Fluid Practices of University-Community Engagement Boundary Spanners at a Land-Grant University
Saved in:
| Title: | Fluid Practices of University-Community Engagement Boundary Spanners at a Land-Grant University |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Ania Payne, Ronald Orchard, Joshua Brewer, Cassidy Moreau |
| Source: | Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2024 28(3):113-126. |
| Availability: | Office of the Vice President for Public Service and Outreach, University of Georgia and the Institute of Higher Education. Treanor House, 1234 South Lumpkin Street, Athens, GA 30602. Tel: 706-542-6167; Fax: 706-542-6124; e-mail: jheoe@uga.edu; Web site: http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | School Community Relationship, Land Grant Universities, Higher Education, Partnerships in Education, Models, Critical Theory, Guidelines, Social Work, Veterinary Medicine, Housing, Writing Instruction, Community Programs, Trust (Psychology), Educational Benefits, American Indian Education |
| Geographic Terms: | Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas |
| ISSN: | 1534-6102 2164-8212 |
| Abstract: | Research on higher education community engagement (HECE) rarely places university or institutional voices in conversation with the community partners' voices. Boundary-spanning frameworks such as Weerts and Sandmann's (2010) for universities and Adams's (2014) for community partners help boundary spanners, but such models draw boundaries between community and university spanners and the beneficiaries of their work. Contrary to a resource-based view of value creation, which posits that organizations with more resources create more value, beneficiary-centric views see the beneficiary as central to value creation (Lepak et al., 2007). In this essay we incorporate a beneficiary-centric lens into HECE boundary-spanning practices to advance a critical theory of value creation that considers for whom, for what, and to what effect beneficiaries may create value (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010). We advocate for an integrated framework that unites university and community partners and places the beneficiary at the center of all engagement efforts. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1445709 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Research on higher education community engagement (HECE) rarely places university or institutional voices in conversation with the community partners' voices. Boundary-spanning frameworks such as Weerts and Sandmann's (2010) for universities and Adams's (2014) for community partners help boundary spanners, but such models draw boundaries between community and university spanners and the beneficiaries of their work. Contrary to a resource-based view of value creation, which posits that organizations with more resources create more value, beneficiary-centric views see the beneficiary as central to value creation (Lepak et al., 2007). In this essay we incorporate a beneficiary-centric lens into HECE boundary-spanning practices to advance a critical theory of value creation that considers for whom, for what, and to what effect beneficiaries may create value (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010). We advocate for an integrated framework that unites university and community partners and places the beneficiary at the center of all engagement efforts. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1534-6102 2164-8212 |
