ERIC EJ831374: Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models

2008·0.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Spring 2008,pp.50-65
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning:
Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Models
Tania D. Mitchell
Stanford University
There is an emerging body of literature advocating a “critical”approach to community service learning
with an explicit social justice aim. A social change orientation,working to redistribute power,and devel-
oping authentic relationships are most often cited in the literature as points of departure from tradition-
al service-learning. This literature review unpacks these distinguishing elements.
A
growing segment of the service-learning litera- are dismantled. This article uses perspectives from
ture in higher education assumes that community ser- the literature to uncover and explicate the meaning of
vice linked to classroom learning is inherently con- acritical service-learning view. In discussing each of
nected to concerns of social justice (Delve,Mintz,& the three distinguishing elements of the critical ser-
Stewart, 1990; Jacoby, 1996; Rosenberger, 2000; vice-learning approach,I examine the classroom and
Wade,2000; 2001; Warren,1998). At the same time, community components.
there is an emerging body of literature arguing that
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
the traditional service-learning approach is not
enough (Brown, 2001; Butin, 2005; Cipolle, 2004; Community service learning “serves as a vehicle
Marullo, 1999; Robinson 2000a, 2000b; Walker, for connecting students and institutions to their com-
2000). This literature advocates a “critical”approach munities and the larger social good,while at the same
to community service learning with an explicit aim time instilling in students the values of community
toward social justice. and social responsibility”(Neururer & Rhoads,1998,
Referencing the service-learning literature, I p. 321). Because service-learning as a pedagogy and
unpack the elements that distinguish a critical ser- practice varies greatly across educators and institu-
vice-learning pedagogy. In reviewing the literature,I tions, it is difficult to create a definition that elicits
was challenged by an unspoken debate that seemed consensus amongst practitioners (Bickford &
to divide service-learning into two camps—a tradi- Reynolds, 2002; Butin, 2005; Kendall, 1990; Liu,
tional approach that emphasizes service without 1995; Varlotta,1997a). However,I use the terms ser-
attention to systems of inequality, and a critical vice-learning and community service learning to
approach that is unapologetic in its aim to dismantle define a community service action tied to learning
structures of injustice. The three elements most often goals and ongoing reflection about the experience
cited in the literature as points of departure in the two (Jacoby, 1996). The learning in service-learning
approaches are working to redistribute power results from the connections students makebetween
amongst all participants in the service-learning rela- their community experiences and course themes
tionship, developing authentic relationships in the (Zivi,1997). Through their community service,stu-
classroom and in the community,and working from dents become active learners, bringing skills and
a social change perspective. I wanted to understand information from community work and integrating
and make clear the differences in these approaches them with the theory and curriculum of the class-
and what they might look like in practice. How might room to produce newknowledge. At the same time,
the curriculum,experiences,and outcomes of a criti- students’classroom learning informs their service in
cal service-learning course differ from a traditional the community.
service-learning course? Research heralds traditional service-learning pro-
The critical approach re-imagines the roles of grams for their transformative nature—producing
community members, students, and faculty in the students who are more tolerant,altruistic,and cultur-
service-learning experience. The goal, ultimately, is ally aware; who have stronger leadership and com-
to deconstruct systems of power so the need for ser- munication skills; and who (albeit marginally) earn
vice and the inequalities that create and sustain them higher grade point averages and have stronger crit-
50
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
ical thinking skills than their non-service-learning community problem solving through critical
counterparts (Astin & Sax,1998; Densmore,2000; thinking that raises questions about the roots of
Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kezar, 2002; Markus, social inequality. For example,a service learning
approach might encourage youth to participate
Howard, & King, 1993). Due largely to this evi-
inaservice activity that provides homeless fam-
dence,service-learning has emerged on college and
ilies with food,while social awareness encour-
university campuses as an effective practice to
ages youth to examine and influence political
enhance student learning and development. But
and economic decisions that make homelessness
some authors assert that,“to suggest that all forms
possible in the first place. Reflected in this
of community service equally develop an ethic of example is a critical understanding of how sys-
care,a flowering of a mature identity,and advance tems and institutions sustain homelessness.
