Higher Education

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 309–324

Community-university engagement: the Philippi CityLab in Cape Town and the challenge of collaboration across boundaries

Article

Abstract

Debates about the role of the university in society have been going on for many decades. There have been several calls for a more “engaged” form of scholarship which applies itself consciously to the pursuit of applied knowledge which can contribute towards solving some of the most pressing societal challenges. Closer collaboration between universities and community groups has been identified as a central component of this form of scholarship. This paper interrogates the literature on the role of universities in society, with a specific focus on university-community partnerships, and discusses the experience of the Philippi CityLab in Cape Town, South Africa to shed some light on the complexities, challenges and rewards of university-community interactions. The case of the Philippi CityLab confirms many of the pre-requisites for “successful” collaboration between universities and communities as identified in the literature. The paper argues that the ideal of a more engaged scholarship is certainly worth pursuing and that there is no doubt that South African universities do have a role to play in terms of working with communities to find workable solutions to the myriad of development challenges which they face. However, the experience of the Philippi CityLab also shows that stakeholders should not be naïve about the time, effort and investment which these kinds of engagements require and the difficulty of establishing, maintaining and sustaining genuine, mutually beneficial university-community collaborations. Furthermore, a truly engaged scholarship requires a significant transformation of the institutional context within universities in order to not only facilitate and support, but also reward research which seek closer collaboration between universities and communities.

Keywords

Community-university collaboration Scholarship of engagement Boundary work New forms of scholarship Applied research 

References

  1. Adlard, G. (2008). An Introduction to Philippi. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, V., et al. (2009). Philippi community profilefinal report. South African Education and Environment Project (SAEP).Google Scholar
  3. Baum, H. S. (2000). Fantasies and realities in university-community partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, G. (2008). Exploring conceptual models for community engagement at higher education institutions in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 26(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate. New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 49(7), 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkoway, B. (1991). Unanswered questions about public service in the public research university. Journal of Planning Literature, 5(3), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkoway, B. (1997). Reinventing the research university for pubic service. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Checkoway, B (2000). Public service: our new mission. Academe Online.Google Scholar
  11. Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university. Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125–147. (Special Issue: The Social Role of Higher Education).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creighton, S. J (2006). Community partner indicators of engagement: an action research study on campus-community partnership. Unpublished PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Dewar, M. E., & Isaac, C. B. (1998). Learning from difference: the potentially transforming experience of community-university collaboration. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erasmus, J., & Mans, G. (2005). Philippi transformation research project. The Unit for Religion and Development Research and Transformation Africa, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
  16. Etherington, K. (2004). Heuristic research as a vehicle for personal and professional development. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research: Linking research with Practice, 4(2), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbons, M. (2000). Context-sensitive Science—Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy, 27(3), 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenaway, L. (2010). Reflexivity: the researcher’s voice in qualitative research. http://www.evaluationservices.co.uk/43/Reflexivity-the-researcher039s-voice-qualitative-research.
  19. Hasselkus, B. R. (2003). The voices of qualitative researchers: sharing the conversation. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(1), 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jansen, J. D. (2002). Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking gibbons on a walk through a South African University. Higher Education, 43, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marullo, S., & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to justice: The potential of university-community collaboration for social change. American Behavioural Scientist, 43, 895–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maurrasse, D. J. (2002). Higher education-community partnerships: Assessing progress in the field. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayfield, L., et al. (1999). The Chicago response to urban problems: Building university-community collaborations. American Behavioural Scientist, 42, 863–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McMillan, J. (2009). Illuminating transaction spaces in higher education: service learning, boundary work and boundary workers. Paper presented at the Knowledge and Curriculum in Higher Education Symposium, 29–30 June 2009, University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  25. Oldfield, S. (2008). Who’s serving whom? Partners, process, and products in service learning projects in South African geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ostrander, S. A. (2004). Democracy, civic participation and the university: A comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pillow, W. S. (2003). Confessions, catharsis or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.Google Scholar
  28. Schon, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waghid, Y. (2002). Knowledge production and higher education transformation in South Africa: Towards reflexivity in university teaching, research and community service. Higher Education, 43, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Winberg, C. (2006). Undisciplining knowledge production: Development driven higher education in South Africa. Higher Education, 51, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.African Centre for CitiesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations