Table Of Content

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2016, pp. 15–36 Cultivating Practitioners of Democratic Civic Engagement Novella Zett Keith Temple University How can we support campus-b ased practitioners of civic and community engagement in moving from normalized engagement toward practices that engage others democratically and respectfully across borders created by social race, class, gender, status, and other markers of difference? The article presents a framework derived from practice theory, a social science perspective that has influenced professional and organizational studies. The framework, which is meant as an aid for practice, integrates Bourdieu’s habitus, field, and capital with the theory of practical wisdom or phronesis. Bourdieu helps us understand how normal practice is constituted while phronesis provides the tools to consider practice that is ethical, democratic, border- crossing, and wise. Two mini- cases drawn from a graduate and an undergrad- uate course in urban education feature engaged practitioners in school settings and provide illustrations for the theory. The concluding section discusses implications of this way of framing the cultivation of community- engaged practitioners for the practice of reflection, course design, and research. The question I am asking in this article is how ture – here, the gifts and qualities of practitioners. to support campus- based practitioners (students, Cultivation should be about providing fertile ground faculty, and staff) in moving from the normalized and good conditions for seeds to grow into the best practice of engagement – s till too often practiced possible versions of themselves. My involvement in as charity, spectatorship, activity and place, or out- social- justice oriented service- learning and what is reach (Bheekie & van Huyssteen, 2015; Saltmarsh now called civic and community engagement goes & Hartley, 2011) – toward the capacity to engage back about twenty- five years. of late, I have been democratically and respectfully across borders moved particularly by the call to action around A created by race, class, gender, professional and ed- Crucible Moment (National Task Force on Civic ucational status, and other markers of difference. Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012) for Constituted by webs of unequal power, borders typ- higher education to commit more fully to prepar- ically pose obstacles for campus- community part- ing graduates for democratic civic engagement. nerships and democratic engagement.1 I hope to make a contribution to an understudied To this end, the article presents a theoretical area in the field by focusing on transformative framework that I believe can help us consider what practice (more than transformative learning), and influences normal or habitual practice and its trans- those moments in practice that can become turn- formation. Theory here is intended as a heuristic ing points toward more democratic, equitable, and to support understanding and practice rather than ethical engagement. Understanding process and as an explanatory and predictive model: It provides practice can complement outcomes-o riented work thinking tools that can help us make new connec- on the attributes of the community-e ngaged gradu- tions, construct differently what we know, and ask ate and professional (e.g., see Clayton, Bringle, & questions that lead to new knowledge and ways Hatcher, 2013) and initiatives on the preparation of of seeing and doing. I sought theories that could community engagement professionals (Dostilio & advance community-e ngaged practitioners on a McReynolds, 2015; McReynolds & Shields, 2015; transformational path, where what was wanted was http://compact.org/initiatives/professional-devel change in both person (mindset, dispositions, and opment-training/). so on) and service-l earning/community engage- The central idea of the article is to see SLCE ment (SLCE) practice while also considering eth- through the lens of practice. Practice is commonly ical practice. used either as a qualifier of specific domains (e.g. Working with community-e ngaged practitioners clinical practice) or as a reference to learning through (CEPs), among whom I include myself, has been an repeated action. As used here, however, it references important focus of my professional life, and I have a family of theories or perspectives termed practice come to think of this work as a cultivation or an or- theory, comprised of different strands united in prob- ganic process that involves a collaboration with na- lematizing everyday (including professional) activ- 15 Keith ities through insights from the fields of sociology, the unit of analysis for research is the ‘boundary anthropology, and organizational studies (Nicolini, zone’ where the service- learning project takes 2012). Whereas scholars informed by the cognitive place and the practitioner is a ‘boundary worker.’ and behavioral sciences generally take the individ- The practitioner still retains an important place in ual as a starting point, practice theorists locate the this perspective, especially in the versions of prac- practitioner and the practice at the intersection of tice theory I use, but his or her cultivation must socio- cultural- discursive, economic- material, and take this complex system into account. Through political arrangements that both enable and constrain a practice theory lens, organizations can be seen the practice. as ecologies and architectures of interdependent The focus, thus, is on practice- and the practices, where social regularities are produced practitioner- in- context, where contextual factors and reproduced through webs of mutually interac- may include language and forms of speaking, tools, tive and relational processes taking place in partic- and material objects (including bodies), as well as ular sites. This does not mean that the oppressive ways of relating and exercising power, solidarity, nature of some social relations is, suddenly, easy authority, and privilege. Kemmis and his colleagues to change. However, interactions always leave (2014) refer to these, respectively, as sayings, do- room for unpredictability through creativity and ings, and relatings. Through this lens, the actions innovation even within existing structures, and as of practitioners emerge from the interrelatedness of such practice theories help us see reality as some- all aspects – p resent and historical, experiential and what more fluid, opening up ways to rethink both structural, individual and group-b ased – that enter persistence and change and consider how engag- into a given situation in which they are involved. I ing in practices differently, in specific sites, might used the term ‘context’ above because we are fa- expand the limits of what is possible. miliar with this language; the theories refer instead Practice- based approaches have received re- to the practice site, situation, or (in the version I newed attention in the last twenty years, even use) field. Context can be seen as a container for the generating new terms such as the practice turn, practice, whereas the site is about “a set of condi- practice- based studies (PBS) and practice-b ased tions that make the practice possible though they do education (PBE) (Darling-H ammond, Chung Wei, not determine it” (Kemmis, Wilkinson, Edwards- Andree, Richardson, & orphanos, 2009; Gherardi, Grove, Hardy, Grootenboer, & Bristol, 2014, p. 14). 