ERIC EJ1137414: Decoding Ourselves: An Inquiry into Faculty Learning about Reciprocity in Service-Learning

2015·0.23 MB·English

by  ERIC

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2015, pp.32-47
Decoding Ourselves: An Inquiry into Faculty Learning About
Reciprocity in Service-Learning
Janice Miller-Young, Yasmin Dean, Melanie Rathburn, Jennifer Pettit,
Margot Underwood, Judy Gleeson, Roberta Lexier, Victoria Calvert
Mount Royal University
Patti Clayton
PHC Ventures
Faculty learning about service-learning is an important area of research because understanding how faculty
develop their practice is an important first step in improving student learning outcomes and relationships
with community members. Enacting reciprocity in service-learning can be particularly troublesome because
it requires faculty to learn to develop courses and partnerships in counternormative ways. This article reports
on an approach to investigating and generating faculty learning – in our case about the threshold concept of
reciprocity – through a group self-study process that included a new-to-the-field interview method developed
for Decoding the Disciplines (Pace & Middendorf, 2004) followed by individual and then group reflection.
Our self-study resulted in new perspectives and new awareness related to the value of examining the concept
of reciprocity and the role of group dialogue in generating learning – although the specific nature of these
changes was somewhat different for each of us – and analysis shows that that the Decoding interview and
the multidisciplinary nature of our group were important in developing the trust necessary for this study to
generate learning. We suggest that further collaborative inquiry within and across different service-learning
and community engagement contexts could yield new insights about the value of using and integrating meth-
ods from self-study and ethnography for faculty professional development and research on faculty learning
and could advance our collective understanding of the dynamics of co-learning and co-generation of knowl-
edge within but also transcending SLCE.
F
aculty1 involvement with service-learning and has much potential for advancing research and prac-
community engagement (SLCE) is often motivated tice in SLCE, and the question of how faculty might
by a desire to participate in and learn from commu- conceptualize, generate, and investigate their own
nity partnerships (Colbeck & Janke, 2006; Janke, learning requires further exploration.
2009; O’Meara, 2013). However, doing so requires This article presents a self-study approach to
faculty to learn to develop courses and partnerships inquiry into faculty learning in SLCE. The study was
in counternormative ways (Clayton & Ash, 2004; undertaken by seven faculty members from diverse
Howard, 1998). As Clayton, Hess, Jaeger, Jameson, disciplines at Mount Royal University in Calgary,
and McGuire (2013) point out, “service learning ped- Canada, in collaboration with two “critical friends”
agogy requires and fosters learning – often transfor- (Russell, 2009) who have experience conducting and
mational, paradigm-shifting learning – on the part of supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning
everyone involved, including faculty” (p. 245). within and beyond SLCE. Each of the seven of us
Chism, Palmer, and Price (2013) suggest that we leads global service-learning (GSL) courses and has
need to better understand how faculty learn about a particular interest in the concept of reciprocity,
and through service-learning (SL) and how to sup- including how it manifests in both domestic and
port them in their learning. While some studies have international partnerships. The study focuses on our
focused on the content and process of faculty learn- learning about reciprocity in large part because of the
ing in SL (see Clayton et al., 2013 for an overview), difficulties we have experienced internalizing it,
few have focused on the potential of co-learning practicing it authentically, and helping students
through multidisciplinary faculty learning communi- understand its complexities. Further, Harrison,
ties (for examples, see Lattuca & Creamer, 2005; Clayton, and Tilley-Lubbs (2014) propose that reci-
McGuire, Strong, Lay, Ardemagni, Wittberg, & procity may be a threshold concept for faculty learn-
Clayton, 2009). Faculty studying their own learning ing about the pedagogy of SL and call for “ongoing
32
Decoding Ourselves
inquiry … into the processes by which such concepts & Ash, 2004; Clayton et al., 2013). Strategies to sup-
are learned” (p. 13). Previous work done at Mount port faculty learning include faculty development
Royal University on threshold concepts and other programs such as workshops, consultations, and
ways of understanding the challenges associated with communities of practice (see Chism et al., 2013 for
learning difficult concepts (e.g., Boman, Currie, an overview). However, Neumann (2000) raises con-
MacDonald, Miller-Young, Yeo, & Zettel, 2015) cerns about traditional faculty development initia-
leads us to be intrigued by this framing and eager to tives because they “rarely position individual profes-
contribute to this line of inquiry vis-a-vis SLCE. sors as potential sources of their own professional
We elected to explore our learning through the use of development, assuming, instead, that development is
an interview method from Decoding the Disciplines best done to them” (p. 1). Furthermore, O’Meara and
(Pace & Middendorf, 2004), which was developed to Terosky (2010) argue that “faculty members’ learn-
help faculty articulate their thinking about a difficult ing happens only when they have a hand in making
concept so as to make it more visible and explicit and that learning happen” (p. 45). Clayton and colleagues
thus, in turn, enable them to better help their students (2013) similarly suggest that innovative faculty
move toward a transformed understanding of the con- learning interventions be explored, including
cept. Although our initial intent was to uncover each approaches that are self-directed and co-created
group member’s thinking about reciprocity at the time within a community of co-learners. Since the litera-
of the interview and then track changes over time, we ture suggests learning about, teaching with, and part-
found that the probing nature of the interview itself, and nering in SL is potentially transformative for faculty
the deep reflection it generated, led to changes in our (Clayton & Ash, 2004), one way to conceptualize
understanding of reciprocity. Therefore, the research their learning is through the lens of perspective trans-
question this article addresses is how a collaborative formation (Mezirow, 1978, 1990) that occurs when
self-study process among faculty generates learning – learning a paradigm-shifting, or “threshold,” concept.
in our case, about reciprocity. This study contributes to The term “threshold concepts” grew out of work in
SLCE and the scholarship of teaching and learning by the United Kingdom led by Meyer and Land (2003,
using the Decoding method in a different field of prac- 2005). It originally referred to those concepts in each
tice to focus on the particular concept of reciprocity and discipline that must be learned before one can think
as an innovative method for multidisciplinary self- like an expert in that discipline; it is also being used to
study of faculty learning. To date, Decoding work has explore the challenges faculty face in learning new
pedagogies and practices, including but not limited to
typically focused on cognitive bottlenecks in specific
SL (e.g., Bunnell & Bernstein, 2012; King & Felten,
disciplines such as humanities, history, and geology
2012; Webb, 2015). Threshold concepts are transfor-
(e.g., Ardizzone, Breithaupt, & Gutjahr, 2004;
mative of one’s understanding and, accordingly, trou-
Shopkow, Diaz, Middendorf, & Pace, 2012; Zhu,
blesome to one’s previous understanding, requiring
Rehrey, Treadwell, & Johnson, 2012) and, to our
movement through a liminal space in which one must
knowledge, has not been used in SLCE or to investigate
let go of one’s prevailing way of seeing and prior
faculty learning around the concept of reciprocity.
understanding (Meyer & Land, 2003). In other words,
We believe this approach can help practitioner-
while difficult to learn, once learned they open new
scholars – indeed, all partners in SLCE – reflect crit-
possibilities for understanding and practice.
ically on and deepen understanding of key concepts
The work on threshold concepts has theoretical
– such as, but not limited to, reciprocity – and there-
underpinnings in transformative learning theory
fore has potential for enriching professional develop-
(Mezirow, 1978). Mezirow (1990) defines transfor-
ment, improving the practice of SLCE, and advanc-
mation as:
ing research. After reviewing selected literature relat-
ed to faculty learning in general and to learning the the process of becoming critically aware of how
threshold concept of reciprocity specifically, we and why our presuppositions have come to con-
share our self-study approach (including the strain the way we perceive, understand, and feel
Decoding interview method), the learning the about our world; of reformulating these assump-
process generated amongst our group, and how shifts tions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating,
permeable and integrative perspective; and of
in our understanding of reciprocity occurred. We
making decisions or otherwise acting on these
then offer reflections on our learning processes and
new understandings. (p.14)
outcomes and also pose questions for further inquiry.
And he articulates (overlapping) phases of the
Faculty Learning about Reciprocity
process as including:
The counternormative nature of SL fosters learn- … disorienting dilemma, self-examination, crit-
ing not only by students but also by faculty (Clayton ical assessment of assumptions, recognition of
33
Miller-Young et al.
discontent, exploration of new roles, planning of approach to inquire into how we ourselves under-
a course of action, acquisition of knowledge and stand and learn about the concept of reciprocity.
skills for new roles, increased competence and Although central to domestic and global SLCE,
self-confidence in new roles, and reintegration
reciprocity has multiple, contested meanings in the
of new perspectives into one’s life. (2010, p. 94)
SLCE literature (Dostilio, Brackmann, Edwards,
Mezirow (1978) sees transformation as being trig- Harrison, Kliewer, & Clayton, 2012). We find partic-
gered by a disorienting dilemma, which unsettles and ularly useful the distinction between “thin” and
challenges our existing meaning schemes, followed “thick” versions of reciprocity that highlights the
by critical reflection or critical self-reflection on value of moving beyond mutual benefit to co-cre-
one’s assumptions and taken for granted interpreta- ation (Clayton et al., 2013):
tions. However, critical reflection may not always
Minimally, reciprocity requires that everyone
generate transformative learning, especially if it is
involved in the process benefit. Beyond mutual
undertaken in isolation from others, since “personal
benefit, reciprocity in its “thick” (Jameson et al.,
meanings that we attribute to our experience are 2011, p. 264) form means that students, commu-
acquired and validated through human interaction nity members, and faculty share voice and
and communication” (Mezirow, 1991, p. xiv). In authority in determining questions, defining
other words, the meaning found inside the learner approaches, and contributing to knowledge con-
may become transformed in significant ways through struction and dissemination; through their inter-
discourse with others. Mezirow (1997) even goes so actions with one another they all experience
far as to say that discourse “is necessary to validate learning that leads to new ways of thinking, per-
ceiving and acting (Donahue, Bowyer, &
what and how one understands, or to arrive at a best
Rosenberg, 2003; Saltmarsh, Hartley, &
judgment regarding a belief,” concluding that “in this
Clayton, 2009). In other words, reciprocity in SL
sense, learning is a social process, and discourse
ultimately means that all participants are co-edu-
becomes central to meaning making” (p. 10).
