See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342077985

Service Learning Methodology Toolkit - Comparing Practical Teaching

Methods in Higher Education

Technical Report · February 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35346.99520

CITATIONS READS

0 338

16 authors, including:

Gabriel Dima Katharina Resch

Polytechnic University of Bucharest Universität Koblenz-Landau
40 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joaquim Luís Coimbra Agne Gadeikiene

University of Porto Kaunas University of Technology
234 PUBLICATIONS   669 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   201 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Catch-EyoU View project

UNIBILITY – University Meets Social Responsibility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Katharina Resch on 10 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Service Learning Methodology Toolkit –
Comparing Practical Teaching Methods in
Higher Education
v.4.0

Editors: Gabriel Dima, Katharina Resch, Mariella Knapp, Andrea Ciarini

Authors: Oana Calarasu, Joaquim Coimbra, Agnė Gadeikienė, Rima
Kontautiene, Andra Luca, Isabel Menezes, Sofia Pais, Vaida
Pilinkiene, Andrea Riccio, Maria Slowey, Jovita Vasauskaite, Tanya
Zubrzycki
Date: February 2020
Format: Public Deliverable IO 2

Project: ENGAGE STUDENTS – Promoting social responsibility of students by

embedding service learning within HEIs curricula
Grant Agreement Number: 2018-1-RO01-KA203-049309
ENGAGE STUDENTS CONSORTIUM
1. University Politehnica Bucharest (UPB) – Coordinator
2. University of Vienna (UNIVIE)
3. Dublin City University (DCU)
4. Universita degli studi di Roma la Sapienza (UNIROMA1)
5. Kaunas Technical University (KTU)
6. University of Porto (UP)

AMENDMENT HISTORY
Version Date Author / Unit Description
1.0 22.11.2019 Gabriel Dima First draft
Mariella Knapp
2.0 28.11.2019 Feedback on first draft
Katharina Resch
3.0 17.01.2020 Katharina Resch Second version
Andrea Ciarini
4.0 02.02.2020 Final version
Gabriel Dima

Citation:
Dima, G., Resch, K., Knapp, M., Ciarini, A. (eds.) (2020). Service Learning
Methodology Toolkit – Comparing Practical Teaching Methods in Higher
Education. A deliverable of the ENGAGE STUDENTS project.

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This
website reflects the view only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained
therein.

This work is license under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-

Share Alike 4.0 International License.
CONTENTS

Executive summary i
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodologies 3
2.1. Service Learning 3
2.1.1. Introduction to Service Learning 3
2.1.2. Background and origins of Service Learning 4
2.2. Project based Learning 6
2.2.1. Main Differences to Service Learning 8
2.2.2. Example of Good Practice 9
2.3. Action Research and Participatory Action research 10
2.3.1. Main differences to Service Learning 11
2.3.2. Example of good practice 12
2.4. Internships 14
2.4.1. Main differences to Service Learning 16
2.4.2. Example of good practice 16
2.5. Volunteering 18
2.5.1. Main Differences to Service Learning 19
2.5.2. Example of Good Practice 20
2.6. Action-reflection methodologies 21
2.6.1. Main differences to service learning 22
2.6.2. Example of good practice 22
2.7. Community-based research 24
2.7.1. Main differences to service learning 26
2.7.2. Example of good practice 27
2.8. Social entrepreneurship 29
2.8.1. Main differences to Service Learning 31
2.8.2. Example of good practice 31
3. Conclusion 33
References and further readings 34
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This methodology toolkit provides an evidence-based insight into service learning
and seven practical teaching approaches: 1) community-based research, 2)
project-based learning, 3) (participatory) action research, 4) internships, 5)
volunteering, 6) action-reflection methodologies and 7) social entrepreneurship.
The toolkit adopted a comparative approach with the main aim of mapping the
strengths and weaknesses of the seven practical teaching approaches analysed
compared with service-learning.

Community-based research. It is a methodology based on partnership and full,

equal engagement between university researchers, students and practitioners in
community organizations. Fundamental to Community-based research is to
democratize both the ways in which knowledge is created and disseminated.
Community organisations (and individuals) are thus not ‘researched upon’ but
rather are equal partners with university academic researchers at all stages of
the method. From an educational perspective, the outcome aims at the
development of knowledge and a range of skills for researchers and also,
potentially, community members, such as: team working; communication skills;
research methods – qualitative and quantitative; reporting on research findings
to a wide range of different audiences: policy makers, practitioners, community
members and researchers. Some of the complexities of this method includes:
challenges of identifying research topics of mutual interest to both members of
the local and the academic community; complexity of partnership working
based on mutual respect and engagement between key stakeholders;
differences in impact indicators – publications in the academic sphere;
implementation in the community sphere.
Project-based learning. As a method it aims at enabling students to develop
both personal and professional skills, such as problem solving; time planning for
particular project tasks; decision making; personal and team responsibility; self-
directed and -regulated learning; self-assessment and -evaluation. During
project-based learning there are a lot of separate steps, including activities,
workshops, and research with many assessments until the final evaluation in order
for teachers to be more objective and lead students to a better learning
outcome. The weakness of the method relates the fact that not all students can
learn in the same way, Teacher’s role is crucial while applying this learning
method. If a teacher is not prepared, lacks experience and competences, the
method’s application result can be not satisfying. Thus, the method can be
limited in terms of teacher’s help and support. Moreover, the method is highly
demanding in time and other resources comparing to traditional learning
methods, which discourages teachers to apply it together with other learning
methods.

i
Action research. It is a methodology aimed at working on practical issues at a
community level in a participatory way between researchers and local
practitioners. Community members and researchers work together to: (a) identify
and analyse community problems, (b) find solutions to those problems through
the best methods of research, and (c) test those solutions in the community.
Action research needs active engagement on all sides of the process, also on
the student’s side. Some researchers criticize the method for his lacking of a
concrete systematic of the single processes and for a lack of quality criteria or
specific characteristics of this research. As the research methodology is very
open, it is argued that “everything” which happens in the community can be
action research. Therefore, the concrete outputs of action research cannot be
foreseen as they evolve while the practice is researched and reflected and
depends on the situation. This makes it difficult to plan the concrete research at
the beginning.
Internships. An internship is a temporary position offering students work
experience. The method is not aimed at promoting a social impact in the
community. The focus of internships is on the acquisition of particular career skills
and applying knowledge but also skills learned at the university. They are strongly
academic based and focus on the interest and learning goals set by the
university. In this sense the impetus of what and how to learn is most often related
to the university. The typical outputs of internships are practical skills in the
respective field of study acquired during the internship. Internships as a method
for learning have several advantages. They help students to gain practical
experiences in the field of study and increase their job opportunities after study.
They also seem to be helpful for closing the theory-practice gap. In some cases
internships have been criticised for their use on the part of companies, as a
source of cheap labour. Moreover, if mentors and supervisors do not support
learning, learning outcomes might be low and dissatisfaction high.
Volunteering. It is generally considered an altruistic activity where an individual
or group provides services for no financial or social gain "to benefit another
person, group or organization”. There are many types of volunteering: skills based
volunteering, virtual volunteering, environmental volunteering, volunteering in an
emergency, volunteering in schools, corporate volunteering, community and
volunteer work, social volunteering or welfare volunteering, volunteering at major
sporting events, volunteering in developing countries. The degree of students’
engagement is high because volunteering requires a high willingness to improve
the sector of the cause they serve. The impact of volunteering generally has 3
dimensions: the impact of volunteers on the organization - social and economic;
the impact of volunteers in the community (final beneficiaries) - social and
economic; the impact of volunteering on volunteers - personal, social and
economic.
The skills the student can develop during volunteering are: teamwork, public
speaking, time management, decision-making, communication skills,

ii
interpersonal skills, confidence, self-efficacy and a stronger sense of self-problem
solving and adaptability, motivation to make a change or to improve a sector
of life. Volunteering is considered as professional experience in the field of study,
which means that young people may have higher chances of employment. It
requires, however, time, effort and the pressure that is equal with a person that
has a job and it is paid for his job.
Action-reflection methodologies. As a comprehensive method it relates to a set
of experiences in actual contexts and educational intervention associated with
positive changes in students, particularly in terms of deep psychological
processes (e.g., cognitive complexity, moral reasoning, social perspective
taking). The outputs vary widely depending on the specific contexts where the
project develops, and can include artistic outputs (e.g., a play or artistic
performance), but also other types of events (e.g., science fair or
demonstration). Nevertheless, projects tend to include individual journals where
participants write down their own reflections about the experience – with writing
appearing as a decisive element of reflection and personal change. Asa matter
of fact, it is a methodology time consuming (projects should last for a minimum
of 4-6 months for change to occur) and demanding in terms of student’s
engagement.
Social entrepreneurship. It Is not a method. It is a field of student’s engagement,
training and working opportunities. However, service-learning and social
entrepreneurship share a common goal of engaging students in work to achieve
the public good, and a desire to link education to addressing social problems
and needs. Social entrepreneurship can also be a didactical approach at the
university level. One the one hand, Universities can adopt curriculum for social
entrepreneurship, fostering employability and work-experience in this field. On
the other hand, social entrepreneurship enhances innovative work-based
learning methodologies and extra-curricular activities based on team building,
community engagement and interpersonal skills. The collaboration between
community partners, students, faculty, teachers, and social entrepreneurs can
create new opportunities in terms of community partnerships, collaborative
working relationships, and social innovation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Applied course-work is a vital part of higher education, as it gives students the
possibility to engage in practical work and experience real needs in the
community, the city, an enterprise, or others. However, there is a vast diversity of
practical teaching methodologies, which overlap and are hard to differentiate.
This methodology toolkit provides an outline of practice-oriented teaching
methods in higher education and highlights the Service Learning approach in
particular. Six practical teaching approaches are displayed in this methodology
toolkit and then compared to the service learning approach: 1) project-based
learning, 2) (participatory) action research, 3) internships, 4) volunteering,
5) action reflection methodologies, 6) community-based research, and 7) social
entrepreneurship.
We have applied comparative criteria for these seven teaching methodologies
in order to map their strengths and weaknesses for higher education teachers.
Bringle et al. (2006) give five criteria for service learning, displayed in the table
below (Table 1): It is an experience, which is course-based and credit-bearing
and students engage in an organized service activity (e.g. neighbourhood work,
community services, services in non-profit-organisations, etc.) and contribute to
meeting identified community needs in this service. Also, service learning has to
be reflected upon in class – as part of the applied course-work. Against these
criteria, the six identified methodologies fulfill these criteria in different ways
(Table 1).