2008, 2009; Kinsella & Pitman, 2012; Macintyre For the practitioner, thus, it is not only a matter Latta, & Wunder, 2015; Perry, 2015; Shulman, of being cognizant, say, of the historical origins, 2007). Their meanings do vary and, as Boud and structural aspects, and current conditions impact- Drew (2013) remark, their use may at times consti- ing the community (see Dreese, Dutton, Neumeier, tute simply a new label. In the SLCE field, social & Wilkey, 2008) but of how the material aspects practice theory is represented by approaches that of that setting enter into the practice site, or how use situated learning and community of practice a particular faculty, staff, or student participant (CoP). At times these are paired with complementa- responds, based on her/his prior experiences and ry theories, including critical social theory and crit- history, and what actions are possible and are tak- ical discourse analysis, which address tendencies en. Additionally, how one engages in this practice in the CoP framework to overemphasize individual situation goes beyond positionality and identity – learning and undertheorize power. To cite a few ex- say, a white middle class college student entering amples, Nemeth and Winterbottom (2016) put “a this school and neighborhood motivated to become socially situated theory of learning in conversation a community engaged professional – and involves with [Butin’s] poststructuralist service-l earning” the student’s and community partners’ prior em- (p. 313). McMillan (2011b) bridges CoP and ac- bodied experiences, their orientations and desires, tivity theory, which she presents as an extension of capacities, skills, and qualities as they interact in Vygotsky’s (1978) work that “brings history and and with the situation.2 power into the picture . . . and provides a link be- Thinking with practice means shifting the focus tween micro and macro perspectives and contexts” of course and program development, pedagogy, (p. 110). Carrington, Deppeler, and Moss (2011) and research from the individual unit, including draw from critical social theory and collaborative individual learning and development to a wider inquiry in CoPs to engage teachers (pre- service and lens such as the activity and activity ‘system’. in- service) in critical dialogue about profession- Community service learning might thus be seen, al learning; they demonstrate how their continu- as McMillan (2011a) suggests, as “two commu- um of teacher learning led to changes in teachers’ nities of practice interacting via one activity sys- beliefs and knowledge that were reflected in new, tem and engaged in joint activities” (p. 557). Thus contextually appropriate teaching practices. other 16 Cultivating Practitioners of Democratic Civic Engagement scholars and researchers approach the field in ways readers to think actively about the vignettes and is- that are partly congruent with practice theory. I will sues they evoke while reading the theoretical frame- return to the work of Butin (2007), Kiely (2005), work, perhaps beginning to “find the theory” in the and Mitchell (2014) in this regard. Together, these everyday.4 The later discussion of the first vignette and other contributions suggest an ongoing search will focus mainly on Cynthia’s habitus, virtues, and in the SLCE field for approaches that are broadly sensemaking. The discussion of the second vignette aligned with or friendly to practice theory. will also focus on enacting the good.5 The remainder of the article is organized as follows. I begin with two vignettes that anchor A Civically- Engaged Practitioner the theoretical presentation and return to them af- Reflects on Her Habitus ter that presentation. The vignettes center on two SLCE practices that will be familiar to readers: The context. Cynthia is a VISTA working as a practitioner reflection on experience and course or school- community coordinator in a middle school program design. The framework provides a broad located in a high- poverty African American neigh- understanding of ethical practice that puts the borhood. She is a middle class white woman in practitioner- in- context at the center. It also pro- her mid- 20s in her second year at the school and vides new ways of thinking about reflection and in a Master’s program at Temple University, where design and the cultivation of ethical practitioners. she is enrolled in a course on campus-s chool- The concluding sections consider the framework community partnerships. She considers herself and vignettes in light of relevant SLCE literature a successful practitioner in this setting and offers and the implications of the framework for SLCE in support for her self-e valuation that “only a few practice and research. months into the [first] year, my principal begged me to come back for a second year.” A major re- Two Vignettes quirement of the course is a partnership project that typically takes place at the students’ work site Both vignettes are drawn from courses taught (schools and other youth- and education- oriented using a capacities or assets stance vis- à- vis com- organizations). Students also complete an autobi- munity partners and involved students in service- ographical narrative and two critical reflections on learning/partnership projects in impoverished critical incidents in their partnerships. urban neighborhoods. I was the instructor in one Cynthia’s project centers on developing great- course and part of an instructional team in the other. er parental engagement at her school, and as the Given space constraints, I