Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate College

2010

Investigating community impacts of a university

outreach program through the lens of service-
learning and community engagement
Mary Susan Erickson
Iowa State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd

Part of the Landscape Architecture Commons

Recommended Citation
Erickson, Mary Susan, "Investigating community impacts of a university outreach program through the lens of service-learning and
community engagement" (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 11875.

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
Investigating community impacts of a university outreach program

through the lens of service learning and community engagement

by

M. Susan Erickson

A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Major: Landscape Architecture

Program of Study Committee:

Heidi Hohmann, Major Professor
Lynn Paxson
Carl Rogers
Greg Welk

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

2010

Copyright © M. Susan Erickson, 2010. All rights reserved.

 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 5
Introduction .................................................................................................. 5

Defining Engagement Strategies ................................................................. 7

Impacts of engagement activities ................................................................ 8

Community impacts: Lack of existing research ................................... 9

Community partners: direct impacts ...................................................... 10

Community development improvements ............................................ 11

Progression of knowledge .................................................................. 11

Access to resources ........................................................................... 12

Community partners: indirect impacts ................................................... 12

Access to new networks and relationships ......................................... 12

Enhanced legitimacy .......................................................................... 13

Fresh eyes to examine issues ............................................................ 13

Further developments......................................................................... 13

Community impacts: affected by partnership qualities .......................... 13

Balance on the benefits spectrum ...................................................... 14

Communities share in helping students learn ..................................... 14

Commitment ....................................................................................... 14

Respect and trust ............................................................................... 16

Recommended Methodologies .................................................................. 16

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY FOCUS AND RESEARCH APPROACH.................... 19

 iii

Need for this Research .............................................................................. 19

Introduction to the research question ........................................................ 20

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................... 21

PLaCE: Context ........................................................................................ 21

Project Selection ........................................................................................ 23

Data Collection .......................................................................................... 24

Sampling ................................................................................................ 24

Interviews ............................................................................................... 25

Interview structure .................................................................................. 26

Interview logistics ................................................................................... 27

Field observation ................................................................................ 28

Research Difficulties ........................................................................... 29

Group One: Larger-scale Planning Projects ............................................. 31

Group Two: Small-Scale Projects ............................................................. 34

Data Analysis............................................................................................. 37

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 39

Theme One: Process ............................................................................ 40

Program Structure .............................................................................. 41

Community-Student Interaction .......................................................... 44

Community Contributions ................................................................... 46

University Contributions...................................................................... 47

Final Report/Presentation ................................................................... 51

Final Document .................................................................................. 54

Process Theme: Summary ................................................................ 56

Theme Two: Community-University Relationship ................................. 56

 iv

Learning Experience for Students ...................................................... 57

Community-Professor Interaction ....................................................... 58

Setting Clear Expectations ................................................................. 60

Relationship ........................................................................................ 61

Community-University Relationship Theme: Summary ...................... 62

Theme Three: Outcomes ...................................................................... 63

Expanded community capacity ........................................................... 64

Use of Report (Group One) ................................................................ 66

Use of Report (Group Two) ................................................................ 67

Enhanced Legitimacy ......................................................................... 69

Holistic themes....................................................................................... 71

External variables ............................................................................... 71

Value to Community ........................................................................... 72

Leadership Changes .......................................................................... 73

Benefit to other entities ....................................................................... 73

General Summary .................................................................................. 74

CHAPTER SIX: INTERPRETATION AND IMPLICATIONS .................................... 76

Interpretation of Study ............................................................................... 76

Methodology .......................................................................................... 76

Suggestions for program improvement .................................................. 76

Relationship ........................................................................................... 78

Implications of Study ................................................................................. 79

Suggestions of best practices ................................................................ 80

Community engagement practices across the disciplines ...................... 82

 v

CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ......................... 84

Recommendations for further research ..................................................... 84

PLaCE program ..................................................................................... 84

Further research on a wider scale .......................................................... 85

Discussion of Community Engagement ..................................................... 86

Conclusion ................................................................................................. 86

CHAPTER EIGHT: WORKS CITED........................................................................ 88

CHAPTER NINE: APPENDIX. ................................................................................ 92
Interview form ............................................................................................ 94
 vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The College of Design at Iowa State University deserves an
acknowledgement for creating and supporting the PLaCE program. This program is
unique in its blurring of the lines between academia and Extension. Few institutions
have a program like this and I salute the College for its vision in offering the
program. Thanks also to Dr. Tim Borich, the program leader for Extension to
Community and Economic Development, who shares a vision for the program’s
value and includes it in his program budget.

This research study could not have been accomplished without the generous
participation of the twenty-one community stakeholders who agreed to be
interviewed. In a time when most people are annoyed by an overabundance of
telephone surveys, these community stakeholders were generous with their time and
took their role seriously by giving thoughtful and incisive comments about their
PLaCE projects. Their contributions to this research cannot be overestimated.

Dr. Nancy Franz provided some helpful data analysis and encouragement
along the way. In addition, I would like to deliver a big thank you to my graduate
committee: Greg Welk, Carl Rogers, and Lynn Paxson, I appreciate your helpful
comments and guidance as the research was designed and written.

Finally, words cannot express my gratitude to major professor Heidi

Hohmann. Your sharp editorial comments, gentle guidance, and supportive
encouragement were more inspiring than you can ever know. For example, you
have a mastery of knowing when to use a sharp pen, and when a word of
compliment is the more appropriate tool. Your editorial skills are second to none.
Thank you for all of your support of this research.
 vii

ABSTRACT
Higher education has been encouraged to become more engaged with its
constituent communities in recent years. This encouragement has come from many
sources—state legislatures, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and
Land-grant Universities, and through the establishment of designations such as the
Carnegie Community Engagement Classification. As a result, service-learning and
community engagement activities have grown over the last two decades and
recommendations for best practices have emerged. However, very little study has
focused on the communities being engaged in these efforts. Do they receive
benefits from student involvement and if so, how can those benefits be defined?

This research investigated community impacts of the PLaCE (Partnering

Landscape and Community Enhancement) program at Iowa State University’s
College of Design. The research involved interviews with stakeholders from
communities where engagement activities had taken place. Research results
indicated that communities benefitted in several ways from student and university
involvement of the PLaCE program. These included physical improvements to the
community, expanded community capacity, increased project legitimacy, and
stimulation of local dialogue, activities, and creative capacity. Some suggestions for
maximizing program outcomes and for targeting further research emerged, such as
assessment of a community’s level of support and determining what constitutes a
meaningful project conclusion.
 1

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

What would we hear if we listened to community partners about

their experiences in partnering with academic institutions? (Sandy &
Holland, 2006)

Engagement of students in learning activities with community partners as part

of their academic experience has become increasingly prevalent in today’s
educational settings. From kindergarten classrooms through high schools and
continuing on into higher education institutions, service-learning and other forms of
community engagement are accepted elements of academia.

Service to communities as part of the educational experience is not a new

idea. John Dewey and others promoted “learning by doing” and linked service to
personal and social development in the early 1900s (Duckenfield & Wright, 1995).
Service programs such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Retired Senior
Volunteer Program, and the Peace Corps were formed and developed through the
twentieth century. A new wave of student engagement programs began in the
1980s as Campus Compact, the Campus Outreach Opportunity League, and Youth
Service America were formed. In 1989-1990 President Bush created the Office of
National Service in the White House (www.servicelearning.org).

As the phenomenon of student service in communities has become more

widespread, a field of scholarship has emerged that describes and encourages this
work. Several peer-reviewed journals now focus on the topic and conferences are
available for presenting and learning about best practices. Many universities have
upper-administration-level offices for service-learning, although the title may vary,
usually including some combination or selection from of the words “outreach,
service, and community engagement”.

The premise of engaging students in service with community partners is

based on an assumption of mutual exchange, where both parties, students and
 2

community organizations, give and receive something of value. Today, scholars are
in general agreement that participation in service-learning activities enhances
educational outcomes for students; they also agree on a core set of best practices to
create these outcomes (Eyler & Giles, 1999). However, there has been very little
research about community outcomes of service-learning. Therefore no consensus
has been achieved about what constitutes best practices for the community
partners, or even what types of benefits might accrue to communities that participate
in these mutual exchanges with academic partners (Cruz & Giles, 2000) .

There are many reasons for this lack of research. Introducing community as
a variable makes empirical research difficult due to increased complexity (Cruz &
Giles, 2000). Examples of complexity include cultural differences, geography, and
the wide range of personality types in any community. In addition, scholarship from
the education field has traditionally focused on students and pedagogy, and thus it is
understandable that investigation of community impacts would lag behind other lines
of inquiry in the field’s research agenda. Indeed, scholarly inquiry into the
phenomena of service-learning and community engagement is in its infancy and is
just beginning to move beyond its early stages to more advanced levels of inquiry.

In an effort to add to the scholarship of engagement, this research looked

through the lens of service-learning and community engagement to explore
community impacts of one university’s program that matches student classroom
projects with community development needs. I hope this research will begin a
dialogue in the research community about methods for including community impacts
when studying service-learning and community engagement.

The program selected is based at Iowa State University’s College of Design.

The College, along with its unit for Extension to Community and Economic
Development, sponsors the PLaCE (Partnering Landscape and Community
Enhancement) program. Through this program, community needs are addressed by
design students in classroom settings or in research settings. The College of Design
 3

includes the disciplines of Architecture, Community and Regional Planning, Graphic

Design, Interior Design, Integrated Studio Arts, and Landscape Architecture

Objectives of the PLaCE program as stated by the College of Design are:

• Provide learning experiences for students outside the classroom;

• Help applicants explore enhancement options,
• Learn how design positively affects change
• Create an environment in which communities and organizations may
work more effectively with design practitioners, and
• Assist applicants in establishing and refining goals and expectations
(Design, 2008).
When these objectives were written during program formation in 2000, no
explicit mention was made of service-learning. However, a comprehensive look at
the program shows that the principles of service-learning and community
engagement are implicitly a part of the program’s mission and general focus.

One focus of this program is to address community development needs

through student academic projects. This particular program focus begs the inclusion
of service-learning principles, because of its benefits for students and communities
alike. Some anecdotal research from this program suggests that student learning
outcomes and engagement with curriculum are both improved by exposure to real
world projects and by interactions with community members. The anecdotal
evidence agrees with the body of scholarship indicating improved learning outcomes
when students are engaged in service to communities (Butler & Erickson, in
process).

The focus of this thesis research was to investigate community impacts of

university involvement in communities through the PLaCE program. The research
was exploratory in nature due to the lack of prior research in the field. Initial inquiry
focused on primary impacts—did the community proceed with developing the park
that students designed? How many business owners gave their storefront a
makeover after students provided them with new designs? Did the city administrator
 4

use the updated comprehensive plan to guide decision-making? This initial inquiry
expanded to include a wider range of questions—did attitudes change within the city
after involvement with university students and faculty? What parts of the PLaCE
program process were linked to community satisfaction? Was the final project report
useful? Were there changes the university could have made to provide better
outcomes for the community?

Research conclusions indicated the importance of ongoing relationships

cannot be underestimated. Good communication and clear expectations laid a
strong foundation for positive community impacts. Research findings will be useful
to enhance and improve processes for the PLaCE program and may also be useful
to other service-learning and community engagement efforts at Iowa State University
and at other institutions.
 5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
The mission of higher education has traditionally been focused on three core
areas: teaching, research, and service. The service component has taken many
forms over time. At Iowa State University, the first Extension Service was formed in
1903, some eleven years before the Smith-Lever Act formed the national Extension
Service. The mission of this organization since its inception, and continuing today, is
to extend the university’s knowledge to people throughout the state. In its
beginnings the Extension Service focused on promoting best techniques for farming
practices, helping to ensure good crops and promoting healthy economies and
communities through the state.

The service component of higher education followed this pattern for many
years. Experts from the university would visit a community, impart their knowledge,
pack up their visual aids, and return to the university. Through the years the visual
aids changed from printed bulletins and posters to overhead projectors and then
slide projectors, but the service model of university expertise shared with community
did not change significantly.

Through the twentieth century, universities became more focused on

research and publishing efforts. This was understandable since university promotion
and reward structures and grant funding agencies rewarded these practices (Kerr,
2001). Eventually, the public felt they were not as closely linked with their
institutions of higher learning. In response to public criticism that universities had
become less responsive and out of touch with societal issues, the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC, recently
renamed Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU)) formed a study
commission. The study effort was supported by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation and is commonly called the Kellogg Commission. The group was
 6

charged with defining the direction public universities should go in order to respond
to those public criticisms and with recommending an action agenda to speed up the
process of change (Kellogg Commission 2001). Within this report, the three
traditional missions of teaching, research, and service were redefined as discovery,
learning, and engagement.

The Kellogg Commission also stated that if academic institutions are to

remain viable and valuable to their constituencies in the future, those institutions
would need to become much more highly engaged. The Kellogg Commission
defined engaged institutions as ones that have “redesigned their teaching, research,
and extension and service functions to become more sympathetically and
productively involved with their communities, however community may be defined”.

As reported by the commission, an engaged academic institution should have

seven characteristics:

• responsiveness to communities
• respect for partners
• academic neutrality
• accessibility
• integration of service mission with responsibility for developing
intellectual capital and trained intelligence
• coordination (within university)
• resource partnerships (with government, business, and nonprofit
organizations) (Kellogg Commission, 2001)
If adherence to these seven characteristics creates a better academic
institution that is in turn valuable to its communities and provides a better education
to its students through community engagement, developing a complete
understanding of the effects of community-university interactions becomes
important.

Community engagement efforts are crafted using a variety of strategies, which

vary across academic disciplines, community partner organizations, faculty
members, students, community cultures, and other variables. Those strategies are
 7

called by many names—outreach, service-learning, community-based participatory

research, public scholarship, and others (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Chusid, 2007;
Driskell, 2007; Francis et al., 1984; Jost, 2008; Sanoff, 2000). Each strategy has a
peculiar expression that has been studied by its proponents.

Defining Engagement Strategies

Sandmann (2008) wrote an entire paper seeking to clarify this definitional
anarchy in the scholarship of engagement. She cited a trend in the literature
whereby engagement scholars argue for expanding the traditional concept of service
and outreach to embrace engagement, which emphasizes bidirectional interactions,
reciprocity, and mutual respect instead of one-way assistance or direction.

Townson (2009) similarly worked to clarify the definitional anarchy. She

described a continuum beginning with traditional faculty service and continuing to
engaged scholarship. The continuum begins with service, which contributes to the
mission of the institution, such as serving on committees or boards. A mid-point on
the continuum is outreach, which is characterized by one-way interaction with a
community, is expert-based, and is not typically driven by research questions. Fully
engaged scholarship, then, is characterized as mutually beneficial, contributing new
knowledge or application to a discipline, and driven by significant research
questions.

Over the two decades 1990-2010 the general field of community engagement
has been refined, strengthened, and sharpened. New views of best practices have
been described and recommendations for further research have been shared. The
definitional anarchy will likely be present until further agreement is reached and
theory of engagement begins to be developed.

Until then, the different activities and the different names they are given—
outreach, service-learning, participatory action research, will continue to be practiced
and will be subjects of academic publishing. Each discipline and each faculty
member practices community engagement in slightly different ways, but community
 8

engagement that is well done will contain certain components: student engagement
within a community setting, a goal of meeting identified community needs, and
student achievement of a deeper understanding of academic course content.
These activities may cover a wide range—from large-scale, top-down, long-range
and highly orchestrated programs to localized, intimate, short-term and intentionally
functional research (Ibanez-Carrasco & Riano-Alcala, 2009).

Impacts of engagement activities

Community-university partnerships and service-learning activities are
generally understood to involve and benefit four audiences:

• Educational institutions
• Faculty
• Students
• Communities (Ferman & Hill, 2004; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000).

Service-learning and volunteerism are of benefit to students for career

preparation, awareness of community problems, and the connection of theory to
practice. For faculty, service is a way to apply theory and knowledge to local
problems. For administrators of educational institutions, service is a way to improve
relationships between campus and community. Service to the community is a way
for campuses to address public perception that higher education exists for its own
good (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000).