Table 1: Mapping of methodologies

Action research

entrepreneurship
Action reflection
Project-based

based research
Volunteering

Community-
Internships
Learning

learning
Service

Social

Mapping

course-based X X X X X X
credit-bearing X X X X X X
organized service activity X X X X
meets identified X X X X X
community needs
reflection on the service X X X X X X
activity
*Criteria according to Bringle et al. 2006

Our methodology toolkit is both research-based and experience-based, and it

reflects teaching methodologies that have been found useful in higher
education programmes across Europe. The methodology toolkit was developed
by researchers and teachers in the framework of the ENGAGE STUDENTS project

1|Page
and contains research and experiences from Austria, Ireland, Lithuania,
Romania, Portugal and Italy.
This methodology toolkit aims to help higher education teachers, lecturers, and
young researchers to run similar courses, using the methodologies displayed, and
encourages them to make their own experiences with applied course-work. It
also will be of value to adult educators, departments in higher education
institutions concerning with professionalization of teaching, and researchers in
the area of higher education pedagogy and didactics. It draws on the practical
experience of the partners, from planning and implementing such courses at
university level. It can be used as a resource book to guide new ideas and
course-work planning, which address practical skills of students during their
studies.
Throughout the methodology toolkit you will find boxes with examples for the six
methodologies mentioned, derived from interviews (n=40) with higher education
teachers. The semi-structured interviews were conducted between April and July
2019 and analysed according to the different methodologies for the purpose of
this methodology toolkit.
This methodology toolkit is available as an electronic source only.

2|Page
2. METHODOLOGIES
2.1. SERVICE LEARNING
2.1.1. INTRODUCTION TO SERVICE LEARNING
Service learning stands out as a teaching and learning approach that connects
theory and practice by allowing students to participate in a service that meets
community needs and to reflect on the experience in class in order to gain a
deeper understanding of the course content and an enhanced sense of civic
engagement (Bringle, Hatcher, and McIntosh 2006). It can include services in
schools, social initiatives, public institutions, non-profit organisations, facilities for
the disabled, etc., and aims to strengthen students’ relationships with the
community and provide impetus for their personal development and civic
engagement (Waldstein and Reiher 2001). This includes their active engagement
in solving real-world needs, identifying and clarifying skills, developing for this
learning process and taking time for critical reflection (Leming 2001; Schön 1983).
According to Furco (2009, p. 47) Service learning is a pedagogy that makes a
connection between academic learning experience and community service
experience. It is particularly important that content-related skills and knowledge
resources are used in order to be able to deal with relevant issues in society. There
is no uniform definition for the term Service Learning, since the precise
implementation, objectives, content-related and subject-specific objectives of
different institutions, which offer Service Learning, are carried out and defined
differently. Service Learning involves a complex interaction between students,
service activities, curricular content, and learning outcomes. This leads to a high
range of programme diversity in Service Learning and makes it difficult to
generalize findings from one course to another. Also, the prediction of results and
experiences in Service Learning seem to be complicated. The absence of a
common, universally accepted definition of Service Learning seems to be one of
the greatest challenges because it leads to numerous interpretations (Furco,
2003).
The most well-known and cited definition is the one developed by Bringle et al.
(2006, p. 12). It claims that „Service-learning is a course-based, credit-bearing
educational experience in which students a) participate in an organized service
activity that meets identified community needs and b) reflect on the service
activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a
broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of personal
values and civic responsibility.”
This definition underlies that the service experience ought to be embedded in a
course and specific learning objectives, but at the same time clearly identifies
the needs of the cooperating communities.

3|Page
 EXAMPLE: Defining service learning
“Service learning is a teaching methodology in which students engage in
activities directed towards the solving of local community problems and
satisfying the needs together with the structured and advisedly
projected opportunities to promote student learning and development.
Teaching is defined as student orientation, i.e. targeting to promote
critical and reflective thinking, as well as personal and civic competence
education. According to experts, reflection and interaction are the main
service learning elements. Service learning is directly related to the
provision of certain services to the community and to the development
of democratic, mutually beneficial and respectful relationship between
students and other members of the community. Students acquire the
skills by solving real organizations’ and local communities’ problems
which are associated with the specific course content, develop empathy
for the other members of the community, moral attitudes and a sense of
moral solidarity.”
(Interview C – Teacher in Lithuania)
Kaye (2004) pointed that “The beauty of service learning is that something real
and concrete is occurring. Learning takes on a new dimension. When students
are engaged intellectually and emotionally with a topic, they can light up with
a revelation or make a connection between two previously separate ideas.
What they’ve learned in school suddenly matters and engages their minds and
their hearts.”

2.1.2. BACKGROUND AND ORIGINS OF SERVICE LEARNING

Service Learning has its origins in the Anglo-American context, where Higher
Education Institutions follow academic and public purposes the same time. For
the past 20 years, American universities have seen an increase in efforts to
engage in civil society that benefits both sides (Anderson, Thorne & Nyden, 2016).
The integration of Service Learning into the curriculum marked an important
building block for the start of this development.
In the mid-1960s, the term Service Learning was first mentioned in relation to an
internship programme, in which students collected credits for their studies or
received financial compensation for their work on social projects (Kenny &
Gallagher 2002, p.15; Reinders 2016, p. 21). In the 1980s, the generation of
American students was portrayed as superficial and self-centered. A student at
Harvard University named Wyne Meysel wanted to prove the opposite because
of this general and hostile view of students and founded the Campus Outreach
Opportunity League (COOL) organization in 1984. This organization served as a
point of contact, where students got socially engaged and used their skills and
abilities in the interest of common good.
A student organization quickly developed from this idea and is still running as a
non-profit organization called “Action Without Borders” (Reinmuth, Sass & Lauble
4|Page
2007, p. 14). Up to the mid-1980s, American universities had occasional Service
Learning courses, but only a few students took advantage of them. At the end
of the 1980s, the Service Learning Approach started to boom and quickly spread
to various American colleges. During this time, students from three major
universities merged, namely Stanford, Brown and Georgetown, and founded
“Campus Compact”. Currently, there are more than 1.000 universities members
in Campus Compact, which aims to promote civic engagement and social
responsibility of students for society (Campus Compact 2018).
Since the 1990s, the Service Learning Approach has not only become
widespread at American universities, but has also reached popularity in Europe
(Kenny & Gallagher 2002, p. 15). However, the connection between the
community and the university is still relatively new, especially in German-speaking
or Eastern European countries.

5|Page
2.2. PROJECT BASED LEARNING
According to Chen and Yang (2019), “Project based learning is a systematic
teaching and learning method, which engages students in complex, real world
tasks that result in a product or presentation to an audience, enabling them to
acquire knowledge and life-enhancing skills”. While applying project based
learning method, students are engaged in active learning process with emphasis
of student’s “I need to know” approach rather than by teacher’s “because you
should know” approach (Chen and Yang, 2019). Project is considered as an act
of creation, which involves students in constructive investigation (Chen and
Yang, 2019). During the learning process of project based learning, students
need to solve problems by defining the problem, discussing ideas, designing
inquiries, collecting and analyzing data, and sharing findings with their peers and
other stakeholders (if needed). Application of this method requires high level of
engagement both from students and teachers. Otherwise, the learning method
will not be successful and will not reach its results.
Typical outputs of project based learning include:
• Implemented project, which is based on different research with the aim
to solve a particular real-world problem.
• Presentation of the project results to the audience interested in them.
Lasauskiene and Rauduvaite (2015) distinguish major skills, students are supposed
to develop during the project based learning. Usually, the method allows
improving the quality of teaching and learning. Project based learning
contributes to cognitive development of higher level involving students as they
solve complicated problem and provide innovative solutions.