hope readers will accept semester progresses she begins to focus on her my assertion that the courses were designed to meet relationship with the parent coordinator, Gaby, standards of good quality as broadly summarized a middle- aged Haitian woman who was recently by Felten and Clayton (2011) and, for reflection, hired for that position. It is important to Cynthia Eyler (2002). In particular – and the importance of and the school that the two have a good working this will become clearer once the framework has relationship; for Cynthia, this includes valuing Ga- been presented – considerable time was devoted to by’s and the community’s actual and potential re- the students sharing their life experiences in rela- sources or capital. tion to their community- based work. The critical incident. Cynthia’s critical incident The first vignette is drawn from a graduate course shows her struggling internally with her percep- on campus-s chool-c ommunity partnerships taught tion of Gaby, which had been quite positive but has in fall 2015. This class was partly co- designed with started changing, potentially jeopardizing the rela- the students and was modeled on a CoP that includ- tionship. Cynthia links this change to an interaction ed sharing stories and experiences, providing sup- she had with her principal, during which the prin- port through the inevitable challenges, and mutual cipal expressed her frustration with Gaby’s conduct learning. The second vignette offers a snapshot of a at a parent meeting. Principal Davis is an African- four- year partnership (1999–2 003) between a uni- American woman whom Cynthia describes as an versity, high school, and coalition of neighborhood excellent principal and a “personal super-h ero” of groups; the college course was part of the teacher hers. Cynthia writes: education core and was designed so students would Initially, both outwardly and internally, I de- both experience service- learning and begin to learn fended Gaby to Principal Davis and shook off how to use it in their future teaching. Each vignette her remarks. My inner monologue went some- includes an abbreviated sketch of the context and of thing like this: Parents love Gaby’s liveliness. a practice situation that constituted a critical inci- Davis just has a lot going on right now and dent and stimulated reflection and change.3 I invite clearly hasn’t had time to fully appreciate her 17 Keith energy. No big deal. The next time I saw Gaby, an invaluable resource in making college more real however, I started to notice that I acted differ- and accessible for the high school students, as they ently towards her. I was slightly less recep- have taken their teammates to campus, their resi- tive . . . I was short with my words and slightly dences, and even their classes. The college students more impatient. . . . I was irritated by behaviors are enjoying being in a school and getting a first that had, only weeks prior, inspired me. This taste of their future profession. They have mostly caused me to reflect on my thoughts and ac- overcome their initial fear of the neighborhood, tions . . . What were the skills and attributes have developed relationships, changed their views, I liked about Gaby? Had they been an asset to and begun to come to grips with racial and class [the school] or how could they be? Why was privilege. Memories of the final joint celebration on I refusing to recognize them all of a sudden? campus are still with us and fill us with excitement and pride that we were able to create this commu- Changing Course Elements in a Campus- School- nity across these borders. Community Service- Learning Partnership Everything is not great and we have all no- ticed problems around collaboration in the student The context. The partnership created teams of teams. Communication is often one- way, with col- college and high school students working together lege students directing and managing the work, and on service-l earning projects. The high school stu- each of us has intervened at times to interrupt their dents were enrolled in the school’s only college- taking control of group talk and making arbitrary bound small learning community and were in the decisions. For their part, some college students, re- leadership group for the school’s Youth- Driven verting to the normalcy of seeing problematic be- Community- Service Center. The school was in a haviors simply as personal character deficits, have hyper-s egregated high-p overty neighborhood and complained about their high school teammates its students were all African-A merican or Black. ‘fooling around’ and not fulfilling their responsi- The college students were about 75% White and bilities. It is clear that we will need to put more ef- mostly of working- or middle- class background. fort into team building. We are almost ready to start All the students participated in a joint class, held considering solutions, when Sharon, one of the two at the high school, which brought together the two high school teachers in the team stops the process student groups for about ten weeks of the college and makes a simple and powerful statement: “My semester. The joint group was supported by an students are becoming passive.” instructional team that included community, high Both critical incidents raise questions about school, and university personnel. The projects that cultivating democratic practitioners of civic en- the student teams planned and implemented were in gagement in border- crossing settings. Both involve the neighborhood and were selected and planned in seasoned, competent practitioners (Cynthia and collaboration with the community-b ased organiza- her principal in the first vignette, the leadership tion. With regard to goals, the high school and com- team in the second vignette) and relatively novice munity partners wanted to engage young people in ones (Gaby in the first vignette and the high school empowering community- based work and the col- and college students in the second vignette) – a ll lege partners were in agreement with this goal; the learning to practice as civically engaged partners high school and college students had various moti- in cross- border settings. I now take a detour into vations but they all needed to complete a service- the theories. My primary focus is on campus- based learning project and other course requirements; and practitioners. I hope readers will not take it as a all the instructors wanted to apply the principles of sign that I am privileging