cators, co-learners, and co-generators of knowl-
Collaborative self-study is a process that can gen-
edge (Hess et al., 2011, Jameson et al., 2011;
erate the necessary critical reflection, make space for Kirby, 2010; Mondloch, 2009). (p. 246)
the required discourse, and not only answer the call
for a better understanding of how faculty members This understanding of reciprocity often entails a new
learn about and through SLCE but also serve as a way of thinking for academics given pervasive norms
method to generate their learning. It entails an exam- that “reinforce the distinct identities of faculty as
ination of one’s beliefs and actions as an educator educators and generators of knowledge, students as
(Whitehead, 1993), using a systematic and critical learners, and community members as recipients of
research process to examine one’s practices (Foot, academic expertise” (Clayton et al., 2013, p. 246). It
Crowe, Tollafield, & Allan, 2014; Samaras & Freese, involves an “epistemological shift that values not
2009). While a self-study’s focus on the self may only expert knowledge that is rational, analytic, and
raise concerns about inappropriate subjectivity in positivist, but also values a different kind of rational-
research, Bullough and Pinnegar (2001) counter such ity that is more relational, localized, contextual, and
concerns by arguing that “the aim of self-study favors mutual deference between laypersons and aca-
research is to provoke, challenge, and illuminate demics” (Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009, pp. 9-
rather than confirm and settle” (p. 20). LaBoskey 10). Tilley-Lubbs’ (2009) autoethnographic examina-
(2004) provides a comprehensive discussion of self- tion of her own teaching with SL has been used to
study method and articulates five key elements fun- demonstrate how learning to partner reciprocally can
damental to high quality self-study: the process be transformative, troublesome, and involve liminal-
should be (a) self-focused and self-initiated, (b) ity – suggesting that reciprocity understood as co-
aimed at improvement, (c) interactive, (d) inclusive creation may be a threshold concept for faculty learn-
of multiple qualitative methods; and (e) validated ing about SL (Harrison & Clayton, 2012; Harrison et
through a process of scrutiny by peers. Russell al., 2014).
(2009) also offers that self-study should include If reciprocity is indeed a threshold concept, then
“critical friends to ensure that data is interpreted from faculty coming to understand it – especially in its
a range of perspectives” (p. 76). While individual “thick” framing – may involve transformative learn-
self-study is common in some disciplines, such as ing. Accounts of faculty members’ struggles with the
teacher education, Kitchen and Ciuffetelli Parker concept of reciprocity (e.g., Sharpe & Dear, 2013;
(2009) suggest that the process can have greater Tilley-Lubbs, 2009) indicate that more research on
impact if conducted within collaborative communi- how it is learned and more support in implementing
ties of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Following it are both needed. Enhancing our understanding and
LaBoskey’s guidelines, we used a group self-study our practice of reciprocity is important for faculty
34
Decoding Ourselves
teaching with SLCE because of the likelihood and health issues, and the third identified concerns with
consequences of unintended negative outcomes and the proposed research method.
the tendency for “students and universities to benefit The seven faculty members who participated in the
more than the communities where service takes self-study have varying levels of experience with
place” (Crabtree, 2008. p. 25). In addition to quality SLCE and come from a range of disciplinary back-
and impact of partnerships, the stakes also include grounds: biology, business, history, Indigenous stud-
student learning; as Giles and Eyler (2013) argue, ies, nursing, and social work. Each has taught a field
“we are not likely to see powerful research on student school, which is an experiential learning opportunity
outcomes in service-learning without a better under- that enhances coursework with a cross-cultural expe-
standing of how to enhance implementation of effec- rience that occurs partially on the home campus and
tive practice by faculty” (p. 59). also for a defined period of time in a host community.
However, learning this concept may not be experi- While not all are officially designated as SL at
enced by everyone in the same ways (Harrison et al., Mount Royal University, field schools all have some
2014). In fact, Meyer and Land (2006) acknowledge of the components of the pedagogy, such as partner-
that the defining features of threshold concepts might ships with host communities. Our field schools took
be applicable in various degrees depending on the place in Canada (Pettit), the Cook Islands (Calvert),
concept and the learner. To better understand these the Dominican Republic (Gleeson and Underwood),
complexities, further study of faculty learning about Honduras (Lexier and Rathburn), and India (Dean).
reciprocity as a threshold concept is warranted. Here,
Data Generation
we explore an approach to inquiry into such learning.
Our purpose is to share insights about the process Data collection for this study consisted of three
and the outcomes in order to contribute to knowledge stages: (a) conducting, audio recording, and tran-
in SLCE about methods of advancing and investigat- scribing Decoding interviews; (b) reviewing our own
ing faculty learning around this and other challeng- transcripts, completing individual written reflections
ing concepts. on the interview process (referred to here as “inter-
view reflections”), sharing them with one another,
Our Process and discussing common themes; and (c) completing
additional individual written reflections on the self-
Our self-study stemmed from a multidisciplinary
study process overall (referred to here as “individual
faculty learning community on GSL that we formed
self-study reflections”), followed by an audio record-
to learn more about the pedagogy and each others’
ed and transcribed group discussion.
projects. We were especially interested in similarities
Decoding interviews. Similar to the work on thresh-
and differences among our courses and wanted, in
old concepts, the Decoding the Disciplines frame-
particular, to explore dimensions of our practice
work (Pace & Middendorf, 2004) was created as a
related to reciprocity – a value we were all committed
means to study “bottleneck” or difficult concepts. The
to but also finding difficult to understand and enact.
