Abstract
Over the past 30 years, the landscape of higher education has undergone dramatic changes, many of which have led to a more permeable boundary between the academy and the world around it. Colleges and universities have been called to collaborate with their broader communities to address societal issues and needs (Boyer, 1990; Campus Compact, n.d.; Carnegie, 2006; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) and, at the same time, to participate more fully in the free-market economy (Nussbaum, 2010; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). As the boundary around the norms and practices of their work in the academy has shifted, this changed landscape has evoked uncertainty and raised questions about faculty’s professional role identity. These questions include, What happens to the academic norms of neutrality and disinterested inquiry when faculty members collaborate with community organizations, public institutions, or corporations with particular perspectives and interests? In what ways might academic freedom be threatened when faculty’s engaged teaching or scholarship challenges the interests of powerful individuals, institutions, or corporations? And, the overarching question, how can faculty maintain both legitimacy in the academy and the integrity of their work with community partners?
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alderfer, C. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Wl. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of organization behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Babich, A. (2011). Controversy, conflicts, and law school clinics. Clinical Law Review 17, 469–513.
Beck, J & Young, M. (2005). The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional identities: A Bernsteinian Analysis, British Journal of Sociology of Education 26 (2), 183–197.
Beloved Community Center of Greensboro (n.d.). About us. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from.
Blum, J. (2010, May 14). Industry targets law clinics. Baton Rouge Advocate.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Butin, D. (2010). Service learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. New York: Palgrave-McMillan.
Campus Compact (n.d.). Campus compact: Who we are. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2006). Classification descriptions. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php.
Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Community and Justice Studies (2001). Draft formulations of the major in Community and Justice Studies. Greensboro, NC: Guilford College.
Community and Justice Studies (2011). Annual assessment report, 2011–2012. Greensboro, NC: Guilford College.
Fahrenthold, D. (2010, March 28). Maryland legislature scrutinizing law clinic over chicken farm suit, Washington Post. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpyn/content/article/2010/03/27/AR2010032702380.html.
Friedland, W. (2008). New ways of working and organization: Alternative agrifood moveents and agrifood researchers. Paper presented at the Miniconferences on “Agrifoodies for Action Research” at the Agriculture and Human Values Society in Austin, TX, and the Rural Sociological Society in Santa Clara, CA.
Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6), 781–95.
Gillette, J. & McCollom, M. Eds. (1985). Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Gould, L. Ebers, R., & Clinchy, R. (1999). The systems psychodynamics of a joint venture: Anxiety, social defenses, and the management of mutual dependence. Human Relations 52 (6), 697–722.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Guilford College (n.d.). Academic program: The five academic principles. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from.
Guilford College . (n.d.). Guilford at a glance. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http://www.guilford.edu/about-guilford/guilford-at-a-glance/.
Guilford College (n.d.). Mission, values, and strategic plan. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http://www.guilford.edu/about-guilford/values-vision-strategic-plan/.
Kets de Vries, M. (2004). Organizations on the couch: A clinical perspective on organizational dynamics. European Management Journal, 22 (2), 183–200.
Lam, A. (2010). From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? Academic scientists in ‘fuzzy’ university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40 (2), 307–40.
McCollom, M. (1995). Group formation: Boundaries, leadership, and culture. In J. Gillette & M. McCollom (eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics (pp. 34–48 ). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Menzies, I. (1975). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense against anxiety. In A. D. Colman & W.H. Becton (eds.), Group Relations Reader 1 (pp. 281–312 ). Washington, DC: A.K. Rice Institute.
Miller, E. & Rice. A. (1967). Systems of organization: The control of task and sentient boundaries. London: Tavistock.
Neumann, J. (2010). How integrating organizational theory with systems psychodynamics can matter in practice: A commentary on critical challenges and dynamics in multiparty collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46, 313–21.
Neumann, J. & Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The challenge of integrating psychodynamic and organizational theory. Human Relations, 52 (6), 683–95.
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Powell, L. & M. Barber (2004). Savage inequalities indeed: Irrationality and urban school reform. pp. 303–20. In S. Cytrynbaum & D. Noumair (eds.), Group dynamics, organizational irrationality, and social complexity: Group relations reader 3. Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute.
Roth, G. (1971). “Value neutrality” in Germany and the United States. In R. Bendix & G. Roth, Scholarship and partisanship: Essays on Max Weber (pp. 34–54 ). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sandmann, L. & Weerts, D. (2006). Engagement in higher education: Building a federation for action. Report of the proceedings for a Wingspread Conference establishing the Higher Education Network for Community Engagement (HENCE). http://www.hen-ceonline.org/hence.pdf. Accessed June, 21, 2011.
Slaughter, S. & Rhodes, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stoesen, A. (1997). Guilford College on the strength of 150 years. Greensboro, NC: Guilford College Board of Trustees.
Stringer, E. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Swords, A. & Kiely, R. (2010). Beyond pedagogy: Service learning as movement building in higher education. Journal of Community Practice, 18, 148–70.
Trist E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations 36 (3), 269–84.
Weerts, D. & Sandmann, L. (2010). Community engagement and boundary-spanning roles at research universities. Journal of Higher Education 81 (6), 633–57.
Zweigenhaft, R. (2010). Is this curriculum for sale? Academe . Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2010/JA/feat/zwei.htm. Accessed June 24, 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2012 Dan W. Butin and Scott Seider
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giles, H., Giles, S. (2012). Negotiating the Boundary between the Academy and the Community. In: Butin, D.W., Seider, S. (eds) The Engaged Campus. Community Engagement in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137113283_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137113283_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-33882-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-11328-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Education CollectionEducation (R0)