EXAMPLE: Project-based learning with waste

“I give classes together with a professor at the class of ‘Project of
Industrial Design’. (...) The partnership with the faculty happens in this
way: the challenge of this project is presented to the students, for whom
the objective is to build projects with waste in the city. The students go
around town and search for the most abundant waste in the city. The
students have to develop products using the waste as raw-material, like:
litter from the beach, leftovers from restaurants, etc. The products
developed must be easy to produce, since the idea is to have people from
the community, with difficulties with social integration in the job market
between 35 and 40 years old, to learn how to produce these products
together with students from the faculty. The overall objective is that all
can learn.”
(Interview C – Teacher in Portugal)

6|Page
The application of project-based learning allows engagement of students into
complicated processes and procedures and thus, leads to the development of
such skills as planning and communication. In addition, the method promotes
authentic research and self-directed learning efforts.
Efstratia (2014) emphasizes that project based learning can be successful if some
essential elements of its implementation were followed. Promotion of the method
to students in order to achieve their higher engagement and interest into the
project implementation and result is necessary in order to guarantee success of
the method application. The teacher should clearly express the emphasis on the
fact that students are in charge of deciding whether they will use resources, how
they will cooperate and communicate in order to achieve the goal of the
project. Enhancement of student’s critical thinking allowing students to make
their own decisions which are the most appropriate to implement the project is
also considered of a crucial importance. At the end of the project, teachers
should provide feedback and revision insights in order to prepare students for
better presentation of the project results in front of a real audience.
Chan and Yang (2019) describe such fundamental features of the project-based
learning:
• Inquiry guided by the driving question, meaning that students ask their
own questions, perform investigations, and develop answers.
• Student voice and choice, meaning that students are allowed to make
some decisions about the products to be constructed and how they
work.
• Revision and reflection in which students have opportunities to use
feedback to make their projects better, and think about what and how
they learn.
• Public audience, to which students present their work.
Project based learning as a method has many advantages (Efstratia, 2014; Chen
and Yang, 2019; Lasauskiene and Rauduvaite, 2015). Usually projects solve
practical complicated and innovative problems of business and / or other
stakeholders (Lasauskiene and Rauduvaite, 2015). This allows students to feel their
input in real world problem solving during the study process. Students directly see
how to apply knowledge they gain during the learning process. The method
provides students with the opportunity to transform themselves during the
learning process (Efstratia, 2014) as it allows students to develop both personal
and professional skills, such as (Chen and Yang, 2019):
• Problem solving;
• Time planning for particular project tasks;
• Decision making;
• Personal and team responsibility;
• Self-directed and -regulated learning;
• Self-assessment and -evaluation.

7|Page
Project based learning allows reduction of student’s anxiety and enhancement
of learning quality, increases motivation to learn, higher interest into content,
possibility to pursue student’s personal interests (Efstratia, 2014). In addition,
usually, application of this method increases academic achievements.
Among the advantages that are described above, the project based learning
as a teaching method has some disadvantages (Efstratia, 2014; Chen and Yang,
2019; Lasauskiene and Rauduvaite, 2015). It is considered that not all students
can learn in the same way, that’s why not for all of them this method is
appropriate (Efstratia, 2014). More active and leading colleagues can put some
of students into shade. Teacher’s role is crucial while applying this learning
method (Efstratia, 2014). If a teacher is not prepared, lacks experience and
competences, the method’s application result can be not satisfying. Thus, the
method can be limited in terms of teacher’s help and support (Efstratia, 2014).
Deficiency of finance and technology can also be challenges, which teachers
have to overcome (Chen and Yang, 2019). The method is highly demanding in
time and other resources comparing to traditional learning methods, which
discourages teachers to apply it together with other learning methods
(Lasauskiene and Rauduvaite, 2015). The project’s implementation is limited in
terms of length of the project realization or class periods and syllabus. This can
influence quality of the project (Chen and Yang, 2019).
According to Chen and Yang (2019), project based learning method has been
widely applied in various subjects from mathematics, technology and
engineering to social sciences. As the research results demonstrate, project
based learning is very common in business, economics and management study
field courses. Teachers apply project based learning for solving real world
business problems, while searching for relevant business problems solutions and
encouraging students to take responsibility to develop their critical thinking and
argumentation abilities in suggesting creative and reasoned decisions for
business practice.
During project based learning there are a lot of separate steps, including
activities, workshops, labs, and research with many assessments until the final
evaluation in order for teachers to be more objective and lead students to a
better learning outcome (Efstratia, 2014). Project based learning evaluates both
cognitive and emotional-social skills. Application of project based learning
encourages students’ cooperation, communication and use of their critical
thinking under their teacher’s guided reflection until their final submission and
presentation of the project (Efstratia, 2014).

2.2.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

There are different approaches regarding relations between project based
learning and service learning. One approach sees these methods as competing
and even opposing ideas; the other as methods, which can be applied together.

8|Page
As Miller (2011) notes, project based learning can be applied for different real
world problem solving. He sees that fulfillment of community service and needs
through project-based learning gives synergistic effect for both students’
knowledge and skills development and service needs satisfaction and problem
solving. Therefore, it is appropriate to view project based learning and service
learning as having overlap, especially, in how they are applied (Bielefeldt et al.,
2010). Teachers state that they apply project based learning for serving different
sensitive groups’ needs.

2.2.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

One example at Kaunas Technical University (Lithuania) in the School of
Economics and Business, there is a study program “Marketing” and a course
called “Fundamentals of Marketing”, in which students work together with
businesses, which introduce new products into the market. Project based
learning is applied there according to the following process:
• Representatives of private or public organization, teacher and group of
students meet in order to formulate project problem and to develop
plan of the project implementation.
• Students do some theoretical studies in order to get familiar with
structural parts to be accomplished in the project. Teacher facilitates
their knowledge gaining process and provides necessary resources.
• During the practical lectures, students are assigned and evaluated for
the different parts of their project. Teacher provides reflection and
recommendations for further project development, other groups of
students as well.
• At the end of the project, it is presented to the audiences of students,
lecturers and representatives from private or public organizations and
evaluated. Participating organizations get value as well – prepared
marketing plan to launch a new product into the market.

9|Page
2.3. ACTION RESEARCH AND PARTICIPATORY ACTION
RESEARCH
Action research is a methodology to work on practical issues of the community
in a participatory way between researchers and practitioners from the
community. Community members and researchers work together to „(a) identify
and analyze community problems, (b) find solutions to those problems through
the best methods of research, and (c) test those solutions in the community“
(Harkavy, Puckett & Romer, 2000). Action and reflection are repeated in ongoing
cycles to co-generate knowledge and to initiate change in the community
(Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014).
The action research methodology has its origins in the 1940ies when Kurt Lewin
first worked with the method and used the term of action research to describe
but also legitimate this form of science (Lewin, 1946). His intention was to bring
universities and practice together to collaborate on solutions but also to develop
a theory that could ground further actions. Representatives of the community
are seen as co-producers of knowledge in this methodology – as co-researchers,
who reflect upon their practical experience together with researchers and
students.

EXAMPLE: Action research in a biology class in school

"Well there are three levels here: One is the subject level in biology (...)
where pupils learn about amphibians, birds and wetlands in theory and
in practice and where they also learn about research methods, how to do
research with birds in nature for example (...). The second level is
participatory learning with pupils, how do we implement this, which
possibilities do we have, so this is what I understand by action research
in different levels (…), students are guides for learning, which means that
they teach pupils how to conduct a mini-research-project und provide
guidance along the way. (…) And then there is the third level, which is the
level of professionalisation of students, where they get trained for the
teaching profession und they experience their professional self in the
sense of reflective work about their own development during the course.
And this goes in the direction of action research and reflective practice of
one’s own, subject-related and pedagogical concept and development.”
(Interview 12 – Teacher in Austria)

The impetus for research comes from the community. Action research needs
active engagement on all sides of the process, also on the student’s side. It is
seen as an active learning process between researchers and practitioners. The
degree of student’s engagement depends on their role in the process and the
size, scope and responsibilities of the research team. Action research is
characterized by not producing specific and certain outputs. It is an open

10 | P a g e
process of action-reflection for generating useful knowledge for solving the
problems questioned in the community. The process of action research can be
understood as cyclic between the different phases of „planning, action,
observation, reflection and new planning“.
In this sense action research is characterized by the following elements:
• research for and with the community
• practical questions from the community
• the connection of action and reflection
• confronting different perspectives of different people involved
• a contribution to the visibility of practical knowledge in the community
by publishing results
• triggering long-term change and development in the community
As an advantage it can be mentioned that action research involves all
participants or parties of a problem and draws the resources from all
perspectives of this problem (multi-perspective). In this sense action research can
bring universities and communities closer together. Zoyer and colleagues (2018)
describe that action research lead to results which are relevant for practice and
fit the identified questions directly, because they were developed in practice. In
their study 70% of the participants rated action research as useful for their
practice. O’Hanlon (2003, p. 25) mentions the advantage that „The action
research process itself models democratic procedures that are fully inclusive and
gives a voice to all participants, especially marginalized ones.”
Some researchers criticize the method for his lacking of a concrete systematic of
the single processes and for a lack of quality criteria or specific characteristics of
this research (Zoyer et al., 2018). The term „action research“ is often used as a
synonym for “participatory action” research and so it is difficult to draw clear
methodological lines (Zoyer et al., 2018). As the research methodology is very
open, it is argued that “everything” which happens in the community can be
action research. Therefore the concrete outputs of action research cannot be
foreseen as they evolve while the practice is researched and reflected and
depends on the situation. This makes it difficult to plan the concrete research at
the beginning.
By doing action research or participatory action research, students can develop
skills like democratic competence, critical thinking and critical community
learning, collaboration skills and how to act in a culture of collaboration (see
Sales et al. 2011). Managing such a process also affords project management
skills (Manoko, 2001).

2.3.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

Some authors argue action research to be a form of service learning as it creates
knowledge about how to solve a problem of the community (e.g. Harkavy,
Puckett & Romer, 2000; Reardon, 1998). However, compared with service

11 | P a g e
learning, students do not perform a “service” in action research, but engage in
a research process, which is practical and action-driven. The service is only
related to the production and dissemination of knowledge. This reflection is
performed in the community, together with the participants of the action
research. In Lewins‘ origin the development of a theory is in the foreground –
„there is nothing more useful than a good theory“. There is also no hint in the
literature that reflection also has to be part of the learning process of students at
university or in class. If students are involved in action research, their learning
processes should also be reflected in class (as it is the case in service learning).
But the research with the community is in the foreground of the reflection process
not the learning process of the students. Nevertheless, there are approaches to
combine service-learning with elements of action research. Before the process
of service learning can start it requires lots of time before community partners
trust in researchers. Conducting action research can help to identify and address
community needs but also solutions how to support these needs, which can build
the background for further service learning projects.

2.3.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

The example “Productive tensions – engaging geography students in
participatory action research with communities” (Pain, Finn, Bouveng & Ngobe,
2013) illustrates a third-year undergraduate Geography module (“People,
Participation and Place”) which intended “to combine teaching and learning
with university-community partnerships, by involving students in conducting
research with and for community organizations.” In this a year-long and 20-credit
long module students should learn how to conduct participatory action research
(PAR) by completing research projects in the planed teaching period. The
projects had different aims and were coordinated through a Centre, which was
founded to support Participatory Action Research and collaborative research
projects between the university and community partners. The aims of the module
were “i) to support students in developing critical understanding of theories,
practices and politics of participatory development and research in a range of
global contexts; (ii) to develop students’ skills in developing, undertaking and
reporting on a participatory project in collaboration with a local community
organization and (iii) to encourage reflection on the intersections of theory and
practice in participation, and the importance of geographical concepts and
methods to this relationship.”
In the first term the module contained a set of core lectures concerning the
history, theories, politics, practices, methods and ethics of participatory
development and research. In the second term students had to work in groups
with 4 or 5 persons and realize a participatory research project together with
local community institutions. The projects started with several meetings with the
community partners to discuss and plan it. These meetings resulted in a written
project proposal, which were assessed and shared with the community partners.

12 | P a g e
The single projects had to be cleared by the local committees before they
started. Students were also responsible for the ethics and risk assessment
documentation. After that students conducted the field work, which could last
up to two months. This was accompanied by weekly workshops at the university
to discuss the progress and problems of the projects. Students had do write a
group report for the community organization but also individual papers drawing
on concepts in the research literature and combine them with their experiences
and practice in the field. At the end of the whole module they had to produce
a final exam paper assessing their integration of practical and conceptual issues
from their learning across the module (Pain, Finn, Bouveng & Ngobe, 2013).

13 | P a g e
2.4. INTERNSHIPS
Internships have been used all over the world for more than 100 years. Especially
with the implementation of the Bologna degree programs, the importance of
internships has come to the fore. An internship is a temporary position offering
students work experience. Internships are “structured and career relevant work
experiences obtained by students prior to graduation from an academic
programme” (Taylor, 1988, p. 393). Internships can be traced back to the second
half of the 19th century to internships in the frame of medical schools (Holyoak
2013). The focus of internships is on the acquisition of particular career skills and
applying knowledge but also skills learned at the university. They are strongly
academic based and focus on the interest and learning goals set by the
university. In this sense the impetus of what and how to learn is most often related
to the university.
Internships can differ in their duration, tasks of the student, their structure (whole
or single weeks, days, hours), their social conditions (teamwork or individual
work), their anchor in curricula and study programme (internships can be
obligatory or voluntary) (see Hascher 2007). Internships require a high willingness
to learn on behalf of the student, but also a high willingness to support learning
by mentors or supervisors in the internship (Holyoak 2013). The social engagement
of students might not always be very high, as internships depend on the area
and the motivation they are completed.
The typical outputs of internships are practical skills in the respective field of study
acquired during the internship. Research suggests that students with internships
are more likely to find a meaningful job after graduation and increase their job
opportunities in general (Holyoak 2013). Other studies also show improvements in
academic achievement after an internship (Stansbie et al. 2016).
Internships follow different rules, depending on the field of study and the
organization. Possible steps in the process of an internship might be: the formal
application of an internship with an interview procedure, preparation for the
internship (e.g. clarifying tasks and expectations), the original internship incl. on-
boarding process (6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks … depending on the rules) and
documentation of the activities, the end of the internship incl. a reflection and
the certificate and final the recognition by the university (depending on the
context).
Internships as a method for learning have several advantages. They help students
to gain practical experiences in the field of study and increase their job
opportunities after study. They also seem to be helpful for closing the theory-
practice gap and give the opportunity for a reality check in the sense to get a
feeling if they later on want to continue in this professional field. Especially for
subjects which are difficult to teach they can support to give insights into these
subjects and guide from academia to workplace).

14 | P a g e
 EXAMPLE: Internships in social work
"The bachelor’s degree in social work provides a period of on-the-job
training. In this context, a social worker with experience of at least five
years introduces students to the real world of work (...). It is a curricular
activity, for this reason, it does not respond exactly to the concept of
service learning, but it has common aspects. (...) Students choose the
area of interventio, and try to correspond to their interest, even if it is
not always possible. During the internship, which does not provide any
financial compensation for the student, we try to encourage a direct
meeting with people in social services (...). The student must play a role
of direct observation of the social worker's work: professional interview,
home visit, documentation, outreaching, group intervention, community
work, professional assessment, planning, etc. During and at the end of
the course, the student's internship is assessed.”
(Interview XXX – Teacher in Italy)

As research suggest they have an impact on knowledge, skills and the abilities of
students. Nevertheless, there might appear some difficulties with this didactical
approach as mentors and supervisors might support learning and learning
outcomes only low and the dissatisfaction of students’ increases. The relationship
between theory and practice might not be as clear as it was expected. From the
perspective of students, internships can also be perceived as cheap labour, as
they have to do the same things like professionals but do not get the full amount
of money.
During internships students are supposed to develop the following capacities
and skills:
• Knowledge and experience in practical training (as part of professional
training)
• Social learning
• Learning from the mentor / supervisor through feedback, conversations
etc.
• Methodological skills
• Managing people or target groups
• Working effectively with diverse populations
• Communication skills
• Interpersonal skills
• Problem-based learning and problem-solving skills
• Self-efficacy and a stronger sense of self
• Critical thinking
• Collecting various experiences

15 | P a g e
Stansbie and colleagues (2016) found that students perceived a development
for these skills during their internship: accountability, managing chance, decision
making, problem solving, interpersonal skills and flexibility.

2.4.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

Learning also takes place outside the classroom, in a community, company or
NGO. Although internships might not be paid, however, they might not be
voluntary. They might be part of a regular study programme and students might
be obliged to complete an internship. Service learning is more rooted in the
actual community (non-profit organisations, associations in the community or
neighbourhood, social service) than internships, which can also be done in
business or private companies and where students have less contact with
members of the actual community. The main difference here is the mission of the
respective host organization and if they have funds or are dependent on public
funding and have limited resources for services. However, students in both cases
are in contact with practical issues in their field of study. In difference internships
focus on the acquisition and development of particular career skills in the first
place, although it might be a social activity and done in a non-profit
organisation. The employability and career of the student is paramount to the
needs of the community. Reflection processes mainly take place with regard to
the learning outcomes and the learning profit of the individual student, not for
the overall process. Service learning is supposed to contribute to social change,
which is not the case for internships (Rehling 2000). A core principle of service
learning is the balance between the activities of service and learning, but also
between the customers and the learner’s needs (Furco & Norvell, 2019 ).
Internships are strongly related to the learner’s needs and the activity of learning
in a practical context.
It is interesting that Peterson et al. (2014) and Rehling (2000) use the term “service
learning internship” in the context of US-American studies. While Peterson et al.
(2014) seem to use the term service-learning internship as a synonym for
internship, Rehling (2000) defines it as “an integration of community service with
subject matter learning by informed application of classroom principles within
organizations that serve their communities.”

2.4.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

Depending on different understandings between theory and praxis, different
academic disciplines there is a broad variety according the forms and functions
in of internships in higher education courses. Schubarth, Speck & Ulbricht (2016)
give some recommendations for the implementation of internships in higher
education. They suggest integrating internships into the curricula. In this sense
internships should not be an addition, but be integrated into the whole concept
of the study programme. This also means that the internship has a clear overall

16 | P a g e
goal. Systematic preparation courses, but also accompanying and follow-up
courses offered by the university support students’ learning. At the institution
where the practical part of the internship takes place, mentors should support
students. A contract between the institution and the student apprentice
regulates the rights and obligations of the internship. This contract includes the
aims and working conditions of the internship, the competences and skills which
the student apprentice should acquire and the tasks which the trainee should
fulfil. Students should have an easy access to all of the information of the
internship and the necessary forms to fill in for the university.
If students could have a big amount of previous practical experience it is good
to have guidelines, which forms of experience and to what extend can be
acknowledged for the internship. In particular, it should be ensured that the
internship is accompanied by an academic reflection and the experience refers
to a professional profile. After the internship, students receive a certificate of their
internship from the institution and submit it at the university. The certificate
documents the skills and competence the student apprentice acquired during
the internship. The assessment and evaluation of the internship is an important
but also difficult topic. Schubarth, Speck & Ulbricht (2016) advice teachers and
students to assure regular participation in the preparation, accompanying, and
supervision courses as a requirement for the assessment of the internship.

