Indicators of Community-Land Grant University Readiness for Engagement from the Community PerspectiveDissertation DefenseCandidate Cheryl LeMay LloydCommittee Dr. Forrest Toms, Chair; Dr. Elizabeth Barber, Dr. Thomas Smith, Dr. James Zuiches, Community-University Readiness for Engagement1 Agenda

IntroductionStatement of the ProblemResearch QuestionsReview of LiteratureMethodologyResultsImplications & Conclusions

Community-University Readiness for EngagementIntroductory notes.2Statement of the ProblemSocietal ChangePerceived Imbalance of PowerLand-Grant University obligationsInterdisciplinary SolutionsLimited Community Perspective

Community-University Readiness for EngagementThere is an applied and theoretical research gap in preparation for engaged partnerships between universities and communities. This research seeks to create the foundation for subsequent explorations by beginning the investigation of readiness for engagement. 3Purpose & SignificanceCommunity-University Readiness for EngagementConclusion to course, lecture, et al. 4The Research Questions

What do community organizations expect from land grant universities as engaged partners?

What do community leaders perceive as indicators of readiness for engaged partnerships?Community-University Readiness for EngagementA list of procedures and steps, or a lecture slide with media.5The Research Questions

Are the study instruments reliable and valid measures of readiness for community engagement, social capital, and leadership energy?

Community-University Readiness for EngagementA list of procedures and steps, or a lecture slide with media.6Review of LiteratureSociology, Political Science, Public Health, Leadership, Economics, Adult and Higher Education, Indigenous WisdomCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement7Social Sciences/ Engagement Civic EngagementPositively impacts socioeconomic outcomes, democracy, education and health

Social CapitalSocial capital and civic engagement are mutually reinforcing.

Civic Engagement & Social Capital are declining

Community-University Readiness for Engagement8

Social Capital : Influencing Factors

Participation in local community

Value of life

Trust & safety

Family & friend connections

Neighbor connections,

Tolerance of diversity,

Work connections

Proactive social context,

Community-University Readiness for Engagement9Land-Grant Universities & Higher EducationCommunity-University Readiness for EngagementCommunity & UniversityHistory, Kellogg, etc. 10Higher Education / Engagement Engagement Scholarship Academy & Discipline FrameworksCampus CompactHousing & Urban DevelopmentCommunity Campus Partnership for HealthCouncil of Independent CollegesCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement11Expectations of Community Mutually determined goals Shared vision Sharing of data, resources, and risk Strategies based on community needs Peer relationships recognizing experiential credentials Benefits sufficient to justify the effortSystems of accountabilityRoles and responsibilities based on capacity & resources

(Creighton, 2006; Ferman, 2004; Leiderman et al., 2002; McNall et al., 2009).Community-University Readiness for Engagement12Leadership / Engagement Adaptive capacitiesTeam capacityBoundary spanning focusPeer like relationsChanging outcomes

Collaborative/ Integrative Community-University Readiness for EngagementIndividual traitsLeader capacityAssigned roles Fixed & specific outcomes 13Readiness ??Readiness FoundationCommunities prepared to improve networking, leading to effective civic engagement. CharacteristicsSocial CapitalLeadership EnergyCommunity CapacityProgram Specific FactorsUseful service, Access, Equity, Clarity of Expectations, Expertise, Relevant Research, mutually beneficial exchange, ExperienceCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement14Methodology A Mixed Methods StudyCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement15 The collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and involves the integration of the data at one or more stages of the process of research (Creswell, 2008, p 18).

