El surgimiento de la idea de involucramiento social en la universidad de los Estados Unidos de América

Gustavo Gregorutti

doi:10.56487/enfoques.v34i2.1059

Authors

Gustavo Gregorutti Andrews University, Michigan, Estados Unidos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56487/enfoques.v34i2.1059

Keywords:

Community engagement — Civic service — Social responsibility — American education

Abstract

Since its inception, the American higher education system has been rapidly evolvinginto a highly complex and dynamic set of institutions with a broad spectrumof missions. During the last 35 years, questions have arisen about the relevance of36 | Gustavo GregoruttiEnfoques · ISSN 1514-6006 // 1669-2721 · Julio-diciembre 2022 – Vol. XXXIV – N.º 2 · 35–56their contributions to society as a whole. In this debate, the involved university isborn to interact with communities as a partner to teach, research, and solve commonproblems. This article presents a global description of the emergence of communityengagement, its characteristics, and challenges in the context of the United States.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kathleen Bortolin, “Serving ourselves: How the discourse on community engagement privileges the university over the community”, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 18, n.o 1 (2011): 49-58; Thomas Hahn et al., What is the value of short? Exploring the benefits of episodic volunteering for college students, https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/6634.

Frecuentemente llamada en inglés “the engaged university”.

Susan, Harden, Kim Buch y Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, “Equal status: Shifting scholarship paradigms to fully include community-based research into undergraduate research programs”,

Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education 9, n.o 2 (2017): 48-66.

Por ejemplo, el Modelo de la Cuádruple Hélix. Elias Carayannis y David Campbell, “Modo 1, Modo 2, and Modo 3: Triple Hélix y Cuádruple Hélix”, en Elias Carayannis y David Campbell Smart, Quintuple helix innovation systems: How social ecology and environmental protection are driving innovation, sustainable development and economic growth (Dordrecht, NL: Springer, 2019).

Designó tierras fiscales para la creación de universidades que desarrollaran la agricultura y la tecnología en sus respectivos estados. Esta ley de concesión de tierras fue promovida por Morrill en 1862 y se denominó Land-Grant Act. Dicha ley fue firmada luego por el mismo presidente Abraham Lincoln, ese mismo año, quien buscaba darle un valor utilitario, con impacto económico, al aprendizaje terciario estatal.

Para más información, ver el sitio oficial de Campus Compact: www.compact.org.

Academic Profession in the Knowledge-based Society (APIKS, 2019) representa un consorcio de universidades de más de veinte países que estudian hace más de treinta años el desarrollo de los profesores y comparan sus cambios. Este estudio comenzó bajo la sigla CAP o Changing Academic Profession (Profesión Académica Cambiante).

George Kuh, “The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations”, New Directions for Institutional Research 141, (2009): 5-20, doi:10.1002/ir.v2009:141/issuetoc.

Andrew Furco, “The engaged campus: Toward a comprehensive approach to public engagement”, British Journal of Educational Studies 58, n.o 4, (2010): 381.

Robert Crow et al., “Boyer in the middle: Second generation challenges to emerging scholarship”, Innovative Higher Education 43, n.o 2, (2018): 107-123, doi:10.1007/s10755-017-9409-8.

Carole Beere, James Votruba y Gail Wells, Becoming an engaged campus: A practical guide for institutionalizing public engagement (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011); Susan Harden, Kim Buch y Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, “Equal status: Shifting scholarship paradigms to fully include community-based research into undergraduate research programs”, Journal of Community

Engagement and Higher Education 9, n.o 2, (2017): 48-66.

Kuh, “The national survey”, 5.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, and National

Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Returning to our roots: the engaged institution. Third report (Washington, D. C.: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1999).

Kellogg Commission on The Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Returning to our roots: executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities

(Washington, D. C.: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges,

Office of Public Affairs, 2001).

Dan Butin, “Focusing our aim. Strengthening faculty commitment to community engagement”, Change (noviembre-diciembre de 2007): 34-37; Kellogg Commission, Returning to our roots: executive summaries; Fitzgerald, Hiram, Cathy Burack and Sarena D. Seifer, Handbook of engaged scholarship contemporary landscapes, future directions. vol. 2. Community-campus partnerships (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2010).

Roni Strier, “Fields of paradox: University-community partnerships”, Higher Education 68, (2014), 156 doi:10.1007/s10734-013-9698-5.

Marshall Welch, Engaging higher education: Purpose, platforms, and programs for community engagement (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2016), 59.

Welch, Engaging higher education, 59.

Furco, “The engaged campus”, 380.

Barbara Jacoby, “Partnerships for service learning”, New Directions for Student Services 87, (1999): 19-35.

Para más información, consultar http://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement.aspx.

Chandra Ford et al., “Key components of a theory-guided HIV prevention outreach model: Pre-Outreach preparation, community assessment, and a network of key informants”, AIDS Education and Prevention 19, n.o 2, (2007): 173.

Loet Leydesdorff, “The triple helix of university-industry-government relations”, en Encyclopedia of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, ed. por Elias Carayannis y David Campbell (New York: Springer, 2013).

Amy Kenworthy-U’Ren, “A decade of service-learning: A review of the field ten years after JOBE’s seminal special issue”, Journal of Business Ethics 81, n.o 4 (2008): 811-822.

Ernest Boyer, Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990).

David Hursh y Andrew Wall, “Re-politicizing higher education and research within neoliberal globalization”, Policy Futures in Education 9, n.o 5 (2011): 560-572.

Boyer, Scholarship reconsidered, 12.

