A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering service‐learning/community engagement.
Saved in:
| Title: | A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering service‐learning/community engagement. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Delaine, David A.1 (AUTHOR) delaine.4@osu.edu, Redick, Sarah1 (AUTHOR), Radhakrishnan, Dhinesh2 (AUTHOR), Shermadou, Amena2 (AUTHOR), Smith, Mandy McCormick3 (AUTHOR), Kandakatla, Rohit4 (AUTHOR), Wang, Linjue5 (AUTHOR), Freitas, Claudio6 (AUTHOR), Dalton, Casey L.2 (AUTHOR), Dostilio, Lina Dee7 (AUTHOR), DeBoer, Jennifer8 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Engineering Education. Oct2024, Vol. 113 Issue 4, p838-871. 34p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Engineering education, *Research personnel, *Higher education, Technical literature |
| Abstract: | Background: Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service‐learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened. Purpose: We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity. Scope/Method: We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well‐articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature. Results: The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts. Conclusions: Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service‐learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened. Purpose: We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity. Scope/Method: We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well‐articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature. Results: The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts. Conclusions: Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10694730 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/jee.20561 |