our understanding of community is misleading” Through an analysis of their communities,youth
(Neururer & Rhoads,1998,p. 329). develop a deep sense of how institutions could
There are examples in the literature where com- better serve their own communities and initiate
strategies to make these institutions responsive
munity service learning is criticized, labeled as
to their needs. (p. 90)
charity or “forced volunteerism,”critiqued for rein-
forcing established hierarchies, and deemed pater- While I agree with Neururer and Rhoads (1998) that
nalistic (Boyle-Baise, 1998; Cooks, Scharrer & it would be misleading to suggest that all service-
Paredes, 2004; Cruz, 1990; Forbes, Garber, learning experiences encourage the type of critical
Kensinger, & Slagter, 1999; Ginwright & analysis suggested by Ginwright and Cammarota, I
Cammarota,2002; Levinson,1990; McBride,Brav, believe it is equally misleading to suggest that no ser-
Menon,& Sherraden,2006; Pompa,2002; Sleeter, vice-learning class or program encourages the in-
2000). Pompa (2002) explains her reservation: depth analysis or approach to community problem-
solving thatGinwright and Cammarota name social
Unless facilitated with great care and con-
awareness. In the service-learning field, the
sciousness, “service” can unwittingly become
approaches labeled as “service learning”and “social
an exercise in patronization. In a society
replete with hierarchical structures and patriar- awareness” by Ginwright and Cammarota might be
chal philosophies, service-learning’s potential labeled as traditionaland criticalservice-learning.
danger is for it to become the very thing it The concept of critical service-learning first
seeks to eschew. (p. 68) appears in Robert Rhoads’s (1997) exploration of
“critical community service.” Rice and Pollack
Robinson (2000a) concurs, boldly stating that ser-
(2000) and Rosenberger (2000) employed the term
vice-learning as a depoliticized practice becomes a
“critical service learning” to describe academic ser-
“glorified welfare system” (p. 607). Without the
vice-learning experiences with a social justice orien-
exercise of careand consciousness,drawing atten-
tation. This explicit aim toward social justice chal-
tion to root causes of social problems, and involv-
lenges traditional perceptions of service “as meeting
ing students in actions and initiatives addressing
individual needs but not usually as political action
root causes, service-learning may have no impact
intended to transform structural inequalities”
beyond students’good feelings. In fact, a service-
(Rosenberger, p. 29). A recent study by Wang and
learning experience that does not pay attention to
Rodgers (2006) shows that a social justice approach
those issues and concerns may involve students in
to service-learning results in more complex thinking
the community in a way that perpetuates inequali-
and reasoning skills than traditional service-learning
ty and reinforces an “us-them”dichotomy. Further,
courses. A critical approach embraces the political
such interpretations of service-learning (ironically)
nature of service and seeks social justice over more
serve to mobilize and bolster privileged students to
traditional views of citizenship. This progressive
participate in and embrace systems of privilege
pedagogical orientation requires educators to focus
(Brown, 2001), preserve already unjust social
on social responsibility and critical community
structures (Roschelle, Turpin, & Elias, 2000), and
issues. Service-learning,then,becomes “a problem-
may act to “normalize and civilize the radical ten-
solving instrument of social and political reform”
dencies”of our constituent communities,students,
(Fenwick,2001,p. 6).
and ourselves(Robinson,2000b,p.146).
Critical service-learning programs encourage stu-
Ginwright and Cammarota (2002) critique ser-
dents to see themselves as agents of social change,
vice-learning,advocating a social justice approach
and use the experience of service to address and
instead:
respond to injustice in communities. Rahima Wade
Unlike “service learning,” where youth learn (2000) terms this perspective “service for an ideal”as
through participation in community service pro- opposed to “service to an individual”(p. 97). Boyle-
jects, social awareness places an emphasis on Baise (2007) labels this “service for critical con-
51
Mitchell
sciousness.”Marullo (1999) considers service-learn- students in service-learning programs consider
ing a revolutionary pedagogy because of its potential whether some injustice has created the need for
for social change. Service-learning,he suggests: service in the first place” (Wade, 2001, p. 1).
Programs that might put more emphasis on social
Ifimplemented properly,should be critical of the
change may be characterized or dismissed as
status quo and should ultimately challenge
activism, or deemed inappropriate or too political
unjust structures and oppressive institutional
for classroom learning. Wade posits that the practi-
operations. It is the analytical component of ser-
vice-learning that gives it revolutionary poten- cality of traditional service-learning (service to
tial,because it is precisely this component that individuals) versus critical service-learning (ser-
will reveal the systemic,social nature of inequal- vice for an ideal) may explain the prominence of
ity,injustice,and oppression. Service-learning is service-learning programs that emphasize student
also revolutionary to the extent that it creates a outcomes over community change:
partnership for change among community and
university actors. Once the sources of social In general, service for an ideal is more com-
problems are seen to reside in the social and pelling to me because of its potential power to
political systems that so lavishly reward the few effect change for more people. However,in prac-
at the expense of the many,it becomes obvious tice, service to individuals is more accessible
that such systems require change. It is in the and easier to facilitate with a given group of stu-
ensuing step,advocating for change and assist- dents over a short time (e.g.,a semester). (p. 98)
ing students to acquirethe knowledgeand skills
In service-learning programs that do not take a
to become agents of change,that the revolution-
arypotential becomes real. In this sense,service- critical approach,the emphasis of the service expe-
learning provides an opportunity for institution- rience is to find the students some opportunity to
alizing on college campuses activism committed do good work that will benefit a service agency,
to social justice.(p. 22) and provide the students with an opportunity to
reflect upon the work they are doing and perhaps
To actualize the potential, Boyle-Baise (2007),
upon their own assumptions and stereotypes about
Wade (2000), and Marullo (1999) see that critical
the individuals with whom they serve. This type of
service-learning must emphasize the skills,knowl-
service-learning approach requires “foregrounding
edge, and experiences required of students to not
issues of identity and difference as a way of help-
only participate in communities, but to transform
ing students alter their personal and world views
them as engaged and active citizens. Critical ser-
and preparing students with new ideas and skills
vice-learning must focus on creating true commu-
that can help them understand and work across dif-
nity-university partnerships where community
ferences” (Chesler & Vasques Scalera, 2000, p.
issues and concerns are as important (in planning,
19). Chesler (1995), Eby (1998), Ginwright and
implementation, and evaluation) as student learn-
Cammarota (2002), and Robinson (2000a; 2000b)
ing and development (Brown, 2001). Critical ser-
all caution that these types of service programs,
vice-learning must embrace the “progressive and
while beneficial for the students in service roles
liberal agenda” that undergirds its practice (Butin,
and providing much needed service in communi-
2006, p. 58) and serves as the foundation for ser-
ties,do not lead to any transformation in the com-
vice-learning pedagogy (Brown, 2001). The work
munity and certainly do not tap into the revolution-
to realize the potential of this pedagogy and avoid
ary potential that Marullo (1999) envisions. Mark
paternalism demands a social change orientation,
Chesler (1995) explains:
working to redistribute power, and developing
authentic relationships as central to the classroom
Service-learning does not necessarily lead to
and community experience (see Figure 1).
improved service, and it certainly does not
necessarily lead to social change. As students
A Social Change Orientation
fit into prescribed agency roles for their service
Student development and community change work they typically do not challenge the nature
and operations or quality of these agencies and
often are viewed as mutually exclusive. Traditional
their activities. As we do service that primarily
interpretations of service-learning tend to empha-
reacts to problems—problems of inadequate
size students, focusing on “preprofessional” expe-
education,of under-staffed and under-financed
riences (viewing service much like an internship or
health care, of inadequate garbage collection
practicum),and the personal or social development
service, of failing correctional institutions—
of students (mostly attitudes toward leadership, our service does not focus on challenging or
altruism,and sometimes thoughts or feelings about directing attention to changing the causes of
the people served in the community). “Rarely do these problems. (p. 139)
52
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
Figure 1.
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
While individual change and student development community projects and work that will allow ser-
are desired outcomes of traditional and critical ser- vice-learners to critically analyze their work in the
vice-learning,critical service-learning pedagogy bal- community. Educators using a critical service-
ances the student outcomes with an emphasis on learning pedagogy must support students in under-
social change. This requires rethinking the types of standing the consequences of service alongside the
service activities in which students are engaged, as possibilities—the ways service can make a differ-
well as organizing projects and assignments that ence as well as those ways it can perpetuate sys-
challenge students to investigate and understand the tems of inequality. O’Grady (2000) reminds us,
root causes of social problems and the courses of “Responding to individual human needs is impor-
action necessary to challenge and change the struc- tant, but if the social policies that create these
tures that perpetuate those problems. needs is not also understood and addressed, then
Social change efforts “[address] tremendous the cycle of dependence remains”(p. 13).
inequalities and fundamental social challenges by Rhoads (1998) offers some of the “big ques-
creating structures and conditions that promote tions” that guide a critical service-learning
equality, autonomy, cooperation, and sustainabili- approach: “Why do we have significant economic
ty” (Langseth & Troppe, 1997, p. 37). Service- gaps between different racial groups? Why do
learning practitioners who want to move toward women continue to face economic and social
critical service-learning must find ways to organize inequities? Why does the richest country on earth
53
Mitchell
have such a serious problem with homelessness?” ticipate in—e.g.,tutoring,soup kitchens,afterschool
(p. 45). If service-learning programs aren’t asking enrichment programs—are shaped for the benefit of
these questions or encouraging students to investi- the students, reflecting “the skills, schedules, inter-
gate the links between “those served” and institu- ests,and learning agenda of the students in service-
tional structures and policies,service-learning stu- learning rather than to meet real community needs”
dents may never move beyond “band-aid” service (Eby, 1998, p. 4). In this way, the needs of service-
and toward action geared to the eradication of the learning students often take precedence over com-
cycles of dependence and oppression (Levinson, munity issues and concerns, and the service work
1990; O’Grady,2000; Walker,2000). performed is less than transformative.
Critical service-learning pedagogy fosters a crit- Involving students in social change oriented ser-
ical consciousness, allowing students to combine vice work is more difficult. Practitioners may need
action and reflection in classroom and community to work outside traditional non-profits and commu-
to examine both the historical precedents of the nity-based organizations to partner with groups
social problems addressed in their service place- actively working to change systems and structures
ments and the impact of their personal action/inac- (in contrast to “simply” offering services). Social
tion in maintaining and transforming those prob- change oriented service is more political than tra-
lems. This analysis allows students to connect their ditional notions of service and therefore may be
own lives to the lives of those with whom they subject to criticism from those who fear the prac-
work in their service experiences. Further,a critical tice attempts to indoctrinate rather than teach
service-learning approach allows students to (Butin,2006; Robinson,2000a; 2000b). The types
become awareofthe systemic and institutionalized of service experiences that allow students to con-
nature of oppression. The action/reflection dynam- sider social change and transformation may not
ic of a critical service-learning pedagogy encour- bring immediate results and, therefore, may not
offer the type of gratification that students involved
ages contemplation on both personal and institu-
in more traditional service-learning classes experi-
tional contributions to social problems and mea-
ence when the painting is completed,homeless per-
sures that may lead to social change (Marullo,
son is fed, or child has finished the art project.
1999; Rice & Pollack,2000). This praxis brings to
Social change oriented service takes time. Social
light the political nature of a pedagogy aimed to
justice will never be achieved in a single semester
address and contribute to dismantling structural
nor systems dismantled in the two- to four-hour
inequality.
weekly commitment representative of many tradi-
Community service that is seen as part of an tional models of service-learning.
action/reflection dynamic that contributes to Forbes et al. (1999) are clear about the goals they
social change is dangerous in that it fosters a desire through a critical service-learning approach:
desire to alter the social and economic struc-
ture of our society. It is political because it We want…to empower students to see them-
questions how power is distributed and the selves as agents capable of acting together
connection between power and economics. with others to build coalitions, foster public
(Rhoads,1997,p. 201) awareness,and create social change. Our goal
is to avoid the trap of the cultural safari,
Chesler and Vasques Scalera (2000) argue,“pro- instead discussing and demonstrating the tools
grams focused on social change involve students the students will require to pursue the objec-
moredirectly in mobilizing to challenge racist and tives they set forth within the engaged parame-
sexist structures in community agencies and in the ters of their own diverse lives and concerns. At
allocation of scarce social resources,and advocate the very least, this should short-circuit the
stance of charitable pity that traditional volun-
for the construction of community-oriented poli-
teerism often produces. (p. 167)
cies and programs”(p. 19). Through a critical ser-
vice-learning approach, students can look ahead Merely assigning students to work in a particular
and consider the kind of work, beyond those ser- agency or program is not enough; faculty,students,
vice efforts already in place,that might ameliorate and staff must all be involved in a dialectic and
or transform social problems and lead to sustain- responsive process that encourages analysis and
able change (Wade,2001). action to address issues and problems facing com-
munities. Instead of seeing the community agency
The Community Component
as “a highlyinnovativetextbook”(Brown,2001,p.
“Weareneglecting activities thataddress the struc- 16) or community members as “passive beneficia-
tural roots of problems,” Robinson (2000b, p.145) ries” (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000, p. 767) in the
warns. The service work most service-learners par- service-learning relationship, a critical service-
54
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
learning pedagogy engages community partners has created the need being addressed” (p. 15), she
actively to create and define the service-learning continues to invoke the construction of community
experience. Marullo and Edwards (2000) offer need throughout the monograph. We need to recon-
principles that should guide a service-learning struct “need” as a term that invokes structural and
approach with aims of social justice. In particular, systemic problems without blaming individual
the contention that “the resources of the communi- communities. A critical service-learning pedagogy
ty should be developed and expanded as a top pri- brings attention to social change through dispelling
ority (taking precedence over the enrichment or myths of deficiency while acknowledging how sys-
gains experienced by the volunteers)” speaks to a tems of inequality function in our society. We must
service experience with a social change orientation help students understand that inadequate teaching
(Marullo & Edwards,2000,p. 907). and learning resources, a lack of affordable hous-
ing, redressing laws that unfairly criminalize
The Classroom Component
homelessness,the absence of accessible and avail-
A critical service-learning pedagogy asks stu- able childcare, and the unfair distribution of gov-
dents to use what is happening in the classroom— ernment resources (e.g., policing, garbage collec-
the readings, discussion, writing assignments and tion, public green space, among many others) are
other activities—to reflect on their service in the compelling community needsand there is no blame
context of larger social issues. “Such a vision is or shame in acknowledging them as such.
compatible with liberatory forms of pedagogy in Course readings can also reflect a social change
which a goal of education is to challenge students orientation. “Required readings help students
to become knowledgeable of the social, political, examine theoretical perspectives…and evaluate
and economic forces that have shaped their lives whether they adequately reflect the reality of the
and the lives of others”(Rhoads,1998,p. 41). disenfranchised individuals with whom they work”
Students must be encouraged to reflect on the (Roschelle et al.,2000,p. 841). Readings can often
structural causes and concerns that necessitate their invoke voices or experiences not heard or realized
service (Eby, 1998; Roschelle et al., 2000). in service,and raise questions and inspire dialogue
Marullo and Edwards (2000) caution,“If students’ thatcan lead to deeper understanding. The readings
causal explanation of a social problem such as and concepts covered in a critical service-learning
poverty, illiteracy, or homelessness points to flaws course should bring attention to issues of social
or weaknesses in individuals’ characteristics, it is justice and concepts of privilege and oppression.
quite likely that they have missed entirely the Service, itself, is a concept steeped in issues of
social justice dimension of the problem” (p. 903). identity and privilege which must be wrestled with
Dialogue,reflections,and writing assignments can for students to be effective in their service work. A
encourage the analysis that allows students to critical service-learning program is intentional in
understand real world concerns and the systemic its social change orientation and in its aim toward a
causes behind them. Additionally, incorporating more just and caring society; part of that intention-
community knowledge through, for example, ality is demonstrated in the concepts with which
including presentations or co-teaching by commu- students engage in classroom discussions, read-
nity membersinvolved in the service-learning part- ings,and writing assignments.
nership, can provide “insider” information about Capstone experiences can bring attention to
community needs and concerns and make linkages social change through a service-learning experi-
to root causes that may be more difficult for facul- ence. They can be a culminating research project
ty and students who enjoy a more privileged status. that allows students to analyze, propose, and
A discussion of whether the language of com- implement a strategy to address a community con-
munity “needs” implies community deficits and cern. Capstone experiences are most effective
reifies structures of inequality is inevitable in a crit- when students’service involves collaborations with
ical service-learning pedagogy. Acknowledging community members and responds to community-
community needs,problems,and/or issues does not identified concerns. From mistakes and successes,
necessarily imply deficits or deficiency, but rather students come to understand the process of com-
concerns, issues, and resources that can be munity change (Mitchell,2007).
addressed through the service-learning relation- Bickford and Reynolds (2002) argue that the
ship. This problem of language is a challenge framing of service-learning projects and activities
addressed in the literature but not resolved. For in the classroom “impacts both what our students
example, though Brown (2001) challenges that do and howtheyunderstand it (i.e.,whether it con-
framing community issues as needs “suggests that tributes to ‘change’or just ‘helps’someone). The
it is a community’s own fault or inadequacy that frameworks within which we think of our work are
55
Mitchell
not ‘irrelevant’” (p. 241). A social change orienta- traditionally structured, Cooks et al. (2004) argue,
tion allows critical service-learning programs to lead to a socially constructed image of a community
look beyond immediate challenges to more com- in need of repair,with students armed and prepared
prehensive issues of our communities (Téllez, to “fix” what is wrong. Simply by choosing which
2000). A critical service-learning pedagogy moves agencies will be “served” and how and when stu-
beyond simply doing service in connection to a dents will enter the service experience to complete
course’s academic content to challenging students certain tasks or meet certain objectives allows power
to articulate their own visions for a more just soci- to be retained firmly in the grasp of the instructor and
ety and investigate and contemplate actions that students. From this place, we determine “who or
propel society toward those visions. what needs to be ‘fixed’,to what standard,and who
should be in charge of fixing the problem”(Cooks et
Working to Redistribute Power
al., p. 45). Service-learning faculty, who wish to
incorporate a critical approach, must recognize and
Traditional service-learning programs seldom
problematize issues of power in the service experi-
acknowledge the power differences inherent in ser-
ence. Warren (1998) challenges,“Looking at diversi-
vice-learning experiences. Lori Pompa (2002) dis-
ty alone is not enough to truly examine social justice
cusses the undergirding power issues in the tradi-
issues. Diversity often implies different but equal,
tional service-learning approach:
while social justice education recognizes that some
If I “do for”you,“serve”you,“give to”you— social groups in our society have greater access to
that creates a connection in which I have the social power” (p. 136). Too often, the “difference”
resources,the abilities,the power,and you are experienced in the service setting is reduced to issues
on the receiving end. It can be—while benign
of diversity. This action serves to essentialize and
in intent—ironically disempowering to the
reinforce the dichotomies of “us”and “them,”repro-
receiver, granting further power to the giver.
ducing the hierarchies critical service-learning seeks
Without meaning to,this process replicates the
to undo.
“have-have not”paradigm that underlies many
Butin (2003) introduces a “postructuralist perspec-
social problems. (p. 68)
tive” of service-learning as a way to investigate our
An aspect of the service-learning experience that collusion with systems of injustice and viewing ser-
practitioners cannot escape or diminish is that stu- vice-learning as “a site of identity construction,
dents engaged in service-learning will undoubtedly deconstruction, and reconstruction” (p. 1684).
have greater societal privilege than those whom they “Specifically,”he writes,“a poststructuralist perspec-
encounter at their service placements. Whether it be tive suggests that in positioning ourselves as tutors
race, class, age, ability, or education level, and in who give back to the community,we are necessarily
some cases the privilege of time (which may also involved in asymmetrical and static power relations”
manifest as class privilege),students in some way (or (p. 1684). A critical service-learning pedagogy
in all of these ways) have more power than the con- names the differential access to power experienced
stituents in the service agencies where they work. by students, faculty, and community members, and
“Service,because it involves the experience of social encourages analysis, dialogue, and discussion of
inequalities and crossings of the very borders that those power dynamics. Without looking at access to
sustain and reproduce them, facilitates musings on social power and the role of power (or the lack of
alternative worlds; on utopias,not as practical reali- power) in determining who receives service as well
ties,but as visions propelling social change”(Taylor, as what services are provided,the potential of using
2002, p. 53). While some practitioners point to an service-learning as a pedagogy that brings society
“encounter with difference” as an aspect of the ser- closer to justice is forfeited.
vice-learning experience that leads to the develop- Illuminating issues of power in the service-learn-
ment and change desired (Kahne & Westheimer, ing experience is not easy. It requires confronting
1996; Rhoads,1997),wemust be cautious in asking assumptions and stereotypes, owning unearned
students to engage in these experiences without chal- privilege, and facing inequality and oppression as
lenging unjust structures that create differences. something real and omnipresent. Densmore (2000)
Cynthia Rosenberger (2000) contends,“the develop- supports a curricular approach that explores in-
ment of critical service learning, whose goal is to depth both the historical and current relationships
contribute to the creation of a just and equitable soci- between social groups that leads to and reinforces
ety,demands that we become critically conscious of hierarchies of difference in society. Rosenberger
the issues of power and privilege in service learning (2000) seems unsure whether service-learning
relationships”(p. 34). practitioners are prepared to embark upon this
The ways in which service-learning programs are challenge when she asks:
56
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
Is service learning willing to participate in the bers, political advocacy, and direct protest (espe-
unveiling and problematizing of the present cially as actions determined by the community to
reality of our society and to respond to the dif- best serve community needs) can be viewed as ser-
ficult,complex issues of inequity,oppression, vice, and campus resources can be allocated to
and domination? Is service learning willing to
address community needs (e.g.,providing commu-
make less-privileged people subjects and not
nity access to the campus library, involving ana-
objects? (p. 32)
lysts from institutional research in completing a
Hayes and Cuban (1997) introduce “border peda- community needs assessment, operating a soup
gogy”as a means to enable individuals to think more kitchen from a university dining hall). Additionally,
deeply about power relations and their experiences long-term partnerships that begin before and last
with privilege and oppression. “Border crossing beyond the semester and provide opportunities for
serves as a metaphor for how people might gain a continuity avoid the “turn-over” typical in tradi-
more critical perspective on the forms of domination tional service-learning (Brown, 2001). These
inherent in their own histories,knowledge,and prac- actions probably do not go far enough to dismantle
tices,and learn to value alternative forms of knowl- the oppressive hierarchies defining the server-
edge”(Hayes & Cuban,p. 75). served dichotomy, but may provide enough chal-
The very real power differentials in service- lenge to the usual service relationship to allow our-
learning relationships must be exposed in order to selves, our students, and community members to
be critically analyzed and possibly changed question the distribution of power.
(Varlotta, 1997b). Butin (2005) concurs, under-
The Classroom Component
standing service-learning pedagogy as “fundamen-
tally an attempt to reframe relations of power” (p. In the classroom,critical service-learning experi-
x). A critical service-learning pedagogy not only ences look to knowledge from community mem-
acknowledges the imbalance of power in the ser- bers, the curriculum, and the students themselves.
vice relationship,but seeks to challenge the imbal- “Service-learning challenges our static notions of
ance and redistribute power through the ways that teaching and learning, decenters our claim to the
service-learning experiences are both planned and labels of ‘students’and ‘teachers,’and exposes and
implemented. To do so, everyone’s perspective, explores the linkages between power, knowledge,
especially those of community members to whom and identity” (Butin, 2005, pp. vii-viii). Through
power is potentially redistributed, “must be classroom experiences,questioning the distribution
accounted for and eventually integrated into the of power can be facilitated through readings,
service experience”(Varlotta,1997b,p. 38). reflectivewriting,experiential activities,and class-
room discussions. These experiences recognize
The Community Component
that knowledge and understanding are developed in
Service-learning has already been called on for manydifferent ways.
its tendency to privilege the needs of students Discussions about biases, unearned privilege,
abovethose of community members(Brown,2001; and power must figure prominently in service-
Eby, 1998). A critical service-learning experience learning classrooms (Green, 2001; Nieto, 2000;
seeks mutual benefit for all parties in the experi- Roschelle et al.,2000; Rosenberger,2000). A criti-
ence. Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2000) challenge us cal service-learning pedagogy encourages analysis
to view service-learning as a “focus in on us” (p. and dialogue that allows students to identify and
769, emphasis added), recognizing that the prob- challenge unequal distributions of power that cre-
lems being addressed through service-learning ate the need for service. The border pedagogy that
impact all of us as a community. Hayes and Cuban (1997) advocate may create the
In developing a service-learning experience, openness and acceptance of “alternative knowl-
stakeholdersconsider the complementaryrelation- edge” needed to create an inclusive service-learn-
ship between the service activity, course content, ing experience where stakeholders can share power
community needs, and student outcomes. To chal- and challenge traditional power relationships.
lenge the distribution of (and work to redistribute)
Crossing borders of knowledge, and entering
power, critical service-learning experiences
into “borderlands,” where existing patterns of
empower community residents “to do as much of
thought, relationship, and identity are called
the work as its resources allow” (Marullo &
into question and juxtaposed with alternative
Edwards, 2000, p. 907). The service experience in
ways of knowing and being, provides the
a critical service-learning pedagogy need not opportunity for creative and oppositional
mimic traditional paradigms of service. Students reconstructions of self, knowledge, and cul-
and faculty can work alongside community mem- ture… (p. 75)
57
Mitchell
How power relationships are produced and repro- Developing Authentic Relationships
duced should be ongoingly observed and critiqued,
Developing genuine partnerships among edu-
with a consciousness geared toward reconfiguring
cators and their students,and people and orga-
power relationships to reverse current (and expect-
nizations situated in “the community,”is criti-
ed) hierarchies in traditional service practice.
cal to the learning process and to working
Recognizing the knowledge of (and in) the com-
toward social justice…the relationship should
munity by insuring community input is reflected in
be considered as both a means to social justice
the curriculum is important (Brown,2001; Cipolle, and a product of a more just society. (Koliba,
2004). This may be accomplished by bringing O'Meara,& Seidel,2000,p. 27)
community members into the service-learning
Rosenberger (2000) notes, “much of the service
classroom through curriculum development or
learning literature shares a commitment to building
teaching roles,having faculty members engaged in
mutual relationships and to letting members of the
the service experience alongside students, or
community identify the need. What is missing,
“reversing” the service-learning structure by hav-
however,is an approach for creating such relation-
ing classes in the community.
ships” (p. 37). The focus on developing authentic
Reconfiguring the traditional classroom is another
relationships,relationships based on connection,is
way to encourage the redistribution of power.
an important element of a critical service-learning
Disrupting the banking dynamic that is supported by
pedagogy. Critical service-learning demands we
aclassroom configuration with a teacher in the front
and the students in rows can be challenged byhaving recognize the differences in service relationships,
all class participants (faculty included) sitting in a but as Collins (2000) reminds us, “most relation-
circle. Holding classes in lounge environments ships across difference are squarely rooted in rela-
(where comfortable chairs or couches replace more tions of domination and subordination, we have
formal student desks) is another wayto challenge the much less experience relating to people as different
dynamic. A change in the learning environment can but equal” (p. 459). Instead, we must learn to see
introduce students to the possibility that learning our differences as “categories of connection,”
occursin multiple locations. Students and communi- places from which to analyze power, build coali-
ty members may also share facilitation of the class tions,and develop empathy (Collins,2000).
with faculty members,and students (and community Relationships based on connection recognize
members) can provide input into the construction of and work with difference. Connection challenges
the syllabus or the topics addressed in the classroom. the self-other binary and emphasizes reciprocity
These actions can help redefine the meaning of and interdependence. Common goals and shared
teachers and learners (Schultz, 2006). Creating a understanding create mutuality, respect, and trust
“professorless” environment where students and/or leading to authenticity. Reciprocity in the service-
community members participate in reflection with- learning experience seeks to create an environment
out the pressure or influence of a faculty member’s where all learn from and teach one another
presence can also shift the power dynamic and raise (Kendall, 1990). This emphasizes a collaborative
questions about knowledge, power, and identity relationship and seeks to involve all parties equally
(Addes & Keene,2006). in the creation of service-learning experiences
Marullo and Edwards (2000) suggest that com- (Rhoads,1997).
munity members should benefit from the skill “In most service-learning situations, relation-
development (“problem solving, critical thinking, ships are clearly based on difference: I’m home-
organizational know-how, and communication less; you’re not” (Bickford & Reynolds, 2002, p.