crucial mental operations an instructor uses when
One group member suggested it would be helpful, to
thinking about or enacting a difficult concept are
us and to other practitioner-scholars in SLCE, to
explored through a semi-structured interview – a
study ourselves and our understanding of reciprocity Decoding interview – that helps her to uncover and
more formally. To enhance trustworthiness of the articulate her own thinking process (Pace &
study, two colleagues (who are first and last co- Middendorf, 2004). With reciprocity as the focal con-
authors of this article) with backgrounds in SLCE cept, we explored our thinking both through the
and the scholarship of teaching and learning – Decoding interview itself and through a combination
Miller-Young and Clayton – were invited to con- of individual and collaborative reflection on the inter-
tribute to all stages of the project – design, imple- view and the self-study process more generally. In
mentation, analysis, and article authorship. contrast to the purpose of Decoding the Disciplines –
Importantly, they also served as critical friends, help- to surface how an instructor thinks about a difficult
ing to ensure analysis from perspectives beyond the concept so as to better help her students to understand
seven instructors whose learning is the focus of this it – our primary purpose (although we certainly do
study. The participation in data analysis and in the anticipate that outcome) was to examine changes in
writing of this article by all nine authors served as a our understanding of the concept and how they
form of member checking that adds credibility to the occurred so that we and other SLCE practitioner-
study (Creswell & Miller, 2000). During the early scholars might better understand our own learning
phase of our group’s formation, three prospective processes and better enact reciprocity.
participants withdrew from the project; two cited The Decoding interview protocol (see Shopkow,
time limitations, competing research demands, and Diaz, & Pace, 2013) requires two interviewers, at least
35
Miller-Young et al.
one of whom is unfamiliar with the discipline and/or ty”) an interviewer asked “What do you mean by
concept under investigation. This cross-disciplinary [that word]?” and “Can you explain your thinking
approach is meant to help push the interviewee to ever about how [that word] relates to reciprocity?”
more precise articulation of her thinking. Questions Interviews ranged from 50 to 86 minutes. Transcripts
focus on how the interviewee thinks about the difficult of each member’s interview were made available to
concept, getting her to unpack her thinking process as other members of the self-study team after comple-
much as possible. Interviewers use questions such as tion of her own interview and interview reflection.
“How do you do that?” (e.g., make a particular type of Interview reflections. To explore the utility of the
connection between ideas, discern a complexity Decoding interview method for uncovering and
implicit in the concept), probing at the place where the deepening our thinking about reciprocity, each par-
interviewee cannot explain and reflecting a summary ticipant independently reviewed her interview tran-
of her thinking back to her at an abstract level. For script and then wrote an “interview reflection” guid-
example, after Underwood described some of the early ed by two questions: (a) Where in the interview were
experiences that shaped her philosophy about working you pushed and/or did you come to a realization that
with community partners, an interviewer asked: “So is surprised you? and (b) How did the process of the
it fair to say that some of your initial concerns were interview and/or points of discomfort change how
fairly practical and then the deeper you got into things you might structure future field school SL projects?
the more philosophical and value driven you These written reflections were shared with the group,
became?” The interview continues until the interview- and, in order to identify and explore common themes,
ers have no further questions or the interviewee cannot we subsequently engaged in a series of informal
explain her thinking any further. group discussions of one another’s thinking and inter-
For this project, each self-study group member was view experiences.
interviewed after the conclusion of her 2014 GSL Self-study reflections. Through these conversations
course. The first four interviews were conducted by we quickly realized that the interview process and
two interviewers external to the self-study group and our written and collaborative reflection on it had
experienced with the Decoding interview protocol. caused our perspectives on reciprocity to shift. We
The remaining four were conducted either by one of were becoming more aware of our own and each
these external interviewers and one of the first four other’s assumptions and perspectives and thus began
interviewees or by two of the initial interviewees to wonder whether or not we might be experiencing
(who had watched other interviews until they became transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991). We, there-
comfortable interviewing). In all cases at least one fore, set out to examine further how the Decoding
interviewer represented a different academic disci- interview and self-study process had influenced our
pline than that of the interviewee. understandings of reciprocity by completing individ-
During the interviews, after the initial question was ual self-study reflections structured with the DEAL
posed about how the interviewee tries to enact reci- model of critical reflection (Ash & Clayton, 2009) in
procity in her SLCE partnerships, each of us started which we each (a) Described our experience of the
drawing upon examples from our past experiences to self-study; (b) Examined that experience by respond-
illustrate our understanding of reciprocity. Since the ing to the prompt “what parts of this process have
structure of the interview involves continually push- been most useful to your learning about reciprocity
ing the interviewee to explain further, the questions and what themes emerged from your experience?”;
emerge as the interview progresses. As an example, and (c) Articulated our Learning using the standard
in one case, after an interviewee described how she prompts for this step – “What did you learn?”, “How
believed she had developed a strong partner relation- did you learn it?”, “Why does that learning matter?”,
ship, one of the two interviewers followed up with: and “What will you do as a result of this learning?”
