Unpacking the Compact: Exploring Community Engagement as a Community of Practice

Historically, Campus Compact elevates civic engagement and facilitates community engagement across member institutions, yet when Utah Campus Compact (UCC) lost funding in 2018, institutions were left to develop their own capacity for collaboration and networking. Conceptualizing the work of this network of community engagement professionals as a community of practice provides a unique opportunity to facilitate community engagement work across institutions of higher education absent Utah Campus Compact as a convening body. As such, a qualitative study was conducted to interview 11 community engagement administrators across institutions of higher education in Utah to explore strategies for moving forward. Reframing their network within a community of practice, can add legitimacy to their efforts. The most transformative learning experiences can be gained through learning from fellow practitioners and the benefits they bring to a practice.

Unpacking the Compact: Exploring Community Engagement as a Community of Practice Rebecca Van Maren Westminster College A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Community Leadership Westminster College Salt Lake City, Utah May 2020 Abstract Historically, Campus Compact elevates civic engagement and facilitates community engagement across member institutions, yet when Utah Campus Compact (UCC) lost funding in 2018, institutions were left to develop their own capacity for collaboration and networking. Conceptualizing the work of this network of community engagement professionals as a community of practice provides a unique opportunity to facilitate community engagement work across institutions of higher education absent Utah Campus Compact as a convening body. As such, a qualitative study was conducted to interview 11 community engagement administrators across institutions of higher education in Utah to explore strategies for moving forward. Reframing their network within a community of practice, can add legitimacy to their efforts. The most transformative learning experiences can be gained through learning from fellow practitioners and the benefits they bring to a practice. Dedication To all the strong, smart, confident women in my life. Thank you for helping me to learn how to lead, learn and grow. Thanks for your guidance, support and love. May we continue to teach the next generation that they can be unapologetic leaders too. Acknowledgements Thank you to the community engagement professionals at Weber State University and the Center for Community Engaged Learning for your guidance and support. Thank you to the community engagement administrators who participated and guided this work. Without you, this project couldn’t have happened. Thank you to Alexis Buchman and Kellie Mieremet for your years of leadership and mentorship. Thank you to Katie and Merrit for your endless support as we navigated this process together. Thank you to my family (especially Sarah), friends, and colleagues for your love and support as I took on this new adventure. Thank you to Rufo for your love and hugs and unconditional support.\ Contents Unpacking the Compact ................................................................................................................................ 1 Campus Compact .......................................................................................................................................... 1 A Community of Practice .......................................................................................................................... 2 Domain ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Community................................................................................................................................................ 4 Practice ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Membership .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Social Learning .......................................................................................................................................... 6 UCCEN ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Participants ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Appendix A: Recruitment Script.................................................................................................................. 27 Appendix B: Consent Form ......................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix C: Interview Guide ...................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix D: IRB APPROVAL ....................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix E: NIH CERTIFICATE ..................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix F: Initial Comprehensive Review of Literature ........................................................................... 34 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Organizations .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Collaboration........................................................................................................................................... 35 Network .................................................................................................................................................. 35 Organizational Culture ............................................................................................................................ 36 Structural Power ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Communication....................................................................................................................................... 41 Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 42 Social Dilemma Theory ........................................................................................................................... 42 Human Resources ................................................................................................................................... 43 Striving for Legitimacy ............................................................................................................................ 44 Community of Practice............................................................................................................................ 45 Domain. ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Community.............................................................................................................................................. 46 Practice. .................................................................................................................................................. 46 Membership ............................................................................................................................................ 46 Social Learning ........................................................................................................................................ 48 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix G: Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 50 Appendix H: Subjectivity Statement ........................................................................................................... 52 UNPACKING THE COMPACT 1 Unpacking the Compact Historically, Campus Compact elevates civic engagement and facilitates community engagement across member institutions, yet when Utah Campus Compact (UCC) lost funding in 2018, institutions were left to develop their own capacity for collaboration and networking. Conceptualizing the work of this network of community engagement professionals as a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) provides a unique opportunity to facilitate community engagement work across institutions of higher education absent Utah Campus Compact as a convening body. It also offers a unique way of moving the work of the compact forward despite the loss of more than just the name. As such, a qualitative study was conducted to interview community engagement administrators across institutions of higher education in Utah to explore strategies for moving forward. Campus Compact Campus Compact is the only national higher education association dedicated solely to campus-based civic engagement. They enable college campuses to develop students’ citizenship skills and forge effective community partnerships. Resources available through Campus Compact support administrators, faculty, staff, and students as they pursue community-based teaching, scholarship, and action in the service of public good (Campus Compact, n.d.-a). Campus Compact's model is to foster leadership at the top, through the support of college and university presidents to make civic engagement an institutional priority, while encouraging grassroots work among students, faculty, and staff (Gearan, 2005). By cultivating support at the presidential level, institutions have advocates at the table who bring conversations back to the importance of educating students for both employment and active citizenship (Welch, 2016). As UNPACKING THE COMPACT 2 of spring 2020, Campus Compact had a national coalition of over 1,000 different institutions of higher education (Campus Compact, n.d.-a). Utah Campus Compact The present research took place in Utah, roughly eighteen months after UCC closed their doors on June 30, 2018. The organization primarily closed due to the loss of funding during the 2018 Utah State Legislative session. UCC was comprised of ten institutions. An eleventh institution, while not an official member of the compact, participated in many of the convenings and student development opportunities. The research indicates that even with the transition away from the Campus Compact model, there is still value and benefit in sustaining the remaining network of community engagement professionals. This was not the only Campus Compact organization to close or consolidate within a short amount of time, indicating there may be a trend occurring nationally. Responding to this unanticipated closure provides lessons learned and opportunities for growth, change and innovation for peers who also experienced a transition within their campus compact membership. A Community of Practice Understanding the interconnected network of UCC community engagement practitioners from the framework of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) is particularly of use as states across the nation have experienced unforeseen closures and mergers of their local compacts. An ideal community of practice is defined as a group of people who regardless of their job title, share in a practice or something they do while learning how to do it better through regular interaction (Wenger, 1998). Community engagement professionals share a common goal of elevating civic engagement across the nation through Higher Education. Individuals who are UNPACKING THE COMPACT 3 deeply engaged in their community of practice are often eager to share their experiences and knowledge to develop new solutions to complex challenges. There are three aspects to a community of practice: domain, community, and practice, to be explored in depth below (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). Without these three aspects, a group of people cannot be classified as a community of practice. Certain indicators also exist within communities of practice, such as sustained mutual relationships, the flow of information, quick set up of a problem to be discussed, overlap in member’s descriptions of who belongs, mutually defining identities, shared stories, inside jokes or knowing laughter, and jargon and shortcuts in communication (Wenger, 1998). Additionally, as members participate in the community, they constantly negotiate meaning through artifacts of the group in a process called reification (Wenger, 1998). Since the elimination of UCC, the community engagement centers across Utah have maintained connection by forming the Utah Campus Community Engagement Network (UCCEN) housed and funded solely through contributions from one institution. UCCEN has no explicit ties to any national dues-paying organization. Along with the transition to limited staffing capacity, the network experienced challenges in knowing the