this group: My position sound service- learning practice and collaboration is that, in border crossings, the partners who come across social divides. from more dominant social positions have a special The critical incident. It is the end of the second responsibility and, quite frankly, more to learn. year and the instructional team is meeting to evaluate the work accomplished. Team members take Practice Knowledge and a turns sharing their perception of what is going well Practice Theory Framework and what needs attention. There are successes on the part of both the high school and college students. Practice Knowledge: Epistemological Divides The service- learning project requires the teams to conduct research on community needs, which has In an article exploring faculty and service- really helped the high schools students become learning community partners’ theories of learn- comfortable in an area that had constituted a huge ing, Bacon (2002) hypothesizes “that members of stumbling block. The college students have been different groups [or discourse communities] will 18 Cultivating Practitioners of Democratic Civic Engagement differ . . . in how they use language and that differ- In practitioner-o riented fields, the divide is most ences in language use may reveal underlying dif- frequently discussed in terms of the legitimate ferences in the group’s values, goals, or beliefs” (p. sources of practitioner knowledge. But Bacon’s 35). Analysis of focus groups revealed significant findings point to a more subtle manifestation of overlaps but also three main differences between it. She remarks on a curious absence in the com- the faculty and community partner groups. Faculty munity partners’ conversation: “these participants tended to (a) identify themselves more as knowers spoke about faculty and graduate students in terms and experts than as learners; (b) examine students’ of their expertise, [but] they did not claim exper- words in evaluating successful learning; and (c) tise for themselves (though all four had college de- value group work but represent learning as an indi- grees). Instead, they tended to represent their own vidual activity. Community members tended to (a) knowledge as something arising naturally from identify as learners and see learning as a continuous their experience” (p. 39). We seem to be in the pres- activity based in experience; (b) consider the ability ence of an internalized self- marginalization: These to take action as evidence of successful learning; practitioners’ description of their own knowledge and (c) subordinate the individual learner to the fits the tenets of the practical knowledge tradition, group’s collective development, talking “less about but they do not seem to accord value to it. The only specific instances of interaction such as discussion site constructed as having legitimate knowledge and . . . more about relationships developing over (expertise) is the academy. Experiential knowledge time.” (p. 41) is useful but suffers from a lack of recognition and Those familiar with cognitivist and situated has no language. Thus, they cannot be experts in perspectives on learning will see here the signs of their own right. the two discursive communities: the faculty in the I believe that Bacon’s curious absence is the sign study were more cognitivist and community mem- of a border that the framework I propose can ad- bers were more situativist. Bacon (2002) suggests dress. Introducing terms that are explained in the that these divides are slowly being dismantled and next section, the practice knowledge tradition is remarks that all participants were developing a embodied in the habitus of the practitioners, but more comprehensive view. She attributes these re- so is its devaluation as an asset. If education is a maining differences “to where these people [faculty field and knowledge is one of its important resourc- and community partners] spend their time and what es, academics are winning the game. Cultivating sort of learning they habitually witness and experi- practitioners would thus require the valorization of ence” (p. 43). practitioner knowledge, not only through words, Epistemological divides such as these are com- but through experiences of its value. mon in academic fields. Each of these theories of Before going further I should dispel a mispercep- learning falls in a broader divide that Schwandt tion this statement might create: I am not suggest- (2005) terms the scientific knowledge tradition and ing that, in a search for bridging the two knowledge the practical knowledge tradition. The scientific communities, academics should abandon careful knowledge tradition values analytical and scientific thought and rigorous scholarship and research but approaches that follow the precepts of the physical that our definitions of rigor and science should be sciences and produce decontextualized and gener- expanded to include approaches that are relevant alizable knowledge. objectivity and certainty are for practice (e.g., see Flyvbjerg, 2001; Nicolini, important values here. The researcher is an expert 2012). Nor am I suggesting that researchers cede who generates knowledge through rigorous meth- the ground to practitioners’ understanding of their ods that whenever possible approach those of the practice in a reversal of the current relationship. physical sciences; practitioners (here, the commu- Engagement calls for a serious rethinking of the re- nity partners) look to the university for knowledge lationship between research and practice, and prac- that will help them in their practice. one example titioners and researchers – as recent activities in the of this approach is evidence- based practice (Biesta, field indicate. 