing of risk issues. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wondolleck, J. (1985). The importance of process in resolving environmental disputes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5, 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations