Transactional, Cooperative, and Communal: Relating the Structure of Engineering Engagement Programs with the Nature of Partnerships

Abstract

This paper examines how the structural features of engineering engagement programs (EEPs) are related to the of their service-learning partnerships. Structure refers to formal and informal models, processes, and operations adopted or used to describe engagement programs, while nature signifies the quality of interactions or interpersonal dynamics within partnerships. We developed the Transactional, Cooperative, and Communal (TCC) framework to code interviews (N=30) with community partners, administrators, faculty members, and students at three well-developed and geographically-diverse EEPs. A thematic analysis approach was then employed to relate the three TCC partnership natures to six emergent structural themes: (a) program purposes, (b) partnership structures, (c) modes of interactions, (d) organizational partners, (e) individual partners and advisors, and (f) projects. The paper concludes by discussing specific implications of the TCC framework for educators and program administrators, the importance of recognizing both individual and organizational influences on partnerships, and the salience of engineering education as a context for service-learning and community engagement (SLCE) programs. When you have seen one partnership, you have seen one partnership. - Holland & Gelmon, 1998 Service-learning are highly contextual and linked to a host of structural factors, including the type of university, program mission(s), institutional capacity(ies), and specific challenges faced by the partner community (Holland & Gelmon, 1998). The complexity and importance of these factors is further accentuated by how partnerships, as units of analysis, are articulated and investigated in the service-learning field. Bringle and Hatcher (2002) first proposed examining in terms of individual relationships and have argued for use of the term partnerships to describe interpersonal relationships with varying degrees of equity, closeness, and care (Bringle & Hatcher, 2012; Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010; Jacoby, 2012). Alternatively, Janke (2009, 2012) and Giles and Elyer (2013) suggest analyzing in terms of organizational structure, asserting that individual relationships as a unit of analysis discount the organizational influences present in the partnerships. Organizations tend to rely on prescribed procedures, roles and responsibilities, and maintain distinct institutional identities within (Janke, 2012; Simon, 1991). In this paper, partnership refers to individuals or organizations that work together for an intended mutual benefit, thereby recognizing potential influences at both the individual and organizational levels. Additional research on the of has also identified important trends concerning the quality of interpersonal and intergroup dynamics within and among (Clayton et. al. 2010; Dorado & Giles, 2004; Enos & Morton, 2003; Phillip & Ward, 2009; Sockett, 1998;Vanasupa & Schlemer, 2014). For example, Enos and Morton (2003) developed a theoretical framework examining the of by proposing two fundamental types: transactional and transformative. Transactional focus on well-articulated, short-term activities and interactions that provide benefits for each group, while transformative appear less well defined and may enable new opportunities and relationships to emerge. However, few studies have attempted to systematically relate structural factors to the of service-learning partnerships. Notable exceptions include work by Dorado, Giles, and Welch (2009) examining how the structural element of delegation, where a person outside of the coordinates the service experience, can help establish but limit the potential outcomes of partnership development. Additionally, Clayton et al. (2010) designed an assessment tool to study faculty experiences of closeness in based on the frequency and diversity of interactions, along with reciprocal influences on decision-making. …