2007) promoted, among others, through the Insti- tute of Education Sciences’ What Works Clearing- Practice Theory: Thinking Tools for house (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). The practical Cultivating SLCE Practitioners knowledge tradition is aligned with situated learning, communities of practice, and practice theory. The framework I propose brings together two Briefly, knowledge is generated in practice and thus strands of practice theory. The first is the con- is context-d ependent; it is embodied rather than be- struct of habitus-fi eld- capital developed by Pierre ing situated in cognitive processes alone. Ambigui- Bourdieu, a French social theorist whose work has ty and uncertainty are the norm. deeply influenced how we understand everyday 19 Keith practice. The second is modern-d ay or applied (neo- and openness to multiple narratives and stand- Aristotelian) phronesis or practical wisdom, which points (Coulter & Wiens, 2002; Hursthouse, 1999). is about ethical and wise practice. This combination Together, both theories shed light on what shapes works well because the constructs are comprised of existing practices and create a path for envisioning parts that are both similar and complementary. To- possibilities for change. gether, they provide thinking tools that will help us An additional clarification is needed before mov- delve into the movement of the practitioner from ing on. In Bourdieu’s framework, excellence in a normalized to wise (and ethical) practice. given field is not equated with ethical action, as is Two parts of Bourdieu’s construct, habitus and the case in the phronetic framework. For example, capital (especially cultural capital), are well-k nown institutions may achieve ‘excellence’ by manipu- and have been used extensively in the sociology lating quantitative performance indicators (metrics) of education, contributing especially to our under- that distort the true purposes of higher education. standing of what is termed ‘cultural reproduction’ Similarly, a professor at a university may be re- – how schooling actually generates (or reproduc- warded for practicing engagement as outreach and es) social inequality (see Bourdieu, 1977, 1989; even using the community as a laboratory, both of Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). others have also used which are problematic for proponents of democratic the framework in the service of equitable change, engagement and usually for community partners.6 which is how I envision it here (e.g., see Horvat The ethical dimension of Bourdieu’s framework is & Davis, 2011; Yosso, 2005). However, the three in its exposure and critique of the power and privi- components of the construct (the final one is field) lege involved in these ‘games.’ Foucault’s notion of are less frequently understood and used as a sin- discourse and its normalizing functions is a useful gle, interactive entity (Townley, 2014; Zembylas, critical addition. Discourses are systems of thought 2007). one of the few instances I have found comes and practices that circumscribe what can be said and from SLCE. As Jagla, Lukenchuk, and Price (2010) thought. They support practices, many of which are explain, they have extended Bourdieu’s tripartite oppressive, that we think of as normal, but are in- construct and combined it with the relational ethics stead normalized through workings of power that are of Noddings and Levinas to develop the construct largely invisible (Foucault, 1977/1995). Disturbing of a service- learning habitus (SLH). The approach and interrupting these normalcies, both in people is novel and potentially interesting, though I have and in social, material, and political arrangements, not delved into it sufficiently to consider its rela- is necessary for changing practices. Let me now dis- tionship to my framework, because the purposes cuss each contribution in greater detail. are different. In addition, my approach to Bourdieu remains closer to his original work, though I also Bourdieu’s Habitus- Field- Capital combine it with the ethical thought of different scholars. Habitus. Think of habitus as a background matrix As I use it, Bourdieu’s theory helps us grasp the that is constituted in the course of our experienc- relatedness between practitioners’ dispositions, so- ing, as active agents, the everyday world, including cial environments, practice settings, and the moti- its power relations – i n actuality, vicariously, and vation to strive for what is defined as excellence or through personal and group memories, narratives, high quality performance in these settings. I then and histories. These become part of who we are and integrate Bourdieu’s theory and a phronetic under- our sense of ‘how things work’ not only insofar as standing of the cultivation of wise practitioners and we remember and actively refer to them, but as em- practice. The aim of phronesis is to infuse practice bodied dispositions and orientations that guide our with an ethics centered on the promotion of hu- perceptions, interpretations, and actions. The schema man and community flourishing or lives worthy that generates these preferences is both personal and of human dignity (termed the good). This ethics is group-b ased and is generally outside our conscious situational: It is not about an abstract and general awareness: we simply prefer certain foods, feel com- common good but about what may contribute to fortable speaking in certain ways. If we are academ- flourishing, constructed (most often) dialogically, ics, analytical work may feel more natural than prac- as achieving something of value in the situation at titioner work; and if we are also teachers, thinking hand (Neher & Sandin, 2016). Classical phronesis tools such as learning theories and pedagogies will was elitist, its definition of virtue grounded in the likely feel more natural than practice theories. This is agreement of a virtuous community, and it did not important with regard to SLCE: arguably, it is a prac- address power relations. Current versions address tice field. What is left out when it is informed mainly power (see especially Flyvbjerg, 2001; Schram, by theories of teaching and learning – t hrough the 2012) and provide remedies that include dialogue habitus of educators? 20 Cultivating Practitioners of Democratic Civic Engagement The best known definition of habitus has it as the that is central to the critical/conflict traditions: “generative principle of regulated improvisation” fields are held together in tension, often through (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 78). If you think about it, it be- subtle forms of power/violence that operate at the comes interesting and may even feel right. our ex- conscious and unconscious levels. What constitutes perience is that we are all unique individuals, who capital in a field can be redefined through contesta- are different, seldom predictable, creative, and are tion. In this vein, constructs such as ‘practitioner- certainly ‘agents’ constantly ‘improvising’ as we in- scholar’ (see McReynolds, 2015; McReynolds & teract in the world. What we are less aware of is that Shields, 2015) can be seen as attempts to reposition we act individually, spontaneously, and creatively in the practitioner’s knowledge as