17 | P a g e
 2.5. VOLUNTEERING
Volunteering has been used all over the world for more than 100 years and his
main scope is to provide services for no financial or social gain "to benefit another
person, group or organization"(Wilson, 2000). The volunteers are selected
depending of the cause they want to serve and their activity is recognized with
official documents. Volunteering offers the opportunity to be aware and
involved in the progress of the society. It has benefits for the society and the
volunteer himself. In this activity the most important is the motivation and the
need to have an important input in the society. Now, volunteering activity is
recognized to be an important activity that supports different sectors in the world
and helps to build a “better tomorrow”.
The verb was first recorded in 1755. It was derived from the noun volunteer, in
C.1600, "one who offers himself for military service," from the Middle French
“voluntaire”. The history of volunteering is associated with the beginning of the
nineteenth century, when the first charitable associations were formed to help
those in need.

EXAMPLE: Social volunteering

"For example, I know a student who created a social enterprise
doing art workshops for people with intellectual disabilities [as
part of the entrepreneurial module]. The student already had
volunteering experience in Special Olympics, so he worked with
people with intellectual disabilities before. However, in the
module, he went through the whole process of identifying
whether there is a need in the community, and he built a team of
students in his social circle and other societies, found talented
students who could teach dance, music, visual art, etc. This was
seven years ago. He started what now is a fully-fledged society
in our university.”
(Interview B – Teacher in Ireland)

There are many types of volunteering: skills-based volunteering, virtual

volunteering, environmental volunteering, volunteering in an emergency,
volunteering in schools, corporate volunteering, community and volunteer work,
social volunteering or welfare volunteering, volunteering at major sporting
events, volunteering in developing countries.
The degree of students’ engagement is high because volunteering requires a
high willingness to improve the sector of the cause they serve. Being involved in
a cause makes them part of the community progress and improvement and also
rises the quality of their life in the future. Volunteering involves a part of their skills

18 | P a g e
and resources to serve a cause and because the result is visible, they gain the
motivation of their work and the involvement increases.
Volunteering can differ in the following elements:
• cause they serve
• duration (short term, medium term or long term)
• activities
• skills developed
• involvement
Typical outputs are:
• Volunteering is widespread and creates economic value;
• More and more global organizations and financiers are aware of the
contribution and importance of volunteering;
• Volunteering has several dimensions: one of the attention points is in
relation to employment;
• The impact of volunteering generally has 3 dimensions: the impact of
volunteers on the organization - social and economic; the impact of
volunteers in the community (final beneficiaries) - social and economic;
the impact of volunteering on volunteers - personal, social and
economic.
The skills they develop during volunteering are: teamwork, public speaking, time
management, decision-making, communication skills, interpersonal skills,
confidence, self-efficacy and a stronger sense of self-problem solving and
adaptability, motivation to make a change or to improve a sector of life.
Volunteer record can show an employer that the person has the attitudes and
skills they are looking for in a potential employee. Research suggests that
volunteers are more likely to find a meaningful job after graduation and increase
their job opportunities in general (Spera, 2013).
Volunteering is a crucial renewable resource for social and environmental
problem-solving worldwide. The Johns Hopkins Volunteer Measurement Project
showed that it is estimated that approximately 140 million people engage in
volunteer work per year representing the equivalent of 20.8 million full-time
equivalent jobs (http://ccss.jhu.edu/research-projects/vmp/).

2.5.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

Even both service learning and volunteering are forms of community service, the
difference between the two can be analyzed in relation with the education
dimension, way of organizing the activities, required skills, time commitment,
career development opportunities and level of community ties.
Looking from the education dimension point of view, service learning involves a
significant higher educational component by combining academic goals with
community service projects. Service-learning activities are organized in different

19 | P a g e
stages starting from preparation, action, reflection to demonstration involving
readings, web-based research, classroom-like activities, assignments, reflexive
workshops, final presentations while for volunteering are not such requirements.
In terms of required skills, considering that service learning are embedded within
study programs related to students’ academic focus, we may conclude that
service learning require specific skilled participants while for volunteering this is
not a compulsory requirement – specific skilled individuals may be required for a
given number of volunteering actions, but most of them not.
Time commitment is another dimension that makes a difference – a service
learning project might require a minimum number of hours depending on the
structure of the educational program implied distributed over a semester or over
the whole academic year, while volunteer activities are flexible on the amount
of time to commit and might require only several hours or up-to one week
commitment.
Career development opportunities are higher for service learning compared
with volunteering as having service learning on a resume shows not only your
experience in working with communities but having hand-on experience on a
specific field that make you valuable for contributing to employer community
projects.
Finally, the way the community is involved within service learning is significantly
different from volunteering – while for service learning the benefit is reciprocal,
both sides being involved in learning and exchange of knowledge, for
volunteering the process is in most cases unidirectional.

2.5.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

The Student Tutoring Volunteering Program is one of the initiatives of University of
Porto, Portugal based on a protocol with the City Hall program ‘Porto of the
future’ that aims to combat school drop-out and failure in basic and high school
levels, and to promote progression of studies. Students from University of Porto
serve as individual tutors of 5th-12th grade students of 5 schools of Porto. Each
high school student has one tutor that helps on learning skills, motivation for
studies, and decision-making regarding school and life in general.
In 2015, 61 volunteers/students of University of Porto had participated in the
program, tutoring 64 high school students for 1215 hours in total. The numbers of
volunteers (and high school students) have doubled since 2010. Each year an
evaluation of the program is made by tutors and school supervisors and directors.
This evaluation is qualitative and is not synthetized but overall results show that
school directors manifest that the program is very positive and that most high
school students have an increase in their grades.

20 | P a g e
 2.6. ACTION-REFLECTION METHODOLOGIES
Action-reflection methodologies (AR) operationalize basic elements of
experiences that generate personal change. In fact, classical authors like John
Dewey (1916), George Mead (1934), Jean Piaget (1941) and, later, Paulo Freire
(1970) emphasize how action – and action is always, as Hannah Arendt (1958)
would underlie, interaction, action with inevitably different others – and critical
integration are central to generate more complex, flexible and integrated ways
of thinking and signifying the world.
In the early 1980s, Norman Sprinthall (1980) discussed the role of psychology as a
subject in secondary schools, wondering how one could study developmental
psychology and still not grow in the process. Following that seminal paper, a
series of research projects tried to identify the elements of educational
intervention associated with positive changes in students, particularly in terms of
deep psychological processes (e.g., cognitive complexity, moral reasoning,
social perspective taking). The designation “deliberate psychological
education” (DPE) is often used to name these projects.
The attempt to put the theoretical principles into action, led to an emphasis on
experiential learning, and research that followed identified five core elements of
AR/DPE methods that play a central role in the effectiveness of the intervention:
• Action involving experiences in actual contexts dealing with real-life
problems that imply role-taking (as opposed to role-playing);
• Reflection as individuals should have the opportunity to express, explore
and integrate the meanings of their experiences and how they are
challenged to view the world in different ways (thus operating a
transformation of contingent events into structure);

EXAMPLE: The importance of reflection

“Promoting more reflection moments with other
students from different areas could be interesting,
because the greater the diversity, the richer the subject.”
(Interview B – Teacher in Portugal)

• Balance between action and reflection, to avoid a stronger focus on one

of those dimensions;
• Emotional challenge and support as “growing is painful” (Sprinthall, 1991)
and there should be an empathic monitoring of the process that sustains
individuals efforts to make sense of the experience, but also the active
questioning that fosters new ways of reading the world; and

21 | P a g e
 • Time as personal change implies continuous (vs. irregular) projects that last
from a significant amount of time (vs. episodic), i.e., from 6 to 12 months.
The outputs vary widely depending on the specific contexts where the project
develops, and can include artistic outputs (e.g., a play or artistic performance),
but also other types of events (e.g., science fair or demonstration). Nevertheless,
projects tend to include individual journals where participants write down their
own reflections about the experience – with writing appearing as a decisive
element of reflection and personal change.
Besides some more general social and interpersonal competences, action-
reflection projects have proven effective in terms of promoting participants’
cognitive complexity and moral reasoning (Reiman & Peace, 2002). Complexity,
autonomy, flexibility or creativity are conceptualized as individual structural
attributes rather than as specific discrete functional skills.

2.6.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

Action-reflection methodologies are a more general methodology, that point
out to elements of the intervention process that are associated with positive
results. As such, it combines pretty well with Service learning, as Service learning
projects can easily incorporate the elements of
Action/Reflection/Balance/Challenge-Support/Time that are essential for
effectiveness.