A review of the service-learning literature yielded strong evidence that

incorporating service-learning into the curriculum strengthens student academic
achievement and promotes student engagement. (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Cruz &
Giles, 2000; Eyler & Giles, 1999; (Jost, 2008); Sanoff, 2000; Tai, Haque, McLellan,&
Knight, 2006) It has a positive impact on academic learning and critical thinking,
improves students’ ability to apply what they have learned in “the real world”, and
contributes to career development (Chusid, 2007; Driskell, 2007; Eyler & Giles,
1999; Eyler, Giles, Stenson, & Gray, 2001).
 9

Another goal of service-learning, which often goes unstated, is that service-

learning activities will provide some benefit to the community (Eyler et al., 2001;
Sandy & Holland, 2006). However, community impacts relative to service-learning
have been largely unexplored in academic literature.

Community impacts: Lack of existing research

The lack of research about impacts in the community has been noted by
several authors. Howard noted that researchers currently know the most about the
effects of service-learning on students, a bit less about service-learning’s effect on
faculty, less still about its effect on schools, colleges, and universities, and virtually
nothing about the effects of students’ service-learning efforts on communities and
community members (Howard, 2003).

Other researchers warned that by not knowing what service-learning does to

the communities it purports to serve, there is a risk of creating unintended side
effects that exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the problems of the community. They
noted that academicians risk burning bridges rather than building them if
communities decide students are doing more harm than good (Stoecker & Tryon,
2009).

Several reasons for the lack of research were suggested. Cruz and Giles
(2000) noted that the lack of research on the community dimensions of service-
learning was a glaring omission in the literature. They theorized that community
impacts have been largely undocumented because communities have no voice in
academia. They noted that there has been no cry from the community to research
community impacts, that the community is a constituency without a voice in
academia and therefore has not been heard. This situation has many political
similarities to powerless groups in other power-laden systems.

Methodological problems were also cited as playing a part in the lack of

research on community impacts. Because communities are complex constructs, it is
impossible to control for all of the variables that can confound a research study.
 10

Variables within a community would include, for example, socio-economic status of

residents, demographic factors, cultural background of the community, the
community’s age and history relative to community development projects,
community cohesiveness, and other traits. This makes generalizability difficult, if not
impossible to establish (Cruz & Giles, 2000).

Ward and Wolf-Wendel (2000) agreed that there is a lack of research in their
content analysis of literature related to service-learning. The researchers found that
the literature tends to focus on how service-learning benefits the campus and its
constituencies more than how it benefits the community. Ward and Wolf-Wendel
suggested a simple reason for this focus, theorizing that it may be logical, since
academic literature is written by and for academicians. However, they maintained
that if service-learning is truly a way to involve higher education in real-world
problem solving, then the community must be an integral and active partner.

Despite the general lack of research on benefits of community engagement

activities, a few authors have performed studies and some suggestions of general
categories of community impacts emerged.

Because this area of research is still in exploratory stages, most research on

community impacts is qualitative in nature. However, in one large-scale study the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) used quantitative measures. They considered
longevity of projects beyond the life of the grant and use of WKKF grant funds to
leverage additional support as indicators of project success (Koch et al., 1996).

Community partners: direct impacts

Project longevity and project support are two indicators of impact. However,
the measures used by WKKF may not apply to projects that are smaller in scale.
Other researchers considered different factors when studying community impacts of
service-learning. A logical place to begin research is with direct impacts.
 11

Community development improvements

Student involvement in community projects may lead to visible results in the
community. Henness (2001) found that community impacts of service-learning were
related to achieving goals of community development. Activities he studied also
helped rural communities accomplish their goals for community and economic
development, sometimes in a timely and cost effective manner. In their wide-ranging
look at the body of knowledge related to community dimensions of service-learning,
Cruz and Giles (2000) concurred. They cited three key findings: 1) service-learning
contributes to community development; 2) service-learning bridges town-gown gaps;
and 3) service-learning offers benefits to community partners. Other researchers
cited direct community impacts as well (Pickeral & Peters, 1998; Sanoff, 2003;
Soukup, 1999; Vernon & Foster, 2002).

Progression of knowledge
Another direct impact is progression of knowledge. Partnerships that rank
high on Townson’s continuum of engagement strategies are dedicated to creating
new knowledge and sharing that knowledge in the community and in the academic
setting. (Ferman & Hill, 2004; Ibanez-Carrasco & Riano-Alcala, 2009; Sanoff, 2003;
Townson, 2009) Sandy and Holland (2006) wrote that community-campus
partnerships provide opportunities for reflection and further new theory that can
change both knowledge and practice.

Enhanced capacity. Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, and Kerrigan (1996) noted

that in successful service-learning activities, community agencies perceived an
effect on their capacity to serve clients. Other researchers agreed, citing staff and
organizational development, enhanced community capital, social capital, and human
capital within the organization as well (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Eyler et al., 2001;
Henness, 2001; Kotval, 2003; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Vernon & Foster, 2002; K.
Ward & Vernon, 1999).
 12

New levels of enthusiasm or energy. In one study, researchers reported

community organization staff was rejuvenated by student interaction. The students
brought new energy and enthusiasm to the community (Pickeral & Peters, 1998).

Access to resources
Driscoll et al. (1996) wrote that community agencies received economic and
social benefits and were satisfied with student interactions. Pickeral and Peters
(1998) noted that students bring practical and valuable skills to the community
problems that are being addressed.

Sanoff (2003) noted that student design assistance satisfied community

needs and enabled students to directly confront community problems in areas of
poverty or restricted access to professional designers. Without the student
assistance, those communities were sometimes powerless in responding to issues
that negatively affect the community.

Interactions with a university may also offer access to university resources

such as libraries and laboratories, information networks, as well as relationships with
faculty members, departments, or programs (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Ferman & Hill,
2004; Sandy & Holland, 2006).

Community partners: indirect impacts

In addition to direct and visible impacts of community engagement and
service-learning activities, indirect impacts were mentioned in the literature.

Access to new networks and relationships

Ibanez-Carrasco and Riano-Alcala (2009) reported that community partners
benefitted from access to new networks and relationships. Other researchers
agreed, and noted that partnering with university researchers opened doors to
broader networks and possibilities (Ferman & Hill, 2004).
 13

Enhanced legitimacy
Many studies cited a benefit to community partners of enhanced legitimacy
for their project or organization when partnering with the university. Ferman & Hill
(2004) described situations in which funding agencies entertained proposals they
would not have done otherwise and cases in which governmental representatives
responded to organizations they had previously ignored. Other researchers agreed,
citing additional instances of enhanced legitimacy for community as a result of
community-university engagement (Driscoll et al., 1996; Ibanez-Carrasco & Riano-
Alcala, 2009).

Fresh eyes to examine issues

When students present the results of their project to a community partner
organization, the recipients are offered a valuable opportunity. Students bring a
fresh look at the community from a critical and informed distance. Students may
bring a new perspective to neighborhood issues (Ibanez-Carrasco & Riano-Alcala,
2009).

Further developments
Service-learning and community engagement activities may provide research
data for leveraging other funds or grants (Cruz & Giles, 2000). Ferman and Hill
(2004) agreed, writing that many community organizations used project results for
further development or grant applications.

Community impacts: affected by partnership qualities

Most researchers of community engagement agreed that the partnership is
important and that the quality of the partnership was highly correlated with
community impacts (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Ferman & Hill, 2004; Horrigan ed., 2007;
Ibanez-Carrasco & Riano-Alcala, 2009). Vernon and Foster (2002) wrote that
relationships are a major vehicle through which learning and knowledge generation
take place for community partners and through which they accrue tangible benefits.
 14

Balance on the benefits spectrum

Community engagement and service-learning activities should provide a
balance between benefits accrued as weighed against expenses (Sandy & Holland,
2006). Gelmon, et al. (1998) reported that the experience should be more
beneficial, economically and socially, than burdensome to the agency.

Communities share in helping students learn

Service-learning activities are often viewed as valuable learning opportunities
for students because they form a bridge between theory and practice. Many
researchers noted that community partners value helping with this part of the
education process. Some even described a profound dedication to educating college
students (Sandy & Holland, 2006; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009; Vernon & Foster, 2002).
Gelmon (1998) wrote that community partners felt that service-learning helped
students see how classroom learning could be applied in the everyday world.

Commitment
Successful community engagement work can only occur when both parties
are committed to the project (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). Some indicators of
commitment are levels of support and interest, a formalized process,
communication, and mutuality.

Desire, capacity, support. Ferman and Hill (2004) suggested that both
parties—community and university—need to ask themselves if they have the desire,
capacity, and support to engage in a meaningful partnership.

Ward and Vernon (1999) cited challenges for community partners when
involved with students serving their organizations. Community partners reported
that student inconsistency, unpreparedness, and need for training made the work of
the partnership more difficult.

Formalized process. Stoecker and Tryon (2009) wrote that commitment to

the community was seen as the most fundamental of the principles of community
 15

engagement. A formalized agreement was generally a good indicator of

commitment, and clarified expectations for both parties. Sandy and Holland (2006)
discussed a formalized process as promotion of equity. They cited a community
partner’s comment: “There should be a more formal process for soliciting
(university) involvement. Right now, it is hit or miss based on a relationship that you
are fortunate to have.”

Communication. Communication that is effective and timely is another

principle for successful community engagement. Stoecker and Tryon (2009) found
that effective communication, between and among all three parties—student-
community partner-professor—was essential, and often provided the community
partner an opportunity to learn about service learning. Gelmon, et al. (1998) wrote
about community partners who reported being generally happy with the partnership,
although they were sometimes dismayed by educational institutions’ bureaucratic
and political natures. Ward and Vernon (1999) discussed agency personnel who
wanted more coordination and communication with professors.

Mutuality. Kotval (2003) described a model of a partnership that facilitates

the experiential learning needs of urban planning students while assisting urban
Extension staff with capacity building resources. She noted that a symbiotic
relationship between town and gown leads to mutual benefit from mutual prosperity.
Both parties can and should benefit from a well-designed community-university
interaction. Stoecker and Tryon (2009) agreed, saying that mutuality is important, as
the partnership that is set up only for the students’ gain is exploitative of the
community partner. Conversely, they asserted a partnership that is set up only for
the community partner’s gain is exploitative of the students. Sanoff (2003) also
weighed in on the importance of mutuality. He wrote that within his work related to
community-based design research, the work was done with rather than on the
community.
 16

Respect and trust

Relationships are built on respect and trust. In a well-structured partnership,
college and community partners will be equal citizens (Pickeral & Peters, 1998).
Researchers in the field were united in assertions of the importance of respect and
trust in relationships between community partners and universities (Heffner &
Beversluis, 2003; Holland, 2001; Madden, 2000; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Stoecker &
Tryon, 2009; Kelly Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000).

Recommended Methodologies
Several authors have commented on appropriate research design and
methodology for studying community impacts and service-learning. One research
team analyzed the gap in research related to community impacts of service learning
and determined that community-focused research is possible, that it should focus on
the community-university partnership as the unit of analysis and that it should use a
participatory action approach.(Cruz & Giles, 2000) Henness (2001) used mixed-
methods research, combining a survey and case study research methods. Other
research teams have used focus groups (Sandy & Holland, 2006; Stoecker & Tryon,
2009).

Because community partners and service-learning projects are widely varied

in scale and design, some researchers recommended against using quantitative
standards of assessment such as Likert scales. Their viewpoint maintained that pre-
determined scales may formulate in advance attitudinal categories and thus stipulate
in advance what the community members’ attitudes can be and impose limits on
their experiences (Pickeral & Peters, 1998). These researchers recommended a
qualitative approach to measurement of outcomes. According to these researchers,
focus groups, student reflection journals, and open-ended questionnaires may be
more appropriate data-gathering mechanisms.

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) conducted an evaluation of the

impacts of 35 of its projects that were funded over a ten year period (1985-1995).
 17

Two key methods were used for data gathering in this study—a review of annual
project progress reports and a written survey (Koch et al., 1996).

Several studies have found positive evaluations from community

organizations when asked about their experience with student interactions and
service-learning (Cohen & Kinsey, 1994; Foreman, 1996; Greene & Diehm, 1995).
However, other researchers challenged the depth of these questioning techniques
and urged a deeper understanding of community experiences with service-learning
(Stoecker & Tryon, 2009).

Some researchers integrated community participation into their research

design, holding to the ethic of reciprocity, a hallmark of service-learning practice, to
inform the research design. One study used a place-based, two-tiered approach.
These researchers placed a high value on community input, and designed their
research to take place in the community, stating that the importance of location is
often overlooked in academic research and including this variable in their design had
important benefits. Participants were involved with approving thematic
interpretations of data, finalizing reports designed to inform and improve their
partnership, and the “meta-analysis” of the data (Sandy & Holland 2006).

Impacts in the community may not manifest themselves immediately. Some

projects may not show visible results for several years. This is particularly true in the
field of community development, where projects always require several years to be
accomplished. Francis, et al. (1984) approached this issue by checking back
several years later to study project results. Organizational commitment to long-
range study of local outcomes is commonly found in the realm of program
assessment and evaluation (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004; Mark et al., 1999; Palomba &
Banta, 1999) .

In addition to an organizational commitment to gather data, dissemination of

research findings must also be given a high priority. Miami-Dade Community
College boasted of innovative efforts in community service. The director of their
 18

community service program compiles data assessing the impact of the program on
students, faculty, the institution, and the community. Community organizations that
work with the college are required to send a representative to a training session that
introduces him/her to the concepts of service-learning. In this way, agencies can
provide an informed assessment at the end of the students’ time in serving them.
They noted “no matter how much information is collected, it is useless if it is not sent
back out. This is perhaps the most neglected part of assessment” (Young, 1998).

The literature search revealed the importance of community engagement and

service-learning activities for building bridges rather than burning them, as described
by Stoecker and Tryon (2009). The Kellogg Commission Report also strongly urged
institutes of higher education to become more engaged with their communities, in
order to remain a valuable resource to their constituencies. Many researchers
shared ideas of questions to be asked and strategies for structuring these activities
to create positive outcomes in communities. Their ideas and strategies were
invaluable in my learning process.

As I moved forward into research design I made every effort to incorporate

recommended questioning strategies into my interactions with community partners.
I also benefitted from recommended research methodologies and made every effort
to build bridges rather than burn them.
 19

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY FOCUS AND RESEARCH

APPROACH

Need for this Research

The work of service-learning is complex and multidimensional; it depends on
a community-university collaboration in which all parties identify shared goals but
also have distinct perspectives. Yet all too often, assessment of service-learning
courses is limited to documenting hours of service or collecting journals; worse, it
does not happen at all. (Holland, 2001) Other assessment practices rely on a
simplistic questioning technique such as “on a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied were
you with the service-learning activity in your community?” This simplistic level of
questioning yields data that are neither valid nor useful (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009).
These data gathering techniques, one qualitative and one quantitative, do not
adequately assess the topic of community impacts.

Educational institutions can benefit from evaluating impacts of service-

learning. An investment in service-learning must be measured for its impact and
effectiveness in serving the educational mission of the institution. The return on the
effort must justify the investment. An internal, more academic purpose for
assessment is essential to sustaining institutional commitment or expanding faculty
involvement in service-learning courses. Faculty want to see evidence that service-
learning is making a difference in the learning of course material, student
development of social responsibility, or community conditions (Holland, 2001).
Faculty also want to know what aspects of their service-learning projects are helpful
or hindrances for community recipients (Hohmann, 2009). Research about
community impacts of service-learning may be of value to a wider audience than
simply administrators and overseers of these programs. For example, university
officials might do well to use community impact analysis in assessing the worth of
their investment in outreach programs as well as in marketing value of the institution
to constituents.
 20

Introduction to the research question

This study’s goal was to investigate the community impacts of PLaCE
program involvement. The study was exploratory in nature because the literature
search revealed that very little research has been done on community impacts of
service learning.

An inductive inquiry started with specific observations that led to more general
theory. The principles of grounded theory were used to guide the research. In the
grounded theory process, theory is built from data, or grounded in the data
(Neuman, 2006). This strategy allows the research to be flexible, and allows data
analysis to be open to the unexpected. Aside from the research described in the
literature search above, very little previous research was available to create
expectations of research results. Therefore, a flexible approach was valuable.