valuable capital. the context of something – B ourdieu’s ‘matrix’ is However, it takes symbolic capital to accomplish one way to put it – t hat regulates what is normal and this; organizational leaders may not accept the re- possible for each of us. The source of this regula- valuing and even deny rewards to would- be change tion is the social milieu and social relationships or, in agents. This also is true of proposals for a dialogi- Bourdieu’s terms, the ‘field’. Habitus and field thus cal and multivocal SLCE epistemology (see Hoyt, account for the predictability-u npredictability of the 2010; Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009) and everyday (also see Crossley, 2013). for more inclusive criteria for faculty tenure and Field. Bourdieu (1985) often uses terms without promotion (e.g. Glass, Doberneck, & Schweitzer, fully defining them and this is true of fields. He 2011). Through Bourdieu’s lens, making tradition- writes about them as relatively stable social spac- al practices problematic in these ways signals a es or networks of relationships in which people symbolic struggle being waged for recognition of are distributed by virtue of the types of capital – community engagement as a field, which involves economic, social, cultural and symbolic – that they contesting what constitutes capital, changing rules possess and that have currency in each field. Some of the game, and putting forth different models of fields or social spaces intersect and are similar, exemplary academics. which means that members of a social group and Habitus- field- capital as a construct. In what is nearby groups have a similar habitus and feel more depicted sometimes as a formula, practice is cre- comfortable interacting with one another than with ated though the intersection of habitus with capi- people whose ‘coordinates’ in the social space are tal and field position. To clarify this interaction, far removed from theirs. This basic comfort is what Bourdieu uses a well- known metaphor: a game. keeps us in or close to our fields and what allows us The game is played by players who are differently to strive for and be our best in those fields. positioned and skilled, have a ‘feel for the game’ Capital. This thinking tool refers to anything (sens pratique), the motivation to play, and an in- that has value in a given field and can be exchanged terest in doing it well (Townley, 2014). Some may for profit – similar to an ace in a game of cards in also decide that playing the game is not worth their which aces matter. People use the capitals available while (this is one way to think about student disen- to them to compete for power and positional advan- gagement). The game (field) has rules by which the tage and generally to ‘play the game’; but symbolic players agree to play and resources, material and capital is the most important because, like a wild otherwise, that make it possible to play. Differen- card, it allows its holders to define what has value in tial access to the field’s valued resources (capital) the field (Bourdieu, 1985, 1989). Why is standard creates disparities, which the more skilled or domi- English ‘better’ than other ways of speaking? Bour- nant players try to maintain; some players are more dieu would say that thinking with symbolic capital, creative and innovative (the personal habitus) and it is so because canonical writers, educated elites, become quite exemplary through the interaction and others who ‘matter’ possess the symbolic cap- of habitus, capital, and field. one of the dangers ital that allows them to set the standards. Some of of metaphors, of course, is that they oversimplify us experience standard English as normal, while for what is a much more complex reality.9 others it is a border that only can be crossed by becoming assimilated or excellent at code switching.7 Phronesis Bourdieu’s capital helps us see anew the social and material realms. As an example, it helps us to see Aristotle’s Athens was dominated by technocrat- clothing, tastes, ways of speaking, and gestures as ic and instrumental thinking, which he sought to sites of symbolic struggle through the use of cultur- correct by considering the purposes toward which al capital. These material differences matter: When knowledge is put (Gadamer, in McGee, 1998). crossing borders into the community, for instance, He proposed three interconnected orientations to what counts as ‘dinner’?8 knowledge: episteme, techne, and phronesis. Epis- Bourdieu incorporates here an important notion teme pertains to context-i ndependent knowledge 21 Keith involved in the pursuits of science and logic, while creativity and a sense of humor may be important both techne and phronesis are oriented to action when a situation is at an impasse. Research with in the world. Techne pertains to craft, technical community partners tells us that they value quali- knowledge, and skills, or know- how. Phronesis, ties such as respect, openness, mutuality, interest in as currently understood (e.g., ‘applied phronesis’) the community’s history, and the like (Dreese, Dut- includes questions of values and power plays that ton, Neumeier, & Wilkey, 2008; Sandy & Holland, are relevant to practice, as well as an “intimate fa- 2006; Stoeker, Tryon, & Hilgendorf, 2009). Again, miliarity with the contingencies and uncertainties however, it is not a matter of generic qualities but of of various forms of social practice embedded in the qualities that can help achieve a situated good. complex social settings” (Caterino & Shram, 2006, Third, the expression of virtues needs to be bal- p. 8). This sort of practical knowledge relies on anced. This may mean treading a path between ex- judgment rather than techniques: Each situation is cess and deficit: For instance, an excess of respect unique and the action that brought forth the good could turn into subservience. Sternberg’s (2003) yesterday may not do so today. As educators know ‘balance theory of wisdom’ calls for the relative from experience, every group is different: their weighting of various interests (intrapersonal, in- work is thus part of the practical knowledge tradi- terpersonal, and extrapersonal) and the balancing tion and requires cultivating practical judgment.10 of three possible courses of action: “adaptation of Noel (1999) brings together three distinct but in- oneself or others to existing environments; shaping terwoven aspects of phronesis adopted for this environments in order to render them more com- framework: embodying