2.6.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

Although not as popular as service-learning, DPE has been used in the context of
higher education to support high-risk students in their transition to college
(McAdams & Foster, 1998) and to foster the moral or ethical development of law-
enforcement agents (Morgan, Morgan, Foster & Kolbert, 2000) or business
students (Schmidt, McAdams & Foster, 2009; Schmidt, Drees, Davidson & Adkins,
2013).
Susan E. Halverson, Russell D. Miars and Hanoch Livneh (2006) from Portland State
University explored the impact of a DPE based counselor education program “on
student's moral reasoning, conceptual level, and counselor self-efficacy” (p. 17).
Students were involved in a three years Master program: on year 1, courses were
mainly theoretical and therefore did not fulfill DPE criteria; however, on year 2
and, especially, 3 students had opportunities for supervised practicum, initially on
program-run clinics and later on “internship experiences at community or school-
based sites” (p. 20). Authors conducted a longitudinal design across the three
years with self-report measures to evaluate moral and cognitive development,
and self-efficacy in counseling and an external assessment of clinical skills.
Results show that “academic courses alone did not appear to be sufficient to
produce gains in cognitive complexity, but with time and the addition of an

22 | P a g e
intensive practicum clinic experience, students made gains in conceptual level”
(p. 26). Similar results were obtained for self-efficacy. Additionally, this cognitive
complexity appears to influence “students' actual clinical performance” (p. 27).
As such, a training model based on DPE produced changes on important
dimensions of personal development that are determinant for professional
development.

23 | P a g e
 2.7. COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH
Community based research (CBR) is a distinctive methodology, based on
partnership and full, equal engagement between university researchers, students
and practitioners in community organizations.
CBR can be defined as a
…form of action research that involves research partnerships between
university-based academics and communities, emphasizes lived and
experiential knowledge to guide the research process, and promotes
capacity building to empower communities to take a leadership role in
the research process. CBR projects bring project stakeholders together
throughout the research process, from identifying the issues to collecting
and analyzing the data, to developing strategies to bring results to policy
makers with the goal of producing systemic social change. (Tandon et al.
2016, p.1)

EXAMPLE: Community research in Torpignattara in Rome

"The most significant case concerns a local project started in 2009
focuesd on the development of an urban Ecomuseum in a Roman suburb
(Casilino - Torpignattara). This project is the result of research in the
Roman district of Torpignattara (...) with personal commitment in the
local community to improve the image and local perception through
issues related to cultural heritage. I have worked with neighbourhood
committees in years, when the main critical issues were represented by
the risk of cementing an important green area and by a strongly
stigmatized image of the neighbourhood, following the presence of
numerous migrant communities, the latter considered responsible for
most of the "degradation" of the neighbourhood. The community started
the Ecomuseum and has redefined itself with it. I think the experience of
the Ecomuseum has produced and is producing many positive results,
first of all it has given some students of our faculty involved in the course
the opportunity to participate in processes of civic engagement.”
(Interview XX – Teacher in Italy)

Fundamental to CBR is an approach to knowledge which aims to democratize

both the ways in which knowledge is created and disseminated. Community
organisations (and individuals) are thus not ‘researched upon’ but rather are
equal partners with university academic researchers at all stages of the exercise
– from identifying a research issue/question which is a high priority for them,
through to decisions about the methodologies to be employed, conduct of
empirical work, analysis of material, communication of outcomes and follow up
in terms of analysis of impact (or lack thereof).
The degree of student involvement in CBR varies depending on the focus and
impetus of the research. In many, if not most cases, students are centrally
24 | P a g e
involved in CBR activities. Here the success of such engagement is likely to be
directly linked to the expertise and experience of the academic researchers in
engaging with community organisations, and the quality and extent of the
preparation they provide for students in advance of the CBR activity.
It is crucial to successful implementation of a CBR exercise that students are not
‘parachuted’ into a community, but are well briefed by both academic
researchers and community representatives to ensure their full awareness of the
socio-cultural environment in which they will be working, along with clear
designation of the expected purposes of the research.
In some universities, engagement with a CBR activity may form an accredited
part of higher education programmes.
A typical output from CBR is often in the form of a detailed, evidence-based,
report on a topic of interest to the community involved. This will be written in a
style accessible to the interested lay person and widely disseminated to relevant
stakeholders including community organisations, public authorities, NGOs,
universities and other educational institutions.
From an educational perspective, the outcome aims at the development of
knowledge and a range of skills for researchers and also, potentially, community
members. These include:
• Team working;
• Communication skills;
• Research methods – qualitative and quantitative;
• Reporting on research findings to a wide range of different audiences:
policy makers, practitioners, community members and researchers.
It is important to highlight the distinctive methodological demands which CBR
place on academics which go beyond ‘conventional’ research training. Some
examples of skills required on the part of academics identified in the literature
(Cuthill et al., 2014) include:
• Negotiation;
• Conflict resolution;
• Priority setting;
• Project planning;
• Project management;
• Effective communications;
• Consensus building.
While some academics take a positive decision to engage with CBR, others find
they are starting to engage with the methodology in practice before learning
about its conceptual base – a classic example of ‘learning by doing’. It is also
important to note that there can be tensions between the criteria used to assess
research excellence on the part of individual institutions or national research
assessment systems, and the distinctive nature of the research conducted
according to CBR principles.

25 | P a g e
 • An orientation towards research ethics and values.
• Development of a deep understanding of partnership modes of
working.
• Development of understanding of power relationships.
• Incorporation of multiple modes of enquiry.
• Participation in learning CBR and ensuring a balance between
classroom (theory) and field (practice). (Tandon et al. 2016, p. 11)
Some of the complexities of CBR include:
• Challenges of identifying research topics of mutual interest to both
members of the local and the academic community.
• Complexity of partnership working based on mutual respect and
engagement between key stakeholders.
• Issues of sustainability: how to retain continuing involvement by
universities with communities with inevitable student progression.
• Major investment in student preparation and training before
engagement in CBR.
• Differences in impact indicators – publications in the academic sphere;
implementation in the community sphere.
Tandon et al. (2016, p. 4) draw attention to potential advantages to the different
stakeholders – the university, the community, and wider society.
Potential advantages to the university:
• Creating knowledge in the context of application.
• Enhancing societal relevance of the research.
• Enriching research training and university course integration with
societal relevance and cultural sensitivity.
Potential advantages to the community:
• Learning how to enhance capacity, such as by conducting research.
• Accessing resources, such as funds, knowledge, and labour.
• Changing social or personal inequities and solving problems.
Potential advantages to society:
• Leads to overall societal betterment by enhancing participatory and
democratic processes.
• Provides sustainable solutions to pressing societal challenges.

2.7.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

A key distinction between CBR and service learning lies in the emphasis on
research, and development of an evidence base. While a number of different
research approaches can be applied to investigate the outcomes from service
learning activities, a community-based research approach is particularly

26 | P a g e
congruent with service learning principles as it works both with and for the
community in question.
The underlying aim of CBR is to contribute to positive social change. Furthermore,
in engaged research such as CBR, an issue of public interest or concern is
advanced with community partners rather than for them (Adshead et al. 2018).
In this respect, CBR can be viewed as an additional stage of service learning
activity.
Engaged research is not about the recruitment of research study
participants; or simply raising awareness of research through online, print
media, publications of research findings, and outreach activities. For
engaged research to be authentic, the relevant research stakeholders
should meaningfully and actively collaborate across the stages of a
research life cycle. (Adshead et al. 2018, p.2)
Much of the background to CBR lies in community work, public health and adult
education. In a review of examples of good practice Stand et al. (2003) highlight
important ways in which CBR differs on the one hand from ‘traditional’ academic
research and, on the other, from what sometimes can appear as ‘charity-
oriented’ service-learning.
They conclude that
…the distinctive combination of collaborative inquiry, critical analysis, and
social action that CBR entails makes it a particularly engaging and
transformative approach to teaching and engaged scholarship.
Moreover, its potential to unite the three traditional academic missions of
teaching, research, and service in innovative ways makes it a potentially
revolutionary strategy for achieving long-lasting and fundamental
institutional change. (Strand et al. 2003, p.5)
The underlying aim of CBR is to contribute to positive social change. In this
respect it can be viewed as an additional stage of service learning activity.

2.7.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

Campus Engage1 is a national initiative involving a Charter signed by the
Presidents of all universities and institutes of technology in Ireland. Under this
initiative there is a commitment to supporting engaged, interdisciplinary research
aimed at societal impact. This is defined as research that aims to improve,

1 Campus Engage (an organisation in Ireland dedicated to supporting Irish higher

education institutions to embed, scale and promote civic and community engagement
across staff and student teaching, learning and research) (n.d.).
http://www.campusengage.ie/about-us/about-campus-engage/.

27 | P a g e
understand or investigate an issue of public interest or concern, advanced with
community partners rather than for them.
Engaged research is not about the recruitment of research study
participants; or simply raising awareness of research through online, print
media, publications of research findings, and outreach activities. For
engaged research to be authentic, the relevant research stakeholders
should meaningfully and actively collaborate across the stages of a
research life cycle. (Campus Engage, 2019, p.2).
To support the development of CBR a ‘how to guide’ has been produced and
freely available on an open access website2.
Based on an extensive consultation exercise with researchers, community
representatives and policy makers, the guide offers a helpful checklist, suggested
whatever the method or approach.
• Has the research question / hypothesis been formulated in dialogue with
community stakeholders from whom the research is relevant?
• If your research is addressing a societal challenge or issue of public
concern, have you engaged those stakeholders most affected?
• Does the proposed research tap the expertise and tacit knowledge of
both researchers and community members?
• Does the design of the research ensure that stakeholders and
researchers are clear about the extent of their collaboration, their
respective roles and responsibilities, what they can expect to gain from
the research, and what they will be expected to contribute?
• Is the allocation of funds appropriate for the roles and responsibilities
assigned to each teammate?
• Can the research findings be utilised by researchers and stakeholders in
order to address the societal challenge or issue of public concern?
(Adshead et al. 2018, p.3).