most effective way to move forward with their new structure. Reframing their network within a community of practice, can add legitimacy to their efforts. The most transformative learning experiences can be gained through learning from fellow practitioners and the benefits they bring to a practice (Wenger, 1998). While the network has been sustained since the closing of UCC, it has struggled to effectively communicate the purpose and value beyond its core membership. However, viewing this organization through the lens of a community of practice can help bring additional UNPACKING THE COMPACT 4 legitimacy to their efforts. By pivoting from a presidential membership organization to one with a core focus for practitioners to learn and grow from each other, community engagement practitioners can leverage their collective knowledge and strengths, without the complicating factors that a presidential membership organization entailed. Domain To be a true community of practice, there must be a shared domain of interest. It is important to note that a community of practice is not merely a network of connections between people. To be a member of the community of practice, there must be a certain level of commitment to the domain (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). For example, with UCCEN the domain would be the realm of community engagement in higher education working to advance the public purpose of higher education. Community Building a sense of community is more than just sharing a job title at an organization. Community members must engage in joint learning activities and discussion to help each other learn and grow (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). Through building relationships with each other, they can learn and support each other. Community members expect a foundation which enables them to learn and interact with each other. Active participation with UCCEN provides ample opportunities for practitioners to learn and grow from each other. One example of this would be their annual Engaged Faculty Retreat during which practitioners present on their work, sharing best practices and sparking ideas. Practice Community engagement practitioners in higher education work to cultivate an engaged citizenry through a variety of methods of student development. Community members are UNPACKING THE COMPACT 5 provided opportunities to share in the practice of doing this unique work, and through interaction and conversations they cultivate a shared repertoire for their practice. Members of this community develop a shared repertoire of resources. These include knowledge, skill, ability, tools, and experiences to address common challenges (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015). As community engagement efforts continue to evolve across institutions of higher education, there are many different approaches campuses and communities may take. Through this evolution from student-lead extracurricular efforts to expanding numerous methods for creating a engaged citizens the practice has evolved. There is a shared language, which can also enable deeper nuances beyond the surface level of their efforts. UCCEN provides opportunities for students, faculty and staff to come together to engage in their practice. Through the conversations they facilitate, multiple approaches to community engagement work are shared. Membership Communities of practice are comprised of learners who have different levels of knowledge and mastery of the knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and norms of the group (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Typically, there is a core group of participants who are passionate and eager to engage their peers. These core participants share their leadership and mentorship with their colleagues, and the success of the community depends on their engagement. These leaders play a pivotal role in the collaborative process, communicating the benefit of collaboration, keeping the conversation going through frustration, and serving as catalysts for ensuring inclusion of a wide range of voices in the process (Chrislip, 2002). Additional roles that often occur include a facilitator, subject-matter experts, and lurkers who are on the periphery of the community and mostly just observe (Baker & Beames, 2016). Newcomers learn what they need to know and gradually become more engaged as they interact with others in the community group (Merriam UNPACKING THE COMPACT 6 & Bierema, 2014). For example, within UCCEN, there are some longstanding practitioners who have been refining their practice for decades. Without these key practitioners embracing the value of the network, it was not likely to sustain through the transition. Meanwhile, across Utah, faculty and staff are hired at institutions who are seeking support as they navigate their new practice. Community engagement practitioners can come from a wide variety of backgrounds, but through finding their peers they are able to gain knowledge on best practices and answers to their questions. Members are also pivotal to perpetuate the community, using intentional invitations to join the efforts and generating new knowledge and renewal. Intentionally cultivating the group is another important aspect to sustaining community engagement practice. This work requires a certain level of infrastructure, resources, commitment and support to sustain at an institution of higher education. This level of infrastructure helps to address the lack of legitimacy and vulnerability that communities of practice often experience when they form outside official departments or organizations. The benefits of community membership often include the opportunities to solve problems, develop new ideas, become stronger practitioners, and build relationships with peers who share a common practice (Baker & Beames, 2016; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). These benefits are exactly what UCCEN strives to be able to provide for each other within their network. Members of UCCEN seek ways to advance this work, and to help strengthen the collective experience across the state. Social Learning The ongoing refinement of practices and emerging knowledge that occurs through the process of interacting is understood as learning. When social interactions are layered along with learning, it becomes a dynamic experience that not only transforms the individual, but also the UNPACKING THE COMPACT 7 structures they interact with (Taylor & Marienau, 2016). Individuals learn in daily life through the movement between and among communities; through those social interactions that carry history, assumptions and cultural values, rules, and patterns of relationship (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Individuals are constantly learning through social interactions, unless they switch to more logic-based problem-solving (Taylor & Marienau, 2016). A focus on individuals and their practice helps to make sense of the social learning that occurs in the world. Through reflection on the practice, communities can leverage more peer-to-peer learning and growing. The primary benefit of engaging in a community of practice is acquiring knowledge. This can be an incredibly challenging thing to assess, and to effectively communicate to others. However, through stories and experiences collected in a systematic way, those challenges subside (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). UCCEN The connections and relationships between organizations create a network. By working together, creating networks, norms, and social trust, participants enable communication and cooperation for mutual benefits, building social capital rather than destroying it (Chrislip, 2002). The individual partners within a collective cannot be separated; synergy or emergence between the interactions of the individual pieces work together to create something more (Hatch, 2011). The collective entity of UCCEN is stronger than any one office or institution doing this work on their own. UCCEN can continue to cultivate the community of practice because of the strong foundation that was established by the many years of the intentional work done by Campus Compact. The network of campus community engagement centers in Utah has continued to enable collective work through the newly formed UCCEN. The network has continued to share UNPACKING THE COMPACT 8 goals and knowledge, and pool resources. However, to sustain this collective work, it is critical that UCCEN adapts to the current environment and resources available, and adopt new strategies for change (Hatch, 2011). Motivated by a belief in a shared mission, individuals are also able to leverage this awareness to cultivate stronger collaborations across organizational cultural differences (Klein, 2017). How new members adapt to the organization and acclimate to the culture also has a strong influence in the perpetuation of the culture. According to Hatch (1993) this is shaped by the beliefs and values of current members and how values are taught or affirmed to new members of the organization. This was evidenced in the interviews I conducted which demonstrated how new members understood benefits and the culture of the group differently based on how they were oriented. Since UCC closed, there have been transitions at all levels of leadership and stakeholders across the network. UCC spent a substantial amount of time cultivating familiarity throughout their network. Many of the capacity-building opportunities they provided intentionally brought key people together from across the state. This familiarity along with the shared understanding of group goals demonstrates that UCC structured their work with cooperation at the core. UCC’s role in clearly articulating and cultivating the shared vision and mission of the group also influenced the network’s ability to sustain this practice. A nonprofit’s mission cultivates innovation, which assists in achieving organizational performance, which in turn connects to the vision of the organization (Liao & Huang, 2016). Without the guidance of UCC, the community engagement center network is experiencing challenges. UCCEN had yet to be able to clearly communicate the purpose of the network to each other, or to those in leadership positions at their home institutions. One of the UNPACKING THE COMPACT 9 challenges in identifying this new direction and purpose is that the conversations have become complex with many stakeholders (Hatch, 2011). This is clearly demonstrated during UCCEN monthly steering committee calls, that have many voices and perspectives chiming in. My research provided an opportunity for key administrators to share their experiences and perspectives in an individual conversation. This enabled participants to share their own perspectives separate from the complex conversations that happen as a group. This transition also provided an opportunity to reconceptualize their work as a community of practice. Methods Data were collected through a combination of archival research and semi-structure qualitative interviews. Semi-structured interviews with community engagement administrators at each institution served as the foundational method for this research project (Johnson, 2017; Kvale, 1996). This way, I was able to elicit their experiences and beliefs related back to the work of the Compact, the implications of the organization no longer operating, and their perceptions of the status of the network. This enabled the interview to be more exploratory than hypothesistesting (Kvale, 1996). Participants Participants in this qualitative research study were administrators of the community engagement centers, or equivalent, at UCCEN member institutions across Utah and consisted of 11 representatives, with one per institution. Criteria for participation in this research project was based on knowledge and affiliation with the efforts of the former UCC. That is, I focused on the key administrators (i.e. community engagement center directors or assistant directors) across institutions in Utah. If the director was not willing or able to participate, I asked them to refer someone else who was also actively engaged in this work from their institution. Efforts to gain UNPACKING THE COMPACT 10 comprehensive perspectives from as many institutions as possible were made, resulting in full representation from UCCEN member institutions. Analysis The semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and coded. The data were coded twice, initial coding with some invivo codes, and then focused coding to identify themes (Saldana, 2013). Throughout the process, I provided multiple opportunities for member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I used a peer debriefer (Creswell & Miller, 2000) to act as a sounding board and mentor. They were able to provide insight and guidance to supplement my community partner, while also not being a direct participant in the research project or employed by any participating entities. Embodiment of the Work For community engagement practitioners, there is a heightened need for learning through the context, tools and social interaction of learners (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). One of the foundational benefits of UCCEN is providing opportunities to members is to learn from each other. Learning through sharing their unique context and exploring the nuances within their diverse operations, is pivotal to their growth. One of the participants demonstrated how engaging with the network is truly an embodiment of the work. Professionals who are trying to advance civic and community engagement and who are seeking to fulfill the public purpose of higher education must also be willing to personally engage for the greater good. However, this is often the opposite of what academia encourages with its competitive nature, so there is tension in navigating those two worlds. If done with purpose and intention, it becomes easier over time to see how they are so interconnected. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 11 I think that to me it's kind of an embodiment of the work that we're doing… It's like if we're doing this for the greater good then it would be hard to justify why we would have proprietary knowledge that we wouldn't share with other people and vice versa...But you know with some kind of assumption that we have a general shared purpose than. Then sharing those resources becomes much more of a comfortable and obvious thing as opposed to you know an exception to the way that we do things. Kieran shared how being collaborative with their peers across community engagement work is different than what people typically see across higher education. For this participant collaboration was core in accomplishing this work and critical to enable collaborative learning among each other. The sentiment that this work is fundamentally collaborative came up through multiple interviews. Wenger also offers an understanding that in a community of practice, learning is “not only a matter of course in the history of its practice, but at the very core of its enterprise” (Wegner, 1998, p. 214). This exemplifies Kieran’s sentiment that learning and collaborating across community engagement practitioners is fundamental to the work they are accomplishing. This also highlights knowledge as a public good that should be shared, rather than a more competitive frame which leads to knowledge hoarding (Baker & Beames, 2016). UCCEN operates within its own domain. As Reagan shared, there are many people doing similar work across campus, but it is their office and their practitioners who are understanding the nuances in the profession. There are some places on campus that think they are doing a pretty good job and are actually providing good charity efforts for students to participate in. But perhaps not looking at kind of the whole picture. I mean, there isn't necessarily strong community partnerships, and programming goals are more to provide students with service UNPACKING THE COMPACT 12 opportunities than they are to meet community identified needs. There are some people who just don't know, and there are some people, including in our top levels of administration, who don't necessarily see community engagement as something that is necessarily important. Kind of a "well, it's nice, but not critical". And I would say really that that is our challenge. This example highlights the spectrum of what community engagement efforts often look like across campuses. It also highlights why the community engagement professionals have their own domain, something more nuanced than the basic understanding of service than the full comprehensive picture. There is a spectrum of best practices, or lack thereof, as well as spectrum of awareness and understanding. There have been drastic shifts in the progress of the profession since the beginning of seeing this work as a valid pedagogy in higher education. This also demonstrates that within the practice of community engagement, there is a dichotomy between the practical and the theoretical, the ideals and the reality (Wegner, 1998). For Reagan they are striving for the best implementation of these community engagement practices, while their counterparts on campus do not have as deep of an understanding and are operating within a different reality. For Reagan they can leverage their community of practice through UCCEN, not through their own campus where they are able to continue to develop their understanding and negotiation of theories for community engagement practices. With such a wide range of practitioners and institutions approaching this work, there is often no other entity on campus doing the exact same thing where they can look to for ideas, guidance, and support. This network of institutions can continue to be that support for each other. By cultivating this community of practice, they are able to have a network comprised of peers that they can explore, question, celebrate and commiserate with through navigating this work UNPACKING THE COMPACT 13 that is ever evolving in approaches, impact, and understanding. It is also important to think about other allies on each campus who could also benefit from these network conversations on community engagement efforts. We see that demonstrated with what Alex shared: They're just they're all awesome. They really are and it does my heart good when I run across them somewhere, like some event or something like that like a student conference for example …They're all awesome and I really appreciate that. Because you know maybe that's it, even being a part of student services here, it's just me. Nobody else is trying to do what I'm doing. But with them, it’s that they're more my family, I guess, than anybody here on campus is [tearing up]. Sorry, I didn't ever think about that, [long pause]. I just love them. I appreciate who they are, what they do. I do, I feel closer to those people than I do most people here on my campus and I work with them day in and day out. And I guess it's just that connection of they are like-minded people. What they're trying to do, what they're trying to accomplish and what they do accomplish. For some participants like Alex, the connections and relationships that Campus Compact was able to cultivate across institutions was indescribable. The intentionality of helping to cultivate individual connections and support was vital, especially for smaller centers who do not have as many peers within their institutions trying to advance this work. This intention for Utah Campus Compact to cultivate the network of practitioners fundamentally influenced how Alex approached their practice and the excitement they felt when they were able to reconnect with their peers. It helped them to feel less isolated and alone knowing they had people they sincerely appreciated, who were genuinely trying to serve the state and to do this work for the greater good. Through this sustained mutual engagement, the community of practice was able to become a node of very tight knit relationships (Wegner, 1998). It is this mutual engagement that UNPACKING THE COMPACT 14 distinguishes a community of practice from a regular network, group or team. Owen expressed that engaging with the network is foundational to being able to do this work. This is critical for UCCEN to remember as they advance their efforts. The nodes of personal relationships are foundational to sustaining this community of practice. After being involved in community engagement work in higher education for multiple decades, they are constantly leveraging their connections to advance their work, seek guidance and support. I couldn't imagine doing this work in isolation. And I've never had to do it in isolation… So for me thinking about what it would be like doing you know those things and in a more isolated sense I can't imagine that because there's been you know it's a weekly if not daily thing or you know I'm picking up the phone talking to somebody from another institution bouncing off ideas trying to troubleshoot something or agreement snafu or you know problem situation that we have with the university with a student or whatnot. It's just kind of I couldn't imagine working without that support network. Owen has been able to cultivate relationships over an extended period working within this profession. As established members of the community of practice, like Owen, they have been able to sustain their engagement across generations of professionals coming in and out of this practice. Knowing that the membership of the community of practice evolves over time, there are ways that learning, and teaching happen through the community (Wegner, 1998). This is demonstrated by how many new members have engaged with UCCEN and had little interaction with UCC before it closed. Members learn within the group by focusing on the problems and challenges related to their work (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). As the network explored possibilities for moving forward, this was a pivotal time for them to reevaluate their operations and innovations for moving forward. For Owen, they have approached their profession from a UNPACKING THE COMPACT 15 position of continual learning from their peers and support network. This approach has helped them to sustain the community of practice and provide critical benefits to their development and their programs. Reagan shared a similar sentiment about the benefit of collaborative learning being at the core of the network. The connections and collaborations that come from engaging in this network are different than what peers may experience in other aspects of the institutions. Just as community engagement efforts are seeking to support and share resources with the community at large, while honoring and supporting their assets and contributions, the same can be said about the operations and benefits of working with the network. I will say it's also been kind of a unique collaboration; I think. I feel like sometimes professional developments [become] more competitive than collaborative. And people want to show off and be praised more than they want to share. And I think that our statewide network has been really good about wanting to share and truly collaborate and share tools and ideas and resources to help each other be better. This collaboration lays the foundation for more social learning to happen across the community of practice. A key component of this community of practice are opportunities where the individuals can share ideas, tools and resources to help advance the work across the state. While communities of practice experience a wide range of complex interpersonal dynamics (Wegner, 1998), many participants expressed a fundamental experience of overarching collaboration. The state-wide network has and will continue to have members experiencing a wide range of dynamics exhibiting power and competition, yet the overarching experience is one of collaboration. For community engagement practitioners, there must be intention and strategy for UNPACKING THE COMPACT 16 cultivating collaborative relationships rooted in a sense of belonging and human connection (Dostilio et al., 2017). This is core to how UCCEN is operating. Providing meaningful opportunities for key stakeholders to engage with their peers is valuable. The key stakeholders within UCCEN are faculty, students, community partners and community engagement center professionals. Each of those stakeholders has peers within the network, and across the institutions that they could be learning and sharing their