the virtues, sensemaking patible with oneself or others; and selection of new (making sense of the situation), and constructing environments” (p. 157). Judgment is important in and enacting the good. weighing these aspects, as one is guided by the po- Embodying the virtues. Phronesis posits an in- tential of various plausible alternatives for achiev- timate connection between who we are, how we ing some good in the situation at hand. make sense of the world around us, and what we Sensemaking: Making sense of the situation. do.11 Virtues are ‘ways of being excellent’ that are Sensemaking is an open- ended inquiry process that cultivated and practiced in communities and be- includes the body and multiple ways of knowing, come embodied as our character and as capacities such as felt sense and intuition, and integrates cre- and motivations to act in ways that further the good. ativity, character and intellect, cognition and affect. Virtue ethics, in turn, involves the aspiration and Weick, Sutcliffe, and obstfeld (2005) describe it as motivation to develop a virtuous character and act “being thrown into an ongoing, unknowable, un- accordingly (Hursthouse, 1999; King, 2015). Three predictable streaming of experience in search of an- issues need clarification. First, virtues are not syn- swers to the question, ‘What’s the story?’” (p. 410). onymous with moral qualities; in fact, a distinction or, better, what are the stories – w hat different is usually made between (overlapping) intellec- ways of narrating this event are there? Whose voic- tual, moral, and civic virtues. Intellectual virtues, es are speaking and whose are silent, marginalized, which support learning and sound thinking, include or even elided from history? (Yalowitz, Malandra, intellectual curiosity, courage, the disposition to & Keith, 2015). Sensemaking is thus about con- consider issues carefully and thoroughly, and qual- structing meaning in ways that include one’s per- ities Dewey considered necessary for reflection sonal beliefs and experiences so as to move toward (see Rodgers, 2002): wholeheartedness, directness, actions consistent with these perceptions (Mitchell, open- mindedness, and responsibility. Moral virtues 2014). Meaning construction is always a collective are akin to the qualities of a good neighbor, such as process, even if at the moment we are alone. Two being trustworthy, kind, and compassionate. Civic central processes are situational perception (princi- virtues include the disposition to consider the well- pally, discernment) and insight. The first refers to being of others and work collaboratively toward “finely tuned habits of salient focusing” (Dunne & the common good. Respect for freedom, openness Pendlebury, 2003, p. 207), while insight has to do to diversity, and all that goes under civic minded- with the ability to grasp seemingly obscure cues. ness and social citizenship are also part of the mix Both are cultivated through experience with and (see Baehr, 2013; Bringle, Studer, Wilson, Clayton, reflecting or intuiting from a multiplicity of cases & Steinberg, 2011; Hatcher, 2008; Kreber, 2016; (see Flyvbjerg, 2001). Ladson- Billings, 2004; Musil, 2009). Weick, Sutcliffe, and obstfeld (2005) studied Second, given that the overall purpose of phr- sensemaking as a process and practice in organi- onetic action is to reach toward a situated and zations. Like Bourdieu’s habitus-fi eld- capital, this dialogically constructed good, what counts as a construct and research capture and describe the virtue is also situation-d ependent. For instance, world as it is. It may include directing our atten- 22 Cultivating Practitioners of Democratic Civic Engagement tion to what we want to see and not seeing what cific questions for sensemaking and deliberation we “passionately desire to ignore” (Argyris, 1991; that put power and values at the center. Action (or Felman, 1982). Phronetic sensemaking involves the last question, “what should be done,”) must be constructing meaning through personal quali- preceded by practitioners’ mindful search for the ties, beliefs, values, and an orientation that guide workings of power in the practice situation (“where a search for the possibilities for the ‘good’ that a are we going?” and “who wins and who loses, by situation might hold. When the Citizen Scholars in which mechanisms of power?”) and ethical and Mitchell’s (2014) study make sense of their lived value considerations (“is it desirable?”) (p. 162). experiences through a social justice lens, they are As Barker et al. (2011) remark, the process is not not putting into action a code of ethics: They are meant to be expert-d riven; it is “locally situated, enacting who they are and are striving to be. Ac- self- regulating, and community- defined” (p. 20). cording to virtue ethics, it is one’s character and At this point readers should have a sense of how the community in which it is cultivated that provide Aristotelian and current approaches to phronesis guidance: A wise (or virtuous) practitioner is mo- view the process leading to action that furthers the tivated to make sense of situations by considering good. This ethical stance is aligned with the ambi- how to resolve them in ways that advance human guity, uncertainty, and undecidability that charac- flourishing for all concerned. Ethics thus enters the terize the practical knowledge tradition mentioned very process of understanding the practice situation above (Bacon, 2002; Schwandt, 2005). In the SLCE and our engagement in it. Mitchell explains that field, Butin’s (2007) work shares some of its tenets, “service- learning invokes a number of cues to fa- especially in his poststructural and antifoundational cilitate sensemaking regarding social justice” (par. model of justice- learning. The practical judgments 2). The anchors here are one’s virtues – a passion we make are not objective in the sense that modern- for social justice, to be sure, a willingness to doubt ist approaches (the scientific knowledge tradition) oneself, tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, make of the term, but this does not mean that they humility, and the capacity to express them in the are relativistic, self-s erving, and irrational. When particular ‘streaming of experience’ in which we such judgments are enacted in the context of a cul- are immersed. Perhaps it is by “listening eloquent- tivated practical wisdom, they are based on dialog- ly” or (my favorite) “negotiat[ing] traffic at the in- ical processes