My interest in this research came from my work as coordinator of the PLaCE

program, which is referenced in Chapter One. My job placed me with one foot in the
academic realm of the College and the other foot in the applied knowledge realm of
Extension to Communities and Economic Development. From this unusual vantage
point, the challenge of the Kellogg Commission—to become a more engaged
university--seemed particularly significant. Exploring community impacts of the
PLaCE program seemed a good first step along the journey to encouraging a more
engaged style of academic practice.
 21

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN

PLaCE: Context
The PLaCE program in Iowa State University’s College of Design began in
2000. Program records indicated 70 projects were completed in the academic years
2001-2002 through 2008-2009. These projects involved over 500 students, and
resulted in over $200,000 in fees from communities. This money provided fee
reductions for students or wages for student employees.

The PLaCE program is structured as project-based service-learning. The

projects were typically discrete projects that could be addressed by studio classes
within a five to ten week time frame. Projects that were considered for inclusion in
the program contained criteria that met educational objectives for the course, in
addition to meeting community development needs as defined by the applicant
organization. Studio classes that addressed PLaCE projects generally met for eight
to twelve clock hours per week for four to six semester credit hours. This type of
studio class format is common within design curricula.

Marketing for the program is primarily done by the unit for Extension to
Community and Economic Development. Program contacts are also made in
response to telephone inquiries from constituents who call the College of Design in
search of assistance with community development projects. These field requests
are largely from communities or nonprofit organizations. A program application is
available online or by mail from the program coordinator. A website is also in place,
showcasing past projects which may serve as a model for other communities with
similar community development needs.
 22

Multi-
Arch A&D CRP LA Disciplinary
2002-2003 11 1 1 6 3
2003-2004 7 2 4 1
2004-2005 10 4 1 4 1
2005-2006 9 2 4 3
2006-2007 12 2 5 5
2007-2008 8 1 1 4 2
2008-2009 13 5 5 3
totals by
dept 70 1 15 24 26 4

Table 1.Distribution of PLaCE projects by department

Anecdotal evidence indicates that PLaCE has done well at meeting academic
needs of students and pedagogical objectives of faculty. In a survey of students who
had participated in a park planning project, the students indicated newfound
confidence in their design abilities, especially in terms of representation. They also
expressed a feeling of having acquired knowledge and experience related to public
input in the design process (Butler & Erickson, in process). However, community
impacts have been unexplored by the PLaCE program. As noted in the previous
section, the university can only fulfill its mission for outreach and engagement if
community impacts of outreach are known and valued. This research investigated
community impacts of the PLaCE program and suggests PLaCE as a model or
methodology for other programs.

Due to the exploratory nature of the research, and based on the literature
review, a case study approach was used. Community impacts of the projects from
the PLaCE program were the focus of the research. Data was gathered primarily by
in-depth, semi-structured interviews of project stakeholders from communities that
have participated in the PLaCE program.
 23

Project Selection
During the study period, seventy projects were completed under the direction
of the PLaCE program. The projects were categorized by asking two questions.

1. Was the project addressed by a class of students as an academic project or

was the project addressed by a faculty member and a graduate student as a
research project?
2. Did the project address a large scale, planning-related community
development need or did the project address a smaller-scale project related
to physical improvements in the community?

The table below illustrates the distribution of projects.

Course-based Research-based Faculty-

projects led, Student assisted

Large-scale, 26 projects
4 projects
Planning-related

Smaller-scale,
Related to
24 projects 16 projects
community physical
improvements

Table 2. Inventory and Classification of PLaCE Project Types

The diagram provided direction for structuring this research. There was
a low number of projects and high degree of variability of project type in the
research-based project category (right column). Both of these factors made
reliability difficult to assure and evaluation of community impacts problematic.
Therefore in this study, only the course-based projects were investigated (left
column). Focusing inquiry into this category of projects provided greater
 24

generalizability of findings, since there is less variability in project type. The course-
based projects also fall more squarely in line with categorizations of service-learning
projects. Because this research examined effects of student involvement in
communities, restricting the research population to course-based projects was a
workable premise.

Two categories of project types were investigated in the research design:

large-scale, planning-related projects and smaller-scale projects related to physical
improvements in the community. Because it was anticipated that community impacts
might differ significantly within these two project types, in preliminary stages the data
were gathered and analyzed as two separate groups.

Data Collection
The literature search revealed that community impacts of service-learning
projects can only be discovered by going to the population that lives with the
impacts—the community that experienced the project. Only students can describe
in detail the educational impacts of a service-learning experience, and only
communities can describe in detail the local impacts of a service-learning project.
Therefore, for this study the primary source of data about community impacts was
knowledge from local project stakeholders.

Sampling
The two categories of projects were described in the preceding section. For
Group One, the large-scale planning related projects, a random sample of fifteen
projects were selected from the total population of 26. The first ten were intended to
be part of the study, with an additional five projects intended as replacements, if
interview subjects could not be located or if additional interviews proved necessary.
Projects in this group were fairly homogeneous in project type. Due to a small
amount of data gathered from some projects, an eleventh project was added.

Group Two contained a variety of project types from three different

departments—Art (mostly from the Graphic Design Department), Community and
 25

Regional Planning, and Landscape Architecture. Projects from Group Two were
selected using a stratified random sampling technique in order to assure a
proportional mix of project types. A sample of ten projects was again selected, with
five additional projects selected as replacements if necessary.

After selecting projects from each group, community project stakeholders

were identified. The original project applicant was contacted when possible. If this
was not possible another stakeholder was identified. These potential interview
candidates were contacted by telephone in order to assess their willingness to
participate in an interview. During the initial project interview, participants were
asked if anyone else in the organization should be interviewed about the project. In
some projects this was necessary due to changes in personnel or divided project
responsibility.

After completing interviews it became apparent that the sample size was
adequate for the study as the data achieved a saturation point at which new
information was not being added through additional interviews.

For Group One, the larger-scale planning projects, nine projects are
represented in the data. Information was gathered from eleven different
stakeholders. For Group Two, the smaller-scale projects related to physical
improvements in the community, eight projects are represented in the data and ten
different stakeholders were interviewed.

Interviews
Interviews were held with project stakeholders to discover characteristics of
community impacts. These interviews were guided by a series of pre-determined
questions, but the interviews were kept flexible in order to gather the maximum
amount of information possible. Interviews were recorded using an Olympus Digital
Voice Recorder, model VN-6200PC and a Telephone Handset Mini Recorder
Control, which allows recording through the telephone handset.
 26

Iowa State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) gave its approval of
this project, and the approval is presented in the Appendix.

Interview structure
In order to assure internal validity, typical research builds on existing studies
and their measurement instruments to guide strategy for data collection. Existing
literature was explored and built upon for this study; however, very little information
was available, especially in the research area of community development. This area
of study is in its infancy and theory is yet to be developed.

The content of the interview questions was informed by two sources—

characteristics of the projects and the literature review. The interview was semi-
structured; the interviewer sought a balance between a structured list of questions
prepared in advance and allowing the community partner a voice in setting the
direction of the interview. Some potential lines of questioning were suggested by
existing research, notably Pickeral and Peters (1998) and Ferman and Hill (2004).

Open-ended questions were important in the interview. Open-ended

questions allow the respondent to answer any way they wish, and provide the
opportunity for unexpected information to be given during an interview. This type of
question is especially valuable in early or exploratory stages of research (Neuman,
2006). Several researchers urged an even wider spirit of openness to the interview.
They noted the importance of allowing the community partner to cover unanticipated
territory in their comments (Neuman, 2006; J. Schuh, 1996; J. H. Schuh, 2009;
Zeisel, 2006). It was valuable to invite interview participants to cover unanticipated
territory, as some surprising information came to light.

The structure of the interviews was also informed by an assessment model

that focuses on a series of questions to hone in on the research questions. The
“Goal-Variable-Indicator-Method“ strategy of research design has been used to
assess impacts of service-learning projects in the healthcare teaching profession
 27

(Holland 2001, Gelmon, Holland, & Shinnamon, 1998). When using this model the
following series of questions is addressed:

• Goal: What do we want to know?

• Variable: What will we look for?
• Indicator: What will be measured?
• Method: How will it be measured? (Holland, 2001).

Gelmon developed a matrix for evaluating impacts of service-learning

projects. The matrix is from the healthcare education field, and as such is somewhat
oriented to more quantitative measures than was desirable in this research effort. It
was a useful organizing and clarifying tool to assist in setting the interview structure
(Gelmon et al., 1998). The matrix was adapted for this research project and is
included in the Appendix. Some of the variables from the matrix were preliminary
themes in the data analysis.

Interview logistics
Informed consent was sought from the participants prior to beginning each
interview. Upon receiving consent, interviews were recorded and transcribed. The
first set of interviews was done by telephone and evaluated for results. Telephone
interviews are generally more efficient for time expenditure but some loss of
communication always occurs without direct personal contact. (Creswell, 2003).
During the evaluation of the first round of interviews the mode of interview
(telephone vs. face-to-face) was also evaluated; it was determined that
communication by telephone was adequate for good information exchange. Some
questions were adapted for better understanding of meaning but it did not seem that
information gain would increase significantly by holding face-to-face interviews.

Developing the list of interview questions was an iterative process; the

structured list of questions was revised periodically as it became apparent which
questions worked well to elicit responses from interviewees, and which questions
needed improvements. The first draft of interview questions was piloted with a
single interview. Analysis of this interview experience yielded the realization that
 28

nine of seventeen questions could be answered with yes or no. Despite research-
based questioning topics, the format needed adjustment. Meaningful information
was still gathered during this interview because the questions addressed substantive
issues and deeper probing questions followed up yes/no answers.

After the initial interview, the questions were re-structured to invite more
open-ended answers and a revised list of questions was sent to the Institutional
Review Board for approval. Approval was again obtained from the Board. The
revised questions were more open-ended but addressed the same general topics.
The interview was divided into four parts: Process, Expectations, Results, and Final
Comments.

Four more interviews were held and the interview structure was analyzed
again. This analysis suggested a few minor wording changes to achieve clarity for
interview participants. Flexibility was still important in the interviews as each
community partner had their own story to tell about their project.

The concepts addressed by the interview questions covered the range of

community impacts adequately; no new issues arose during the interviews that
necessitated returning to previous stakeholders with additional questions. In some
interview-based research, transcripts of interviews are sent back to participants to
check for accuracy of meaning and approval. Because these interviews were
recorded, interview transcripts were not sent back for a participant check. This
researcher is sensitive to the research-related participant burden that already exists
for the public in general; for this research, it did not seem that participant check
would be a respectful request of participants’ time. In addition, some interview
participants had already indicated reluctance to give time for an interview; participant
check would create an undue burden for them.

Field observation
The research design allowed for making a physical visit to communities in
order to view and verify direct and observable community impacts. This was
 29

deemed unnecessary for several reasons. The first and most important reason was
that the stakeholders interviewed were all highly invested in their own projects and
took their role in the research very seriously. Interview respondents were generous
with their time and with the level of detail given to describing the outcomes of their
projects.

The second reason is that while direct and observable community impacts are
certainly important, the data gathered yielded results indicating many of the impacts
of PLaCE program involvement are indirect or not directly observable.

A third reason why field observation was deemed unproductive was the time
lag required for community development work. For example, several city parks had
undergone development work or had construction plans ready for imminent
implementation but no physical progress had been made.

Research Difficulties
One potential conceptual difficulty was in determining causality of impacts.
One of the most important, yet most difficult, tasks of an impact assessment is to
provide convincing evidence that the measured changes, or impacts, can be
attributed to the program being evaluated (Arbuckle, 2008). This potential difficulty
can be addressed through mindful structuring of questions during interview
situations. Careful wording is important in all phases of research.

This research design was fairly straightforward and major roadblocks were
not encountered. Project files were available with contact information for community
stakeholders at the time of the PLaCE project. It was difficult to find a project
stakeholder to interview for some projects. In some cases the original contact had
moved out of the community, or was no longer in a position of leadership and did not
respond to requests for interviews It was important to allow plenty of time for pre-
interview inquiry to find engaged stakeholders with knowledge of the project. It was
easier to arrange interviews with local government officials who could be reached at
 30

their office during regular business hours than to arrange interviews with citizen
volunteers.

One important factor during data gathering and analysis activities was to
minimize the involvement of my personal bias and feelings during the research,
particularly during interviews and data analysis. I coordinate the PLaCE program as
my job and am personally invested in the program. Therefore, I worked to
encourage interviewees to be truthful in their answers, that the interviews were only
valuable if they shared their real experiences. One way I did this is by emphasizing
that the results of this study would inform future practices, so that Iowa State
University could be of better service to Iowa communities. Drawing on the
principles of engaged scholarship, I worked to let interviewees know that they were a
valuable part of the research and that their responses would be of value to wider
audiences. Removing myself as the recipient of community feedback and
transferring that recipient to the behemoth “Iowa State University” also helped to
encourage honesty in the interviews.

Another issue with internal validity was the length of time since the project
was accomplished by PLaCE. If the project was completed very recently, a
community may not have had adequate time to experience progress on their
community development project. If the project was completed at the longer end of
the study period, memories may have faded related to the project and the
community’s interaction with students. I maintained awareness of this potential
problem during data gathering and analysis, asking relevant probing questions
during interviews as necessary. The time factor was investigated during data
analysis but did not appear to be an important variable for this research question.

A last factor of research difficulty was in maintaining research records. A

research field with a more developed body of knowledge also has a more developed
system of tools. Those tools might include rubrics for inquiry, protocols for record
keeping, and established templates and systems for gathering, storing, and
 31

analyzing data. Developing record keeping systems required significant expenditure

of time and energy for this researcher.

The seventeen project communities that formed the sample for this research
study were mostly located throughout the state of Iowa. One project was located in
Ashland, Wisconsin. The accompanying map shows project locations.

Figure 1. PLaCE Project Locations

Group One: Larger-scale Planning Projects

The first group to be studied was course-based projects focused on large-
scale planning projects. These projects all involved a class of students interacting
with a community group and proposing guidelines for future development. These
projects were NOT directly linked to any immediate changes in the physical
environment. Typical projects from this group were city or county comprehensive
plans, a seven-county regional trails plan, and a housing development plan.
 32

Comparative demographic information follows, as well as a short synopsis of each

project, and information about the person(s) interviewed.

median
academic median
project project description pop household
department age
income
Collins-Maxwell community plan CRP 807 36 $43,125
Elkhart Comp Plan comprehensive plan CRP 362 34 $33,000
Waukee community plan CRP 12,367 33 $58,024
Henry CO comp plan comprehensive plan CRP 20,336 37 $39,087
Ioway Trail regional trails plan LA + CRP NA NA NA
Mitchellville Comp
Plan comprehensive plan CRP 1715 35 $45,250
Lindahl Salvage brownfield plan CRP 12,083 38 $38,179
Roland Comp Plan comprehensive plan CRP 1324 34 $47,461
Prairie City comprehensive plan CRP 1365 40 $42,750

Table 3. Comparative Data Group One (US Census 2000)

Cities that were served by the PLaCE program from Group One ranged from
a very small town of population 362 to a city of 12,367. One project was county-
based and another covered a seven-county region. Median age for the cities’
residents ranged from 33 to 40, as compared to the State of Iowa, which has a
median age of 36.6. Median household income for the cities and county served
ranged from $33,000 to $58,024. This compared with the Iowa median household
income of $39,469. Note that data was from the 2000 census, except for the city of
Waukee. That census data was from 2008, due to rapid growth since the 2000
census. Cities that engaged with the PLaCE program from Group One had median
ages and median household incomes that clustered neatly around the same
demographic factors for the state.

Collins-Maxwell Community Plan. The university was involved in this

community project one year before data gathering occurred. A Community and
Regional Planning class (CRP 432) worked with two communities and the school
district serving both towns to address future development plans for the area. This
 33

project was unique in the combination of stakeholders—a school and two cities
came together in cooperation. The person interviewed was the current school
superintendent. At the time of the project he was in a different administrative
capacity, but was directly involved in all aspects of the project.

Elkhart Comprehensive Plan. The university was involved in this community

project five years before data gathering occurred. A Community and Regional
Planning class (CRP 432) worked with the city of Elkhart to write a comprehensive
plan to guide city development. The person interviewed was the city clerk.