Mixed MethodsCommunity-University Readiness for EngagementExample graph/chart.16Mix Method: Sequential PhasingCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement17The Questions Community-University Readiness for Engagement18

The SampleNC Land Grant University PartnersCommunity Organizational Leaders

N=43

Community-University Readiness for Engagement19Instrumentation & SampleCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement20Data Analysis StrategyPhase I Qualitative AnalysisTranscription, Coding Identification of Descriptive Statistics & Themes

Phase II Quantitative AnalysisDescriptive StatisticsBivarient Correlations Reliability CoefficientsCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement21Results Sample Demographic Distribution Community-University Readiness for Engagement22Study Sample Educational Attainment Community-University Readiness for Engagement23Study Sample Educational Attainment Community-University Readiness for Engagement24Study Sample Race & Ethnic DistributionCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement25Study Sample Organizational RolesCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement26Results QualitativeCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement27Results: Benefits of EngagementCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement28Learning in PublicCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement29Results: Readiness for Engagement Authentic RelationshipsAttention to local interestMutualityCollaborative intentDedicated effort and resourceSpiritual CapitalCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement

30Results: Expectations of University EngagementCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement31Collaborative LeadershipCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement32Results QuantitativeCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement33CES: Measures of Social Capital Community-University Readiness for EngagementP 90 of dissertation34Reliability: CESItem removed: Do you feel safe when walking down the street after dark?Lickert Scale of 20 Items Developed

Cronbachs Alpha .718Community-University Readiness for Engagement35Correlations Community involvement questions reflected highly significant correlations with the construct of social agency (.01)Neighborhood connection questions reflected highly significant (.01) correlations with the family and friend orientation construct. Female responded significantly higher on trust than males.Directors responded more positively to questions of trust and agency.

Community-University Readiness for EngagementCES: p 90, T Test used on director and female factsBivarent Correlations used on significant correlations 36ORS: Perceptions of ReadinessCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement37Reliability: ORSItems Removed-Community ConstructMembers with different backgrounds trust each other. Community residents are willing to cooperative and work together to solve problems.Items Removed- University ConstructStudents provide labor and expertise that is helpful.Office contacts at the university are able to link the needs of your organization and the universityCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement38Reliability -- ORSCronbachs Alpha .714Community-University Readiness for EngagementLickert Scale of 37 Items Developed39Correlations CES community involvement reflected highly significant (.01) correlations with the ORS construct of university partner readiness.

CES neighborhood connection reflected highly significant (.01) correlations with the ORS construct of community readiness. Directors responded more positively tothe effectiveness of interaction, Belief that leadership skills improved as a result of university engagement.

Community-University Readiness for EngagementCES: p 90, T Test used on director and female factsBivarent Correlations used on significant correlations 40Conclusions & ImplicationsCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement41Implications Civic ParticipationPutman, Emler, Verba,LeadershipBunche & HollowayYears of ServiceTrustPutnam, Woods

Community-University Readiness for EngagementEducational AttainmentGender 42 Community-University Readiness for Engagement43Social Capital Organization Capacity Community-University Readiness for EngagementSocial Capital Attracts Organizational Capital Resources, Human CapitalLeadership EnergySocial Networks

Based on work of Foster-Fishman and Fukuyama44Implications Community-University Readiness for Engagement45ImplicationsCommunity-University Readiness for Engagement46 Readiness for Engagement Leader Readiness(Spiritual Capital, Learning in Public)Organization Social , Financial and Human CapitalCapital Accessibility Social Networks Energetic Leadership

Community Leaders suggest that the capacity to engage effectively with universities requires a general state of readiness on the part of the organization that includes much of what we know: social capital, human capital and fiscal or resource capital; however weve learned the importance of leader readiness to be a boundary spanner and to perform in integrated leadership roles, be willing to earn in public and build relational capacity beyond the social graces expected of their position. 47LeMay-Lloyd, C. (2010) Indicators of ReadinessLimitationsPurposeful Sample reflective of Successful experiences with UniversitiesTime Limitations Sample Size restrictiveData reflective of NC publicly funded Land Grant Universities only

Community-University Readiness for Engagement48Work to Be Done Validation of InstrumentsExploration of Member perceptionsExpansion of Population and SampleValidation of Inferred Model: Spiritual capital, learning in public and collaborative leadership as productive & sustainable.

Recommendations Community-University Readiness for Engagement49Questions Community-University Readiness for Engagement 50