“How do you evaluate that the relationship is still The depth of our first group discussions, following
strong, either while you are preparing for the next individual reflection on the interviews, led to the
course or while you are out there with the students decision to audio record and transcribe the dialogue
and with the community?” and “Do you consciously in the collaborative reflection on the self-study
and explicitly go through that evaluation process?” process. In a 90-minute group meeting, we shared
our thinking in these individual self-study reflections
After an interviewee described a difficult experience
orally and discussed common themes, similarities,
in which she had not enacted reciprocity, an inter-
and differences.
viewer asked: “What was it about that experience that
bothered you or caused you to think that?” and
Data Analysis
“What would you do differently next time?” When
any interviewee used a new word she had not yet Our original purpose in engaging in the Decoding
explained (e.g., “reflexive,” “leadership,” “flexibili- interview was to better understand our own thinking
36
Decoding Ourselves
about reciprocity. However, we came to see the reciprocity can go awry. To get the job done quickly
Decoding interview itself as a “disorienting dilem- their students started building a bridge for the com-
ma” (Mezirow, 1978, 1990) that generated deeper munity. But they did so before the community mem-
learning. After completing the iterative process of bers were present, and it turned out to be improperly
individual written reflections and group discussions placed. It was only when community members were
described above, we conducted a formal analysis of working with the students to build the bridge in a bet-
our thinking as it had been captured in the reflective ter location that the task was completed successfully.
writing and discussion transcripts. Sharing this experience in the Decoding interview
Our analysis, conveyed in the next two sections, had process led to further discussion about shifting SLCE
two foci. The first focus was on changes in our under- projects from doing for to doing with community
standings of the concept of reciprocity, which we partners. After recalling this experience of how they
determined by comparing our baseline understandings had focused primarily on meeting the needs of com-
expressed in the Decoding interview transcripts munity partners, they began to realize some of the
(informed by previous experience) with our changing problematic aspects of this activity and how they had
understandings expressed in individual and group defaulted to a deficit-based perspective of the com-
reflection products. The second was on specific ways munity, which may have also influenced their stu-
in which the study itself contributed to those changes, dents’ thinking. During the Decoding process
which we determined by examining all of the data Rathburn reflected that she “was trying to not put too
sources for indicators of sources of these changes. much ownership on the partners and not trying to put
After an initial inductive reading of all the data too much work on their end”; her insight – “I was try-
strengthened our emerging sense of ourselves as ing to do most of it myself so that we could just help
undergoing transformative learning, we conducted a them - I guess that ishelping them instead of working
qualitative content analysis (Glaser & Laudel, 2013) with them” – demonstrates the complexity and
and coded for transformation using Mezirow’s (2010) importance of aligning our motivations with our
suggestion that a narrative analysis should look for actions as we try to engage in reciprocal partnerships
evidence of questioning one’s own thinking, shifts in in SLCE.
perspectives, changes in points of view or assump- Gleeson, for whom reciprocal approaches were
tions, analysis of assumptions, and new awareness and part of her disciplinary training in nursing, experi-
openness to other worldviews. Finally, having docu- enced a different kind of change. She expressed in
mented some evidence of changed as well as her interview that she was fairly comfortable with her
unchanged understandings of reciprocity, we then ability to enact reciprocity with her community part-
examined the data for specific aspects of the process ners, stating:
that participants found to be particularly influential.
I just naturally do it…it is a way of being with
clients…. It is just part of how I practice… we
Our Learning
are constantly checking in that we are on track,
that this is what they want, and is there anything
Regardless of discipline and SLCE experience, all
else that we could be doing?
of us had thought about reciprocity during past part-
nership experiences; the self-study process instigated However, she later commented in her self-study
new thinking for all of us while leaving some of our reflection that thinking more about the concept of
prior understandings intact. In our individual and tacit knowledge as a result of this study “made me
group reflections, we found evidence of each of us really think ‘Hey, am I really doing it, or am I just
questioning our assumptions about reciprocity, shift- saying I am doing it? If I am, how do I do that?’” and
ing our perspectives, expanding our awareness, and helped her realize the importance of more explicitly
becoming open to other worldviews, which led to modeling reciprocal approaches with communities
planning new courses of action. In this section we for her students – for example, by encouraging stu-
illustrate some examples of how our understandings dents to frequently ask community members “check-
of reciprocity did and did not change through the in” questions regarding the suitability of a planned
self-study process. project and to modify their plans accordingly.
In their Decoding interviews, Rathburn and Lexier Underwood described a new appreciation of how
shared an initial belief that they had structured their reciprocity is a difficult concept for students to grasp.
course reciprocally because they had consulted with The Decoding interview first pushed her to recognize
local community members and decided upon tasks the years of experience that have informed her under-
that aligned with their partner’s requests. During one standing of and approach to reciprocal partnerships.
of these tasks – building a bridge for local school This, combined with hearing how colleagues from
children – they witnessed how attempts to engage in other disciplines found reciprocity to be a difficult
37
Miller-Young et al.
concept, led her to a new realization that she articu- speculate that the concept of service, which is closely
lated in her self-study reflection: related to reciprocity, may be a barrier for other fac-
ulty who might otherwise engage in SLCE. Pettit also
It really helped clarify for me that for students,
began to think about changing some of her teaching
of course they are going to find this a bottleneck
and learning strategies, noting “We have them write
concept! They haven’t had the experience we
many reflective assignments, but an interview might
have had, they haven’t been out there… it
be useful as well. This was starting to become appar-
reminded me not to brush it over as much as I
was, and think ‘Why aren’t you getting this? We ent to me during the oral exams we did but was solid-
talked about partnerships in day one of nursing!’ ified for me during the Decoding interview.”