Ibid., 24-25.

Ernest Lynton y Sandra Elman, New priorities for the university: Meeting society’s needs for applied knowledge and competent individuals (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987). Estos autores con Boyer y la fundación Carnegie fueron muy influyentes en condicionar las discusiones sobre los propósitos de las universidades.

En inglés, “ivory tower”. Robert Fisher, Micael Fabricant y Louise Simmons, “Understanding contemporary university-community connections: Context, practice, and challenges”, Journal of Community Practice 12, n.o 3-4 (2004): 13-34; Lynn Michelle Ross, “American higher education and community engagement: A historical perspective”, Lasting engagement: Building

and sustaining a commitment to community outreach, development, and collaboration, vol. 1

(Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002): 1-18.

Kellogg Commission, Returning to our roots: executive summaries.

Stephen Wilhite y Paula Silver, “A false dichotomy for higher education: Educating citizens vs. educating technicians”, National Civic Review 94 n.o 2, (2005): 48.

Kuh, “The national survey”, 9; Patrick Yorio y Feifei Ye, “A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning”, Academy of Management Learning and Education 11, n.o 1 (2012): 9-27; Nick Zepke, “What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?”, Higher Education 69, (2015): 693-704, doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9797-y.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education, A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.

Kevin Kosar, Ronald Reagan and education policy (Washington, D. C.: Studies in Governance and Politics, 2011).

National Commission on Excellence in Education, A nation at risk, 11.

Alexander Astin, “Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education”, Journal of College Student Personnel 25, n.o 4 (1984): 522.

Robert Pace, Measuring the quality of college student experiences: An account of the development and use of the college student experiences questionnaire (Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute Inc, 1980).

Vincent Tinto, Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2.a ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1993).

Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Kelly Ward y Jillian Kinzie, “A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success”, Journal of College Student Development 50, n.o 4 (2009): 407-428.

Para más detalles, visitar https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/index.html.

Wolf-Wendel, Ward y Kinzie, “A tangled web of terms, 425.

Kuh, “The national survey”, 9.

Ernst Lynton y Sandra Elman, New priorities for the university: Meeting society’s needs for applied knowledge and competent individuals (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1987), 27.

Lynton y Elman, New priorities for the university, 28.

Boyer, Scholarship reconsidered, 15.

Schon, “The new scholarship requires a new epistemology”, Change 27, n.o 6 (1995): 26-34.

Boyer, Scholarship reconsidered, 20.

Ibid., 21.

Ibid., 23.

Ibid.

Schon, “The new scholarship requires a new epistemology”, 30.

Lynton y Elman, New priorities for the university, 29.

Machael Gibbons et al., The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies (London: Sage Publications, 1994), 3.

Gibbons, et al., The new production of knowledge, 4.

Elias Carayannis y David Campbell (2019). Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3: Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix, en Elias G. Carayannis & David F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems: How Social Ecology and Environmental Protection are Driving Innovation, Sustainable Development, and Economic Growth (Dordrecht, NL: Springer; Henry Etzkowitz y Loet Leydesdorff, “The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations”, Research Policy 29, n.o 2 (2000): 109-123; Benoit Godin, “Writing performative history: The new Atlantis?”, Social Studies of Science 28,

n.o 3 (1998): 465–483; Johan Muller y George Subotzky, “What knowledge is needed in the new Millennium?”, Organization London 8, n.o 2 (2001): 163-182.

Muller y Subotzky, “What knowledge is needed in the new Millennium?”, 168.

Carayannis y Campbell, Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3: Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix, 18.

Frank Gaffikin y David Perry, “Discourses and strategic visions: The U. S. research university as an institutional manifestation of neoliberalism in a global era”, American Educational Research Journal 46, n.o 1 (2009): 115-144.

Daniel Saunders, “Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States”, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 8, n.o 1 (2010): 55.

Saunders, “Neoliberal ideology”, 55.

Henry Giroux, “The disappearing intellectual in the age of economic Darwinism”, Policy Futures in Education 9, n.o 2 (2011): 166.

Sheila Slaughter y Gary Rhoades, Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).

Saunders, “Neoliberal ideology”, 43.

Adrianna Kezar, “Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher education and society”, The Review of Higher Education 27, n.o 4 (2004): 429-459.

Zepke, “What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?”, 701.

Gert Biesta, “Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained?”, Educational Theory 54, n.o 3 (2004): 237.

Biesta, “Education, accountability, and the ethical demand”, 238.

Zepke, “What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?”, 695.

Fisher, Fabricant y Simmons, “Understanding contemporary university-community connections”, 22.

Ibid., 23-24.

Hursh y Wall, “Re-politicizing higher education “, 23.

Robert Bellah et al., The good society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991).

Alexis Tocqueville, Democracy in America (London: Penguin Books, 1835/2003).

Amitai Etzioni, The new golden rule: Community and morality in a democratic society (New York: Basic Books, 1996).

Ibid., 4.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After virtue: A study in moral theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981); Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the limits of justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Michael Walzer, Interpretation and social criticism (Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1993).

Robert Putnam, Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

Christopher Lucas, American higher education: A history (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996).

Roni Strier, “Fields of paradox: University-community partnerships”, 81.

Carol Horowitz, Mimsie Robinson y Sarena Seifer, “Community-Based Participatory Research from the margin to the mainstream: Are researchers prepared?”, Circulation 119, n.o 19 (2009): 2633-2642; Saunders, “Neoliberal ideology”, 43; Zepke, “What future for student engagement in neo-liberal times?”, 693.

Kuh, “The national survey”, 5.