2 http://www.campusengage.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Engaged-Research-Practice-and-

Principles-Web.pdf

28 | P a g e
 2.8. SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Social entrepreneurship focuses on social enterprises having an explicit social
impact through their economic and social activities. These enterprises support
local development and social cohesion. By combining societal goals with an
entrepreneurial spirit, they are key stakeholders in the social economy and social
innovation.

Example: Social entrepreneurship in sociology

"Typically, in first year, I teach sociology, where we study how
society works or doesn’t work, and in second year, we discuss
what can we do about it. And I want it to be applied (course-
work) – so we do social entrepreneurship, where students need
to identify a behaviour-based social issue and develop a social
marketing campaign (e.g. people not voting, texting while
driving, safe sex, etc). This year I expanded it to also include a
social enterprise, so that students were able to propose to set up
a social enterprise as opposed to running a social marketing
campaign. (...) For those interested in sociology, my aim is to
develop a network of social entrepreneurship organisations. I
would really like to have students work in such start-ups“”
(Interview F – Teacher in Ireland)

According to the European Commission (2015), social enterprises mainly operate

in the following four fields:
• Work integration - training and integration of people with disabilities and
unemployed people
• Personal social services - health, well-being, and medical care,
professional training, education, health services, childcare services,
services for elderly people, or aid for disadvantaged people
• Local development of disadvantaged areas - social enterprises in
remote rural areas, neighborhood development/rehabilitation schemes
in urban areas, development aid and development cooperation with
third countries
• Other - including recycling, environmental protection, sports, arts,
culture or historical preservation, science, research and innovation,
consumer protection and amateur sports.
Social enterprises cover a wide range of welfare policy fields and community-
based services. Service-learning and social entrepreneurship share a common
goal of engaging students in work to achieve the public good, and a desire to
link education to addressing social problems and needs (Lewellyn, Warner and
Kiser 2010). Moreover, both service-learning collaborators/providers and social
entrepreneurs are both agent of change and social innovation (Green 2009).

29 | P a g e
Kramer (2005) defined a social entrepreneur as “one who has created and leads
an organization, whether for-profit or not, that is aimed at creating large-scale,
lasting, and systemic change through the introduction of new ideas,
methodologies, and changes in attitude. Social entrepreneurship can also be a
didactical approach at the university level. One the one hand, Universities can
adopt curriculum for social entrepreneurship, fostering employability and work-
experience in this field. On the other hand, social entrepreneurship enhances
innovative work-based learning methodologies and extra-curricular activities
based on team building, community engagement and interpersonal skills. As
stated by Huq and Gilbert (2013) there is growing recognition that social
entrepreneurship provides an innovative framework for teaching and learning,
given the social goods provided and its returns in community development.
Social entrepreneurship is strictly linked to social innovation as a source of
community-based practices aimed at promoting new collaborative solutions
involving public authorities, private companies, non-profit organizations, citizens
and grass-roots networks, and aimed at providing innovative social outcomes
and social policy tools at the local level. Although many initiatives of social
entrepreneurs historically deal with non-profit organizations, many studies
underlined blurred boundaries between profit and non-profit. As a result, social
entrepreneurship dynamics are embedded in companies that may be either
non-profit or for-profit but, whatever the type of organization, the innovation
process is primarily oriented to a social or societal change (Defourny and Nissens
2010). More recently social entrepreneurship has been widely interconnected
with social impact. Social impact includes innovative financing tools (social
bonds, social impact bonds, micro-finance initiatives, private investment
delivered by institutional investors) and social business models designed to foster
social innovation practices, social enterprises and new public-private
partnerships in many fields of welfare supply. In the previous years, welfare
reforms led to new public-private partnerships for service delivering. Social
enterprises and not-for profit organizations were active part of these processes,
by promoting new local welfare networks. As a consequence of the rising budget
constraints a general rethinking of these relationships is occurring, by blurring the
boundaries between private for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. This
requires measurable social outcomes and methodologies aimed at producing
social impact by avoiding negative externalities on users and communities.
Social entrepreneurship is not a method. It is a field of student’s engagement,
training and working opportunities. Against this background, social
entrepreneurship represents an opportunity to gain experiences targeted to
public goods and social innovation. Students can address societal problems and
needs at community level. Students also are engaged in community-based
services useful to their personal and educational growth, including the possibility
to become a social entrepreneur. By contrast, working experience in social
enterprises can be interpreted as a way to deploy cheap labor in community-

30 | P a g e
based services. If mentors and supervisors do not support collaborative projects
outcomes might be low and dissatisfaction high

2.8.1. MAIN DIFFERENCES TO SERVICE LEARNING

Service learning focuses on learning outcomes at the community level. This focus
is collaborative and aimed at enriching student’s personal and educational
growth. Social entrepreneurship and service-learning engage both students in
experience targeted to public goods and social innovation. There are, however,
differences between the two approaches. Differently, to social entrepreneurship,
service learning has been developed as a “service-based learning approach”
(Sigmon, 1994). Against this background, while the beneficiaries of service
learning are mainly students, social enterprises focus on a broad set of public
and private stakeholders. Social entrepreneurs focus on the change taking place
at the community level, targeting financially sustainable projects and services
which combine economic and societal goals (Lewellyn, Warner and Kiser 2010).
Nevertheless, there is a potential of combining these goals with the service
learning practices. The collaboration between community partners, students,
faculty, teachers, and social entrepreneurs can create new opportunities in
terms of community partnerships, collaborative working relationships, and social
innovation. Social entrepreneurs can easily share information and expertise for
students and the wide range of community-based social actors. Likewise,
service-learning scholars and universities can benefit from working relationships
with social entrepreneurs in bridging the gap between theory and practice.
Moreover, service learning represents a suitable approach to teach social
entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship ecosystem relates to both for profit
and nonprofit organisations, aimed at creating business value by addressing
societal concerns and generating positive social externalities. In this context
universities have the opportunity to support these organisations, by promoting
not only curricular and extracurricular activities, but also incubators and
accelerators, or spaces where students directly access to community networks
and social entrepreneurs.

2.8.2. EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE

SocialFare was founded in 2013 in Torino as an innovative hub for social
innovation and impact solutions aimed at enabling multi-stakeholders for social
goods. It represents the first Italian centre completely devoted to social
innovation, grouping together research, community engagement, capacity
building, and co-design at community level. SocialFare aims at developing
innovative solutions to contemporary societal challenges, while generating new
social ventures and civic engagement. Social impact is a the core the
SocialFare‘s activities. It implies a new approach to bring together competences,
networks, and experimentations to design, test and grow social impact solutions.
In 2017, SocialFare took part in and promoted the UN 17 Sustainable Goals

31 | P a g e
(SDGs). It implied a series of activities dealing with the aim of contributing to the
promotion of a new sustainable social economy with a social impact. SocialFare
have developed many relations with universities, all aimed at promoting
collaborative projects and extracurricular experiences for students.

32 | P a g e
3. CONCLUSION
This methodology toolkit gave an experienced-based and evidence-based
insight into a number of practice-oriented teaching methods in higher
education, highlighting the Service Learning approach. It can be viewed as a
contribution to closing the theory-practice gap in higher education teaching.
Seven practical teaching approaches were displayed using definitions,
examples, and quotes from interviews with higher education teachers: 1)
community-based research, 2) project-based learning, 3) (participatory) action
research, 4) internships, 5) volunteering, 6) social entrepreneurship and 7) Action-
reflection methodologies.
We see added value in applied course-work and in particular in the Service
learning approach on many levels. It is not only a contribution to practical
teaching, but also a contribution to positioning higher education institutions as
relevant stakeholders in society.
Also, we believe that teachers can benefit from intensive discussions among
colleagues about methodologies and teaching methods and that regular
exchange of experiences would help teachers to reflect current practices.
Additionally, the Service Learning approach is still lacking with findings from
research according a possible impact on academic, civic or personal learning.
The difficulty to distinguish Service Learning from other methodologies
aggravates this problem. Being aware of the peculiarly features of Service
Learning helps in the practical application and in the research of Service
Learning. Collective forms of opinion exchange would be beneficial to teachers
and students in the long run.
For the future, we would like to promote the concept of self-assessment of higher
education teachers using materials like this: Which applied course-work do I
apply and why? What are the differences, advantages and disadvantages of
using the mentioned methodologies? What concerns institutional support, we
believe that departments responsible for the professionalization of teaching in
higher education can benefit from materials like this and use them as resources
for trainings and workshops.