Waukee City Center Plan. The university was involved in this community
project two years before data gathering occurred. A Community and Regional
Planning class (CRP 532) worked with city planners to address the problems of a
deteriorating city core. The person interviewed was a planner with the city. He was
a recent graduate of the same department at ISU and had participated in a similar
project when he was a student.

Henry County Comprehensive Plan. The university was involved in this

community project five years before data gathering occurred. A Community and
Regional Planning class (CRP 432) worked with the County Planner and GIS
Coordinator in crafting an updated County Comprehensive Plan.

Ioway Trail Regional Plan. The university was involved in this community
project seven years before data gathering occurred. A Landscape Architecture class
(LA 401) and a Community and Regional Planning class (CRP 432) worked with a
steering committee from a seven-county region to propose a regional trails system.
Two people were interviewed for this research. One was guiding the steering
committee during the project, but has since moved on to work in another region. A
second interview was held with her replacement. Activity on this project has stalled
for the present time, but plans are to begin work again in the near future.
 34

Mitchellville Comprehensive Plan. The university was involved in this

community project four years before data gathering occurred. A Community and
Regional Planning class (CRP 432) worked with the city of Mitchellville to write a
comprehensive plan to guide city development. The city clerk was interviewed.
Only a small amount of data was gathered from this project, largely because the city
administrator had moved from the position and a replacement had not yet been hired
at the time of data collection.

Lindahl Salvage Yard. The university was involved in this community project
four years before data gathering occurred. A Community and Regional Planning
class (CRP 542) worked with the City Administrator to consider alternative uses for a
brownfield site. The City Administrator has moved on and works in another
community, however he did agree to an interview. Current city officials are not using
the student plans.

Roland Comprehensive Plan. The university was involved in this community

project three years before data gathering occurred. A Community and Regional
Planning class (CRP 432) worked with the city of Roland to write a comprehensive
plan to guide city development. The city clerk was interviewed.

Prairie City Comprehensive Plan. The university was involved in this

community project two years before data gathering occurred. A Community and
Regional Planning class (CRP 432) worked with the city of Prairie City to write a
comprehensive plan to guide city development. The city administrator was
interviewed.

Group Two: Small-Scale Projects

The second group studied was course-based projects focused on small scale
development. These projects all involved a class of students interacting with a
community group and proposing the design of some physical element. Project types
included designs for a community gateway, several small city parks, main street
storefronts, and a community college campus. Comparative demographic
 35

information follows, as well as a short synopsis of each project, and information

about the person(s) interviewed.

median
academic median
project description pop household
department age
income
Hamlin Park park design LA 251 39.5 $27,262
DMACC campus plan CRP NA NA NA
Ashland Main St main street storefront plan GR DES 8620 36 $30,853
Pocahontas city plan, main street CRP + LA 1970 45 $30,865
New Virginia park design LA 469 37 $38,750
Charles City Park park design LA + CRP 7812 42 $30,568
Atlantic Main St main street storefront plan GR DES 7257 42 $33,370
Jefferson Main St. main street storefront plan GR DES 4626 43 $32,818

Table 4. Comparative Demographic Data Group Two. US Census 2000

Cities that were served by the PLaCE program from Group Two ranged from
a very small town of population 251 to a city of 8,620. Median age for the cities
ranged from 36 to 45, as compared to the State of Iowa, which has a median age of
36.6. Median household income for the cities and county served ranged from
$27,262 to $38,750. This compared with the Iowa median household income of
$39,469. In Group Two, the cities that were served by the PLaCE program were
less wealthy and somewhat older than the median for the state of Iowa.

Memorial Park in Hamlin. The university was involved in this community

project one year before data gathering occurred. A Landscape Architecture class
(LA 202) created concept designs for a new park and trailhead at the site of a former
junkyard. Two professors and the program coordinator were involved in contact with
the organizing committee. The project was sponsored by a local nonprofit group
dedicated to community development projects. This local group also works routinely
with the university on other unrelated student engagement activities. The person
interviewed, an employee of the nonprofit organization, was directly involved with
 36

logistics of the students’ community visit, end-of-semester design presentations, and

moving forward with park construction.

DMACC Sustainability Design. The university was involved in this project two
years before data gathering occurred. A Community and Regional Planning Class
(CRP 494) investigated ways to incorporate principles of sustainability into various
practices of an urban community college campus. The person interviewed was
directly involved with logistics of the students’ visits to the campus, and is heavily
invested in moving this project forward at the school.

Ashland Main Street Design. The university was involved in this project three
years before data gathering occurred. A Graphic Design Class (ARTGR 470)
interacted one-on-one with Main Street business owners to propose newly- designed
graphic identities for businesses and re-designed storefronts. The person
interviewed is a planner for the City.

Pocahontas Community and Main Street Design. The university was

involved in this project four years before data gathering occurred. A Graphic Design
Class (ARTGR 470) interacted with Main Street business owners to propose newly-
designed graphic identities for businesses and re-designed storefronts. During the
same semester, a Community and Regional Planning class (CRP 435/535)
investigated ways to improve community image and wayfinding. Two people were
interviewed—the city’s Economic Development Director, who was not in the position
at the time of this project, and the county Economic Development Director, who was
directly involved in both projects and interacted with university representatives and
students.

New Virginia Park Design. The university was involved in this project seven
years before data gathering occurred. A Landscape Architecture class (LA 202)
created concept designs for a new park. Two people were interviewed—the first
was the leader of a community development organization who was directly involved
with students and their interactions in the community. The second was the current
 37

leader of the Park Board, who is new to the board and did not have any contact with
the project or with students.

Charles City Riverfront Park Design and Brownfield Site Design. The
university was involved in this project four years before data gathering occurred. A
Landscape Architecture class (LA 202) created concept designs for a new park.
During the same semester, a Community and Regional Planning class (CRP 415)
proposed new land uses for a brownfield site, which formerly housed a county
maintenance yard. One person was interviewed, the City Parks Administrator, who
was directly involved with all aspects of both projects, including interaction with
faculty, students, program administration, and further physical development of the
park.

Atlantic Main Street Design. The university was involved in this project two
years before data gathering occurred. A Graphic Design Class (ARTGR 470)
interacted with Main Street business owners to propose newly- designed graphic
identities for businesses and re-designed storefronts. The person interviewed is the
regional Economic Development Director; she was directly involved in all aspects of
the project.

Jefferson Main Street Design. The university was involved in this project five
years before data gathering occurred. A Graphic Design Class (ARTGR 470)
interacted with Main Street business owners to propose newly- designed graphic
identities for businesses and re-designed storefronts. The person interviewed was a
locally-based County Extension Director, and he was directly involved in all aspects
of the project.

Data Analysis
Group Two interviews were finished first so a qualitative analysis of this data
was done first. Data were assembled vertically and analyzed interview-by-interview.
This allowed a holistic look at the sense of each interview. Overall themes were
noted. Then the data were assembled horizontally, and analyzed question-by-
 38

question. This allowed for looking at themes as they carried across interviews, such
as “where did projects generally fall on the balance of benefits spectrum?” or “did
attitudes about the university change?”

Data were also analyzed from coding of individual interview comments.

Interview participants made comments about some factors at different points in the
interview. For example, comments about the impact of community-student
interaction were located as responses to questions within the first, third, and fourth
interview sections. Comments about the value of the students’ creative ideas and
fresh eyes on community problems were located as responses to questions in the
first, second, and fourth sections of the interview.

This three-way analysis of the data, along with the principles of grounded
theory and input from knowledgeable research colleagues, guided the data analysis
of Chapter Five and informed the interpretations and implications of Chapter Six.

Chenail (1995) and Constas (1992) recommended that qualitative data be

presented with a spirit of openness, in order to build trust between researcher and
reader. These researchers asserted that openness allows readers to judge the
validity of the research, and may invite the reader to continue the inquiry presented
in the research. The following analysis of data is presented; the reader is invited to
continue the inquiry.
 39

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS

When crafting the research design for this study, it was anticipated that
planning-related projects might result in significantly different types of community
impacts when compared with impacts of design projects related to physical
improvements in the community. Therefore, the projects in this research study were
separated into two groups. Group One comprised larger-scale planning projects and
Group Two comprised smaller-scale projects related to physical improvements in the
community.

As data analysis progressed it became apparent that differences in

community impacts between Group One and Group Two were less profound than
anticipated. During interviews the community stakeholders focused less on visible
community changes and more on process-related impacts of university and student
involvement. Therefore, the two groups are discussed in parallel through the Data
Analysis. Similarities and differences are discussed throughout and summarized at
the end.

Four themes became apparent in analyzing data related to community

impacts of PLaCE projects: Process, Community-University Relationship, Results,
and a general category, Holistic Themes. These four themes related strongly with
sections from the interview structure. (Table 5)

Categories of analysis within the themes were similar between Group One
and Group Two. Some factors were more prominently highlighted by one group
than the other, but the character of the comments was the same. This was likely due
to the relatively small sample size and difference in project types between the
groups. Within the data analysis, number of comments was less important than
quality of comments. The meaning of the comments retained its importance
regardless of number of comments.
 40

Community-
Process University Outcomes Holistic Themes
Relationship

Program Structure Learning Experience Expanded community External variables

Community-Student for students capacity Value to community
Interaction Community-Professor Use of Final Report Leadership changes
Community Interaction Enhanced project Benefit to other entities
Contributions Setting Expectations legitimacy
University Relationship
Contributions
Final Report/
Presentation
Final Document

Table 5. Data Themes

Some factors differed significantly between Group One and Group Two. In
some instances the difference was due to project type. In other instances it was
difficult to determine the reason for the difference. Some variables that may have
influenced the differences were small sample size, personality characteristics of the
interview respondent, and objectives of the professor organizing a project. In spite
of these differences, a surprising amount of the data themes was common to both
Group One and Group Two.

Theme One: Process

Process was an important theme for both groups, because process is the
structural framework upon which the project is built. This is confirmed in the
literature--Stoecker and Tryon (2009) wrote that a formalized process is an important
indicator of commitment by a university partner.

Within the overall theme of process, however, some categories of analysis

were more strongly discussed by participants from Group Two. This may be related
to the fact that community partners interviewed for Group One were all familiar with
planning processes; they were either city planners, city clerks with planning duties,
or other professionals with planning duties. Group Two community partners had a
 41

wider variety of backgrounds. Two were lay volunteers, two were city planners, two
were economic developers, and the balance had other reasons for involvement.
Some of the partners were unfamiliar with planning processes and may have been
more moved to discuss the unusual.

Program Structure
One category of analysis within the process theme was linked to the structure
of the PLaCE program. Methods of program marketing and publicity, formalizing of
agreements between university and community, and logistical concern were
important to interview participants.

University constituents must have an awareness of a program’s availability in

order to take part in it. A program that is advertised or marketed to the general
public in some way provides equitable access to University resources. Community
stakeholders became aware of the PLaCE program through several avenues—
conference presentations, both state and national; local Extension office; referral
from previous university partners or former students; and through the university
website. This category of data was important to both Group One and Group Two.
Some participants checked with other participant communities before applying to the
program.

I first heard about [the program] at an APA conference in

Philadelphia. [The professor] did a presentation on a previous year’s
project. I told her afterward that our city would be interested in
working with her in a similar capacity. It was a good experience.

My role is that I am the Executive Director of the *** Chamber of

Commerce. I heard of the program at a conference and knew of
several other cities that had participated in the program. I pitched it to
our City Council and our local Community Promotion Commission and
they got excited about it as well.

A variety of methods of publicizing the program provided awareness of the

program for participant communities. Interview participants indicated they gained
valuable knowledge about past PLaCE projects at conference presentations.
 42

Although the university provides a web presence for the program, it was not
mentioned during the interviews.

Formalized program. Program participants voiced their appreciation of

program structure. This was most strongly articulated by Group Two, but Group One
participants also discussed their appreciation of program structure. A formalized
program at the university provided guidance to local stakeholders, enabling them to
envision the process from start to finish. Community organizations often made
application to the program, seeking community development assistance, but without
a realistic idea of time and effort that would be required to move ahead.

I think the key is on the front end, [as you did] lay out the time
commitment and the thought process, and the experience of others,
how this might help us. It’s hard sometimes, for people to understand
what will be the end result, and how much time will be required to
commit.

Community partners felt a sense of security in having a process in place to

help them move forward. A signed letter of agreement provided confidence about
matters of cost, timeline, expectations, and deliverables.

[The best thing was] the order that the process happened in.
Meeting with the professors first, to get a feel for the project, and then
bringing the students out and having the community meeting and then
taking their ideas back, it made the process flow nicely, gave us
enough time to figure out what we needed and what we wanted, and
for them to deliver the project back to us.

They also recognized the importance of good communication throughout the

process of being involved in the program. Interviewees indicated appreciation of a
coordinator to address details and act as a liaison:

We really appreciate [the assistance of] the program coordinator

too. It does take someone to drive the process… Half the battle
sometimes are the details and [the program coordinator] made that
process smooth.
 43

The formalized program structure included a signed agreement between the

university and the community partner relative to factors such as project timetable,
fee, and project deliverables. However, there were other logistical factors that
created concerns for community partners.

Logistical concerns. Group One participants did not talk about logistical
concerns, perhaps because those projects had less complex community interactions
in their project organization in comparison with Group Two projects. Therefore, the
following discussion only relates to Group Two.
Several interview participants related concerns about logistical matters. They
were concerned about timing and arrangement of student visits and preparation and
delivery of final project deliverables. Community partners stressed the importance of
using time wisely when students visit a community. In most cases students visited
the project community only once or twice, due to time constraints and transportation
costs.
Working within the confines of the academic calendar was sometimes difficult.
For example, some community partners indicated delays in receiving final
deliverables. Reasons for those delays related to end of semester project
management within the university. Professors shouldered the responsibility for
creating the final project report. This task sometimes took a back seat to other
competing duties—submitting grades for one semester, preparing syllabi for the
upcoming semester, and end of term committee meetings.

One community partner shared difficulties in receiving project deliverables

due to the holiday break at the end of fall semester:

There were some…businesses who contacted me, they wanted

to implement the designs, and they wanted the design files to send to
signage fabricators. It took a while to get those files due to the holiday
break, and [the professor] had to contact the students and wait for
responses from her. Perhaps you could get the design files from the
students and deliver them as part of the project report?
 44

Those concerns were justified for the community but for university participants
there were competing time demands at the end of the semester which created
delays. Students were at times unresponsive in sharing project files after the
semester ended. Once the semester was finished, students may have felt their
obligations to the project were also finished.

Some professors devised systematic ways to extract project files from

students before the end of the semester. These professors typically had an easier
time finishing up their responsibilities related to final report creation. Other
professors had a more difficult time and report creation dragged on for several
weeks or even months.

Other logistical concerns related to community visits. For example,

communities reported the need for plenty of lead time to stir up support for a
project—that support may have been financial, but it also may have involved finding
a place for 40 students to sleep on a Friday night, or business owners who would
agree to be interviewed on Tuesday morning at 10 am.

To mitigate some of these logistical concerns, community partners

appreciated the existence of formalized programs and related processes, in
accordance with the literature that recognizes the importance of formalized
processes (Koulish, 1998; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). Advance agreements about
project costs, timelines, and expected deliverables paved the way for the focus to be
placed on the project itself when students visit the community.

Community-Student Interaction
Pickeral and Peters (1998) noted that interaction between community and
students provides benefits to the community partner organization. Interview results
agreed with their findings in both Group One and Group Two. Community members
prized interaction with university students as a valuable component of the program.
Interviewees specifically mentioned benefits to local young adults in some projects:
 45

Our residents enjoyed the interaction with the college students.

Being a small community, although we are growing, there is often a
vacuum [of community engagement] in the age group of 19-24. It was
very meaningful for that age group of our residents to interact with your
students.

In looking back some interviewees mentioned they wished students had

more time scheduled to meet with business owners: “I did not expect [the
students’] level of interest in the community—so our timing of the city visit could
have been planned out better”.

Another community had decided the distance was too great for funding a
student visit, so they arranged distance meetings between the community and their
student partners. In looking back, they indicated they would have done things
differently:

In hindsight, I probably should have worked with [the instructor]

to find money to fund the students to come up here….[one of the best
outcomes was]…the collaboration of students, city, and business
owners to try something new and exciting, that benefits everyone
involved.

More than half of all stakeholders interviewed in both Group One and Group
Two made some positive comment about the value of interaction with the students.
This factor was a central theme to one interview. This person said that her favorite
thing about working with ISU was

probably meeting them [the students] and going with them to the
park and through the community, and then the community meeting at
the Methodist Church. They made two trips down here, one was a
lengthy meeting and we REALLY got together and bumped heads and
it was really neat, that part.

The importance of interaction with the students for this community

stakeholder was evidenced in that she mentioned it at least four separate times
during her interview. Just interacting with students was not enough to assure
 46

positive impacts for a project, however. The local community needed to provide
some resources as well.

Community Contributions
Stakeholders from communities that had moved forward with projects typically
talked about broad-based community support, a high degree of collaboration
between different groups in the community, and adequate capacity to support
moving ahead with their project. Thirteen comments were received in answer to an
interview question about adequate community contributions. Seven people gave an
unqualified “yes” as an answer. The six other comments were qualified answers.
They indicated “yes, but….”, and followed with ideas about how their community
might have provided more support to the project. In communities with some of the
most successful projects, the partners spoke of “pulling everybody together”, of
“speaking to all the Board members”, or of a diverse group of people who were
interested in the project with the university:

There were a few [business owners] that were not receptive and
did not want to participate. But we saw consumers, retailers, business
owners, city council and the Promotion Commission, P& Z [Planning
and Zoning Board] that were interested. That was a broad based
group that was interested in seeing the results of the project. And
[they] were interested in the process as well.

One community had moved forward with their project but progress had been
slow and difficult. Their own analysis indicated a lack of community interest and
support.

A drawback to the project was probably that we did not have

enough people involved to enact progress. We just didn’t have enough
people involved to make the project go.

Community capacity for progress was a concern for this project, but
stakeholders were persistent and realistic in addressing their abilities.

it was a good venture for us. Things will happen, eventually—

we work slow, we are a very small town!
 47

Another community struggled with moving forward on their project. In spite of

a very engaged and enthusiastic stakeholder who worked with the university, no
physical changes were evident as a result of the project. A lack of collaboration may
have been a key to understanding the absence of results in this town:

I really thought we were gonna see half the storefronts change

as a result of this. Now, we didn’t get there. This is not totally to
blame on the PLaCE program. This has been going on for a long time
in ***, to clean up some of our storefronts. This has been a big
frustration of mine for 15 years, and we are still talking about cleaning
up the storefronts. We can’t get resolution because we can’t get folks
to make changes. So it’s not like it’s ISU’s fault that nothing got done.
It’s just some of the barriers that we need to deal with.

The interviewee in this case worked very hard to make this project a
success—it was not for lack of trying that no results could be seen in the town.
Perhaps the problem was in his own words: “a big frustration of mine” (emphasis
added). If no one shared his frustration, community motivation for change was likely
small.

Data from this research certainly agreed with Ferman and Hill (2004), who
indicated that communities need to have adequate desire, capacity, and support in
place in order to engage in a meaningful partnership. Within this research,
contributions of communities where positive impacts were noted centered on broad-
based collaboration, community interest, and community capacity.

While community contributions were important in communities where positive

impacts were observed, university contributions were important as well. In addition
to the contributions of program structure that were discussed previously, students
brought many contributions to the communities where PLaCE projects occurred.

University Contributions
The university contributions mentioned in this study are restricted to those
mentioned by the community stakeholders who were interviewed. Other university
 48

contributions are important to a successful program, but only those contributions

mentioned by community partners are discussed here.

Community partners generally approved of the level of University

contributions. Several people mentioned that their original expectations of the
project related to creative ideas from students. Some community stakeholders
indicated that they requested university participation in their community as a way to
access new ways of thinking; others reported they were interested in receiving
cutting-edge ideas that students were learning from their classroom instruction.

Creative Design Solutions. Some community partners entered the

relationship with a primary goal of receiving creative design solutions to a community
development need. This was particularly true of the graphic design projects for
storefront redesigns, but was also expressed by one city administrator in reference
to a park design:

[Our goal was] to have students look at the project sites,

thinking outside the box, ideas we would not have considered. We
mostly tend to look inside the box. We were looking for fresh ideas
and momentum for the project.

Comments about creative design solutions were only received from Group
Two. This was understandable, since Group One projects were not design projects.
Group One comments focused instead on bringing new ideas from the classroom to
the community.

New ideas. Several Group One respondents discussed the value of new
ideas from students. New ideas were not discussed in Group Two. This difference
was logical, due to the difference in backgrounds of the interview participants and
project types. Two community partners specifically mentioned they had expected to
receive new ideas from the university classroom that might be incorporated into their
communities. One even mentioned that this was his favorite part about working with
 49

the university, and that students may be better than private consultants for bringing
up new ideas, since they are not constrained by practicality:

The best thing, from the whole process, [was that] the students
were more open to new ideas, as compared with when you have a
professional firm come in to do a plan. The professionals sometimes
constrain their ideas to what is practical. The students considered
practicality, but they were also very engaged in finding solutions that
might not otherwise have presented themselves. They considered
ideas that were more creative and far-reaching. The students
incorporated concepts that they had learned in class or ideas they
learned from around the country.

In contrast, there were other community partners that were not open to new
ideas. One community partner expressed frustration when students incorporated
ideas into the community plan that were not in compliance with existing city code
requirements. She indicated that the city had no interest in considering the students’
ideas, and that she wished more of the city council’s interests had been considered
when the plan was prepared by the students. Her comments disclosed a lack of
communication between university and community.

Another community partner expressed disappointment that student work did

not incorporate forward-thinking ideas that he had anticipated:

I had a vision of where I wanted things to go, based on the

public hearings and conversations I had already conducted. What
came back was not completely boilerplate but it was pretty standard—
Comprehensive Planning 101…. It’s better than nothing at all.

There were also some problems in setting clear expectations and providing
good communication between the community partner and the university in this
project. The issue of setting expectations is discussed later.

Fresh eyes. In addition to creative design solutions and new ideas,

communities from Group One and Group Two expressed the value of students
bringing a fresh perspective and a trained eye to investigate community needs.
 50

The program itself is a really unique program, to help our

business owners. One of the main things it helps with is to really see
their business, and the first impression they are making, from a fresh
perspective, whether or not they implemented changes, it was a wake-
up call, about how well their store fronts were representing their
businesses.

And another community stakeholder said:

the usefulness is the fact that when you have individuals from
the outside, they can see some things that we walk by and don’t see,
on a daily basis. Ways not only to improve our communities but to get
our citizens to work together to look toward the future. I found that the
visioning process—looking toward the future, and the design process
were very beneficial and helpful.

Enthusiasm. This factor was not mentioned significantly in the Group One
interviews. In the Group Two interviews, some people discussed the students’
enthusiasm as a highly significant part of their experience. They spoke of it as
contagious:

The refreshing new perspective that they were able to bring to

downtown. It’s nice to have new ideas, new enthusiasm, come in from
outside. That enthusiasm is contagious, for both staff and business
owners. Possibilities about what could be…[I hoped]..that the [city]
business owners could see the potential of something new and exciting
that could market their business better. So getting that enthusiasm
from the students, that’s what I was hoping to get out of it.

Koulish (1998) agreed, citing “rejuvenation of the organization with energy

and enthusiasm” as one of the benefits for communities of service-learning
programs.

Capacity to participate. For both Group One and Group Two, almost all of
the stakeholders who responded to this question: “Did ISU have the desire, capacity,
and institutional support to successfully engage in this project?” answered positively.
One respondent expressed a degree of respect for an ongoing program:
 51

From my perspective it seemed like you knew what you were

doing because you’ve done [projects like this] a few times and you
have the resources there, you know how to pull this off!

One community partner answered negatively. He questioned whether it was

possible to complete the type of plan he had expected in only one semester. His
expectations were higher than some other stakeholders’ so perhaps his standards
could not be met in one semester’s work.

Ferman and Hill (2004) indicated that both parties--university and community-
-need to have adequate desire, capacity, and support in place, in order to engage in
a meaningful partnership. Most community partners agreed that the university
demonstrated these qualities in the PLaCE program.

Final Report/Presentation
In Group One interviews, delivery of the final report was not mentioned as an
important part of the PLaCE process. The final report was important as a project
outcome, which is part of the third major data theme and is discussed under
“Outcomes”.

For Group Two, presentation of the final report was a major discussion point
for several interview participants. Delivery of the final report and/or final
presentation of design solutions is typically an important exclamation point at the
end of a project in the academic world of design. Final presentations are an
opportunity for students to talk about their design ideas and to show those ideas
through graphic representation. Final presentation events often take on a
celebratory air. Students trade in their blue jeans and t-shirts for professional attire,
guests are invited, and food and drink are often shared. Some researchers
recommend celebration as an important component of the service-learning process
(Tai et al., 2006).

Presenting PLaCE project design solutions to community partners took on

widely varying formats as reported by this study’s participants. As a whole, interview
 52

respondents attached a great deal of importance to this part of their experience with
the students. Comments from various interviews indicated this sense of importance:

We did come down [to the university] and see the grand
presentation of all the designs, and that was wonderful, to be able to
hear why the kids drew the designs the way they did, what pieces were
their favorite parts of their designs.…..the end meeting was useful—
hearing their presentations and how they came up with the designs--
and the final report was useful as well”…the students’ presentations
were informative.

Of nine final project comments, three reported that they came to campus for a
formal presentation. One of the comments indicated that a final presentation was
held at the university but no one was able to attend due to inconvenient scheduling
for the community. One project was located out of state and a live video
presentation was arranged. Two presentations were arranged locally in the
community. One town received significant follow-up work with a graduate student
and received a refined plan for park development, but did not report that a final
presentation was held. The last project had no final presentation scheduled but a
DVD recording of the student final project presentations was sent to the community
along with the printed final report.

Yes, [we received the recording] but we did not use it. It was
problematic to get the business owners all together at that time of year
[December]. And so we thought, what’s the value of them watching
the DVD, if they can’t ask the students questions or anything.

Finding common themes from these comments was difficult. Certainly the
community should be consulted about delivery mode of final project results and the
community voice needs to be heard.

There was a lack of agreement in the data about presentation of final design
recommendations. The lack of agreement about this one element in the process
was perhaps the best illustration of the literature’s assertion that studying community
 53

impacts of service-learning is difficult because of the impossibility of controlling for all

the variables involved (Cruz & Giles, 2000).

Indeed, in this study, there were widely varying formats and locations of final
presentations. The character of the community partner organization also varied
according to project type. Organizations included city parks departments,
Chambers of Commerce, a Community College, and Economic Development
groups. Timing within the calendar year was another variable in the final
presentations. Fall semester projects typically held their final presentations in late
November or early December, just before finals week. This was problematic on two
fronts. First, community stakeholders in the retail business had difficulty scheduling
time to attend a meeting, due to the holiday shopping season. Second, late
November and early December weather can be a hazardous time for travel in this
region; professors hesitated to schedule travel to an outlying community for fear of
weather complications. Postponing any event and rescheduling was not seen as
feasible at the end of the semester.

One community participated in two separate projects at the same time, with
the same person acting as the principal contact/ stakeholder in the community for
both projects. The two projects used different formats in final presentation: one
project finished up with a presentation in the community, and the second project
finished up with a presentation on campus. The stakeholder preferred the local
community presentation:

[The second project] was equally a good process. There was a

public presentation at ISU that I attended, but others from [our
community] were not able to attend. I saw some very nice
presentations. If at all possible, I think similar to the [first] project, if the
presentation could be made at the community so that more community
members could attend the presentation, it would be beneficial.

In contrast, in another community a final presentation was never held—

transportation costs precluded a trip to the community, and the late fall schedule
 54

prevented community members from traveling to campus. Their reaction was the
opposite of the previous community.

We ended up not really having a formal presentation, and I think

that was OK. Part of the students’ original game plan was that if the
budget allowed, they would come back and do a formal presentation.
But that didn’t work out for various reasons—scheduling, weather,
funding, etc.

It would seem that no firm conclusions could be drawn from this data about
the variable of final presentation of design results. One observation that could be
made, however, is that among projects that had the most reported positive impacts,
two factors were present. Some kind of final presentation was scheduled which met
their needs, and some type of final printed document which also met their needs was
available for use after the students’ interaction with the community was completed.

Final Document
A final document was not an important category of data in Group One
interviews. Within Group Two, however, community stakeholders discussed final
documentation of the student design documents in detail. Of the nine final project
comments from Group Two, eight projects received a printed, bound document
containing design drawings and explanatory text. Some communities posted the
report on their website, with positive community feedback. In one community, a new
economic development director had taken over since the PLaCE program
involvement. The new director was not aware of the PLaCE project but had noticed
the reports in a desk drawer.

Two of the projects had requested and received poster-size plans of a

development project. These plans were posted in public locations such as the local
bank or library and helped to create publicity and stimulate local interest in the
project.

Another community group only received one copy of the printed report and
one CD with printable files. The CD had been lost and the single copy was in high
 55

demand. Due to internal university difficulties, additional copies of the document

could not be made. The community’s document was still useable but the restricted
access was problematic.

The ninth project (which did not receive a printed report) was the first park
design project taken on by the PLaCE program. At the end of the student class
work, the university found enough funding for a graduate student to work further with
the community to refine the forty student designs into one unified design plan. The
student produced a graphic plan of a park design and delivered it to the city park
committee. This solution (providing the graduate student) resulted in the College’s
largest commitment of financial resources when compared with all the other projects
in this study. However, the satisfaction level of the community was among the
lowest in the study.

The presence of many variables confounded an analysis of this piece of

data—a very small community, a change in project leadership, and a lack of
community collaboration. Nevertheless, the community voice was strong.

No I didn’t ever see a full report, just one colored diagram/plan

that the students did. I never saw a write-up, I would like to see it if I
could.

[And another stakeholder said]: I think I heard that they never

came back with a final print of the park plan, I heard that in a meeting
once when I asked about it. I would be interested in receiving a copy
of the report.

[And the same person said later]: Well, I don’t think we

received…all of it, we did have a drawing, kind of a scale drawing…but
we were supposed to get more and I don’t think we ever got it…. But
there wasn’t really a good set of plans as a final output.

One possible explanation was that this community only received one drawing,
and no final printed report. A drawing can be difficult to store over a long period of
time. A standard-sized printed report can have a long shelf life in an office. Perhaps
over a period of several years a printed report is more helpful to the community than
 56

a poster-size plan. Indeed, all of the other interviewees made some reference to the
printed document, and many of them indicated that even after several years, the
reports were taken down off the shelf and perused for inspiration.

Process Theme: Summary

Community stakeholders voiced strong opinions about how the process
affected local impacts of the PLaCE program project in their communities. They
heard about the program from a variety of sources, and voiced an appreciation of a
defined program structure to help set guidelines and direction for the process.

Community partners especially enjoyed interactions with the students, and

valued the enthusiasm and fresh perspective they brought to community planning
and development activities. Group One project stakeholders valued new ideas
students brought from the university classroom, while Group Two project
stakeholders valued creative design ideas. However, some stakeholders had rigidly
specific ideas of what students would create or design, and they were disappointed
when those ideas were not part of the students’ work.

Final presentation of project results was especially important to Group Two

stakeholders. For university partners, scheduling of the presentation was
sometimes difficult. The long-lasting positive benefit of the presentation seems to
warrant an emphasis on a final presentation event. The physical document created
from project results was also important for Group Two projects; report creation and
delivery processes could be improved by the university.

Theme Two: Community-University Relationship

The Community-University relationship was important as the connector
between the two parties. As established in the literature review, this relationship
should be viewed as a partnership, with both sides contributing to its success.
 57

Learning Experience for Students

Many community partners from Group One and Group Two expressed
concern for the students’ experience. One expressed that in his mind, “I can’t
separate out ISU from working with youth. I always like working with youth in any
setting.” Other people expressed the importance of providing a meaningful learning
experience for students. One interviewee asked several questions about how
service-learning experiences are valuable to students, indicating a deep interest in
the topic. Others expressed concern about community meetings and hoped that
interactions with grumpy citizens or intimidating council meetings had not resulted in
negative experiences for the students.

Another stakeholder recognized that student interaction with a real community

was a beneficial activity for students. He noted the value to students of doing
something useful with their educational projects:

[I enjoyed] the energy that the students bring, the

thoughtfulness that they put into their assignments. It was an
assignment for them, but they also wanted to do something useful for
the city, [I liked] to hear how they wanted to make a difference and do
something positive for the city. Witnessing that level of caring was
pretty nice to see out of some college students.

Another project enabled university students to engage extensively with

elementary, middle school, and high school students. The benefits of community-
university engagement became a cycle of positive impacts in this project. All parties
involved--university, professor, university students, school district, and young
students--were important to the process, and each one gave and received
assistance of some kind.

I think that was good for OUR [younger] students, to see they
could have a voice, not only in the school district but in their towns as
well…and so I think that was a nice connection, that students [younger]
were asked by students [university] to share their voices and opinions.
 58

The two quotes above from community stakeholders offered powerful

evidence of the important role that community partners felt they played in the
learning experiences of university students during PLaCE projects.

In addition, interview participants offered further examples of their concern for

student learning experiences. Community stakeholders were asked if conforming to
the university’s academic calendar had been problematic for them. All respondents
said the academic calendar had not been a problem for them. These comments
seem to conflict with statements about problematic delays in receiving project
deliverables after the end of a semester. Some community partners expressed
concern that conforming to the academic calendar may have been a problem for the
students, due to weather or other scheduling conditions.

This concern for students’ learning and welfare was indicative of the
importance of the program to community stakeholders. The self-reported lack of
conflict with the academic calendar contrasted with findings of other researchers.
The perceived lack of conflict may have been partially due to the project-based
nature of the PLaCE program. Service-learning programs in which students provide
ongoing service (tutoring, for example) have been reported to suffer from lack of
student availability during semester breaks and summer holidays (Cruz & Giles,
2000; Ferrari & Worrall, 2000)

Other findings from this study agreed with other researchers on the value of
community engagement and service-learning activities for student learning; findings
also agreed with existing literature about community interest and dedication to
participating in the education of students (Gelmon et al., 1998; Sandy & Holland,
2006; Stoecker & Tryon, 2009; Vernon & Foster, 2002).

Community-Professor Interaction
Interaction with professors was important to community stakeholders. They
commented about appreciation of good communication and ease of contacting
professors. For one stakeholder, this was the best part of the process.
 59

I thought the interaction with the professors was the best. I did
not have a lot of interaction with the students as far as the program
itself…I hung out with them when they were making smores down by
the community center…but the interaction with the professors was
probably what made the project happen.

Nine of the twenty-one interviews contained some positive mention of

interaction with professors and ease of communication. This is an indication of the
importance of the relationships--not just between the students and the community
partner, but also between the professor and the community partner.

From start to finish it was easy for our community to be engaged

with ISU staff. Communication with the professor—she did a really
good job of keeping us informed of information that she needed--any
changes that needed to be made accommodate the students
schedules as well as working with us to meet our goals and our
ambitions for the project.

Different structures of community engagement and service-learning programs

translate into different relationship needs, but for this project-based type of structure,
a good relationship between professor and community partner was beneficial.

Two people commented about poor communication:

They [university partner] could have communicated back and

forth with us [community partner] as the project went along so we could
have some conversation about the project. It was pretty much one
way communication.

There needs to be more communication between the students

and the city council so they can make sure they are moving in the
same direction. The students went one direction and the council
wanted to go another direction. The plan was not overly useful and
was never adopted.

Community participants were gracious in their comments, however, and

acknowledged that both parties need to be responsible for good communication.

Umm, I would say yes [there was a breakdown in

communication], but I would also take blame for the communication
 60

problems. It’s a two-way street and we will take our share of the
responsibility for the communication as well.

Some of the communication problems were linked with a failure to set clear
expectations at the outset of a project. A careful analysis of interview comments
yielded some interesting information about the importance of setting clear
expectations.

Setting Clear Expectations

The importance of setting clear expectations was a significant factor in
projects from Group One. Group Two projects have more clearly defined outcomes
inherently so setting expectations was not a stated problem.

Four community partners specifically mentioned that expectations were

clearly stated at the onset of their project. All of those respondents said their
expectations were met at the end of the project.

The communication was good, the expectations of the project

[both sides] were laid out at the beginning of the project so I knew what
to expect. I made time for all of them [students, professor] whenever
they came to town…because I respected the value of their time…they
came to work here so I gave then my time to help them be effective.

Two community partners made no mention of setting expectations but their

projects needs were narrow in scope and were easily met by the class. They were
pleased with the outcomes of their projects.

[This type of plan] is something every city should have. We

have all the information we need to meet information requests from the
county, etc. I learned a lot about this type of plan at the municipal
clerks’ institute.

Two of the community partners indicated they were displeased with the
project; their expectations were not met. Both of these community partners had
specific expectations of what they wanted students to do for them. Those
expectations did not necessarily align with the academic outcomes of the students’
 61

classes, nor did the interviewees discuss learning needs of students. Some of the
expectations were over details that would have been easy to address.

There was not a lot of communication. I mean, the plan just

showed up on my desk one day. All printed and bound and ready to
go. But that was a problem because it was not in a format that we
were willing to use. It was …a waste of paper. .. To me printing is just
killing a lot of trees. The printing was especially wasteful since it had
not yet been approved by the Board of Supervisors. They should have
waited to print until after the Board approved the plan.

If clear expectations had been set before these projects began, both sides of
the partnership might have been more pleased with project outcomes. Better
communication would be the first step in crafting a positive relationship between
both partners.

Relationship
The literature review revealed a concern for healthy relationships between
communities and their university partners. Relationships should be based on trust
and respect (Sandy & Holland, 2006). Community stakeholders discussed their
relationship with the university, and their comments were overwhelmingly positive.

Iowa State is a good partner for this type of thing. We take

advantage of this resource whenever we can, and like to strengthen
ties there whenever we can.

[This project] confirmed my positive attitude about what ISU is

doing with their design college and the planning department.

Eleven of the seventeen interviewees replied with a positive comment about

the people or the university in general when asked about their favorite part about the
project. Fourteen of sixteen respondents indicated that their attitude did not change
because of the project--their attitude was already positive before the project began.
Two stakeholders had previously been unfamiliar with Iowa State University, but now
had positive attitudes. One commented,
 62

Yes, my attitude changed. The quality of the work was

impressive…the final report was really professional. That was a big
contributor to my changed impressions.

Issues of mutual respect were also important to one community partner, who
facilitated a project at a community college:

Initially I was apprehensive because our [community college]

students sometimes feel inferior and I didn’t know how the ISU
students would interact with our students. I did not even feel that came
up as an issue. I thought the ISU students were very respectful. I
didn’t think our students or their students thought there was any
difference between the two groups of students, other than ISU
students were further along in the process. The ISU students had
excellent attitudes.

Even community partners who were displeased with the final product that
they received had good things to say about the university and working with students:

We just appreciate the fact that ISU is willing to work with us

smaller communities. At a reduced rate, and to get us a finished
product. This [particular project] is just one of those things that didn’t
work out. Who knows the next project might be wonderful.

The positive nature of these comments was a powerful indicator of the high
regard for this university, its people, its programs, and its students. University
officials would be wise to safeguard their reputation and work to maintain it.

Community-University Relationship Theme: Summary

Stakeholders reported they valued the relationship with the university and
appreciated its resources. While community partners welcomed the benefits they
received from their involvement with the PLaCE program, they maintained an
awareness that they were participating in the education of university students.

Interviewees reported no problems in working with the academic calendar.

They seemed willing to work on the university’s timetable as long as local community
planning or design needs were being addressed.
 63

Interaction with professors was a highlight for some project participants.

Other participants were not pleased with the outcome of their project, and felt their
voices were not heard. These participants wished for better communication
between the university and the community partner. Careful data analysis revealed
that setting clear expectations before a project begins is one strategy for avoiding
disappointment at a project’s conclusion. Setting clear expectations was more
important for Group One projects, likely because the project type is wider in focus
than Group Two projects.

Finally, and most importantly, the relationship between community and

university was described as strong and worth maintaining. The relationship should
not be taken for granted.

Theme Three: Outcomes

Outcomes were important as they pertained to the initial goals of community
and university. For the community, some type of community development goal was
common. For the university, academic progress was a primary goal. Outcomes
may or may not have related to changes in the physical environment. One
community participant said they expected

…to have students look at the two project sites, thinking outside
the box, ideas we would not have considered, where we mostly tend to
look inside the box. We were looking for fresh ideas and momentum
for the projects.

Clearly, this community partner was expecting ideas and energy from the
university students, and not a detailed community plan or design for physical
development. Ideas and energy from university students resulted in expanded
community capacity, which was a highly important component of the outcomes
mentioned by interview participants.
 64

Expanded community capacity

The literature search suggested that community organizations may
experience enhanced capacity as a result of community engagement and service-
learning activities (Driscoll et al., 1996). Community partners in this research
indicated expanded community capacity in three principal ways. They reported that
their involvement with the PLaCE program stimulated local dialogue, local activity,
and local creative capacity.

Local dialogue. Both Group One and Group Two stakeholders described
increased local dialogue after the PLaCE program. In one community, twenty per
cent of the participating business owners changed their storefronts after receiving
student designs. The city also decided on some much-needed changes to their
sidewalk display ordinance. However, the community partner said those were not
the most important community impacts; she reported the most appreciated impacts
involved local dialogue.

The deliverables for this project were highly appreciated.

Several visible changes occurred in the community due to students’
designs and suggestions. However, the most dramatic and
appreciated results were to stimulate internal dialogues within the
community and the creation of a stronger partnership with Iowa State
University.

Seven stakeholders indicated the PLaCE project helped people begin

dialogues about important community development topics. One community
experienced significant changes in dialogue with its citizens:

[Since the PLaCE project involvement] we have better

communication, and we are having quarterly meetings with the
residents. We revisited issues that were raised in the SWOT analysis
and then brought residents in to talk about those issues, and then we
moved forward to address them…we have some people interested in
prairie plantings due to our proximity to Neal Smith Wildlife Park. We
stimulated people to think about some of these issues if nothing
else…This gives us something positive to talk about with residents
rather than rocks in ditches and other problems.
 65

Stimulating local dialogue was not the only benefit to PLaCE communities.
Some communities reported increased local activity or projects.

Local activity or projects. Other stakeholders from Both Group One and
Group Two reported that PLaCE program involvement helped them move forward
not only on the initial project, but on other, unrelated projects as well.

What has kept moving this forward was the excitement that our
Board members experienced after their interaction with the students.
Everyone is still talking about that. They laugh because some of the
presentations, in addition to being informative, were entertaining.

And in another community:

One of our jewelry stores that did NOT participate [in the original
PLaCE project] did spruce up their storefront afterward. So even some
of those that did not participate were motivated to take a new look at
their storefronts.

A third community stakeholder was involved in a planning project combining

the resources of a small school district and its two affiliated communities. School
officials were impressed by the way the elementary, middle school, and high school
students were included as an important part of the community plan. School officials
were so moved by this planning strategy that they transformed some of their
processes.

The inclusion of our students in the [PLaCE] process has

inspired me to expand upon this in my work [as a school administrator].
Our high school principal resigned last year—and we included students
on the search committee. I think if we have the right students, they
can help pick the right person for the job….. We had some budget
concerns this year. I went to talk to our high school classes—
economics, government. And they had some great ideas about what
we could cut. I took those ideas to the school board. We have an
Applied Communications class that is offered to seniors for
[Community College] credit. The teacher switched the focus to school
improvement ideas, and then the students presented to the school
board some other ideas for school improvement. So I think, that [the
 66

PLaCE] report and process allowed us to expand and honor the

student voices in our schools—that has been a fabulous change.

Five different stakeholders made comments about moving forward on projects

in their community.

Local creative capacity. Finally, three community stakeholders from Group

Two made comments during the interview about PLaCE program involvement
stimulating community members to become more creative in their thought
processes.

The final report really got people thinking about how our campus
could be a different environment. People have been happy with the
status quo and they haven’t thought about developing it into something
else and giving it a different kind of feel. But I think a lot of people saw
those plans and got pretty excited, I’ve heard lots of people talking
about the campus becoming a kind of urban oasis, people from the
school and the community feeling comfortable to come and hang out
on the campus, with it having a park-like environment. I’ve heard
some buzz about it, and there’s still talk about it now, 2 years later. It
definitely got some ideas rolling and brought it to the forefront of
people’s minds.

These community impacts must not be underestimated in their importance.

Changing thought patterns of institutional decision-makers was a powerful impact
that might be overlooked without careful consideration.

Use of Report (Group One)

Planning projects formed the study population of Group One. Some direct
indicators of community impact were legal adoption of the report, following
guidelines contained within the report, or using some components of the report.
Seven of the nine projects in Group One used the report in some way. Two cities
legally adopted reports as prepared by the student classes. One city and one
county used some parts of what the students wrote in preparing a report locally.
Three other projects used report recommendations and guidelines in some way.
One project in particular moved forward fairly quickly:
 67

The plan was officially adopted…We are now in the process of

finishing Design Guidelines, probably this month [October 2010]. After
that we will revise our Zoning Ordinance for the downtown area, to
allow for different uses that were proposed. We are always looking for
other things to check off the list to get the plan realized….we are still
referring back to the action steps the students outlined in their plan.

One project had not been used due to financial constraints. The community
stakeholder indicated that the report had been valuable for investigating land use
alternatives, but no feasible land use had been found. In one sense, the report was
used to decide to do nothing with the project site.

The second unused project was never adopted by the city nor was it ever
used by them. This project suffered from a lack of communication and relationship
with the university.

We didn’t really get to review anything beforehand to say yes,

this is what we are looking for or no, this is not what we were looking
for. All we got was, here’s our final presentation and each student
presented the part they had worked on, and a couple weeks later we
got final copies [of the report.]

After further discussion in the interview, the community partner disclosed that
this was the third comprehensive plan that had been done for this city, and none of
the plans had ever been adopted. Given this past history, it is possible that the city
officials were not highly motivated to work towards achieving a final document that
was satisfactory to them.

Most of the communities from Group One experienced positive direct impacts
from their PLaCE program involvement. City officials have used plans as they were
intended to be used, and indicated they valued and were following recommendations
for community development.

Use of Report (Group Two)

Physical improvements. Group Two projects involved design of physical
improvements. Within this group, direct indicators of community impact were
 68

project-related physical changes in the community. Of eight projects in this group,

six reported some type of physical improvement related to their PLaCE project.
Parks were developed, Main Street storefronts were changed, and streetscapes
were enhanced.

Five businesses changed their storefronts. Also staff and

planning commission had a conversation about our sign
ordinances….were they too restrictive? So we are revising our sign
ordinance now as a result of the PLaCE project in [our city].

The river front project has moved forward over the last few
years. We have participated in the National American Bloom
Contest…we have judges in town, we talk about the project and what’s
taking place. We refer back to PLaCE as being a key element for
getting people thinking outside the box. Since then that project has
spawned into a major development, things are beginning to take place.
We are talking about a $2 million investment in that area. Not all the
students’ projects are being incorporated but [the project] got us
thinking about different development opportunities.

Two projects reported no physical changes. One was a public organization

that was adversely affected by economic downturn; they reported plans to move
ahead with improvements when economic conditions become more positive. The
second project reporting no impacts had no plans for change. This project suffered
from a lack of community contributions and the community did not seem to have a
desire to change.

Use of Final Report Documents. As stated previously, Group Two

stakeholders reported being aware of final project reports and of using them to help
move a project forward. Use of the final report was mentioned in six of the
interviews.

The report was fantastic. I put it on the city’s website for awhile,
it might still be there. It was nice, the business owners who did not
participate, they could reference the report and some creative sign
ideas for the business owners. It allowed me to advertise—or
advocate for graphic design-based solutions for signage for other
businesses as well as the ones that participated.
 69

We took the completed drawing and displayed it in the bank;

also put an article in the local newspaper about the project. The
whole [park] site is much more attractive now.

Two of the communities that engaged with landscape architecture classes for
park design ideas used the reports when they engaged private landscape architects
to provide design services. The community park boards used the final reports as
starting points for design ideas when they met with private designers. Two other
organizations reported they anticipate moving forward with future development work:
the reports have cast a vision for the future.