Although Dean also found the self-study to be
Underwood described this realization of her own
helpful in many of the ways described above, it was
tacit thinking as an “a-ha” moment and explained
difficult to discern changes in her understanding of
that it inspired her to plan two new strategies for her
reciprocity in her reflection products. From the
teaching: (a) similar to Gleeson, to be more explicit
beginning of this study she questioned whether full
and transparent in her approach to reciprocity with
reciprocity was truly possible in her partnerships. In
her students, and (b) to change her expectations of
fact, she had long been concerned that having a part-
how quickly they should come to understand reci-
ner fully involved in developing and implementing
procity. She also found the interview experience –
GSL activities might be too idealistic. She wrote in
“the process of being listened to and helping clarify
her interview reflection that she plans to continue
ideas” – so valuable that she plans to incorporate
involving – where she can – partner agencies while
more discussion in her future teaching and research
remaining cognizant that this could be a burden for
involving students.
some. She also said, in the final group reflection, that
For Pettit, the concept of reciprocity with host
she was “questioning [her] own understanding of rec-
communities was integral to her disciplinary training
iprocity,” noting:
in Indigenous Studies. In her interview she said, “The
idea of reciprocity has always been on our minds, it is easy to get to the superficial side and say:
likely because we are all too aware of researchers tak- ‘We are going in and we are trying not to do any
ing advantage of First Nations (Indigenous) peoples.” harm,’ but to really deconstruct what that means
and what that needs to look like is, I think, an
Not being familiar with the discussions of reciprocity
impossible feat. It is something we should strive
in the SLCE literature, she realized that it was in fact
towards, for sure, but it is something we are not
the concept of “service” that had been difficult for
really ever going to get to.
her. In her interview reflection she explained that she
had been wondering whether her course could really Collectively, we are still questioning our own
be classified as SL: understandings of reciprocity; however, the self-
study renewed our commitment to striving toward it
I kept struggling with the idea of doing some-
in our practice while also complicating our sense of
thing for the communities when in reality this
what doing that involves. Calvert gave voice to a
whole time we have been doing something with
powerful realization regarding the benefits – and
those communities. I have intentionally steered
risks – of the sort of learning and reflection on learn-
away from the idea that First Nations
(Indigenous) need our help. That is simply not ing we experienced in this self-study:
the case and in the past that “help” by non-
I am more aware, but also more wary, of mis-
Natives has resulted in a great deal of hurt and
reading the impact and potential for a successful
devastation.
relationship with the host community partner. I
She came to realize that she and her students were also have thought on several occasions that my
both serving and being served in their work with their life was easier before we started this process –
fear of damage is now a much bigger part of the
partners: “We are indeed helping groups when we
equation.
share their message by inviting them to campus to do
presentations, etc. Likewise, we are serving the uni-
Influences on Our Learning
versity community by sharing what students take
away from the field school.” She concluded that her The second focus of analysis concerned how
course was an example of “reverse SL” because she changes in our understanding of reciprocity hap-
felt the community partners “helped” the university pened. Our reflections indicated that the Decoding
community more than the other way around. These interview played a key role in our learning, as did our
comments indicate that Pettit developed a more com- disciplinary differences. Also, both somewhat inad-
plex understanding of the word “service” and greater vertently fostered a climate of trust that allowed the
awareness of the reasons it is problematic for her. We self-study process to unfold productively.
38
Decoding Ourselves
According to our interview reflections, the repeti- not the right issue, not the right setting.
tive questioning during the Decoding interview was
This willingness to be pushed and to admit mistakes
the most valuable part of the process, pushing us to
requires high levels of trust. Without it the constant
explain and clarify our thinking and deconstruct the
questioning and pushing integral to Decoding inter-
ways each of us had come to understand reciprocity
views is likely to generate resistance to the process
from our past experiences more deeply than we
and thus significantly limit the learning potential. We
would have on our own. The probing nature of the
frequently commented in our discussions on how our
Decoding interview also does not allow for self-con-
trust in each other facilitated sharing emergent ideas
scious self-editing but rather invites the candor that is
and ultimately helped us recognize several inconsis-
part of thinking out loud. As Dean noted in her inter-
tencies between our values and our actions.
view reflection, for example:
In addition, although our differences initially creat-
It is one thing to write about your thoughts and ed anxiety for some members of the group, in the end
to reflect on them, but it is something entirely we concluded that it was these very differences that
different to have to explain your thoughts and be had perhaps the most significant impact on our learn-
questioned on each detail. Participating in the ing through the self-study process. At the start of this
Decoding interview made me re-examine my
research, disciplinary differences – ranging from the-
own thinking and practice; it challenged me to
oretical to methodological to linguistic – as well as
think about myself and my beliefs.
