Literature review – Service-learning
2.7 Service-learning and citizenship
2.7.2 Evidence for citizenship claims – edgier approaches
There is thus a great deal of evidence for civic outcomes from service-learning documented in the book (Hatcher et al., 2017). The evidence presented ranges over disciplines and approaches and the variety of understandings of civic involvement and/or citizenship is apparent in each author’s presentation of the state of the research in their field. The gentle approach to citizenship is clear in Bringle, Hatcher and Clayton’s (2006) definition of civic engagement, presented in the 2017 volume:
Civic engagement is a subset of community involvement and is defined by both location as well as process (it occurs not only in but also with the community). According to this distinction, civic engagement develops partnerships that possess integrity and that emphasise participatory, collaborative, and democratic processes (e.g., design, implementation, assessment) that provide benefits to all constituencies. (Bringle et al., 2006, in Hatcher et al., 2017, p. 258)
In the same volume Mitchell and Rost-Banik (2017) introduce a more critical approach to the notion of civic outcomes. Using critical theory, they ‘trouble’ civic outcomes, stating “we must question who and what informs our conceptions of the civic and civic outcomes” (p.
186). The next section highlights research that has tried to ‘trouble’ ideas about citizenship.
Table 2.3 Kinds of citizens
Kind of Citizens
Personally responsible citizen Participatory citizen Justice-orientated citizen
De sc rip tio n
Acts responsibly in his/her community Works and pays taxes Obeys laws
Recycles, gives blood Volunteers to lend a hand in times of crises
Active member of
community organisations and/or improvement efforts
Organises community efforts to care for those in need, promote economic development, or clean up environment Knows how government agencies work
Knows strategies for accomplishing collective tasks
Critically assesses social, political and economic structures to see beyond surface causes
Seeks out and addresses areas of injustice
Knows about social movements and how to effect systemic change
Sam ple Act io n
Contributes food to afood drive Helps to organise a food drive
Explores why people are hungry and acts to solve root courses
Co re A ss um pt io ns
To solve social problems and improve society, citizens must have good character; they must be honest, responsible and law-abiding members of the communityTo solve social problems and improve society, citizens must actively participate and take leadership positions within established systems and community structures
To solve social problems and improve society, citizens must question and change established systems and structures when they reproduce patterns of injustice over time
(Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 242)
Westheimer and Kahne (2004) emphasised that, while it is possible to pursue all three kinds of citizenship, there are likely to be conflicts as goals of compassion and kindness (at the individual level of the personally responsible citizen) may override more justice-oriented goals. They labelled the vision of a personally responsible citizen “conservative and individualistic” (p. 244). Their preference was for the creation of justice-oriented citizens.
They acknowledged that this is a challenge, as even programmes that do focus on justice do
not necessarily result in students who are motivated or capacitated to participate in change processes. They remarked that “the ability to spot injustice is not organically linked to the inclination or the ability to take action” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004, p. 246).
Whilst critical theorists like Mitchell and Rost-Banik (2017) would likely reject the strict categorisation offered by Westheimer and Kahne (2004), they would agree with the focus on social justice and moving students towards taking action. Mitchell and Rost-Banik (2017) argued that “service-learning has not been focused on dismantling social and economic structures” (p. 187). They wrote that while students may be prepared with the knowledge and practices required to produce outcomes for social justice, they are not necessarily taught to reflect on how their actions can unintentionally perpetuate injustice. They also highlighted that a post-structuralist perspective recognises that people can hold multiple and contradictory positions. Indeed, “in research on students’ civic outcomes, it might be useful to consider how multiple and contradictory perspectives and locations can be captured” (Mitchell & Rost-Banik, 2017, p. 190).
Chovanec, Kajner, Mian and Underwood (2012, p. 54) called for “edgier, more radical placement options” for students which will require them to examine the causes of
inequality and injustice. Their research, in a graduate adult education course, investigated the effects of placing students in activist settings. This challenging placement setting was due to their critical pedagogical approach, and in the light of criticisms of service-learning, this promotes particular kinds of citizenship related to a charitable orientation. They found that their students’ perceptions of ‘good’ citizens changed over the course of their module.
These shifts in the understanding of citizenship related to changes in students’ identity, expression and awareness of their own positionalities and privilege in their contexts. They related these shifts to students’ learning from others, a strong theory-practice link in their programme, and the presence of disruptive learning experiences. They argued that
placements that are intense and disruptive challenge students to ask critically engaged questions, and also provide the opportunity for students to experience what it feels like to be denied power, which somewhat levels the playing field between ‘server’ and ‘served’.
Practitioners working in international service-learning (sending students abroad) extend the citizenship argument to introduce the notion of the ‘global’ citizen. Advocates of this
approach (Coryell et al., 2016) have also argued that service-learning in local communities does not offer a “radical enough experience to catalyse transformation in some students”
(p. 422). They therefore offered students the opportunity to do their service-learning in an international post-disaster setting. In their study, they described their students as
experiencing “civic minded dissonance” (p. 431), where a disorienting situation resulted in the students’ preconceived perspectives being challenged. They claimed that their students developed global citizenship by gaining awareness and committing themselves to
responsible citizenship in the future.
Larsen (2014, p. 2) argued that “that there is limited empirical evidence of the
transformation of students into global citizens” through international service-learning. Her conceptualisation of a global citizen also promoted a more politicised approach, comprising two components: awareness and action. She argued that the critical global citizen has:
• Awareness of difference: This citizen is aware of the socio-historical roots of the
‘othering’ process that is the results of colonisation – the colonised other.
• Self-awareness: This citizen is able to acknowledge the limits of his/her own worldview, and is able to reflect on his/her own “positionality, power and privileges” (p. 6). This citizen can then use this knowledge to act outside of his/her comfort zone.
• Global awareness: This citizen has an understanding of social, political, economic, and cultural sources of inequality. This includes a concern for social and ecological justice.
• Responsibility awareness: This citizen recognises that he/she has the choice to respond to inequity and injustice. Larsen (2014) emphasises that this responsibility is beyond helping (a charitable approach) but involves “a deep sense of caring and concern
towards and desire to work with the ‘Other’ in solidarity to effect social change” (p. 15).
Together with awareness comes action in three domains – self, civic and social justice. Social justice action is aimed at “changing belief systems, core and tightly held values and
assumptions with the aim to [sic] transforming institutions and other power structures” (p.
7). Larsen equated this to Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) justice-oriented citizen.