Two communities that engaged with graphic design classes for business
identity and storefront designs reported that the reports were useful for business
owners and for other groups in the communities. The graphic design class format
was unique in that students were paired one-on-one with store owners. At the end
of the semester some of the store owner “clients” requested design files from the
students so that they could use the students’ designs for storefront improvements.
Community stakeholders reported difficulties in procuring design files from their
student partner and asked if that process could be improved.

This is an area in which the PLaCE program could work on a better partner
relationship. The solution is complicated because of issues related to intellectual
property rights for the students and access to project ideas for community members.

Enhanced Legitimacy
A last area for discussion of project outcomes was a change in how the
project was perceived. Stakeholders reported that a partnership with the university
lent projects enhanced legitimacy, both for local citizens and for external parties.
The program’s link with Extension was mentioned in some interviews as providing
enhanced legitimacy to the community participants. This enhanced legitimacy is
verified by Ferman and Hill (2000).
 70

Group One and Group Two community stakeholders reported that partnership
with the university was valuable for validating project worth, both internally and
externally. Within the community, some citizens viewed the project with increased
legitimacy due to the link with the university.

[The PLaCE project] really gave us a shot in the arm. We got a

lot of name recognition,…[a local designer] got a website going for
us…our meetings had a lot better attendance, things were really taking
off, we were starting to get more projects. It gave the whole project a
boost….at some of those meetings, we had thirty or forty people there,
and that is wonderful.

Beyond the community, stakeholders mentioned they had included the

PLaCE report in grant applications, and that grant applications were more favorably
received by granting agencies due to the partnership with the university.

Outcomes Theme: Summary. The Outcomes theme focused on tangible

community impacts. Were plans formally adopted by City Councils? Were parks
built? Did storefronts change? For the most part, the answer was positive. The
great majority of Group One and Group Two project reports were used in some way
by their respective communities.

Moreover, progress on initial projects was not the only tangible community
impact of PLaCE program involvement in communities. Many local stakeholders
reported expanded community capacity in the form of additional local dialogue,
progress on other community activities or projects, or enhanced creative capacity
within the community.

Community partners also reported that working with the university and use of
the final project report enhanced the project’s legitimacy within the community and
with external granting agencies.

In addition to the three narrower data themes of Process, Community-

University Relationship, and Outcomes, some data applied across all the themes
 71

and was general in nature. It was important to consider this information from a
different perspective, as it took a broader view of community impacts.

Holistic themes
Some data from the interviews was holistic in nature, applying to all aspects
of community impacts of PLaCE projects. Analysis of this data yielded further
information about external variables, value of the project to the community, the
consequences of changes in leadership, and changes in perceptions of project
legitimacy.

The nature of this data also illustrated the complexity of research into
community impacts of community engagement and service-learning activities. Data
presented in this section applies to both Group One and Group Two.

External variables
Many variables influenced the community impacts of PLaCE projects. Some
could be controlled by the university and some could be controlled by the
community. Other variables were beyond either sphere of influence. For example,
three projects within this study were blocked by financial difficulties. Some, perhaps,
will never be feasible. Some will wait until the financial climate changes for
community development improvements.

The most successful projects in this study, as defined by the community

impacts and benefits observed within the research, all had a dedicated core of
stakeholders who worked to build community capacity and move the project forward.
This was best articulated by a community partner:

I think the issue is the council or the professional staff or

someone has to push [the project] afterwards—if a project is just paper
and words and then it goes on a shelf, it doesn’t matter how much it
cost—$3,000 or $4,000 or our streetscape project, with final design
cost of $100,000, the value is nothing if it just sits on the shelf. It’s
important to move forward with it at the end.
 72

This statement illustrates the importance of a dedicated project champion.

The PLaCE projects with the most positive community impacts typically had one or
more project champions who were integral to project success.

Value to Community
One of the indicators of community impact is balance on the benefits
spectrum (Sandy & Holland, 2006). For the community, was the experience worth
their expenditure of time, energy, and money? Fifteen participants answered this
question. Thirteen answered yes; eight answered with particular enthusiasm.

No question, it was very economical, and worth every cent we

spent for it. The youth were all very positive, cordial, and creative in
what they designed—and their work pushed our board to think more
creatively.

One community reported the balance was equal.

I think it was on par. There wasn’t a lot of money put out. I

would do it again, but I would do some things differently next time.

This participant continued to work with the PLaCE program and was very
supportive of student work. This indicated a willingness to continue to search for
practices that function well for both the university and the community.

One participant replied that it had not been worth their investment. In spite of
a negative experience, her attitude about the university and the PLaCE program
remained positive and she was open to the possibility of working with the program in
the future.

Community stakeholders were asked to give the program a grade, indicating

their level of satisfaction with the program. Sixteen responses were received. One
participant gave an A+, ten gave a grade of A, two gave a grade of A-, two gave a
grade of B, and one gave a grade of C-. Six of the A grades included enthusiastic
comments: “Our results were all positive”, “I was a very happy customer”, and “this
project allowed us to explore options we would not have pursued otherwise.”
 73

Leadership Changes
Change of leadership within the community stakeholder group was another
variable that may have affected community impacts of engagement activities. The
data from this research was insufficient to determine the correlation of leadership
change with progress on community planning or development activities. However,
the conclusion could be drawn that a written project report was helpful for project
continuation when a leadership transition occurred. This was convincingly illustrated
by one of the projects in this study, where after five years a new leader reported that
she was using the report to begin new efforts on the project.

Benefit to other entities

A last area of broad impacts of PLaCE projects dealt with benefits to entities
beyond local communities. Four of the seventeen projects resulted in hiring of
private consultants to carry planning or design work to a higher level of completion.
This planning and design work resulted in economic benefit to design consultants
and to the construction industry upon project installation.

PLaCE projects have also been the focus of presentations at community

development and academic conferences, enabling other communities and
academicians to consider replicating similar projects in their home institutions and
communities. Some community officials have shared their experiences within their
professional communities via electronic and print newsletters, and PLaCE has been
highlighted in university news sources. These efforts may have created impacts in
extended locations, but understanding those impacts is difficult.

In addition, community development improvements benefitted user audiences

beyond the local community. For example, within Group Two, impacts of a new park
design in a very small town were investigated. One year after completion of the
PLaCE project, the park now functioned as a trailhead; it served a regional group of
several thousand trail users, although the city’s population was less than 300
people.
 74

Holistic themes: Summary. Holistic themes applied to projects broadly,

addressing external variables, value to community, leadership changes, and benefit
to other entities. External variables included general financial climate, which
hindered community impacts for some PLaCE projects, and the presence of a local
project champion, which facilitated positive community impacts in other PLaCE
project communities.
Community stakeholders reported that involvement with the PLaCE program
had generally provided positive value to the community, and had been worth their
expenditure of time, energy, and money. Data was insufficient to determine how
local leadership change affected community impacts of the PLaCE project, but
evidence was found that a project report can help a new leader continue work on the
project.

In addition, interview participants noted that entities beyond the local

community received impacts of PLaCE projects. Some of these entities were design
consultants and construction companies. Others may have benefitted indirectly by
learning about the projects through conferences, newsletters, and other modes of
communication. Finally, projects such as regional park facilities are used by a wider
population than the local community. A comprehensive accounting of community
impacts of PLaCE projects, both negative and positive, would be a difficult task
indeed.

General Summary

The intangible results [of the program] are what various

individuals took away personally when they listened to the students,
professors, and program coordinator talk about the project. You don’t
know what they internalized from listening to you, but I know they took
some positive benefits away from those interactions.

This community stakeholder discerned that a complete understanding of

PLaCE program community impacts can probably never be achieved. He described
intangible results that might never be revealed beyond one person’s experiences.
 75

However, some tangible results were suggested from this research. Benefits that
communities gained were more far-reaching than expected; community capacities
were expanded, perhaps with greater impact than the intended project—whether it
was a trail system plan or new storefront designs for Main Street.

Study participants were great enthusiasts for this university. They were
delighted to engage with this program because of its affiliation with their educational
institution, and their perception did not change based on project outcome. One
community stakeholder shared the most significant impact of the project in her
community:

[The most significant impact was] building the partnership with

Iowa State! The results were great, and everything else was
wonderful, but becoming aware of the resources at Iowa State and
thinking of Iowa State as a partner in our Community and Economic
Development was the best part. It made us more aware and more
appreciative of what we have here, so that was super.
 76

CHAPTER SIX: INTERPRETATION AND IMPLICATIONS

Interpretation of Study
After analyzing data from twenty-one interviews related to seventeen project
communities, some research results emerged. These results revealed some best
practices of the PLaCE program as well as areas for program improvement. In
addition, some implications surfaced for wider application to other service-learning
and community engagement programs.

Methodology
The methodology for the study was effective. Interview participants took their
role quite seriously and worked to give meaningful answers to interview questions.
Some complications were experienced in locating community stakeholders for
interviews and in scheduling interviews. Recording, transcribing, and analyzing the
interviews was time consuming but within expected parameters for this type of
research. As mentioned previously, record keeping was challenging and more
diligent attention to creating and maintaining research records would have lessened
the burden of data analysis.

Suggestions for program improvement

Some areas for program improvement surfaced in the data. Service-learning
and community engagement are implicit in the structure of the PLaCE program.
However, this is not stated explicitly in the College’s goals for the program. It has
been ten years since the program began. Perhaps this would be an appropriate
time to re-evaluate the program and incorporate principles of community
engagement into the program’s goals, structure, and guidelines. Incorporating
principles of community engagement would align the program with the Kellogg
Commission recommendations for becoming an engaged university (Kellogg
Commission, 2001). With this re-alignment, the program would be poised to better
serve the University, its students, and the communities and citizens of Iowa.
 77

Another factor for program improvement was mentioned specifically by

Stoecker and Tryon (2009); they recommended that communities choose their
partners carefully. Within this study, the issue of community contributions was an
indicator related to community impact. Communities needed to exhibit broad
collaborations, adequate interest and support, and capacity to participate fully in the
project. More careful choice of community partners for acceptance into the PLaCE
program would probably have led to more positive community impacts. In the future,
communities might also be directed to methods for enhancing levels of volunteer
leadership and support before engaging with the program, if community capacity
seems lacking.

Setting clear expectations at the outset of a project was also observed to

affect community impacts. This issue would be best addressed by more strictly
defining and adhering to program protocols. In addition, university partners could
attach more importance to the final presentation at the end of the project, making it a
celebratory event when appropriate. This issue could be addressed by sharing
information with professors about the observed high level of community appreciation
for the final presentation.

In some projects the process for delivering students’ design files to clients
was unsatisfactory. While this might seem to be an obvious area for improvement,
finding solutions will be difficult, as legal issues of intellectual property for students
are involved, as well as timing issues related to end-of-semester schedules.

A final suggestion for improvement relates to gathering data on project

impacts. A program protocol should be created to check back on PLaCE projects at
specified time intervals. Some models exist within the university for checking back
with previous program clients. One model is located within the Center for Industrial
Research and Service (CIRAS). This center provides assistance to manufacturers
for improving their processes, and follows a strict protocol for following up with their
clients. Checking back with PLaCE program community stakeholders would provide
 78

an opportunity to offer communities further development assistance if needed, and it

would also be a way for the College to evaluate the continuing community impacts
and effectiveness of the PLaCE program.

Relationship
Perhaps the most powerful community partner comments related to their
enthusiasm for Iowa State University, and the value they placed on a relationship
with the university. University representatives helped to build that relationship with
every encounter they had around the state.

While the PLaCE program is physically located within the College of Design, it
is structurally housed within the unit for Extension to Community and Economic
Development. The program’s links with Extension enable creation and maintenance
of relationships with communities in unique and valuable ways. Program marketing
and visibility are coordinated through Extension. In addition, the proposed addition
of regular program follow-up, as discussed just previously, can be accomplished
using the resources of Extension. Resources for program follow-up are often difficult
to secure through academic departments.

Extension can be a valuable partner for academic departments in maintaining

relationships with constituent communities. It is important that quality outreach and
engagement work continue in order to maintain and sustain these valuable
relationships.

[Our county and community] have a fine relationship with ISU.

We have been fortunate, especially in the [Extension employees]—
they are some of the highest respected people in our community, so
automatically there is a good image of Iowa State. Plus there are a lot
of alumni and students around here. So as far as the relationship with
ISU, it is fairly positive in this area.

The Kellogg Commission Report (2001) looked in depth at the topic of the
public’s relationship with land-grant universities. The report cited public frustration
with public land-grant universities; they were perceived to be unresponsive, out of
 79

touch, and unable to play a role in solving society’s current problems. In addition,
the report stated the public had a “perception that, despite the resources and
expertise available on our campuses, our institutions are not well organized to bring
them to bear on local problems in a coherent way”. The report went on to
recommend that public universities become engaged institutions that focus on a
commitment to sharing and reciprocity. The Kellogg Commission envisioned
partnerships, two-way streets defined by mutual respect among the partners for
what each brings to the table.

Data from this research did not demonstrate the public frustration or
disconnection described by the Kellogg Commission Report. Instead, this research
found a deep appreciation for the university and an expressed eagerness to form
partnerships and build on existing relationships. Although positive attitudes were
expressed by community stakeholders in this research, the qualities of an engaged
institution are nevertheless valuable qualities to incorporate in PLaCE program
goals. A university does not need to wait until its constituents feel disconnected and
frustrated to begin to work toward positive relationships.

The positive attitudes about relationship with the university that were
described in this research are valuable and should not be taken for granted. All
relationships require maintenance to be sustainable. Incorporating principles of
engaged institutions such as commitment to sharing and reciprocity will contribute to
ongoing healthy relationships between the university and its constituent
communities.

Implications of Study
This research concludes that the PLaCE program serves as an effective
program model for facilitating community engagement and service-learning within a
small college at a land-grant university. Because of the resources available at a
land-grant university, the program’s connections with Extension also provide helpful
bridges within the university and around the state.
 80

Research findings are only valuable if they are shared with others for critique
and for adding to the body of knowledge that informs practice. In that spirit these
generalizable implications are proposed for a wider audience of service-learning and
community engagement programs in other colleges and at other educational
institutions.

Suggestions of best practices

Mention was made early in this thesis of the paucity of research about
community impacts of service-learning and community engagement activities. This
study used existing literature as its foundation, then gathered new data, and now
proposes some principles for best practices. Incorporating these best practices into
service-learning activities may increase the likelihood of enhancing community
impacts.

A formalized program with specifically assigned staff is a helpful beginning

point. The program should be visible to the public through various media formats
and personal contact should be available to respond to community inquiries. Staff
should have the opportunity to receive training in the principles of community
engagement. Because this is an emerging field, making connections with staff from
similar programs at other institutions would be supportive to the program.

The program should incorporate protocols to facilitate clearly stated

expectations of project processes, timelines, fees, and deliverable products. The
expectations should be explicitly described in a formalized agreement that is signed
by both parties.

Program staff and participating faculty should work together to choose

community partners carefully. Before committing to the project, the faculty member
and the community partner should reach an agreement about project goals and
outcomes which satisfies academic needs of students as well as needs of the
community organization. Program staff and faculty members need to work to give
 81

community partners reasonable expectations of students’ abilities relative to the

community problem or need that is being addressed.

In addition, when choosing community partners, program staff and

participating faculty members should look for communities that exhibit signs of
broad-based community collaboration and support for the project. A committee that
consists of only one community member showing interest in a partnership with the
university is unlikely to result in a project with meaningful community impacts.

Interacting with students can be a powerful and enjoyable experience for

community partners. Students often bring fresh and valuable insight to community
problems, and community members usually place high value on the students’ ideas.
Faculty and community partners should work to enhance interaction between
students and the community. Opportunities for developing this interaction occur
during class visits to the community but community members may also be invited to
campus for progress reports during the project period.

Some type of event at the end of the project period should be considered, if
appropriate for the project type. This event can be held in the local community, but
might also be held at the university. The important consideration is to work for some
type of interaction between students and community as a final part of the project.

Community members, faculty participants, and program staff should also be

aware of types of impacts that can be anticipated as a result of service-learning and
community engagement activities. First of all, impacts that relate directly to the
project can be expected. Those impacts will, of course, vary widely according to
academic discipline and project type.