differences in cultural background, roles within the
However, because of the repeated nature of the ques- university, and experiences with SLCE, appeared as
tioning, it was difficult for most of us to identify the possible barriers to the collaborative self-study
specific points in our Decoding interviews that process. For example, both Rathburn and Lexier
pushed us the most. Collectively, we agreed that shared an initial reluctance to get involved in the self-
being asked to further define a word we had just used study due not only to concerns about time but also to
and being asked “How do you do that?” and “How do reservations regarding the diversity of the group. But
you know?” (e.g., that you are enacting reciprocity) they later articulated how valuable others’ perspec-
were the most challenging moments. tives had been to their own learning. In Lexier’s words
The Decoding interview itself was also important from her self-study reflection, “While it has been dif-
in our functioning as a collaborative learning com- ficult sometimes to understand other approaches and
munity and generating a climate of trust. Its structure where people are coming from in the literature…it
not only gave us the necessary permission to push has been incredibly positive to do that… Each person
one another’s thinking, but also did not allow us to brought such a different perspective to the discus-
settle for superficial answers to questions and sion.” Along these same lines, Gleeson noted, “we
required us to be self-disclosing and honest with one learn a lot from each other; [even] though we have the
another. Since the purpose of the Decoding interview same kind of issues, we have different lenses.” In
is, explicitly, to support the interviewee in better other words, the differences looming large at the start
understanding her own thinking, the process – of this project turned out to be assets.
including the pushing – is inherently in the service of Having distinct disciplinary homes was also
the interviewee’s own learning, which also helps her important in establishing trust. During the interview,
to see the interviewers as collaborators. This was evi- the fact that at least one of the interviewers had a dif-
dent because, while each of us described the ferent disciplinary background than the interviewee
Decoding interview as somewhat difficult and helped to de-personalize the probing; in other words,
uncomfortable, we also each demonstrated a willing- it was perceived to be part of an interviewer’s job to
ness to admit to shortcomings or mistakes during our represent a naive listener. During the rest of the self-
interviews. For example, Underwood shared an influ- study, our disciplinary differences provided some
ential early experience in which she realized she had safety in that there was less fear of being judged (as
not fully considered her host country’s context when one might be by peers with strong expectations
planning a lesson related to asthma prevention: regarding one another’s knowledge and skills). It also
helped that our courses were also not in competition
Well it just didn’t fit; it did not fit at all…Wrong
with one another for university resources. Finally,
audience, wrong topic…All of a sudden I was
GSL – and, therefore, opportunities to come together
there and I realized, wow, there is no school for
across courses and disciplines to share questions and
children. There is no water; the children are
concerns related to implementing it – was relatively
thirsty; there are unpaved roads; all these deter-
minants of health right in your face…And I new at our university; we realized early on that we
thought I had something to offer about asthma? each had been looking for a community within which
Oh, so narrow! It was not the right population, to share our experiences and concerns. These few
39
Miller-Young et al.
factors, in addition to our interest in each other’s ers involved in understanding it.
learning as the focus of our study, made it safer to Our self-study resulted in new questioning, new
share proud moments and ideas we felt strongly perspectives, and new awareness related to the value
about as well as uncertainties and stories of what had of examining the concept of reciprocity and the role
not worked in our practice; this was essential to our of group dialogue in generating learning – although
collective learning. the specific nature of these changes was somewhat
Finally, the overall design of the self-study was an different for all of us. The differences in our learning,
important influence on our learning. Rathburn which emerged throughout the self-study process,
explicitly commented in her self-study reflection that confirm the notion in the literature on faculty learning
she found the entire process – not just the interview of threshold concepts (e.g., King & Felten, 2012) that
itself but also the individual and group reflections – learning is likely to be experienced differently by each
provided important tools that helped her challenge faculty member. For example, some of us developed
her own understanding of reciprocity. We agreed this deeper understandings related to the importance of
had been the case for each of us. As Underwood suc- more fully including community members as partners
cinctly put it in her self-study reflection: in SLCE and found our previous approach to partner-
ships disheartening, while others remained unchal-
The importance of the cycle of reflection-articu-
lenged in our thinking about reciprocity. Some of us
lation-clarification-discussion-reflection as an
struggled to understand and work with the variety of
effective learning strategy has been strengthened
disciplinary perspectives represented in the group. For
for me … going back and re-looking at our inter-
views and seeing what we said and trying to some of us, new perspectives emerged during the
come down to a part where I felt like I was trying Decoding interview itself, while for others it was the
to synthesize it; how could I state what reciproc- later collaborative reflection that generated new ques-
ity is to me now, having gone through this tions and insights. For some of us shifts in our under-
process? standing of reciprocity came relatively easily, and for
others making them was more difficult, both emotion-
In summary, and perhaps counterintuitively, we
ally and intellectually – suggesting the troublesome
found that beginning the self-study with the
nature of this threshold concept.
Decoding interview process generated a feeling of
Our challenges related to learning about reciproci-
disorientation but also fostered a climate of trust.
ty, interestingly, did not appear to align with years of
There is also, we found, a great deal to be said for
SLCE experience but seemed to be linked with disci-
jumping into the deep end of a new learning experi-
plinary differences. For example, Calvert, a business
ence together, without much in the way of slow and
professor with over 20 years of SL experience but lit-
gentle building of confidence in one another and the
tle disciplinary training related to the pedagogy’s
process. Especially when undertaken in the context
underlying principles, came to better understand the
of a collaborative self-study focused on learning
benefits of co-generating knowledge through long-
around a common concept that is of great interest to
term reciprocal community partnerships. By con-
all participants, the Decoding interview has a some-
trast, Dean, a social worker, and nurses Gleeson and
what surprising community-building function.