33 | P a g e
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
1. Adshead, M., Morris, K., Bowman, S., & Murphy, P. (2018). A How to Guide.
Engaged Research Practice and Principles: Society and Higher Education
Addressing Grand Societal Challenges Together.
http://www.campusengage.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Engaged-
Research-Practice-and-Principles-Web.pdf. Dublin: Ireland.
2. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
3. Ausenda, F., Mc.Closkey, E. (2006). World Volunteers: The World Guide to
Humanitarian and Development. Universe; 3 Rev Upd edition.
4. Bielefeldt, A. R., Paterson, K. G., Swan, Ch. W. (2010). Measuring the Value
Added from Service Learning in Project-Based Engineering Education.
International Journal of Engineering Education, Vo. 26, No. 3, p. 535–546.
5. Bringle, R.G., Hatcher, J.A., McIntosh, R.E. (2006). Analyzing Morton’s
Typology of Service Paradigms and Integrity. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 2006, 5-15.
6. Campus Engage (2019). http://www.campusengage.ie/about-us/about-
campus-engage/ and http://www.campusengage.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/Engaged-Research-Practice-and-Principles-
Web.pdf (Dublin, Ireland).
7. Chen, C.-H., Yang, Y.-C. (2019). Revisiting the Effects of Project-Based
Learning on Student’s Academic Achievements: A Meta-Analysis
Investigating Moderators. Educational Research Review, 26, p. 71–81.
8. Coghlan, D.,Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action
Research. SAGE Publications.
9. Cuthill, M., O’Shea, E., Wilson, B. and Viljoen, P. (2014). Universities and the
public good: A review of knowledge exchange policy and related
university practice in Australia. Australian Universities’ Review, 56(2).
10. Defourny J., Nyssens M. (2010). Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social
Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and
Divergences, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1: 1, 32-53.
11. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
12. Efstratia, D. (2014). Experiential Education through Project Based Learning.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, p. 1256–1260.
13. Ellis, S.J. (1996). From The Top Down: The Executive Role In Volunteer
Program Success. Energize, Inc.; Revised edition.
14. European Commission (2015): A map of social enterprises and their eco-
systems in Europe Synthesis Report, Brussels.
15. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogia do oprimido. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
16. Furco, A., Norvell, K. (2019). What is service learning? Making sense of the
pedagogy and practice. In: P. Aramburuzabala, L. McIlrath, H. Opazo
(Eds.). Embedding Service Learning in European Higher Education.
34 | P a g e
 Developing a Culture of Civic Engagement (pp. 13-35). London:
Routledge.
17. Green, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship in US Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship-in-
higher-education.aspx on July 31, 2009
18. Guta, A., Roche, B. (2014). Community-based research. In D. Coghlan and
M.B. Miller (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia on action research, 1, pp. 156-
159. Los Angeles: SAGE.
19. Hall, B., Tandon, R., Munck, R. and McIlrath, L. (2014). Knowledge, Action,
and Hope: A Call for Strengthening the Community-Based Research
Movement. In Munck, R., McIlrath, L., Hall, B. and Tandon, R. (Eds.), Higher
Education and Community-Based Research: Creating a Global Vision (pp.
214-218). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Halverson, S. E., R. D. Miars, H. Livneh (2006). An exploratory study of
counselor education students moral reasoning, conceptual level, and
counselor self-efficacy. Counseling and Clinical Psychology Journal, 3, 1,
17-30.
21. Harkavy, I., Puckett, J., Romer, D. (2000). Action Research: Bridging Service
and Research. In: Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, pp.
113-118.
22. Hascher, T. (2007). Lernort Praktikum. In: Gastager, Angela; Hascher, Tina;
Schwetz, Herbert (Eds.). Pädagogisches Handeln. Balancing zwischen
Theorie und Praxis. Beiträge zur Wirksamkeitsforschung in pädagogisch-
psychologischem Kontext (pp. 161-174). Landau an der Pfalz: Landau
Verlag.
23. Holyoak, L. (2013). Are all internships beneficial learning experiences? An
exploratory study. In: Education and Training 2013(55), 6, pp.573-583.
24. Jones A.L., Warner B., Kiser P.M. (2010). Service-Learning & Social
Entrepreneurship: Finding the Common Ground Partnerships, A Journal of
Service Learning & Civic Engagement. Vol. 1, n. 2.
25. Kaye, C.B. (2004). The Complete Guide to Service Learning: Proven,
Practical Ways to Engage Students in Civic Responsibility, Academic
Curriculum, Social Action. Free Spirit Publishing.
26. Kramer, M. (2005). Measuring innovation: evaluation in the field of social
entrepreneurship, Boston, MA: Foundation Strategy Group.
27. Lasauskiene, J., Rauduvaite, A. (2015). Project-Based Learning at
Universities: Teaching Experiences of Lecturers. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 197, p. 788–792.
28. Lepore, W. (2015). Global trends in training community based research in
higher education institutions and civil society organizations: Survey results
July 2015. http://unescochair-
cbrsr.org/unesco/pdf/resource/SSHRC_Survey_Results_2015_July.pdf
29. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. In: Journal of
Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.

35 | P a g e
 30. Manoko, S. (2001). Developing students’ project management skills
through action research and action learning. ALAR: Action Learning and
Action Research Journal, 6(2), 38-39.
31. McAdams, C., Foster, V. (1998). Promoting the Development of High-Risk
College Students Through a Deliberate Psychological Education-Based
Freshman Orientation Course. Journal of The First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 1, 51-72.
32. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. London: The University of
Chicago Press.
33. Miller, A. (2011). Project-Based Service Learning. The whole Child Blog.
Accessible via Internet: http://www.wholechildeducation.org/blog/project-based-
service-learning
34. Morgan, B., F. Morgan, V. Foster, and J. Kolbert (2000). Promoting the
Moral and Conceptual Development of Law Enforcement Trainees: A
deliberate psychological educational approach. Journal of Moral
Education, 29:2, 203-218, DOI: 10.1080/03057240050051765
35. Munck, R., McIlrath, L., Hall, B. and Tandon, R. (Eds.) (2014). Higher
Education and Community-Based Research Creating a Global Vision.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
36. O’Hanlon, C. (2003). Educational inclusion as action research. An
interpretative discourse. Mainhead: Open University Press.
37. Pain, R., Finn, M., Bouveng, R., Ngobe, G. (2013). Productiove tensions –
engaging geography students in participatory action research with
communities. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(1), 28-43.
38. Peterson, J.J., Wardwell C., Will, K., Campana, K. L. (2014). Pursuing a
Purpose: The Role of Career Exploration Courses and Service-Learning
Internships in Recognizing and Developing Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
In: Teaching of Psychology 2014, 41(4), pp. 354-359.
39. Piaget, J. (1941). Etudes sociologiques. Geneve: Droz.
40. Reardon, K. M. (1998). Participatory Action Research as Service Learning.
In: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, pp. 57-65.
41. Reiman, A., & Peace, S. (2002). Promoting teachers' moral reasoning and
collaborative inquiry performance: A developmental role-taking and
guided inquiry study. Journal of Moral Education, 31(1), 51-66.
42. Sales, A., Traver, J.A., García, R. (2011). Action research as a school-based
strategy in intercultural professional development for teachers. In: Teacher
and Teacher Education, (27)2011, 911-919.
43. Schmidt, C. D., C.R. McAdams, V. Foster (2009). Promoting the moral
reasoning of undergraduate business students through a deliberate
psychological education‐based classroom intervention. Journal of Moral
Education, 38:3, 315-334, DOI: 10.1080/03057240903101556
44. Schmidt, C., Drees, K., M. Davidson, and C. Adkins (2013). Applying What
Works: A Case for Deliberate Psychological Education in Undergraduate

36 | P a g e
 Business Ethics. Journal of Education for Business, 88:3, 127-135, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2012.659295
45. Schubarth, W., Speck, K., Ulbricht (2016). Fachgutachter.
Qualitätsstandards für Praktika. Bestandsaufnahme und Empfehlungen.
Online: https://www.hrk-nexus.de/fileadmin/redaktion/hrk-nexus/07-
Downloads/07-02-Publikationen/Praktika_Fachgutachten.pdf 05.12.2019
46. Sigmon, R.L. (1994). Linking service with learning, Washington, DC: Council
of Independent Colleges.
47. Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., DiTomasso, A. (2013). Volunteering as a
Pathway to Employment: Does Volunteering Increase Odds of Finding a
Job for the Out of Work? Corporation for National and Community
Service, Office of Research and evaluation: Washington, DC, 2013
48. Sprinthall, N. A. (1991). Role-talking programs for high-school student: new
methods to promote psychological development. In B. P. Campos (Ed.),
Psychological Intervention and Human Development (pp 33-38). Porto:
ICPFD & Louvain-la-Neuve: Academia.
49. Sprinthall, N. A. (1980). Guidance and New Education for Schools. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, March, 485-489.
50. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., and Donohue, P. (2003).
Principles of Best Practice for Community-Based Research. Michigan
Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(3), 5-15.
51. Tandon, R., Hall, B. (2014). Majority-World Foundations of Community-
Based Research. In Munck, R., McIlrath, L., Hall, B. and Tandon, R. (Eds.),
Higher Education and Community-Based Research Creating a Global
Vision. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
52. Tandon, T., Hall, B., Lepore, W. and Singh, W. (2016). Training the Next
Generation of Community Based Researchers: A Guide for Trainers.
Vancouver: PRIA and University of Victoria.
53. Zoyer, E., Faul, E., Mayer, H. (2018): Aktionsforschung – „Be part of it“.
Gemeinsam die Praxis durch Forschung verändern. In: Pro Care 09(2013),
12-16.
54. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology (26):215-240.

37 | P a g e

View publication stats