skills”) afforded to many students in service-learn- 237). This position makes it challenging to form a
ing programs (p. 907). Shouldn’t (and couldn’t) a relationship based on connection, because the
critical service-learning pedagogy fully integrate express purpose of interaction is centered on the
community members into the service-learning differences between the service-learning student
experience? The distribution of power in this and the community served. Varlotta (1997b) cau-
dynamic could be questioned and reconfigured as tions, “unless service-learners explicitly theorize
every participant in the service-learning relation- the complex relationships between and among
ship viewed themselves as a part of the community servers and servees,one group is likely to become
working for change, as a student in the classroom subordinate to the other”(p. 18).
seeking to build skills for community development, Critical service-learning experiences must pay
and as a conveyor of knowledge—a teacher—with special attention to how relationships are devel-
valid and powerful ideas, experiences, and per- oped and maintained in the service experience. The
spectives to share. challenge is to create relationships that neither
58
Traditional vs. Critical Service-Learning
ignore the realities of social inequality in our soci- understand intellectually the “broad social
ety nor attempt to artificially homogenize all peo- dynamics” underlying the situations of the
ple in the service-learning experience (Bickford & people they serve (the plight of the elderly,
causes of poverty, racism, etc.). Engagement
Reynolds,2002). Varlotta (1997b) warns:
programs require more commitment from their
If students participating in a service-learning students than just fulfilling the required num-
experience are instructed to look constantly for ber of hours. (p. 69,emphasis in original)
the things that make them like the people they
This mandate from Levinson (1990) further clarifies
are serving, then artificial homogenization is
the interlocking elements of a critical service-learn-
likely to result. While it is sure to be the case
that college students enrolled in service-learn- ing pedagogy. Authentic relationships demand atten-
ing courses have something in common with tion to social change and understanding the root
servees,I believe it is dangerous,condescend- causes of social problems. Authentic relationships
ing,and offensive to suggest that they can put also demand an analysis of power and a reconfigur-
themselves in the place of a homeless person, ing of power in the service relationship. Taylor
a run-away teen, a battered woman, etc. Is it (2002) and Varlotta (1997b) might also argue that
possible after serving at these types of “safe- authentic relationships demand a new metaphor for
haven” shelters for college students to under-
service,one that replaces our notions of service with
stand what it is like to be homeless or victim-
notions of community in which all people understand
ized by family violence? Though students
and embrace our connectedness and interdepen-
might improve their understanding of home-
dence. Remen (2000) indicates agreement with this
lessness,domestic violence,and teenage street
approach as she defines service as “belonging.”She
life especially if they reflect critically upon
these social problems and contextualize the sees service as “a relationship between equals,”or “a
specific situations at play,it is still unlikely,in relationship between people who bring the full
my opinion, to claim that service-learning resources of their combined humanity to the table
allows them to “know” what it is like to be and share them generously” (p. 198). A critical ser-
homeless,abused,etc.(p. 80) vice-learning pedagogy asks everyone to approach
the service-learning relationship with authenticity.In
Students cannot enter the service-learning experience
this process, we would develop a shared agenda,
with the false understanding that they are “just like”
acknowledge the power relations implicit in our
the community served. In theorizing complex rela-
interactions,and recognizethe complexity of identi-
tionships, students must be able to name the ways
ty—understanding that our relationship within the
they are both like and unlike the individuals they
service-learning context is further complicated by
work with in the service setting, and further how
societal expectations.1
those similarities and differences impact their inter-
actions at the service site and (should this chance The Community Component
meeting occur) awayfrom the service site. This is not
The service-learning relationship is inherently
to say,however,that students cannot build effective,
complex because of the myriad roles the pedagogy
authentic relationships with community members
requires of students and community members. For
based on connection. As Varlotta (1997b) acknowl-
students,this requires them to move between student
edges, service learners may indeed have something
and teacher roles throughout the service experience
in common with “those served.”Students in service-
(sometimes playing both roles simultaneously). A
learning experiences might use those commonalities
student may be placed in a particular service experi-
to forge relationships with community members,and
ence for the skills she can bring to the agency and
over time, through the experience of sharing their
asked to teachor train various community members
lives,authentic relationships may develop.
elements of that skill (e.g., a student working in a
Some service-learning practitioners view dialog-
computer facility for a job training program). At the
ic engagement as critical to the development of
same time,that student is expected to make observa-
authentic relationships with community members
tions and to analyze and understand the systemic and
(Jones & Hill, 2001; Levinson, 1990; Pompa,
institutional forces that make their service necessary
2002). Pompa sees dialogic engagement as both
in today’ssociety. Community members,on the other
verbal exchange and as the experience of “being
hand,might be asked to move between roles of stu-
together.”Levinson explains:
dent and teacher,supervisor,and person in need. As
astudent,the community member may be the person
Engagementimplies intensity…Programs that
engage students demand not only that students learning about computers from the service-learner at
use their hearts (e.g.,sympathize or empathize the job-training program,and as the person in need,
with clients); they also insist that students that community member may also be (or feel)
59