that bring in historical examples and tersection where worlds collide” (Musil, 2009). experiences and on a reasoning that is substantive Constructing and enacting the good. The process and attuned to the contingencies of an emergent sit- here is about resolving on a line of action. Shot- uation. And we do it with others for whom those ter (2012) describes it as “moving around within a enactments matter. landscape of possibilities . . . being spontaneous- The cultivation of practitioners follows on a path ly responsive to the consequences of each move, from normal to wise practice. Table 1 provides and judging which one (or combination of moves) a bird’s eye view of the process as the framework seems best in resolving the initial tension aroused conceives it. Columns I and III present a summary in one’s initial confusion” (p. 253). While the flu- comparison of the Bourdieusian and phronetic lens- idity and openness of this process may seem daunt- es. Column II, appropriately located between nor- ing, especially to the novice practitioner, thinking mal and wise practice, is about the spaces for and about it as practical reasoning and the somewhat approaches to the desired transformation. Some of more structured deliberation may help. Mathews these have already been mentioned while others are (2004) defines deliberation as weighing “the possi- presented below and in the concluding sections. The ble consequences of various approaches to a prob- double reverse arrows serve as a reminder that the lem against all that we consider truly valuable” (p. process is iterative and ongoing rather than linear. 8) (also see Pruitt & Thomas, 2007). Bourdieu’s construct of habitus helps us consider According to Toulmin (2003) practical reason- people and their practices in terms of qualities and ing is substantive, appropriate to the demands of dispositions garnered through experiences in social the situation, and marked by a search for a plausi- settings or spaces they occupy more or less com- ble solution rather than a right answer. In Freire’s fortably. Field and capital remind us of the settings terms, this might mean assessing the limits and and experiences that formed the person’s habitus, possibilities of a situation: what is real (the status the qualities and practices that emerge from it, and quo), what is desired (the ought), and what is pos- how changing aspects of the setting – field and cap- sible (the situated good). Again, we sense the pres- ital – might support a transformation of the hab- ence of power as the practitioner operates on the itus. Phronesis provides the ethical lens, through tension line between limits and possibilities (Boyte the combined focus on virtues, situational ethics, & Fretz, 2010). Applied phronesis offers four spe- and a much greater understanding of the process of 23 Keith Table 1 Habitus-Field-Capital, Phronesis, and Cultivating Practitioners in the Third Space I II III WoRLD AS IT IS Third Space for PoSSIBLE WoRLD Normal Practice Cultivating Practitioners Wise Practice → ← Self-in-Context Dispositions & orientations to Create multiple spaces Character qualities (virtues): practice (habitus) embodied for ongoing cross-border • cultivated in virtuous through: sensemaking, relationships, communities, • experiences, and dialogue, that: • that motivate us to enact • in social settings (fields), • Challenge AND support, human flourishing (the • using the resources (capitals) • Use inclusive reflective/ good). of those settings. sensemaking practices: movement, art, games, Who we are=What we see= storytelling, emotions, What we do lifestories, Sensemaking Felt (embodied) sense – feel • Welcome discomfort & Perception and Deliberation: for the game: tensions, • What are the stories? What are the rules of the • Search for and interrupt • What is this situation about, game? oppressive normalcies, ethically/ morally/justly? Who What is my position in the • Change the rules of the gains, who loses, through game, given the resources I game and what counts as what kind of power? can access? capital, Is this game worth playing? • Reframe experiences/ How can we move toward situations to seek cues for ‘flourishing’ for all involved? human flourishing, • Provide repeated experiences that strengthen new meanings/ways of seeing, and related virtues, Practices Strive for ‘excellence’ Respond to the situation based • Evaluate micro and macro according to the rules of the on wise judgment (personal & practices to enact what is game collective). “truly valuable.” sensemaking and constructing the good than we get and Belenky, Bond, and Weinstock’s (1997) public from Bourdieu.12 Sensemaking helps us understand homeplaces. how meanings are constructed and thus suggests that transformation can be fostered by directing Applying the Framework to the Vignettes the practitioner’s attention to cues that can support different meaning constructions and wiser ways to Rather than continuing with an abstract discus- respond in a practice situation. sion, let me return to the vignettes to illustrate the The whole is a collective process that requires framework and its implications for teaching and supportive social spaces or communities. Column learning practices and research. I use the first case II represents these spaces where new meanings, re- primarily to illustrate habitus and normal and phr- lationships and practices are cultivated, the habitus onetic sensemaking. The second case mainly will is potentially transformed, and the transformation illustrate sensemaking and enacting the good. is sustained. What is required here are perhaps not typical communities of practice but in- between Reflections of a Civically- Engaged Practitioner: spaces where we can show ourselves as vulnera- Cynthia’s Case ble, less- than- perfect, uncertain beings who are motivated to engage in cross- border work. I call The main learning tools used in this course were this a third space, which is a more fluid notion than a partnership project, an autobiographical narrative, community of practice and can take various forms, written critical incident reflections, the classroom physical and symbolic, that support collaboration as learning community, and a text (Keith 2015), across borders and building communities of dif- which presents contexts, theory, and several cas- ference. Well-k nown examples include Jane Add- es (see Jacoby, 2015). The first assignment asked ams’ Hull House (see Harkavy & Puckett, 1994) students to draw from their biography and identi- 24