CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 University Community Engagement (UCE)
2.2.6 UCE conceptual models
In this section, I will examine selected models of UCE, commonly applied in South Africa, to expatiate how UCE has been conceptualized in the literature. These models are not exclusive to the research that had been done but emerged from my searches of the literature. Firstly, three conceptual models that had been developed with regard to UCE focused mainly on the three roles of the university which are research, teaching and community engagement (Bender, 2008; Council on Higher Education, 2016b;
Higher Education Quality Committee, 2007; Onwuemele, 2018; Preece, 2013). The authors suggested the following: Silo, Intersection and Infusion models of UCE which were also recommended by the Higher Education Quality Committee (2007). In conceptualising these models, “community” is viewed as being external to the university.
22 2.2.5.1 Silo model of CE
This model views the conventional functions of higher education institutions that are research, teaching and community engagement as separate entities that operate independently (Council on Higher Education, 2016b). The body argued that CE is considered an “add-on activity and not part of core academic project” (p. 243). Bender (2008, p. 87) described the community engagement in the Silo model as “service learning” that is traditionally construed as “community outreach and student/staff volunteerism”. The Silo model according to the researcher does not integrate CE with the other two roles of the university. Figure 1 is a diagrammatic representation of the Silo model of CE.
Figure 1: The Silo model of community engagement (Bender, 2008, p. 87)
From Figure 1, the three silos symbolize the three roles of the universities, and reveal that they stand independently of one another. There is neither any intersection nor connection among the three functions. In addition, the size of each silo represents the level of priorities that has been accorded to each role by the university. The design of the silo model depicts that research takes the highest priority while community service receives the least attention (Wilson, 2013). In criticizing the traditional Silo model, the non-interaction between research and the community members makes it impossible to have empirical information about the concerns and pertinent issues of the members of the community (Fountain, Patel, & Buffin, 2007). The authors argued that the voices
23
of the community members are not heard and there must be involvement of the community in any university engagement to mitigate the disconnect.
2.2.5.2 Intersection model of CE
In the Intersection model, teaching and learning intersect with the community and service-learning while community-based outreach interconnects with research (Council on Higher Education, 2016c). These relationships depart from the view that community engagement or community service should be philanthropic (Council on Higher Education, 2016b). Figure 2 shows the model as the roles of the university interact with one another:
Figure 2: The Intersection model of community engagement (Bender, 2008, p. 89)
From Figure 2, it is evident that the basic roles of the universities interrelate with one another while community outreach and volunteerism are still standing alone (Bender, 2009). The community outreach programs and volunteerism, according to the researcher are charitable activities, by members of the higher education institutions (HEIs), undertaken to assuage the needs of the community in focus without necessarily involving research inputs. The Intersection model focuses more on the problems of the community rather than emphasizing the promotion of civic social responsibility by staff and students of the university simultaneously (Bender, 2008;
Gibbons, 2006; Onwuemele, 2018). The authors inferred that the one-sided benefit,
24
which centred, on economic gains for the community and excludes social transformation in the Intersection model, constitutes a setback for its implementation.
2.2.5.3 Infusion (cross-cutting) model of CE
The Infusion or Cross-Cutting model identifies two core functions: Teaching and learning, and research for the university and stresses that community engagement must “inform, animate and integrate with most of the teaching and learning and research activities” (Bender, 2008, p. 90; Higher Education Quality Committee, 2007).
The incorporation of CE in research and teaching and learning should strengthen the quality and delivery of these two roles in the universities (Bender, 2008). Figure 3 shows the diagrammatic description of the Infusion model of CE.
Figure 3: The Infusion (cross-cutting) model of community engagement (Bender, 2008, p. 90)
The Infusion model in Figure 3 illustrates the participation, social agency and an engaged university interacting together. The Infusion model allows for mutual gains between the university and the community through teamwork, cooperation and tackling of societal exigencies affecting the communities (Wilson, 2013). For the purpose of my study, the Infusion model despite being integrative and encompassing the core roles of the university did not indicate a roadmap of how CE can be
25
implemented. Therefore, I submit that through this study, a model suggesting how U- CE can be implemented through using a critical pedagogical perspective would be recommended to support the efforts of the scholars before me. My model will be integrated into the Infusion model that identifies the teaching and learning, research functions and community engagement as core functions of a university. Sebeco (2019) contended that the Infusion model of CE makes the community members more involved in the CE projects in addition to the partnership that would have been established between the university and the community participating in the CE program.
More so, Mtawa et al. (2016, p. 126) contended that “the success of university community engagement in fostering social and economic development significantly relates to how much the practices of engagement is foregrounded in the universities’
core policy and practice and how much academic scholarship draws on engagement activities”. This view resonates with my study that advocates for a U-CE with a pedagogy that is aimed at bringing about conscientization among pre-service teachers in a university towards issues of health and nutrition and food insecurity. The PSTs and other students at universities do face challenges which are worthy of inquiry through U-CE.
2.3 Social challenges confronting the student community in the universities