University-Community Engagement: A grid-group analysis

David Low

Abstract


University-community engagement involves complex issues, entangling multiple and interacting points of view, all of which operate in a wider dynamic evolving social environment. For this reason, there is often disagreement about why engagement is necessary or desirable, and whether there is one optimal method to practice it. To address this issue, I argue that university-community engagement can be examined as a form of enquiry. In this view, engagement is viewed as a system that arises through the recognition of the dissent it embodies. As such, enquiry functions to process disagreements into diverse methods of communication.

Most of the disagreements utilised by universities are derived from external sources, thus university-based enquiry must necessarily involve a dialogue with a broader community or environment. In this sense, university-community engagement can be viewed most generally as a method that processes disagreements into shared understandings through enquiry.

To demonstrate how university-community engagement functions from an enquiry point of view, I use Mary Douglas’ grid-group diagramming method to develop a critical typology for classifying university-community engagement. My modified grid-group diagram provides a structured typological space within which four distinct methods of university-community engagement can be identified and discussed – both in relation to their internal communicational characteristics, and in relation to each other.

The university-engagement grid-group diagram is constructed by locating each of Douglas’ four quadrants within Charles Peirce’s four methods of enquiry. Peirce’s work is introduced because each of his four methods of enquiry deals specifically with how disagreements are processed and resolved. When Peirce’s methods for fixing belief are located in Douglas’ grid-group diagram, they create a sense-making framework for university-community engagement. It is argued that the model offers a heuristic structure through which to view the diversity of university-community engagement and create shared understandings of the appropriateness of a wide range of possible engagement methods.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance 2005, Funding Australian universities for community engagement, Australian UniversitiesCommunity Engagement Alliance, Penrith, Queensland.

Commonwealth of Australia 2002, Higher education at the crossroads: An overview paper, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.

Corrington, RS 1994, Ecstatic naturalism: Signs of the world, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Douglas, M 1973, Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology, Penguin, London.

Douglas, M 1982a, In the active voice, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Douglas, M (ed.) 1982b, Essays in the sociology of perception, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Douglas, M 1989, 'The background of the grid dimension: A comment', Sociological Analysis, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 171176.

Douglas, M 2001, A feeling for hierarchy, unpublished manuscript, (draft 3, November 1).

Douglas, M & Calvez, M 1990, 'The self as risk taker: A cultural theory ofcontagion in relation to AIDS', The Sociological Review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 445464.

Douglas, M & Wildavsky, A 1982, Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hawes, L 1999, 'The dialogics of conversation: Power, control, vulnerability', Communication Theory, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 229264.

Innovative Research Universities Australia 2006, Response to DEST knowledge transfer project, Innovative Research Universities Australia, Nathan, Queensland.

Kecskes, K 2006, 'Behind the rhetoric: Applying a cultural theory lens tocommunity-campus partnership development', Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 514.

Kevelson, R 1993, Peirce's esthetics of freedom: Possibility, complexity, and emergent value, Peter Lang, New York.

Kurtz, C & Snowden, D 2003, 'The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-makingin a complex and complicated world', IBM Systems Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462483.

Latour, B 2000, 'When things strike back: A possible contribution of 'science studies' to the social sciences', British Journal of Sociology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 107123.

Low, D 2000, 'The nonviolent principles of scientific communication', Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 3948.

Low, D 2003, Environmental communication: Dissent, conflict, enquiry, PhD. Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

Luhmann, N 1989, Ecological communication, trans. J Bednarz Jr, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Luhmann, N (ed.) 1990, Essays on self-reference, Columbia University Press, New York.

Lyne, J 1982, 'C. S. Peirce's philosophy of rhetoric', in B Vickers (ed.), Rhetoric revalued: Papers from the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, New York.

Mamadouh, V 1999, 'Grid-group cultural theory: An introduction', Geojournal, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 395409

McGee, M & Lyne, J 1987, 'What are nice folks like you doing in a place likethis? Some entailments of treating knowledge claims rhetorically', in JS Nelson, A Megill & DN McClosky (eds), The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and human affairs, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 381406.

Nicholls, A 2000, 'The secularization of revelation from Plato to Freud', Contretemps, vol 1, September, pp. 6270.

Peirce, C 1955, in J Buchler (ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce, Dover, NewYork.

Peirce, C 1976, in C Eisele (ed.), The new elements of mathematics, vol. 4, Mouton, The Hague.

Peirce, C 1998, in Peirce Edition Project (eds), The essential Peirce: Selectedphilosophical writings, vol. 2, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Perelman, C 1982, The realm of rhetoric, trans. W. Kluback, University ofNotre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

, P, Goodwin, N, Peck, E & Freeman, T 2006, Managing networks of twenty-first century organisations, Palgrave, New York.

Ransdell, J 1998, 'Sciences as communicational communities'(Ver 3.1, online). Viewed 2 February 2007, http://cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/physics.htm

Shellenberger, M & Nordhaus, T 2005, 'The death of environmentalism', TheSun, no. 350, pp. 1215.

Spickard, J 1989, 'A guide to Mary Douglas's three versions of grid/grouptheory', Sociological Analysis, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 151170.

Thompson, M 1992, 'The dynamics of cultural theory and their implicationsfor the enterprise culture', in S Hargreaves Heap & A Ross (eds), Understanding the enterprise culture: Themes in the work of Mary Douglas, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Thompson, M 2000, 'Global networks and local cultures: What are themismatches and what can be done about them?' in C Engel & KH Keller(eds), Understanding the impact of global networks on local, social, political andcultural values, Nomos, Baden-Baden.

Van Dijck, J 2003, 'After the 'two cultures': Toward a '(multi)cultural'practice of science communication', Science Communication, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.177190.

Winter, A, Wiseman, J & Muirhead, B 2006, 'University-communityengagement in Australia: Practice, policy and public good', Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 211230.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v1i0.445