experiences, questions, and successes with through the community of practice. Within the larger community of practice, there are ways for smaller groups to take place for more nuanced social learning to occur among peers (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). For example, Kieran expressed how valuable this interaction across the network is for them and empowering for them in doing this work. The retreats kind of became for me the refresher of why this work matters. Getting to hear good examples and getting to kind of commiserate with other folks that were sharing similar challenges or getting to share some exciting new thing that we were working on. I think that that's a big part of it…I think that the big benefit was that unifying characteristic where we could say like this is the thing that we all agree on. And then there's a lot of sort of other connections to national conversations and new research and those sorts of things that I think were really empowering for our work here in the department and across the state. Many of the benefits that happened by engaging with the network were found when participants were able to directly interact with each other. It is foundational for members of the community to engage in creative ways to foster new approaches to problems (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). For members to learn and grow with each other, to advance their work and to feel empowered to take their work to the next level is also foundational. Through sharing insights, ideas, and UNPACKING THE COMPACT 17 innovations, members of the group become more effective practitioners (Baker & Beames, 2016). That was also demonstrated with Alex’s perspective on the benefit of engaging with the network as well: The benefit of us being a part of that would be similar to the benefits you receive from understanding no one person has all the answers. And to be able to come together with other like-minded individuals and then do a little brainstorming. Somebody might know something that you don't know. It can be immeasurable it really can…In our work, not only would it benefit the engaged learning we do here on our campus, but it also benefits the institution as a whole because if you better one part you better the whole. As a center with extremely limited resources and staffing, they often cannot make the journey to be in person and engage with their peers because they do not have enough funding left over after all their programming and other expenses take place. They see and understand the value of engaging with their peers, but often are not able to do so. They fully understand the importance this engagement with their community of practice has been on their journey as a professional. For a community of practice to succeed, it must have mutual engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire (Baker & Beames, 2016). For Alex they expressed how valuable the mutual engagement with their peers was for them to be able to refine their practice and have a shared repertoire to their work. It is important to acknowledge that there are unique experiences in Utah, but practitioners can and should also be seeking out additional peers to learn and grow from nationally. This is especially true if the institution is unique in their role in Utah- whether it’s a private liberal arts, land grant, religiously affiliated, community college, Research 1 institution, rural college, or any other aspect that make the institution’s context unique. There are nuances to this work that only UNPACKING THE COMPACT 18 peers with similar context can truly understand. The various nuances between different departments, and different programming and what that looks like specific to each community is unique. This suggests that the community of practice can span beyond geographical boarders, to find commonalities across peers from a variety of backgrounds. To shine some additional perspective on that, Aubrey gives us a great example: When I talked to other people on campus they get it. Whilse we are all at [institution] we're all different in what we do, right. It's nice to talk and learn from people who are doing what you're trying to do at their campus. Because as much as I like being on a team… there's some crossover that we can learn from each other and support each other, but it's not the same. You know they don't have to deal with the academic side of this or that like we do. Risk management looks very different what they do versus what we do…We go to national conferences and there's so much to be learned out there. But there is something about connecting with the people in your state… We should all be playing by the same rules and be in similar situations in terms of funding and outlook and politics and how that works. Aubrey shared some great insights. While there is a great amount practitioners can learn nationally about how to advance this work, there are so many nuances to the context of the work, that trying to figure out who your peers really are can be challenging in trying to advance community engagement efforts. For practitioners of community engagement, their practice is highly contextual and dependent on their environment of practice and the people found within that context (Dostilio et al., 2017). The culture of their communities, and the diversity in thought and approaches within their institution will influence how they are able to advance this work and refine their practice. This is important to note because communities of practice do not exist in UNPACKING THE COMPACT 19 isolation. Practitioners can have multiple memberships across various communities of practice (Wegner, 1998). This similar sentiment was shared by Emily when expressing what this looks like at their campus. To me, it's key. It's so easy for us to get [poof sound] just our own little world and think this is the only way to do things. But I mean, our centers are so different. Everybody has very different needs, and constituencies. And we absolutely need to come together and share what works, what doesn't. Challenges, you know, if we have a turnover in leadership to be able to help support, because some people do end up totally by themselves running a center. I'm fortunate, I'm not by myself. But you absolutely need some colleagues, peers to run ideas past…I had a great experience at an out of state conference. We went to the meeting and [colleague] from [a peer institution] went too. You know now I can call them up on the phone and I didn't have that kind of connection prior to that. And I think the network helps sustain those connections. Absolutely helps sustain those relationships. As Emily expressed, it’s very valuable to be able to make connections that lead you to feel more comfortable seeking out support and guidance. It’s much easier to make the phone call to a peer who you’ve already interacted with than it is to make an initial call to someone new. This informal and spontaneous interaction is core to the nature of a community of practice (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). To be able to connect and reconnect and intentionally cultivate those relationships is how practitioners normalize the peer to peer sharing and the openness that comes from this. Through interacting with other members of the community of practice, barriers to engage with each other are eased. The familiarity members have with each other makes it easier to act on the engagement needed to sustain the community of practice. Getting to know each UNPACKING THE COMPACT 20 other cultivated stronger relationships and created a shared identity. This mutual engagement and development of interpersonal relationships is also a reciprocity of learning (Wegner, 1998). This intentional process of engagement within the community of practice is interactive learning that lends itself to new members to incorporate themselves as a learner within the community (Wegner, 1998). A similar experience was shared by Seth and how they were acclimated to their new position in higher education. This excerpt highlights the mentorship and intentional inclusion that the former executive director of UCC was able to provide for new leaders in the network. The intentional incorporation of a new member into the community of practice influenced how they developed their understanding and the benefits of the network. You know I was trained to hit the ground running... That first year, I think we did our Campus Compact Directors Retreat in May my first year… Meeting people from other universities and we're all doing kind of similar work, but you could also feel like wow it is done differently everywhere, we all do it differently… You know there was that that first evening we all gathered as leaders and I thought oh well here's my team. Like here's my people, like my network I can relate to these people… I just felt like oh my gosh I'm not alone. Cause for a little while, my predecessor was very busy upstairs. Learning their new ropes and things. I just kind of felt like I was on an island. And figuring it out and suddenly felt like I had community and that was a beautiful thing. Again, Seth was grateful for the opportunity to connect with peers as they were navigating their new reality of community engagement work in higher education. They came to the institution with a different background than most. Their experience was typical in that they were brought in to do this work and had to “hit the ground running” trying to acclimate to everything all at once without much mentorship and guidance internally due to the transition. The network was able to UNPACKING THE COMPACT 21 step in and help to ease the transition, to answer questions, and to share ideas as they were embarking on this journey. This intentional incorporation of engaging new members into the community of practice helps to sustain the community. When newcomers join a community of practice, the generations of practitioners shifts (Wegner, 1998). Practitioners’ identities shift with the advancement of relative new timers now becoming the more experienced members. As these different generations interact, some of the history of practice remains embodied in the relationships and structure of the community. Additionally, as new practitioners start to contribute to the community of practice, they are absorbed into the group. There is a stake in the community- everyone agrees to sustain the sense of continuity during transitions (Wegner, 1998). Implications The development and cultivation of community engagement practitioners across institutions of higher education is important as this work continues to be institutionalized and advanced. Leveraging situations where social learning and connections can be made is critical to advancing this work. Knowing that through relationships both across campus as well as throughout the network help to build social capital, continuing to support and provide opportunities for the community of practice to engage is core to the work of UCCEN. Having adequate access to resources and being able to share resources will also be critical to sustaining this community of practice. Bringing New People into the Practice As multiple participants shared, their intentional incorporation into the community of practice was memorable and greatly influenced their perception of the network. As community engagement professionals continue to refine their practice, mentorship is a core attribute. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 22 Experienced practitioners are needed to help mentor the new professionals engaging in this practice (Welch, 2016) as this mentorship can help cultivate nodes of tight relationships that are foundational to accomplishing this work. Along those same lines, a conversation around mentoring should take place. There are incredible practitioners who have been doing this work a very long time. How can they use their knowledge, skills, historical context, and abilities to help mentor and teach the newer professionals? How can the collective network ensure that new community engagement practitioners coming on board are interacting and personally experiencing the benefit and the asset this network can bring to their work? Multiple participants acknowledge how foundational that original connection was. However, sustaining those intimate personal relationships also needs energy. While this network can’t be everything to everyone, there are a substantial amount of staff and campus advocates who could also benefit from these connections. While out of necessity the focus has been on keeping the directors and leaders of the engagement centers connected, facilitating ongoing peer to peer interactions and opportunities for all community engagement center staff, as well as key campus players should be considered. The mentorship from first and second generation practitioners (Welch & Saltmarsh, 2013) can help to incorporate new staff into this profession and culture. For example, due to organizational structure, different offices across campuses are doing voter engagement, or community-based research. How can the network help those individuals connected to their peers on other campuses by leveraging the connections made from this network? The community of practice is responsible for how they respond and react to changes as the solution always comes from within the practice. External forces have no direct power over this production because it is the community that negotiates its enterprise (Wenger, 1998). This is demonstrated by how UCCEN chose to respond to the dissolution of UCC. By pooling collective UNPACKING THE COMPACT 23 knowledge and resources, they have been able to sustain these efforts. As conversations continue to evolve to plan for long-term sustainability, they should keep in mind how much power they have internally for advancing their practice. Finding opportunities for the network to leverage its collective power and assets is core to advancing this work. A community of practice is able to produce their own practice (Wenger, 1998). For UCCEN they would continue to product their practice by sharing the collective knowledge and resources for speakers, professional development, brainstorming sessions, community partnership collaborations, and technology requests. Facilitating low barrier ways for members to connect and sustain their connections and advance their learning is a vital for advancing this work. Conclusion Communities of practice bring a valuable contribution to advancing the public purpose of higher education. Bringing together key stakeholders and practitioners to learn and grow from each other will advance community engagement efforts in higher education. By leveraging connections and social capital across the state and region, practitioners are able to solve problems, share information and coordinate and leverage synergy with their resources. It contributes to advancing conversations and program developments and helps to map the knowledge and assets available to the network and community while also demonstrating where gaps in service and understanding may be. For this network to be effective, it must remember to include the wide range of perspectives and voices across the community of practice. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 24 Baker, A., & Beames, S. (2016). Good CoP: What Makes a Community of Practice Successful? Journal of Learning Design, 9(1), 72–79. Campus Compact. (n.d.). Who We Are. Retrieved from https://compact.org/ Caruso, S. J. (2017). A foundation for understanding knowledge sharing: Organizational culture, informal workplace learning, performance support, and knowledge management. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 10(1), 45-52. Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2011). Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization: Issues, Reflections, Practices. (1. ed.) Chicago: Waveland Press, Inc. Chrislip, D. D. (2002). The collaborative leadership fieldbook: A guide for citizens and civic leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Doerfel, M. L., Atouba, Y., & Harris, J. L. (2017). (Un)Obtrusive control in emergent networks: Examining funding agencies’ control over nonprofit networks. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(3), 469. Gabaldon, P., & Gröschl, S. (2015). A few good companies: Rethinking firms’ responsibilities toward common pool resources. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(3), 579. Gibson, J. L. (1966). Organization theory and the nature of man. Academy of Management Journal, 9(3), 233–245. Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. The Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 25 Hatch, M. J. (2011). Organizations: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Johnson, L.R. (2017) Community- based qualitative research approaches for education and the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E., (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447. Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363–371. Kistruck, G. M., Lount JR, R. B., Smith, B. R., Bergman JR, B. J., & Moss, T. W. (2016). Cooperation vs. competition: Alternative goal structures for motivating groups in a resource scarce environment. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1174–1198. Klein, C. (2017). Negotiating cultural boundaries through collaboration: The roles of motivation, advocacy and process. Innovative Higher Education, (3), 253. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Wiley-Blackwell. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G., (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley brand. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 26 Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1225-1246. Snell, A. S., & Dean, J. W., (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: A human capital perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 467. Taylor, K., & Marienau, C. (2016). Facilitating learning with the adult brain in mind: A conceptual and practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wasescha, A., (2016). The meaning of a compact. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(2), 7–21. Welch, M. (2016). Engaging higher education: Purpose, platforms and programs for community engagement. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Wenger- Trayner, E., Wenger- Trayner, B. (2015, April 15). Communities of Practice a Brief Introduction [Blog post]. Retrieved from wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to communities-of-practice/. Wenger, E., & Snyder, W., (2000) Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review., pp. 139-145. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 27 Appendix A: Recruitment Script Hi Everyone, I’m currently a student in the Masters of Community Leadership program at Westminster College. For my capstone thesis, I want to explore the implications of UCC unexpectedly closing their doors in June 2018. I would like to interview each of you, if you’re willing, to help Natalie and UCCEN understand what are the implications of losing Utah Campus Compact for the community engagement centers? And what strategies and resources are needed for stakeholders to continue to effectively engage in this work? My hope is to visit each of you over the next few months to do an in-person interview (roughly 60 minutes long) at your campus. These interviews will be recorded and then analyzed for themes and compiled into a final report. I am happy to answer any questions you might have. Additionally, if you’re not the best person at your campus for me to speak to, please help me get connected to another representative. My goal is to interview one person from each of the institutions that have engaged with UCC and UCCEN. Thanks, Rebecca 801-915-3630 UNPACKING THE COMPACT 28 Appendix B: Consent Form Westminster College QUALITATIVE STUDY INTERVIEW Purpose of Study I am conducting a small-scale study titled “Unpacking the Compact” exploring the implications of the sudden closure of the former Utah Campus Compact and opportunities with the newly created Utah Campus Community Engagement Network. You have been asked to be in this study because you are involved in community engagement efforts at your institution in a leadership role. Study Procedures Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you decide to participate, Rebecca Van Maren will interview you. You will be asked questions about your experience with Utah Campus Compact (UCC), the Utah Campus Community Engagement Network (UCCEN), or advancing community engagement at your institution. In particular, you will be questioned about different dimensions of your working relationship with the network. If you decide to participate in the study, you may choose not to answer any question that makes you uncomfortable and you can stop the interview at any time. The interview will take between 45-75 minutes. The discussion will be audio-taped so that the information obtained from the interview can be transcribed, analyzed and summarized. Audio-taping of the interview is a requirement for participation in the study. You may, at any time following an interview, see a copy of the interview transcript. Benefits and Risks You understand that you may not personally get any direct benefits from being in this study. However, the answers you give will be used to identify the needs of other networks as well as the current UCCEN, policy makers and other relevant stakeholders. To protect your confidentiality, no identifying information about you will appear in tape transcripts except by your request. Research records will be kept in a secure location and will be available only to Rebecca Van Maren. Your answers will remain confidential; answers will only be shared disassociated with any identifying information. You understand that this study has been designed to keep information confidential, but there is a small risk that the information you provide may inadvertently become known to other people. Questions UNPACKING THE COMPACT 29 If you have any questions about this study, you can call Rebecca Van Maren at 801-915-3630. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board, Sheryl Steadman at [e-mail] or 801832-2164. Refusal or Withdrawal of Participation You agree to participate in this study. You understand that your participation is totally voluntary. You can choose not to be in the study and can refuse to answer a particular question or withdraw your consent at any time. You understand that anything said in the interview is confidential. Consent to Participate in the Study You hereby agree to participate in the qualitative interview/focus group and to the aforementioned terms. ____________________________ __________________________ Signature of Participant Date Name:_______________________ ____________________________ ___________________________ Signature of Researcher Date Name: _______________________ UNPACKING THE COMPACT 30 Appendix C: Interview Guide Intro- briefing, context and plan for our time together. Thank you for taking the time to participate. How have you been lately? How did you get involved in community engagement work in higher education? What does community engagement mean to you? How would you describe the perception of community engagement on your campus? Describe your personal involvement with Utah Campus Compact. Describe the main ways your center and campus participated in the opportunities provided by UCC? Can you provide an example of how UCC supported the community engagement work on your campus? Describe how leadership at your institution influenced your center’s participation in the network. Describe a particularly positive experience you had in working with UCC. Describe any new opportunities or benefits that have emerged with the transition from UCC to UCCEN. What is a key priority or benefit to you for sustaining your involvement with UCCEN? What is a key challenge to you for sustaining your involvement with UCCEN? How has the work on the Civic Action Plan on your campus been impacted by the closure of UCC? What are some key priorities that you’re hearing about on your campus? How do those connect back to community engagement efforts? How do you describe the value or benefit of UCC/UCCEN to new staff in your office? Tell me about a time when you have experienced limited resources and how it influenced collaborations. There are many models for collective work. Tell me about what organizational model you’d like to see UCCEN embrace moving forward. UNPACKING THE COMPACT Are there any national organizations, beyond Campus Compact that we could be looking to for guidance and support? During our conversation, I really heard you talk about ___ and ____. Is that accurate? Is there anything else you would like to share today? Is there anything you’d encourage me to keep in mind as I continue this project? Thank you for your time today, here are the next steps. 