Likewise, indirect impacts can be anticipated. Indirect impacts include

expanded local community capacity and enhanced legitimacy of the project.
Communities may also experience a ripple effect, whereby the initial project
stimulates community action on a separate, but related project.
 82

Program staff and administrators should be mindful of the benefits of program

assessment. Research should be conducted on a regular basis to determine if
community needs are being met by the program. It will also be valuable to assess
the program for meeting the needs of the university, faculty, and students as well. A
program must be valuable to all four groups if it is to be sustainable.

Community impacts of service-learning and community engagement activities

cannot be guaranteed; there will always be potentially restrictive factors beyond the
control of university or community. For example, a downturn in the local economy,
an event causing social upheaval, or a change in the political scene could arrest
project development in any community.

Another suggestion of best practices relates to the academic community.

Service-learning activities are helpful for universities, faculty, students, and
communities when they are done well. However, learning about how to do those
activities well requires that practitioners add to the body of knowledge.

Community engagement practices across the disciplines

As stated in the literature review, community engagement efforts are crafted
using an assortment of strategies, which varies across academic disciplines. These
engagement efforts have evolved over decades in some disciplines; each discipline
has crafted its own peculiar vocabulary to describe its engagement efforts. One
unfortunate result of this disciplinary isolationism is that the disciplines have failed to
learn from one other.

Within the design disciplines, for example, Henry Sanoff engaged in

community based design for over thirty years with the Community Development
Group at North Carolina State University (Sanoff, 2003). Furthermore, incorporating
community outreach projects into the curriculum was a staple of many design
disciplines before the term ‘service-learning’ was coined. In spite of this long history
of engagement efforts, the design disciplines have been a nearly silent voice in the
 83

current academic discussions of service-learning and community engagement which

are occurring in wider academic circles and at administrative levels.

In contrast, the medical education disciplines are perhaps at the forefront of

implementing service-learning and community engagement activities into their
curricula, and they have published widely about their practices. They share
information effectively through their organization, Community-Campus Partnerships
for Health (www.ccph.info). They also share information effectively outside of the
medical education field, for example at the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse
(www.servicelearning.org). This type of sharing might be appropriate for the design
professions, perhaps through professional groups such as the American Institute of
Architects, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the American Planning
Assocation, or the Environmental Design Research Association.

One nascent organization has formed within the design disciplines in an effort
to promote the principles of service-learning in the design classroom. This
organization, Erasing Boundaries (www.erasingboundaries.psu.edu), has achieved
some accomplishments in the first years of its existence, but the organization is
largely invisible outside of the design academic realm.

Finally, what might the different disciplines—medicine, design, law, and

engineering, to name a few--learn if they shared information with each other about
successes and failures of service-learning and community engagement activities,
projects, and strategies? As the scholarship of service-learning and community
engagement becomes more integrated and cross-disciplinary, further research will
enable the disciplines to learn from one another and strengthen academic practices
at the same time.
 84

CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Recommendations for further research

Some recommendations for further research emerged, both for the PLaCE
program and for addressing broader questions about community impacts of service-
learning and community engagement programs.

PLaCE program
There are several research questions yet unanswered relative to the PLaCE
program. A factor that was not a consideration in this research was the impact of
community engagement and service-learning projects on faculty members. Some
data from the analysis hinted that faculty incentive for participation in the PLaCE
program or type of faculty position may be linked to quality of communication and
clarity of expectations between community partner and university.

Some other questions about faculty issues can be posed. Why do faculty
choose or do not choose to participate in the PLaCE program? Where is the
balance on the benefits spectrum for faculty? There are currently more PLaCE
applications from communities than faculty willing to work with PLaCE projects.
Understanding the balance on the benefits spectrum for faculty would help to
address the imbalance between supply and demand.

In addition to studying faculty issues relative to PLaCE, College of Design

strategic vision for community engagement could be investigated in future research.
Would there be a benefit and/or interest in choosing one underserved population or
community development group to serve with all the College’s departments working
deeply on one community development need, while developing some rich expertise
in one specific design practice area? As an example, could the College of Design
begin to use its academic resources to study and assist in development of small
town Main Street communities across the state?
 85

As this deep expertise was developed, communities could be partners in

developing the expertise, and would receive development assistance along the way.
Rich expertise in one specific design practice area could at the same time become
the focus of faculty research, publication, and scholarship. Students would also
develop valuable and marketable skills with this scenario.

Alternatively, would the College’s departments be interested in a longitudinal

study, working with one community very deeply over a period of several years and
recording changes over time? Working under this scenario, community partners,
faculty, and students would also work together and receive mutual benefits.

Further research into the PLaCE program itself would mostly benefit the local
university. However, many questions remain unanswered about community impacts
of service-learning and community engagement. Answers to these questions will
benefit a wider audience.

Further research on a wider scale

Larger research questions should also be addressed. Community impacts of
other programs like PLaCE should be studied as a group to investigate if research
results from this study are generalizable to a larger population. A larger group
research study would make a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge relative
to community engagement.

Some of the data from this study may only apply to the design disciplines.
But other data likely applies more globally. Service-learning is currently practiced
across most academic disciplines and it would be valuable to know about community
impacts of projects from other disciplines. As mentioned previously, the medical
educational community is already deeply engaged in service-learning practices.
Other disciplines would benefit from an examination of their service-learning and
community engagement practices.
 86

Discussion of Community Engagement

Much of the current discussion about community engagement in academic
circles focuses on long-term, deeply rooted partnerships between a community and
a university. This model is certainly valuable and helpful in many situations. The
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) has consistently
recognized this type of project with its highest award for community engagement, the
C. Peter Magrath Community Engagement Award (www.aplu.org).

However, this researcher extends a word of caution and proposes that long-
term, deeply rooted partnerships are not the only helpful approach to community
needs. There are also merits to shorter-term models of community engagement.

Valuing long-term, deeply rooted partnerships over shorter term partnerships

ignores the reality of diversity in types of community needs, faculty scholarship
interests, and resources of academic disciplines. Accommodating and valuing a
range of partnership types within the field of community engagement will allow for
the diversity of needs within communities and resources within academic disciplines.

Conclusion
This research report began with a question from researchers Sandy and
Holland (2006). “What would we hear if we listened to community partners about
their experiences in partnering with academic institutions?” This research study did
exactly that—listened to the voices of community partners about their experiences in
partnering with Iowa State University’s PLaCE program.

Talking to community partners and listening to their voices was an enjoyable

research experience. Their stories were interesting, encouraging, and surprising.
The stories were interesting because they told about their personal connections with
students, professors, and the projects. The stories were encouraging because
PLaCE projects have been valuable in the partner communities. And the stories
were surprising because community members were less focused on the physical
 87

improvements in their communities and more focused on positive changes in

relationships between the residents in the community.

[The most significant community impact was] the beautification,

the computer modeling, the enthusiasm of the students, those three
things. And maybe I should reverse that a little. When you get a lot of
young people –young leaders-- that really helps a community think
about the future rather than about the past. And I think that’s one of
the key issues, to get people to think about the future.

Here’s a salute to the future of PLaCE project communities.

 88

CHAPTER EIGHT: WORKS CITED

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 221-240.
Butler, P., & Erickson, S. (in process). Examining the Iowa State University PLaCE
program: A service-learning model for design extension studios. In P.
Horrigan (ed.) & C. Doble (Eds.), Erasing boundaries through service-
learning. New York.
Chenail, R. J. (1995). Presenting qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 2(3).
Chusid, J. (2007). Community service, design students, and the nature of wicked
problems. In P. Horrigan (Ed.), Extending our reach: Voices of service
learning at cornell. Ithaca: Cornell Public Service Center.
Cohen, J., & Kinsey, D. F. (1994). Doing good and scholarship: A service-learning
study. Journalism Educator, 48(4), 4-14.
Constas, M. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of
category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal,
29(2), 253-266.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAge.
Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. (2000). Where's the community in service-learning research?
Michigan Journal of Community Service learning, 28-34.
Design, C. o. (2008). Request for assistance brochure. Iowa State University.
Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model
for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty,
students, community, and institutions. Michigan Journal of Community
Service learning, 3, 66-71.
Driskell, D. (2007). From service-learning to collaborative community-based
learning: Connecting student and community outcomes through learning and
action processes. In P. Horrigan (Ed.), Extending our reach: Voices of
service learning at cornell. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Duckenfield, M., & Wright, J. (Eds.). (1995). Service learning across the curriculum.
Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J., Giles, D., Stenson, C., & Gray, C. (2001). At a glance: What we know
about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions,
and communities, 1993-2000; third edition: Vanderbilt University.
Ferman, B., & Hill, T. L. (2004). The challenges of agenda conflict in higher-
education-community research partnerships: Views from the community side.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(2), 241.
Ferrari, J. R., & Worrall, L. (2000). Assessments by community agencies: How "the
other side" sees service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community SErvice
Learning, 7(Fall 2000), 35-40.
 89

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation:

Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed.). New York:
Longman.
Foreman, C. W. (1996). Service-learning in the small group communication class.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication
ASsociation, San Diego, CA.
Francis, M., Cashdan, L., & Paxson, L. (1984). Community open spaces: Greening
neighborhoods through community action and land conservation.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gelmon, S., Holland, B., & Shinnamon, A. F. (1998). Health professions schools in
serivce to the nation: Final evaluation report. San Francisco, CA: Community
Campus Partnerships for Health.
Greene, D., & Diehm, G. (1995). Educational and service outcomes of a service
integration effort. Michigan Journal of Community Service learning, 2, 54-62.
Heffner, G. G., & Beversluis, C. D. (Eds.). (2003). Commitment and connection.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Henness, S. A. (2001). K-12 service-learning: A strategy for rural community
renewal and revitalization. Washington D.C.: Corporation for National Service.
Holland, B. A. (2001). A comprehensive model for assessing service-learning and
community-university partnerships. New Directions for Higher Education,
114(Summer 2001), 51-60.
Horrigan ed., P. (2007). Extending our reach: Voices of service learning at cornell.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Howard, J. (2003). Service-learning research: Foundational issues. In S. H. Billig &
A. S. Waterman (Eds.), Studying service-learning: Innovations in education
research methodology (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ibanez-Carrasco, F., & Riano-Alcala, P. (2009). Organizing community-based
research knowledge between universities and communities: Lessons
learned. Community Development Journal.
Jost, D. (2008, August 2008). Too cool for (just) school. Landscape Architecture
Magazine.
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university (5th ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Koch, C., Lelle, M., Long, R., & VanBuren, M. (1996). How service works: WK
Kellogg Foundation.
Kotval, Z. (2003). University extension and urban planning programs: An efficient
partnership. Journal of Extension, 41(1).
Koulish, R. E. (1998). Community impact: Defining and assessing the intentional
community. In T. Pickeral & K. Peters (Eds.), Assessing internal and external
outcomes of service-learning collaborations (pp. 59): Campus Compact
National Center for Community Colleges.
Madden, S. J. (Ed.). (2000). Service learning across the curriculum: Case studies in
higher education. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc.
 90

Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (1999). Toward an integrative framework for
evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(2), 177-198.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Palomba, C. A., & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning,
implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (1998). Assessing internal and external outcomes of
service-learning collaborations: Campus Compact National Center for
Community Colleges.
Sandmann, L. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher
education: A strategic review, 1996-2006. Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91-104.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground:
Community partner perspectives on campus=community partnerships.
Michigan Journal of Community Service learning(Fall 2006), 30-43.
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sanoff, H. (2003). Three decades of design and community: North Carolina State
University.
Schuh, J. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for practitioners.
Schuh, J. H. (Ed.). (2009). Assessment methods for student affairs. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Soukup, P. A. (1999). Assessing service-learning in a communication curriculum.
Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the National Communication
Association, Chicago, IL.
Stoecker, R., & Tryon, E. (2009). The unheard voices: Community organizations
and service learning. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Tai, L., Haque, M. T., McLellan, G. K., & Knight, E. J. (2006). Designing outdoor
environments for children: Landscaping schoolyards, gardens, and
playgrounds. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Townson, L. (2009). Engaged scholarship at land-grant institutions: Factors
affecting faculty participation. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy in Education,
University of New Hampshire.
Vernon, A., & Foster, L. (2002). Community agency perspectives in higher education
service-learning and volunteerism. In S. H. Billig & A. Furco (Eds.), Service-
learning through a multidisciplinary lens (pp. 153-175). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Ward, K., & Vernon, A. (1999). Community perspectives on student volunteerism
and service learning. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service-learning.
American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5), 767-780.
 91

Young, J. (1998). Assessing impact on students, faculty, the institution, and the
community. In M. Rothman, E. Anderson & J. Schaefer (Eds.), Service
matters: Engaging higher education in the renewal of america's communities
and american democracy (pp. This webpage has an excerpt of an article first
published in Service Matters 1998: Engaging Higher Education in the
Renewal of America's Communities and American Democracy. The article
describes community impact assessments by Miami-Dade Community
College in Florida.). Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
 92

CHAPTER NINE: APPENDIX.

1. Goal-Variable-Indicator Chart
2. Interview Form
3. IRB Approval, August 2009
4. IRB Modification Approval, March 2010
 93

What will we How will it be Who will provide the

What will we look for?
measure? measured? information?
(variable)
(indicator) (method) (sources)
PLaCE applicant or
Visible results Project installation Site visit city official
Photographs
Adoption by city City clerk or other
Direct impacts Personal affidavit
council official
Projects achieved Include in interview
Enhanced
New development questions and/or data Project stakeholder
organizational capacity
related to project analysis
Has project moved
Ready to move
forward? Grants Project stakeholder
forward/progression of Personal affidavit
identified and/or City clerk
knowledge
applied for?
Include in interview
Project resources were
Self-report questions and/or data Project stakeholder
more affordable
analysis
new energy and
Include in interview
enthusiasm
Self-report questions and/or data Project stakeholder
new skills or expertise
analysis
new networks identified
Include in interview
Gain access to Self-report
questions and/or data Project stakeholder
university facilities
analysis
Include in interview
Use project results for Project stakeholder
Self-report questions and/or data
further development City clerk
analysis
Self-report. Include in interview
Enhanced legitimacy for
Successful grant questions and/or data Project stakeholder
the organization
application analysis
Include in interview
Balance on the benefits
Self-report questions and/or data Project stakeholder
spectrum
analysis
Include in interview
Community assisted in
Self-report questions and/or data Project stakeholder
educating students
analysis
Include in interview
Commitment of both
Self-report questions and/or data Project stakeholder
parties is perceived
analysis
Respect and trust in the Include in interview
community-university Self-report questions and/or data Project stakeholder
relationship? analysis
Table 6.Goal-Variable-Indicator Model (Gelmon et al, 1998)
 94

Interview form
Time/Date:
Medium:
Interviewee:
Project:
Process

Tell me about your experience with the PLaCE project (provide details if necessary).

What did you find useful about particular components of the program?

Were there components that were not useful?

What was your favorite thing about working with ISU? About working with ISU
students? What was problematic?

Describe the quality of the relationship with ISU

Have you done any other projects with ISU since then? Why or why not?

How do you feel you were treated by university representatives?

Expectations

What were your expectations about the project? About the relationship with ISU?

How did your attitudes about ISU change as a result of this project?

In your judgment, did ISU have the desire, capacity, and institutional support to
successfully engage in this program/project?

Did your community have the desire, capacity, institutional support to successfully
engage in this program/project?
 95

Results

What happened as a result of this project?

What has worked well?

What did not work well/could have been changed to provide better outcomes for you?

After the PLaCE project involvement in your community, what happened next?

What is happening currently in regards to (insert relevant project information)?

Wrapping Up

Was it worth your investment of time, energy, and money, for the benefits you
received?

It’s your turn to give us a grade. On the whole, how satisfied were you with this
interaction with PLaCE?

A= very satisfied
B= satisfied
C= just average
D= not satisfied
F= dissatisfied

What do you think were the most significant community impacts?

Are there any other comments you would like to make about the community impacts
of this project?

Is there anyone else I should talk to about this project?

 96

Initial IRB Approval, August 2009

 97

IRB Approval of Modification, March 2010