Defining
Service Learning
and Diversity
for This Study

For the purposes of this study, we let participants use the vocabulary they were most comfortable with around these issues; we didn't ask them to define terms. As we report the findings, though, it is necessary to balance the use of different terms with writing that is clear and somewhat consistent. So we spend just a moment here to address this particular language issue.

A good deal of the work around diversity issues on campus is understood in the context of multicultural education, and offices of multicultural education are commonly the administrative home for diversity programs. Although the word “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are not synonymous, they are used somewhat interchangeably when discussing learning outcomes and campus climate. Similarly, we use them in this report in interchangeable contexts.

The term “service learning” likewise holds different meanings for people, and some resist even using the word “service.” Some would prefer the term “community-based learning,” others argue for a broader language such as “civic engagement.” Here we mostly use the term “service learning” and are referring to course-based community work done by students. Clearly, the principles, supports, and challenges to this work are applicable to broader work as well, and we want to focus on these broader issues.

"Service learning is not a word most people here... like or use. They like community-based learning or community-based issues better."

History of
Service Learning
and Multicultural
Education Movements

Both the service learning and diversity movements challenge the traditional curriculum and way of doing things in higher education. In other words, both are potentially transformative approaches because they call for radical change in the way we think about learning and teaching. It is apparent that both service learning and multiculturalism are often marginalized on campus. However, there are some differences in how this marginalization gets enacted, and a brief look at the history of these movements can help us understand why.

Multiculturalism emerges from the civil rights movement of the 1960s (O'Grady, 2001); service learning, by comparison, draws from the work of Dewey, experiential education and community action programs of the 1960s and 1970s (Stanton, Giles & Cruz, 1999). Neither movement is monolithic, but both have at least some roots in social justice issues. Indeed, as is discussed in this report, social justice concerns can be the focus of work when diversity and service learning efforts are coordinated. Certainly among service-learning practitioners, there is not general agreement on social justice as the primary outcome of the practice. There is much evidence that other outcomes (enhanced learning for students, for instance) have been the aim of mainstream practitioners. Likewise, some proponents of diversity work focus on the ways in which diversity enhances learning for all students, while others place more emphasis on social justice issues of inequity in educational access and outcomes for different groups.

Although both movements have roots in the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, service learning enjoys a great deal of visible federal support - both financial and verbal - and has grown dramatically in the last decade. By contrast, notes O'Grady, multicultural education with its focus on oppression has received less support and has been viewed by many as “too radical or as divisive” (2001, p. 13). This reality has implications for collaborations between the two fields, and some of this study's findings can be better understood in light of this history.

"Diversity is such a blobby... it's worse than intercultural understanding. It's a fuzz affective, cognitive mix."

"What you'll find is that people are interested in the complete person... is going to influence profoundly what we do in the classroom and with others."

Theoretical
Framework

The literature on intersections between multiculturalism and service learning discusses how both can enhance student learning and contribute to a greater social good. The focus is on student learning, in the context of supporting students' intellectual and social development as they engage in service learning - both the classroom and the community elements. Understanding the pedagogical implications of this work is essential, but what is missing is the organizational perspective on how one integrates the two bodies of work administratively. This study and the larger IDEAS project are designed to explore issues of how service learning and diversity work might be more closely connected from an institutional perspective. Thus, in collecting data for these case studies, we sought to carefully hear and understand how organizational factors such as the leadership, the academic culture, and institutional values work to shape the environment in which both diversity and service-learning work happens. We also heard about the ways in which external forces (e.g. funding) play a catalytic role in these collaborations.

"Diversity efforts are sometimes perceived as add-on, separate from other work of the university."

Methodology

In order to frame the issues from an organizational perspective, we employ a case study method of inquiry. In November and December of 2001, we visited four independent institutions in California, gathering documentation and interviewing faculty, administrators, and students who were engaged in the work of service learning, multicultural education, or both. Three of the universities are Catholic institutions, and the fourth is not religiously affiliated. All are located in racially, socioeconomically and otherwise diverse urban communities. For the purposes of masking specific institutional identities, we refer to all institutions as universities.

Our institutional contact at each university was recommended by the Executive Director of the California Campus Compact. In turn, the institutional contact suggested the people with whom we should meet, and in some cases coordinated our interview schedule. At two institutions the contact was the administrator responsible for the service-learning office, at another it was a vice-president for external affairs, and at the remaining institution it was the academic dean. Thus, this study examines issues from the perspectives of highly involved faculty and administrators and, to a lesser extent, students and community partners.

"I don't see how you can talk about service learning and cultural studies apart from each other."

< Previous Page

Page 2

Next Page »