31 UNPACKING THE COMPACT 32 Appendix D: IRB APPROVAL UNPACKING THE COMPACT Appendix E: NIH CERTIFICATE 33 UNPACKING THE COMPACT 34 Appendix F: Initial Comprehensive Review of Literature Introduction This chapter summarizes the literature surrounding my research on the collaboration within the Utah Campus Community Engagement Network. The following research questions guided my inquiry: What are the implications of losing Utah Campus Compact for the campus community engagement centers? What strategies and resources are needed for these stakeholders to continue to effectively engage in campus community engagement work? After losing a convening organization that had operated for over 22 years, and the associated staff, how can campus centers best move forward? Themes explored in this chapter include defining organizations and networks, the tension between collaboration and competition, how organizational culture, communication, and structure influence power, the role of human resource development, and how organizations are striving for legitimacy. The theoretical framework of communities of practice will also be explored in this chapter. This framework will help to situate the network of community engagement practitioners with a shared domain, community and practice. Organizations Organization happens when people cooperate to accomplish some desired end state or goal (Kast & Rosenzweug, 1972; Hatch, 2011). Organizations are also complex sets of mutually dependent and interacting variables (Gibson, 1972). Organizations are comprised of many structures including decision-making patterns, processes, authority and role relationships, information-sharing norms, communication networks, and rewards systems (Lewis, 2011). Understanding the roles of organizations is fundamental to understanding the context of my research. Depending on how organizations assemble themselves, different results are possible. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 35 Collaboration Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, and Ganesh (2011) explore the differences between the structures of how organizations work together. Collaboration describes when entities work together with information sharing, programming, and other basic tasks (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2011; Chrislip, 2002). This is pivotal within this context because collaboration leverages community and conversation as the means for creating a society of tolerance, justice, responsibility, and caring (Chrislip, 2002). When entities work together towards a common goal, they can form a coalition where they share responsibilities and might only work together until they achieve their goal. Collaboration and coalitions often take place within a larger structure called a network. These structures happen when the connections become formalized, with participants as just one piece of the larger puzzle where the synergy among the collective pieces is greater than any individual contribution (Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2011; Hatch, 2011; Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004). Collaboration works when it engages peers through skillful facilitation of dialogue, mutual learning, shared responsibility and action (Chrislip, 2002). Network The connections and relationships between organizations create a network. By working together, creating networks, norms, and social trust, participants enable communication and cooperation for mutual benefits, building social capitol rather than destroying it (Chrislip, 2002). Campus Compact is a national coalition of 1,000+ colleges and universities committed to the public purposes of higher education (“Who We Are,” n.d.-a). By calling themselves a coalition, Campus Compact tells us that there are formal connections, and that they strive for synergy within their network. There can be many challenges when navigating a shared resource like a UNPACKING THE COMPACT 36 network. The power and properties within the collective cannot undergo separation down to each of the individual parts. The synergy or emergence between the interactions of the individual pieces work together to create something more (Hatch, 2011). The collective entity of the Campus Compact is stronger than any one office or institution doing this work on their own. The network of campus community engagement centers in Utah has continued to enable collective work through the newly formed UCCEN. With this new structure, there is a facilitator to help support this work, through the part time staff member housed within Weber State. Facilitation in a collaborative process helps to make the work of stakeholders easier in their meetings and conversations. Facilitators guide the process of how the group works together while remaining neutral about the content (Chrislip, 2002). This is important to note, because the facilitator influences the collaboration of the organizations. How facilitation is accomplished influences what voices are heard, and how decisions are being made. The UCCEN has continued to share goals and knowledge, and pool resources. However, to sustain this collective work, it is critical that a network adapt to the current environment and resources available, and adopt new strategies for change (Hatch, 2011). The member organizations in UCCEN operate within a capitalistic structure, leading to competition and limited access to resources. This structure influences the network’s ability to collectively achieve their goal. Organizational Culture As organizations develop, culture is cultivated simultaneously. Whenever two or more people interact, they produce culture and group identity (Hatch, 2011). The created culture influences how collaborations exist. For example, creating a culture of engagement can contribute to motivated and meaningful long-term alliances (Doerfel, Atouba, & Harris, 2017). UNPACKING THE COMPACT 37 Organizations are built by relationships that grow from interactions, the repetition of which provides consistency and helps to ensure cooperation. When relationships have a basis in friendship, reputation, shared culture, and identity they enable greater cooperation and trust (Hatch, 2011). It is important to note that organizational culture exists in three layers: on the surface with artifacts, with its values, and with the assumptions or beliefs and customs (Hatch, 1993). Organizations can adapt and grow over time. However, organizational culture and shared goals can both stifle and enable stability and change. Depending on the size and connections amongst the network, a more tightknit group can cultivate more trust, but also produces less innovation. Culture can connect people through weaving identities, experiences, and memories, helping to develop more familiarity (Hatch, 2011). Processes particular to one culture do not automatically translate over to other cultures. This means that individuals must respect the diverse norms of participating cultures and simultaneously provide a new norm for working together across cultural boundaries (Chrislip, 2002). Participants of a group often perpetuate culture and embrace the consistency that comes from it. As culture conveys established meaning into the future, individuals are constantly adding to the meaning based on their experiences and how this new meaning interacts with the old (Hatch, 2011). This meaning-making continues to influence the culture over time. Motivated by a belief in a shared mission, individuals are also able to leverage this awareness to cultivate stronger collaborations across organizational cultural differences (Klein, 2016). How new members are brought into the organization and acclimated to the culture also has a strong influence in the perpetuation of the culture. According to Hatch (1993) this can be shaped by the beliefs and values of current members and how values are taught or affirmed to UNPACKING THE COMPACT 38 new members of the organization. This impacts the efforts of UCCEN with many transitions occurring, the need to consistently acclimate new administrators into the culture and network influences their understanding of benefits and culture of the group. Since UCC closed, there have been transitions at all levels of leadership and stakeholders across the network. Utah Campus Compact spent a substantial amount of time cultivating familiarity throughout their network. Many of the capacity-building opportunities they provided intentionally brought key people together from across the state. This familiarity along with the shared understanding of group goals demonstrates that UCC structured their work with cooperation at their core. Utah Campus Compact’s role in clearly articulating and cultivating the shared vision and mission of the group also influenced the network’s ability to sustain this work. A nonprofit’s mission cultivates innovation, which assists in achieving organizational performance, which in turn connects to the vision of the organization (Liao & Huang, 2015). Without the guidance of UCC, the community engagement center network is experiencing challenges. UCCEN has yet to be able to clearly communicate the purpose of the network to each other, or to those in leadership positions at their home institutions. One of the challenges in identifying this new purpose is that the conversations have become complex with many stakeholders (Hatch, 2011). This is clearly demonstrated during UCCEN monthly steering committee calls, that have many voices and perspectives chiming in. My research provided an opportunity for key administrators to share their experiences and perspectives in an individual conversation. This enabled participates to share their own perspectives separate from the complex conversations that happen as a group. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 39 Structural Power There are many aspects that influence how a collaboration can be established and operate. For example, identity, legitimacy, capacity, messaging, and material resources all influence collaboration (Doerfel, Atouba, & Harris, 2017). Additionally, how power and authority disperse within the organization influences how collaborations are established (Doerfel, Atouba, & Harris, 2017). There are many different organizational models which put power, meaning one’s capacity to influence someone else, and connections in diverse configurations (Hatch, 2011). This is interesting to think about, especially as UCCEN decided to leverage a steering committee to help move network work forward in the immediate aftermath of UCC disbanding. This steering committee ideally should be managing the process, helping to plan and organize the work of the stakeholders, and while taking no authority for the content of the issue (Chrislip, 2002). This ensures that the diverse group of stakeholders maintain the power to make decisions for the collective. Collaborations and networks often evolve based on resource availability and institutional pressures; for example, formalizing the collective’s ability to source additional funding through grants (Doerfel, Atouba, & Harris, 2017). Competition and conflict over shared resources is manageable through structural solutions designed to control access to resources (Aquino & Reed, 1998). Organizational structures created organically depend on how the participants regulate their activities and interact with each other. However, when structures are designed with intention by people in power, they often organize beyond a functional role and are easily influenced by their larger context, including decision making processes and resources allocation (Hatch, 2011). Both methods can be valuable depending on the context of the organizations and the goals they are working towards. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 40 Over time, funding streams and donors have shifted to require partnerships as criteria for consideration. This can influence the partnerships to be less successful than collaborations that occur organically, with mutual trust and ample communication (Doerfel, Atouba, & Harris, 2017). Trust is dependent on experiences of consistent and successful reciprocity (Hatch, 2011). Furthermore, power is situated differently depending on if the collaboration was a grassroots effort leveraging a network where mission-driven connections lead to the partnerships, or one with an implemented top-down approach in which power is exerted through expectations about participants. This is intriguing, given that Campus Compact recognizes that to create support for community engagement they need both a top-down approach with the presidents, while also intentionally cultivating the network amongst mission-driven community engagement centers directly. Each center has various levels of funding and support from within their institutions as well as from external funders. This concern for funding and the necessity to advance their work influences how campus centers engage with the network and their capacity to do so. However, in order to sustain the network, resources are required and the process for sharing power and resources will influence participation and engagement. Collaborations can also be explored as a social network, with connections between the participants. These participants can be the individuals and the entire organization or a combination of both. Connection is a powerful method of enabling the sharing of knowledge, and supporting the exchanging of ideas, influence, energy, products, and culture. This empowers the collective network to be a producer and provider of the outcomes (Hatch, 2011). Additionally, when entities combine perspectives from the various subcultures of the participating organizations, they foster an environment of innovative solutions and increasing productivity (Klein, 2016). UNPACKING THE COMPACT 41 Communication A foundational part to sustaining the network and working together in collaboration is the communication across stakeholders. Communication occurs through a variety of methods and is more than just transmitting an idea to another entity. Communication goes beyond the words used, the context it is shared in, the tone, or even the symbolic nature of what’s shared (Lewis, 2011). Communication can occur through both formal and informal methods. Formal communication can come in the form of official declarations or letters, implementation of policies, meeting agendas, or other official methods. Informal communication includes methods like spontaneous interactions amongst stakeholders, phone calls, and casual interactions. Informal communication can still be strategic, but lacks the official force of authority (Lewis, 2011). How the network can effectively communicate with each other influences the experiences participants have. Effective communication strategies engage with both the message and how it is conveyed, and prompts stakeholder’s concerns and interactions with each other (Lewis, 2011). This will be valuable for UCCEN to keep in mind. Knowing how to effectively communicate goals, disagreements, and vision for something new can be fundamental to success. How people in power frame and communicate their message can drastically influence how others receive the message, especially in moments of organizational change (Lewis, 2011). A network is diverse in perspective and operations, resulting in communication requiring thought and intention. Who communicates and how communication happens influences experiences of participants? Aquino and Reed (1998) determined that communication is a process-based solution to a social dilemma through two methods of social influence: (1) when communication conveys information and strategizes solutions and (2) when communication is used to normalize culture. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 42 How organizations navigate and create change within their own entities is dependent on the communication that occurs. The communication of the group influences their ability to work collectively to maintain scarce resources (Aquino & Reed, 1998). Organizational communication directly impacts the culture of the entity, including how they approach collaborations and operate daily. With the wide range of stakeholders, more intentional communication is required. Through my research, I was able to explore what communication strategies have been effective for participants of the network in question to feel connected to each other and the work. Communication occurs in a variety of ways and settings and is critical to sustaining the network. Resources It can be helpful to think about organizations as adaptive organisms that are able to adjust to their environment and respond to resources and the need for continual change (Hatch, 2011). The organization explored through my research fits into this framework of organizations as organisms. Utah Campus Community Engagement Network is actively responding to new limitations in resources and the ever-changing environment that they operate in. The community engagement centers that are members of UCCEN do not function in isolation. This requires examination at the system level they are operating within (Hatch, 2011). Understanding how and why organizations are motivated to work together will inform the context of the collaboration. The response of the group to scarcity can also influence decisions. Outcomes of collaboration are influenced by access to resources, and by whether their goals lend themselves towards cooperation or competition. Social Dilemma Theory One factor that helps to determine if organizations can work towards collaboration or competition is their access to resources. The motivation of a group is influenced depending on UNPACKING THE COMPACT 43 how their goals are structured. If they are structured positively it shapes cooperation, or they can be negatively shaped towards competition, according to social interdependence theory (Kistruck, Lount, Smith, Bergman, & Moss, 2016). In turn, social dilemma theory helps to understand how individuals and groups can respond to scarcity within group decision making. Individual decisions, made separately, when individuals strive to maximize their self-interests can lead to collective damage and disaster (Aquino & Reed, 1998; Razmerita, Kirchner, & Nielsen, 2016). This theory informs why individual institutions make decisions for their own future, based on access to their own resources, without consideration for how it would impact the collective. This can be especially exhibited when individual institutions are concerned about their own viability and success instead of the success at the system or network level. Human Resources Multiple aspects of coalition work are based on who is in the room. How collaborations occur is influenced by personal motivations, insights, and contributions. As such, it is important for organizations to invest in their human resources to advance this work. Human resources are the peoplepower possessing knowledge, skills, experience and economic value in an organization (Snell & Dean, 1992). However, the origins of human resources stemmed from understanding that, with the advent of industrialization, employees were left in social disorganization and unhappy. This new understanding led to a redesign of operations to become more humancentered instead of production-centered (Gibson, 1972). Additionally, knowledge is associated with power. A problem occurs when people are practicing knowledge hoarding and are reluctant to share knowledge and skills through the organization (Caruso, 2017). This impacts the ability of collaborations to effectively engage with each other – for example, the ability for UCCEN to effectively engage in collaborative work. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 44 The possession of skills, knowledge, and information that others desire provides another aspect of power. Networks encourage information sharing by empowering those who share what they know instead of hoarding it (Hatch, 2011). Organizations tend to leverage differentiation and uniqueness to manage their organizations and attract human resources and funding. The survival of an organization is influenced by how it is being managed and the donations it can solicit (Liao & Huang, 2015). This focus on differentiation can impact the ability of the coalition to work in collaboration if the individuals view each other as competitors instead of working to achieve the same common goal. This differentiation can also influence the benefits that stakeholders are able to gain through the network. Too much emphasis on what makes each stakeholder unique could overshadow the commonalities and what they can learn from each other and their similarities. A challenge that has faced the advancement of community engagement centers is the limitations of formal professionalism within the field. There are few degrees and certificates for practitioners to gain. It could be more accurate to describe community engagement less as a field, but more as a “unique pedagogical movement supported by a professional scaffold of organizations and associations” (Welch, 2016, p. 26). As the advancement of the profession continues, it is important to note the critical benefit to the advancement of the work where practitioners are able to have dialogue and share new knowledge with each other, going outside the formal higher education system. Striving for Legitimacy Another challenging aspect of collaboration is ensuring legitimacy of the organization. Legitimacy is a social resource on which organizations depend. However, it is difficult for organizations to thrive when they are constantly having to justify their existence in the eyes of UNPACKING THE COMPACT 45 stakeholders (Hatch, 2011). Pressure for legitimacy comes from culture, regulation and desire for success. The UCCEN struggled to communicate its legitimacy to key stakeholders in positions of power. At the same time, not all member institution presidents are willing to support this collective effort. This can be a challenge because informal power can require more expenditure of resources, such as knowledge or making commitments or concessions regarding one decision in exchange for another (Hatch, 2011). This connects back to the administrators of the community engagement centers, who had to decide if it was worth depleting much of their informal power within their institutions to advocate for the role and purpose of UCC. Legitimacy also influences the participation of newer members and their perception of the legitimacy of the network, as well as the overall perception of community engagement efforts at their institutions. The closure of the UCC organization, but preservation of the AmeriCorps Program, highlighted the power dynamics embedded in their organization, and the power dynamics and relationships between the organization and their key stakeholders (Hatch, 2011). Community of Practice Another way to think about the UCC network of community engagement practitioners is through the lens of a community of practice. A community of practice is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger-Trayner, 2015). Individuals who are engaging in their community of practice are eager to share their experiences and knowledge to develop new solutions to complex challenges. There are three aspects to a community of practice: domain, community, and practice, explored in depth below. Without these three aspects, a group of people cannot be classified as a community of practice. Certain indicators also exist within communities of practice, such as: sustained mutual relationships, the flow of information, quick UNPACKING THE COMPACT 46 set up of a problem to be discussed, overlap in member’s descriptions of who belongs, mutually defining identities, shared stories, inside jokes or knowing laughter, and jargon and shortcuts in communication (Wenger, 1998). Domain. In order to be a true community of practice, there must be a shared domain of interest. It’s important to note that a community of practice is not merely a network of connections between people. In order to be a member of the community of practice, there must be a level of commitment to the domain. For UCCEN, the domain would be the realm of community engagement in higher education, advancing