Abstract
We examine the variations of how “community” is defined by our case universities in this chapter. Ultimately, we distinguish between two kinds of universities: those we label as having a hard integration with community, which tend towards having a clear notion of communities being served, apart from academic communities, and where there is some level of being embedded; and, those we label as having a soft integration with community, which tend towards having a more loose or variable definition of community and more ad hoc relations with community stakeholders that are driven potentially more by individual interests of academic staff than by institutional directive. We also consider different strategies for engaging with these variably defined communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For our purposes here, we refer to the “black” population as those whose parentage is 100 per cent black; coloured refers to those who are “mixed race.” We base this on the discussion provided by Campbell (2016), which should also be consulted for broader discussion of racial classifications in South Africa.
References
Bauman, Z. 2005. Liquid Life. Cambridge: Polity.
Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., S.L. Barnes, B. Doykos, N.C. Martin and A. McGuire. 2016. Academic in Action: A Model for Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Service. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bryer, T.A. 2014. Higher Education Beyond Job Creation: Universities, Citizenships, and Community. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Bryer, T.A. and S. Prysmakova-Rivera. 2018. Poor Participation: Fighting the Wars on Poverty and Impoverished Citizenship. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Campbell, J. 2016. Morning in South Africa. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Chaskin, R.J. 2001 Building Community Capacity. New York: Transaction Publishers.
Etzioni, A. 1996. “The Responsive Community: A Communitarian Perspective.” American Sociological Review, 61: 1–11.
Fowler, R. B. 1991. The Dance with Community: The Contemporary Debate in American Political Thought. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Fuentes, A. 2018. “Are We Really as Awful as We Act Online?” National Geographic, August 2018.
Gavazzi, S.M., M. Fox and J. Martin. 2014. “Understanding Campus and Community Relationships through Marriage and Family Metaphors: A Town-Gown Typology.” Innovative Higher Education, 39 (5): 361–374.
Hoffman, A.V. 2003. House by House, Block by Block: The Rebirth of America’s Urban Neighborhoods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mittelstadt, B.D., P. Allo, M. Taddeo, S. Wachter and L. Floridi. 2016. “The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate.” Data & Society, 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679.
Putnam, R.D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Riley-Smith, T. 2010. The Cracked Bell: American and the Afflictions of Liberty. London: Hachette.
UC Bridges Program. 2018. http://ucsirveachile.uc.cl/programa-puentes-uc
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bryer, T.A., Pliscoff, C., Wilt Connors, A. (2020). Defining Community. In: Promoting Civic Health Through University-Community Partnerships. Rethinking University-Community Policy Connections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19666-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19666-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19665-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19666-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)