Underwood, who had fewer years of experience with
Reflections on Our Learning SLCE, believed themselves to be well versed in rec-
iprocal practice by virtue of their disciplinary back-
Processes and Outcomes
grounds; they struggled to let go of their conviction
Harrison, Clayton, and Tilley-Lubbs (2014) that they were already fully enacting reciprocity. We
observe that “service-learning practitioner-scholars all agreed that the collaborative learning process
may be especially inclined toward an epistemology in helped us better understand the viewpoints of other
which knowledge construction is never finished or disciplines and that engaging with others’ perspec-
complete” (p. 15). This resonates strongly with our tives increased our capacity to learn in this and, we
group. While the Decoding interview was part of our believe, future collaborations and partnerships.
research method, it was also the catalyst for generat- Despite our stated desire to engage more recipro-
ing new perspectives on and questions about reci- cally with our host partners, the majority of the
procity – a process that is by no means complete and, changes we identified as desirable in our GSL prac-
in fact, may just be beginning. Such liminality, or tice involve our students rather than our community
state of unsettledness in understanding and practice partners. We plan to help students learn about reci-
in which one is letting go of previous “knowledge” procity by articulating our own understandings of the
but is still in the process of achieving a transformed concept and its centrality in SLCE and by providing
perspective, may be indicative of the complexities more opportunities for critical reflection, such as
inherent in reciprocity and the many nuances and lay- bringing students in different courses together to col-
40
Decoding Ourselves
laboratively examine the relationship dynamics with asset-based to align with alternative conceptions of
our host partners. Dean, for example, has used her reciprocity (i.e., co-creation) that were developed and
learning to better challenge student assumptions refined during the self-study. She continues to reflect
about service by deconstructing definitions of global about how all partners can best contribute to the GSL
citizenship and international “helping” (using projects she facilitates and so continues to problema-
resources such as, for example, Andreotti’s (2006) tize her own understanding of reciprocity.
article on soft versus critical global citizenship and Despite the realization of our continued conceptual
Hermann’s (2015) documentary, which challenges and practical struggles with reciprocity, our new
why we fail to help at home). These learning strate- learnings have helped us to take a few steps forward.
gies will now form a larger part of the pre-departure We are now more deeply committed to “ongoing dia-
planning process of Dean’s GSL field schools. logue, honest feedback, and owning up and rectifying
However, while we articulated that we needed and mistakes” (Sharpe & Dear, 2013, p. 56). Ultimately,
wanted to work harder to ensure reciprocity with our the proof of how and how well the self-study gener-
partners, none of us identified a concrete and specific ated learning will only come if we are courageous
plan for doing so. Lexier’s words from her self-study enough to continue to work to enhance our practice.
reflection offer a representative example of the limit-
ed extent to which we converted new understandings Questions for Further Inquiry
of reciprocity into action steps:
Reflecting on our self-study process when writing
I realize I need to work harder to ensure that the this article, we pondered lessons our experience
voices of our community partners are heard might suggest for other SLCE practitioner-scholars.
throughout the entire planning and execution of However, we find it difficult to articulate substantive
our field schools and that, while it might be diffi- recommendations. Some of the thinking we have
cult to establish reciprocity in these relationships,
shared here has been about the concept of reciprocity
they are fundamentally important to what I am
in SLCE, some about faculty development processes,
hoping to accomplish.
and some about faculty learning. We have shared
This focus on changes to our practice related to our methods – collaborative self-study, Decoding inter-
students but not to our community partners only views, qualitative analysis – that we find deeply con-
became obvious to us after analyzing our reflection gruent with the values and commitments of the
products, providing evidence not only of the trouble- SLCE movement and our GSL practice. Our work
someness of the concept but also of the value of our together over the past year has woven these various
self-study for our own learning. bodies of thought together in ways that have been
We also have realized a dilemma: how to be emergent and responsive to where we have been,
respectful of our partners’ time and also commit to co- both individually and collectively, in this process. We
creating with them. Many of us initially believed we came to view this process in terms of transformation-
were enacting reciprocity by limiting the obligations al learning. Given how contextualized our process
of community partners in “our” GSL projects. has been to the composition of our group and to the
Through the process of this self-study, however – methods used to engage with one another, it is
including the writing of this article – we are coming unlikely that the particulars of our experience can, in
to see this as evidence of our own lingering deficit- fact, generate a set of actionable implications for oth-
based perspective, emerging from our somewhat ers’ practice and research beyond those already
paternalistic sense that we need to protect our partners noted: (a) the value of the Decoding interview
from the demands of full collaboration. While we process and structure in pushing learners to ever-
continue to be concerned about burdening partners deeper grappling with prior and emergent under-
and are uncertain how best to determine what are standings, (b) the importance of multidisciplinarity
appropriate time commitments on everyone’s part, we among the members of a self-study group who come
also now see that our still evolving definitions of rec- together with common learning goals around shared
iprocity may be one source of the difficulty. For pedagogical practices, (c) the need for discipline-
example, Dean struggles with whether reciprocity external interviewers and critical friends to ask chal-
requires that all partners contribute in “equal mea- lenging questions and not settle for superficial
sure” and, in turn, whether that means contributing in answers, and (d) the challenges (faced by interview-
the same ways or in equitable proportion; she believes ers and interviewees alike) of retaining a focus on
it is appropriate to use the resources of the “western” faculty member’s own learning in the face of strong
academy to help turn the ideas and experiences of col- norms that define them as teachers and that turn their
leagues in less-funded regions of the world into attention repeatedly to their students when the topic
research but is unsure if such a stance is sufficiently under discussion is learning outcomes and processes.
41