the public purpose of higher education. Community. Building a community is more than just sharing a title at an organization. Community members must engage in joint learning activities and discussion to help each other learn and grow. Through building relationships with each other, they are able to learn and support each other. There is a foundation that is expected that enables community members to learn and interact with each other. Practice. Members of this community develop a shared repertoire of resources including their knowledge, skill, ability, tools, and experiences to address common challenges. Community members share a practice of doing this work, and through interaction and conversations they cultivate a shared repertoire for their practice. Membership Communities of practice are comprised of learners who have different levels of knowledge and mastery of the knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, and norms of the group (Merriam UNPACKING THE COMPACT 47 & Bierema, 2014). They typically see a core of participants who are passionate and engage their peers. These core participants share their leadership and mentorship with their colleagues, and the success of the community depends on their engagement. These leaders play a pivotal role in the collaborative process, communicating the benefit of collaboration, keeping the conversation going through frustration, and serving as catalysts for ensuring inclusion of a wide range of voices in the process (Chrislip, 2002). Additional roles that often occur include a facilitator, subject-matter experts, and lurkers who are on the periphery of the community and mostly just observe (Baker & Beames, 2016). Newcomers learn what they need to know and gradually become more engaged as they interact with others in the community group (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Group interdependence, with a foundation of safety, enables adults to relate to and learn from those who are different than themselves (Taylor & Marienau, 2016). Members are also used to self-perpetuate their community, with intentional invitations to join the efforts generating new knowledge and renewal. Intentionally cultivating the group is another important aspect of sustaining community engagement efforts. This work requires a certain level of infrastructure, resources, and support to sustain. This can help to address the lack of legitimacy and vulnerability that communities of practice often experience when they are formed outside official departments or organizations. However, amplifying the benefits of participation to the broader membership, such as community engaged faculty, can help address this, as well. The benefits of community membership often include the opportunities to solve problems, develop new ideas, become stronger practitioners, and build relationships with peers who share a common practice (Baker & Beames, 2016; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). It is possible for communities of practice to not sustain their efforts. Indicators for this often include a lack of core group, low level of UNPACKING THE COMPACT 48 interactions amongst members, and the lack of member’s identification and connection to the community of practice (Baker & Beames, 2016). Social Learning Learning is understood as the ongoing refinement of practices and emerging knowledge that occurs through the process. Social learning is a dynamic experience that not only transforms the individual, but also the structures they interact with (Taylor & Marienau, 2016). Individuals learn in daily life through the movement between and among communities through those social interactions that carry history, assumptions and cultural values, rules, and patterns of relationship (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Individuals are constantly learning through social interactions, unless they explicitly turn off that side of the brain and switch to more logic-based, problem solving (Taylor & Marienau, 2016). It is through a focus on individuals and their practice that helps to make sense of the social learning that occurs in the world. Through reflection on the practice, communities can leverage more peer to peer learning and growing. The primary benefit of engaging with communities of practice is acquiring knowledge. This can be an incredibly challenging thing to assess, and to effectively communicate to others. However, through stories and experiences collected in a systematic way, that can be addressed (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Conclusion When individuals and groups come together to achieve a common goal, there are many dynamics at play. The environment that organizations are operating in, and the culture of member entities, influences their understanding and interactions. Entities’ ability to be interdependent and work towards collaboration instead of competition is influenced by familiarity, trust, and communication. How the organizations are structured can also influence the power and control and their ability to work towards collaboration. Nevertheless, the power of UNPACKING THE COMPACT 49 the collective is based on the people in the room. Their strengths and contributions, and their knowledge, skills, and abilities greatly shape their ability to work together. Finally, organizations are only as strong as their credibility and legitimacy, which can exhaust resources to continually justify. By thinking about UCCEN as a community of practice, we see all these other aspects come together to provide legitimacy and benefit to members who are actively engaging. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 50 Appendix G: Learning Outcomes The Masters of Arts in Community Leadership program seeks to strengthen various skills of their students by the time they have completed the program. Administrators encourage students to have multiple skills and program standards that they find value in, most of which I will be able to enhance through this capstone experience. First, refining my communication skills will continue. Second, through the process of collecting information, and analyzing the data, I will be practicing and honing my critical thinking skills. Finally, the ability to collaborate will be the key to my success. Being an effective collaborator is how I will engage with my community partner and research participants. One of the most critical soft skills in life is communication. This is a skill that can continuously develop throughout a career life. This is a skill where I will always have more to learn and grow. A core skill that I will continue to refine through my capstone project. Being able to effectively engage my interpersonal communication skills will influence my participants ability to engage with me, feel comfortable and build the rapport that will help them feel safe and vulnerable enough to disclose such critical data. This process will also sharpen my writing skills. Realizing that each audience and purpose for writing is different and directly influences how I effectively communicate my point. Already, my formal writing has grown, but still, there are more nuances between academic writing, technical writing, and informal workplace communication. I will also seek out opportunities to work on my public speaking communication skills, building up to the final capstone presentation. A core skill I have learned to appreciate through my higher education experiences is the ability to be a critical thinker. There are not many technical skills that this program has enabled me to gain and grow. However, it has helped me to develop my critical thinking skills and other UNPACKING THE COMPACT 51 soft skills that I will need regardless of where I take my professional career. Being able to analyze information, reflect, and create change all depends on my ability to be a critical thinker, to dive deeper and to continuously ask “why”. I strive to cultivate a strong community. There is value in needing and utilizing multiple approaches to change in order to address the pressing social issues that impact our ability to have a strong community. It is very telling that I’ve studied community in both my undergraduate and graduate programs. However, if we really are going to be able to create the change that I wish to see, then we must be able to collaborate and work together collectively. Even better, when we can leverage each other’s strengths to effectively communicate and advance a common goal. So often, our communities are focusing on individual issues, and not the intersectionality of identities and issues that community members are facing. Through this capstone, I’ll be able to explore collaboration through the network of UCCEN and trying to advance this work. I’ll need to collaborate with my community partner and provide contributions to how the network can enhance their own inter and intra-institution collaborations. UNPACKING THE COMPACT 52 Appendix H: Subjectivity Statement Currently, I work in the Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College. I have actively engaged with the UCCEN since 2017 by annually attending the summer administrators convening and the Engaged Faculty Retreat. I also participated in UCC events while I was a student leader at the University of Utah, and as a community partner working with Weber State University. Given this context, I have established personal connections with other individuals and community engagement centers across Utah. While there were many UCCEN participants that I had interacted with before, there were also participants that were unfamiliar to me, with limited prior interactions. My direct supervisor served on the Strategic Planning Committee for UCC, and actively participates in the newly formed UCCEN steering committee. I observed the monthly steering committee meetings by invitation of my community partner, when possible. I also observed an in-person strategy meeting that occurred in the midst of my data collection. This enabled me to continue to cultivate familiarity with various stakeholders and gain historical context that helped to inform my project. It also helped me to ensure I was up to date on influential conversations and decisions that were made during the UCCEN strategic planning process. It is important to note that the participants of the steering committee may or may not have been the same individuals participating in my research study. I have personally benefited from engaging in a community of practice within UCCEN and find benefits in engaging with my peers who hold the same position at other centers as I do. This inherent belief that UCCEN should continue operating influenced how I approached my project. APPROVAL of a thesis/project submitted by Author(s): Rebecca Van Maren School Department: MACL Title of Thesis: Unpacking the Compact: Exploring Community Engagement as a Community of Practice The above named master's thesis/project has been read by each member of the supervisory committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready to be deposited and displayed in the Westminster College—Institutional Repository. Chairperson, Supervisory Committee: Jamie Joanou Ph.D Approved On 6/15/2020 11:14:56 AM Dean, School: Dr. Melanie J. Agnew Approved On 6/15/2020 4:38:01 PM STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO DEPOSIT & DISPLAY THESIS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY Name of Author(s): Rebecca Van Maren School Department: MACL Title of Thesis: Unpacking the Compact: Exploring Community Engagement as a Community of Practice With permission from the author(s), the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College has the right to deposit and display an electronic copy of the above named thesis in its Institutional Repository for educational purposes only. I hereby give my permission to the staff of the Giovale Library of Westminster College to deposit and display as described the above named thesis. I retain ownership rights to my work, including the right to use it in future works such as articles or a book. Submitted by the Author(s) on 5/19/2020 5:31:18 PM The above duplication and deposit rights may be terminated by the author(s) at any time by notifying the Director of the Giovale Library in writing that permission is withdrawn.